The Signpost

From the editor

An editorial board that includes you

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Go Phightins! and Gamaliel

Dear readers,

A few weeks ago, long-time Signpost editor-in-chief The ed17 announced his intention to step down due to time constraints. Aware of the heavy workload of his role, he sought two editors to replace him. As the members of the newly formed Signpost editorial board, we're pleased to announce our vision for the future of the Signpost and to explain our new roles.

Vision for the future

A wise individual once said, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The new Signpost editorial board subscribes to this philosophy in relation to the weekly newspaper. Although we certainly do have some goals—reviving "News and notes" on a weekly basis, for one—we see no particular reason at the present time for making substantial changes to the Signpost's format. We will strive to maintain our voice and standing as an independent entity, separate from the WMF, Wikimedia chapters, WikiEd, or other entities. We hope to expand our coverage by including high-quality content and interesting opinion pieces from community members, including opposing viewpoints in some editions, like this week.

Members of the board

We'd like to take one more opportunity to thank Ed for his years of service as editor-in-chief, during which he told us he contributed up to 20 hours per week—never eager to step into the limelight but always willing to help behind the scenes. Please join us in thanking him for his dedication to this community newspaper. In this time of transition, we ask for your patience, confident that we will make mistakes, perhaps even large ones. Please bear with us as we learn our respective roles.

Go Phightins! and Gamaliel, Signpost editors-in-chief

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.
Sure, I guess, though perhaps Miss Ellen could offer to lend a hand, so that my workload isn't doubled. And just to keep her informed, Facebook isn't always in the top 5. In fact, it's barely been in the top five at all in the last few months. Serendipodous 11:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the hyperbole, Serendipodous. I recommend that you publish the two top-20, side by side, with commentary on either, e.g.:
Rank by Readers Commentary by Edits (Editors?*) Commentary
1 Facebook sheesh Super Bowl IL ugh
... ...
20 Deaths in 2015 A perennial favorite Deaths in 2015 What a coincidence!
*Would it be better to list by total edits or distinct editors? In any case, that should spice it up a bit. You know how to copy the Quarry query right? @Serendipodous: I made a new one for top-20 in past week by distinct editors. Take your pick, I trust your judgement. EllenCT (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Erik Zachte: that is a fascinating question. [1] versus [2] -- I would say that they each have their merits beyond the failure mode you describe. How would you combine the two so that both total edits and distinct editors weigh into the ranking? EllenCT (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'n not sure how to turn this into a report. Editing is not necessarily tied to anything outside of Wikipedia, so it will be very difficult to draw any conclusions from it. Serendipodous 23:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to help. EllenCT (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]



       

The Signpost · written by many · served by Sinepost V0.9 · 🄯 CC-BY-SA 4.0