Fundraising interview with Lisa Seitz-Gruwell

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Published

--KStineRowe (WMF) (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ping @JPxG: and @EpicPupper: - I think this would be of quite broad interest given the level of debate at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC_on_the_banners_for_the_December_2022_fundraising_campaign, which is only likely to increase when the WMF fundraising actually starts. The Land (talk) 10:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@KStineRowe (WMF) and The Land: Note that EpicPupper has retired from both the Signpost and Wikipedia. JPxG is the sole current editor-in-chief.
I provided some initial feedback on the questions here.
Re-reading the first question just now it strikes me that it states as fact that the WMF uses "a large part of its funds for grantmaking".
Per the financial statements published earlier this month, "Awards and grants" amounted to just under $15 million in the 2021–2022 year just ended. This is less than 10% of revenue. I'd submit it is therefore a comparatively small part of WMF funds – especially when compared to the $88 million salary bill. In the interest of truthfulness, could we perhaps agree to just call it "a part" and name the amount?
Regards, Andreas JN466 18:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Land: Thanks for organizing this interview. I support you in managing this however you will do it, and I appreciate your effort in this and in many other conversations related to Wikimedia community governance. I completely endorse your methods for this, but as you are doing this, I want to read the room and context here just in case anyone checks in on The Signpost editorial process. I am talking to myself and the ether here: I am making no requests of anyone and am just documenting thoughts.

Thanks and if The Signpost can support you such as is possible from a volunteer newspaper, then ask. You definitely have encouragement to proceed as you have planned, and I hope that others find your effort as inspiring as I do. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: After conversations with user:MPaul (WMF) I have revised a couple of the questions to reflect the changed situation as a result of the RfC and the commitments made by the WMF during and after it. I've updated the submission page to reflect this. The Land (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: @JPxG: the content is now complete and ready for review. Thank you!--KStineRowe (WMF) (talk) 15:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This ran in November, published happily. jp×g 20:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC) {{completed}}[reply]

Dušan's healthy approach evaluator for Wikipedia administrators in Wikimedia Movement

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Declined
the article is finished if there are no objections Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dušan Kreheľ: This is acknowledging and thanking you for your submission. We're a little behind on reviewing this page, having just published a new issue and short-staffed as always. I'll bring this and other unreviewed submissions to the team's attention. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This submission has a lot of issues. First, it's not in English, which could be considered a nonstarter (but I'll AGF that you could translate it by press time). Second, the methodology behind the article is lacking: you don't provide any relevant evidence for why editing once a day for a year is unhealthy, the focus on administrators seem arbitrary, and specifically calling out hundreds of editors by name and accusing them of unhealthy habits, which seems in poor taste and likely to get people mad at both The Signpost and you if published. There's maybe a human interest article in there somewhere, in the vein of "what percentage of editors edit every day", but this draft isn't it, and there's a good chance it would be deleted if taken to WP:MFD. signed, Rosguill talk 05:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill: The article was expends, please You look.
Administrators are public positions, so they should be able to handle a higher level of criticism. It may be expensive today, but if it is required on a regular annual basis, then later it may become a matter of course for administrators and become a certain critical standard.
It should also matter to us how "healthy" people are in the Wikimedia Movement. Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The changes don't substantively address my criticisms regarding methodology (or language). Unless you can point to a WP:MEDRS-compliant source that backs up your assessments of what is and isn't healthy behavior, you shouldn't be making claims to that end. signed, Rosguill talk 18:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill: The content has been updated. I added the references. Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bible Gateway, a Catholic advocacy group, and a pop psychology interview are not MEDRS. signed, Rosguill talk 18:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill: I removed the references.
The article is rejected, so why deal with it? Closed. Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{completed}}

View it!: A new tool for image discovery

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Published

@JamieF: thanks for submitting your piece. We were right on the verge of publishing the latest issue when this came in. We'll be sure to get it reviewed soon. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC) Published. jp×g 20:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC) {{completed}}[reply]

The good old days, when lipograms roamed free in mainspace

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Published

Published. jp×g 20:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC) {{completed}}[reply]

Philosophical bridges #1 #2

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Inactive
Could I recall this submission please. Thank you. FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. jp×g 20:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC) {{completed}}[reply]

WikiProject report Organized Labour

[edit]

{{closed}}

Status:
V ?
Published

Published at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-02-04/WikiProject report

A more global view of the visual arts

[edit]

{{closed}}

Status:
V ?
Published

Published at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-02-04/Opinion. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


SLAPP against Estonian Wikipedia

[edit]

{{closed}}

Status:
V ?
Published
For those who don't know, a SLAPP is a strategic lawsuit against public participation, usually seen as a bad thing. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Published at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-02-04/Op-Ed. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

{{closed}}

Status:
V ?
Published

Published at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-03-20/Eyewitness

Wikipedia as an anchor of truth

[edit]

{{closed}}

Status:
V ?
Published
About a use of Wikipedia – hot inasmuch as hallucinating LLM chatbots are a hot item.  --Lambiam 21:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Op-ed to me. I'm not sure it's finished yet, seems a little short? I can provide more feedback if you like. Set status to In development/pending approval for now. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lambiam: Can you add an "in conclusion" section or something like that? It doesn't have to be long, just to wrap up the thoughts presented in the first section and give the reader something to chew on. I think once that's done, I can move it to the Signpost draft area. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a section, not really a conclusion but nevertheless something readers can chew on. The final three sentences are OR – I hope that is allowed in the Wikipedia Signpost  --Lambiam 19:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Published at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-04-26/Op-Ed. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost statistics between year 2005 and 2022

[edit]

{{closed}}

Status:
V ?
Published
Looks like In Focus to me. I like the tables you have created, we will need to beef up some text to explain what's being presented but either the original author or a Signpost staff member (maybe me) can do that. Maybe needs discussion about how we do that, prior to approval. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Special report to match Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-03-01/Special report with similar topic. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dušan Kreheľ: I marked this "needs clarification" for text that is highlighted in the draft. I'm not sure that I correctly interpreted something you wrote about the "home wiki". ☆ Bri (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bri: I had edited the paragraf with the "home wiki" definition. The statistic are with ratio now. Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 10:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I've updated status to "needs review" which is the last step prior to approval for publication. It will of course also get a copyedit pass from other Signpost editors. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bri: OK. Please identify yourself as (which?) co-author, since you modified the text. Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Published at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-04-26/Special report. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Collective planning with the Wikimedia Foundation

[edit]

{{closed}}

Status:
V ?
Published
@MPaul (WMF): Thank you for submitting this. I'm sure it will be approved. Please use the Start article button next to "News from the WMF" at WP:Newsroom when you are ready. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MPaul (WMF): Just letting you know that the writing deadline for the next issue is this Saturday. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Bri and @JPxG I have drafted this submission for the News from the WMF section. Thank you @Bri for the suggestion on the section. I hope you can review and consider it for the next Signpost issue. I'd like to come back for the Signpost issue after this one for the second part of this series. MPaul (WMF) (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note to say we're starting part two of the series for the next Signpost issue. My colleague @KStineRowe (WMF) may take the lead this time. MPaul (WMF) (talk) 11:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Bri and @JPxG - I have drafted the second part in this series for the next Signpost - 07 May issue. I hope it can be considered. MPaul (WMF) (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Published at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-04-26/News from the WMF. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obituary for user:DGG, David Goodman

[edit]

{{closed}}

Status:
V ?
Published

Bluerasberry (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Published at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-04-26/Obituary. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Research under a cloud

[edit]

{{closed}}

Status:
V ?
Published
This is something of a sequel to the "Recent research" column from 25 July 2021. XOR'easter (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this will get into the next issue. Johnbod (talk) 14:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Published at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-05-08/Recent research. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Collective planning with the Wikimedia Foundation

[edit]

{{closed}}

Status:
V ?
Published
Hello @Bri and @JPxG sorry for the second ping - I have drafted the second part in this series for the next Signpost - 07 May issue. I added this entry here so the draft was not buried in the comments of the first part. Hope it can be considered. MPaul (WMF) (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledged. I think we should run it in the issue being preprared now, for continuity. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Published at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-05-08/News from the WMF. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians Convene for Queering Wikipedia 2023: The First International LGBT+ Wikipedia Conference

[edit]

{{closed}}

Status:
V ?
Published

Published at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-05-22/WikiProject report. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My idea about wikipage parser

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Inactive


The article is done. Please someone check my English, I'm not very good at it. Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 21:46, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dušan Kreheľ: Some good thoughts there, but also some fundamental misunderstandings, in particular here: Even if the grammar of the wiki page is defined (it exists, but I can't find the link somehow), there is no RFC document that would specify the entire syntax and semantics of the wiki page, and especially how to deal with bad inputs.
The reason why you couldn't find the link to that parser grammar is that it doesn't exist, for various reasons that are explained e.g. in this 2013 blog post:

The only complete specification of Wikitext’s syntax and semantics is the MediaWiki PHP-based runtime implementation itself, which is still heavily based on regular expression driven text transformation. The multi-pass structure of this transformation combined with complex heuristics for constructs like italic and bold formatting make it impossible to use standard parser techniques based on context-free grammars to parse Wikitext.
[...]
No invalid Wikitext: Every possible Wikitext input has to be rendered as valid HTML – it is not possible to reject a user’s edit with a “syntax error” message. Many attempts to create an alternative parser for MediaWiki have tried to simplify the problem by declaring some inputs invalid, or modifying the syntax, but at Wikimedia we need to support the existing corpus created by our users over more than a decade [as of 2013, i.e. two decades by now].

or in this presentation by the (then) Parsoid team:

Do wikitext constructs behave like DOM trees? No.
* Wikitext has no spec and hence no formal semantics
* Behavior emerges out of legacy PHP parser's implementation [etc.]

Proposals such as yours to reform and consolidate the wikitext syntax by making breaking changes had been made before, e.g. at the 2011 Berlin hackathon (Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-05-16/Technology report) by the Sweble team. Back then the Wikimedia Foundation was embarking on its Parsoid/VisualEditor work and rejected such proposals in favor of a more conservative approach (which still ended up causing thousands of small bugs and inconsistencies with the existing wikitext content and much community frustration).
A Signpost article about this topic that is ignorant of this background and the reasons behind the current state of affairs (cf. Chesterton's fence) will not be be very useful for our readers.
With this and your other recent Signpost drafts about technical topics, I would encourage you to first solicit feedback from experts before submitting them to the Signpost. You can do this by e.g. by posting on the Wikitech-l mailing list or by pinging knowledgeable folks directly (regarding parser matters, that might involve people from the WMF team that currently works on Parsoid, such as Subbu or Cscott).
Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@HaeB:
  • I deleted the sentence "Even if the grammar …". It is not necessary.
  • Why to have this article:
    • If the dwiki project was successful, it could later influence the Wikimedia project. It would probably not be fair not to comment/notify now.
    • "Plan to throw one [version] away; you will, anyhow" (The Cathedral and the Bazaar) – History or other things can be good or bad. For example: OpenOffice vs LibreOffice, initd vs systemd and GCC vs EGCS.
  • I informed on wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org before: 1, 2 and 3.
  • if You do not consider the article suitable, I will accept the refusal of publication.
Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the excellent summary of the current parser situation, @HaeB. Note that there is a good spec now for the *output* of the parser, at mw:Specs/HTML, which can be considered an Abstract syntax tree for the wikitext input. So I think there's still fertile ground for experimentation of alternative wikitext syntaxes using the DOM spec as an interchange format. As long as your new syntax can roundtrip to/from the standard DOM spec HTML, then you can interoperate with legacy wikitext. You can edit an article via "legacy wikitext" -> "MediaWiki DOM" (via Parsoid) -> "your own format" (via your own serializer) and then save it with a pipeline like "your own format" -> "MediaWiki DOM" (via your own parser) -> "legacy wikitext" (via Parsoid). If done properly, this won't leave dirty diffs. There's a thought experiment proposal of this sort at phab:T149659 (slides). We've also thought about eventually storing the HTML DOM representation directly in the database (phab:T112999), although no work in either of those direction is expected any time soon. But maybe this inspires you toward some ways a "new wikitext syntax" could interoperate with our current infrastructure. C. Scott Ananian (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HaeB,@Cscott:
No invalid Wikitext: It's is none problem. Example, from 2024-01-01 is set the new wiki parser. So new politic:
  • the older version (before 2024-01-01) are parsing with the old parser,
  • the revision with __STANDART_WIKI_SYNTAX__ is with new parser
  • the revision in 2024-01-01 and later, are parser with new parser.
How is the problem, to have in MediaWiki the 2 parsers.
"The multi-pass structure of this transformation combined with complex heuristics for constructs like italic and bold formatting make it impossible to use standard parser techniques based on context-free grammars to parse Wikitext." For my one parser implementacion was none problem to create syntax abstract tree.
Don't have a standard? After all, if I want to create a syntax that will be used for the next 20 years from today, then it would be appropriate to standardize the syntax.
Isn't not having a defined syntax just putting off the problem for later?
I don't have the impression that Parseod is today developed and functional enough to be used for editing wiki pages by means of bots. Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 01:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Obituary: David Thomsen (Dthomsen8)

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Published
{{Completed}} @Baffle gab1978: Queued for this issue. Thank you for this. jp×g 22:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


On wiki Fundraising collaboration with en wiki volunteers

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Published

@JBrungs (WMF): Good. This is in the next issue. {{completed}} jp×g 22:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are the children of celebrities over-represented in French cinema?

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Published
This would go well in a In Focus column. @JPxG: Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. In today's issue... rack em. jp×g 04:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{completed}} jp×g 04:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion piece I'm going to start, any thoughts?

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Inactive
@Dilpickl: Any update on this? jp×g 21:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose not. {{completed}} jp×g 07:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TITLE

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Inactive
@Talirongan: Any update on this? jp×g 22:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose not. {{completed}} jp×g 07:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are global bans the last step?

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Published
This would go well in a Op-Ed column. @JPxG: Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Op-Ed, thanks.---Lemonaka‎ 14:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Published. {{completed}} jp×g 07:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New at the Signpost

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Scheduled
Bri also suggested a piece on Talk:Newsroom. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed this out in the doldrums. Based on my carousing through talk page archives, there was quite the drama over this one. I am not quite sure what the hell was going on there -- presumably some feud thirty years in the making whose only surviving chronicle requires me to use FidoNet, but all of that aside, it seems pretty decent to me. I see no issue with publishing this as-is, with appropriate notes to indicate what stuff is current and what stuff is outdated. This is from 2019, so I imagine that some of the publishing process and organizational schema has changed in the last four years; might it be appropriate to run it as a cobweb? jp×g 08:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's what I suggested it for. I'll move to /cobwebs but I'll leave the mini intro to you, because I don't think I'll be able to put it in context without gnashing teeth. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can do. I think I am going to start calling these something a little more dignified than "cobwebs" -- that was only ever supposed to be a placeholder name lol -- maybe "apocrypha". jp×g 18:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you are right, cobwebs is cute. Cutewebs. This is in the next issue space now, so dealth with. {{Completed}} jp×g 07:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Journals Cited by Wikipedia

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Published

Marked as approved/moved to /Next issue since JPxG extensively copy-edited it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Hell yeah {{Completed}} jp×g 07:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing Credibility Bot: Reliable Source Monitoring Anywhere

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Inactive
Seems to be a good fit for the /Forum column. @Harej:, do you want me to set up the signpost draft in your sandbox directly (which will get moved upon acceptance/publication), or create a /Drafts subpage so you can put the relevant content in a preformatted article sandbox (so your sanbox doesn't get moved)? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've set up Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Drafts/Special report for you if you want to put the relevant stuff in there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the contents into Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Drafts/Special report. Let me know if I need to do anything else. Harej (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it's ready for copy-editting, let me know.
There's a bit at the end about WP:VSAFE... I'm not sure what that's about or how it's related to the credibility bot? Sandbox leftover? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As described in the article, WP:VSAFE is the project created from this effort. It is necessary for us to include this because we were paid for this work. Harej (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think my confusion is that WP:VSAFE points to Wikipedia:Vaccine safety/Sources, rather than Wikipedia:Vaccine safety. I've also created WP:VSAFE/SOURCES, but that points to Wikipedia:Vaccine safety/Perennial sources.
I would suggest retargeting shortcuts to
Would that make sense to you? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since there was only a few pages with those shortcuts, I've boldy updated things accordingly. I hope that's ok. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually upon reading, this is a better fit for a special report, so I moved it to /Special Report. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some feedback.
  • In the "What is the problem?" and later in the "The vision" sections, I'd like to see an acknowledgement of current efforts. I'm a bit biased there, but WP:CITEWATCH (Signpost coverage) is "centralized tracking of citations" (I presume you mean problematic ones), as is WP:JCW (Signpost coverage), if you mean a citations in general. I'm not really looking for praise here, but rather a discussion of strengths/weaknesses and how Credibility bot builds/improves upon this or supplements this, or whatever.
JCW then would be your more relevant comparison point then. Covers all citations with a |journal=. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that's just citations that are formatted in a certain way. I am talking about a database of literally all references, formatted with a template or not. Harej (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And that could be pointed out in the article, is what I'm saying. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the solutions section, you mention workspaces as a generic solution that scale up, that can work for WikiProjects or something. It would be good to have an example, possibly with an explanation/instructions of how to set things up. These explanations could be on a separate page, like WP:AALERTS/SUB.
  • The example is WP:Vaccine safety. At the moment there isn't really anything you can "set up" as it is all a work in progress, only working for vaccine safety at the moment.
  • So let's say I'm interested in setting up something like this for WP Physics. Where would I go, what would I need to have, and/or what would I need to do? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Our Vision" you write, "Tagging talk pages with WikiProject templates will no longer be necessary to get the benefit of automated reporting." This is a bit hard to believe/understand without the above example.
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb, I have made some changes to the article. Does that clarify matters? Harej (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could have gone a bit more into details, but at the same time it's your piece. As long as existing efforts are mentioned and discussed/contrasted with, I'm happy. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now, I am not saying that Cinadon36 is an idiot or a liar. For all I know, Proto Thema is a huge pile of garbage and should never be trusted for anything. However, when we look at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety/Alerts, we see a bunch of domains listed with simple emoji indicators as "unreliable". There's no link to the RSN thread, or even to the perennial sources table -- and no indication that any of these things reflect actual consensus or policy or guidelines, as opposed to "one person in 2021 saying a website sucked". It is a bit strange to me that this bot is being operated, and these pages maintained, and the suggestion made that people use them to carry out article work, while no caveats are given (and no information is made easily available to its users) about the rather-sketchy provenance of the actual reliability indices themselves. If these resources were put together with grant money, was there no stage of the development process where these issues were raised? This is somewhat troubling to me. While there are some serious issues with WP:RSP being treated like Scripture based on (sometimes very partisan or very poorly-attended) noticeboard discussions, it seems to me like a tool such as this using a local-consensus fork of RSP has all of the same issues in greater form.
Let me know what you think about this. jp×g 20:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JPxG, that is valuable criticism of what has been built. In order for us to improve what we built, we need to do outreach. This piece is part of that outreach. Are projects required to be perfect before they're covered in The Signpost? Harej (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose my context for this is that in this same Signpost issue, we cover (in N&N) an article from Unherd, which alleges among other things that Wikipedia is serving as a conduit for "narrative control wizardry" by the hands of governments and NGOs who seek to supplant our editorial processes with blah blah blah blah. Ideally, we would be able to respond by saying that this is a big pot of nonsense, and our determinations of content are made on the exclusive basis of discussions with solid consensus among volunteer editors. While it's obviously not the case that this software is in itself sinister, the issue of sources being determined to be good or bad in an opaque way by people who've been paid by advocacy organizations (are they political? maybe -- some people, see above, seem to think they are) definitely seems like something that ought to be to addressed up front, without waiting for criticism. jp×g 02:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Are projects required to be perfect before they're covered in The Signpost?" I would argue that that's not a requirement, but at the same time, it ought to be clear what the current limitations and caveats are. I would personally consider getting help from WP:RSN/WP:BOTN/WP:VPT people first, flesh out some of what needs to be done and get it to a state where a person that goes 'hey, what if I want to use this in WikiProject Foobar?' will have an answer.
It took me a while to get WP:CITEWATCH in a 'ready for mainstream editors' state, but once it was, it got heavy buy in from the community. And that's when a Signpost post can have maximal impact. If you just want technical people / citation people to chip in before it's ready for everyone, I would wait a bit before the signpost piece. I know I'm certainly interested to help. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with JPxG and Headbomb that this lack of integration with existing efforts (in particular WP:RSP) and potential for Wikiproject-based balkanization look like a major problem, and possibly not something that can be fixed retroactively with a "oh by the way everyone is welcome to use this bot too". (NB, I had similar concerns forming in my head a couple of days ago already after seeing this project promoted in the "Wikipedia Weekly" group on Facebook.)
That said, I think we should separate editorial judgment about such a Signpost draft article from assessment of the project overall, in particular if we are active in both spaces (Signpost and source/citation-focused bots).
What is needed though is a clear disclosure in or near the byline whether any of the authors were paid to work on this project. Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The disclosure footnote/footer can easily be moved up. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the footer, but that's not a disclosure - it does not inform the reader that the two writers of the article were paid for their work on the project that their article extolls (and presumably also for writing the article itself, assuming that the grant includes outreach work for the project). And yes, readers should be informed about this from the beginning. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
Status:
V ?
Published

{{completed}} Excellent; this is in the August 15 issue. jp×g 18:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When in doubt go to the library: The Wikipedia Library

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Published
In a column titled "News...", it might be useful to clarify the news angle (if any), in particular for the benefit of the many readers who are already aware of The Wikipedia Library, and possibly to inform scheduling. It doesn't seem that this is an announcement of new features or such? Or is it meant to be published on the occasion of an anniversary date (Eleven years ago)? Or is it to promote your August 18 Wikimania session? (There are a lot of those. From a reader perspective a more neutral and comprehensive overview might be preferable, even if limited to those offered by WMF.)
Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your valuable feedback, HaeB. I appreciate your insights.
To clarify, the article is not specifically intended to promote the August 18 Wikimania session or any other event. When we were writing the piece, our intention was not to presume that every reader knew about the Wikipedia Library. Hence, we aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the Wikipedia Library, its recent developments, and the benefits it offers to active editors with more than 500 edits. While some readers may already be familiar with the Wikipedia Library, it would be beneficial to ensure that those unfamiliar with it can have a better understanding through this article.
I will certainly consider your suggestion and collaborate with my colleagues to highlight any news angle better within the piece.
Thank you again for your help. Udehb-WMF (talk) 13:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{completed}} Excellent; this is in the August 15 issue. jp×g 18:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why I Stopped Taking Photographs Almost Altogether

[edit]
Status:
V ?
Published
Love it! (I do absolutely not have any bias towards pieces such as these... Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-08-02/Gallery *cough*) Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 04:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, your piece is great too, glad for your efforts! ɱ (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{completed}} Excellent; this is in the August 15 issue. jp×g 18:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]




       

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