This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

Huffington Post on dead people. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:08, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Smallbones, {{Done}}. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/3k9zjv/a-third-of-wikipedia-discussions-are-stuck-in-forever-beefs ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

A brief mention of Anne Hegerty on the reliability of Wikipedia while on British reality show I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here!, specifically relating to her page may be appropriate within the "In the Media" section. IWI (chat) 09:01, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I would be grateful if the signpost could include something in the news section about peer review. This follows on from an earlier editorial last year (Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-02-27/Special report). Kadane has kindly created a bot that contacts editors about unanswered reviews at time intervals of their choosing, set at WP:PRV. The signpost would be a good place to announce this and garner some more interest in peer review, maybe. A loud example article / infomercial is below. Yours, --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Tom (LT), If you write something, we will happily publish it, but there's not really anyone here to write the normal columns, much less an additional one. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@Eddie891 thanks, will write something and resubmit when I have time. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Addit: I will take a raincheck on this for the moment and resubmit when I have a completed submission. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung - I've been around here for years and yet only recently come across Signpost. I bookmarked it as there appears to be no clear link to it on main page. Why not? Why is it not right up at the top of the sidebar, perhaps just below Mainpage? Also - the title "Signpost" has a whiff of the Old West, or what you'd have seen just below a gas lamp in a Dickensian side street in the dead of night, kinda makes you wanna "get outa Dodge". Perhaps rename it WikiNews. Also - a top headline on this month's edition is The Signpost is still afloat, just barely. Wtf who wants to grab hold of a drowning man? This is definitely "get outa Dodge" language.

Wikipedia does a great job of keeping up with current affairs, helped, quite possibly, by the fact that its right there on the main page marked Current Affairs. So why not go for it - new name - easily accessible and less Doom&gloom .

WikiNews - Mark^Dask 18:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

That name’s taken. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 22:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

How about WikiTribune? Surely nobody has taken that name.... --Guy Macon (talk) 03:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• How about linking "The Signpost" from the left sidebar, @Kudpung and Bri:? --Pine^✉ 00:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• An interesting proposition. Does anybody know exactly how the sidebar navigation elements are chosen? Is it by WMF or by ENWP community? I do not remember having seen changes discussed in my 10+ years of activity here. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

An idea that's so obvious, it's a wonder why it's never been done. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

People suffer from banner blindness with the sidebar, especially as people continue to add things but not remove other things from it causing cannibalisation. If you're looking to increase awareness of the Signpost, there are probably better ways than adding it to the sidebar. --Deskana (talk) 11:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• At any case, this needs an explicit community consensus in a widely-advertised RFC. ∯WBG^converse 16:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Well we should propose this properly then. IWI (chat) 10:36, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• You could consider doing new and different things to also draw readers. The New York Times is known for a variety of things. One of which is a Cross word puzzle. "The Raven" if I recall correct was first published in a paper. Short stories have long been published to a variety of papers. This would also be inline with the statement purpose of Signpost, imo. This could also draw a number of signpost contributors who wouldn't otherwise be involved and could draw their interest to other aspects of the paper. Also offering curated content like this opens an additional avenue to other unique content. Specifically the content review. Opinion pieces on the curated content. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

As those of you who run this publication must know, the German war effort was complex and involved a significant amount of evidence and litigation. Aside from tensions near boiling over during the case and many people being unhappy with the decision, there were numerous effects on WikiProject Military history. The lead coordinator resigned, the project modified its A-class review process to include a source review, altered its internal guidelines for drafting biographies, and questions about the German war effort case are being asked by a couple of our members to the candidates for this year's ArbCom election. In the past 24 hours, it has resurfaced in a dispute about an award the project bestows annually. Might be worth a special report. I for one know it will effect how I will be voting for Arbcom this year. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

You would probably get more donations from a variety of people if the site was not so biased. I understand that many in academia have an agenda but if you want to provide objective information, it should provide both sides of issues without taking sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.24.2.34 (talk • contribs) 23:13, December 6, 2018 (UTC)

@108.24.2.34: Why do you believe the site is biased? Please provide examples. Also, sign your posts with ~~~~. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 13:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Comparatively few studies have been conducted examining this question systematically. These are summarized at Ideological bias on Wikipedia. GMG^talk 13:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I was wondering if anyone would be working on an article related to a review of 2018. If such a review/recap of the year is suitable for this issue of Signpost, I can help out with article.
I checked the Archives and since 2005, a yearly recap has been done for the following years: (includes partial and localised reviews)

Year	Article	Date
2005	A look back at Wikipedia's fifth year	16 January 2006
2006	Special: 2006 in Review Special: 2006 in Review, Part II	8 January 2007 15 January 2007
2007	Special: 2007 in Review Special: 2007 in Review, Part II Special: 2007 in Review, Part III Special: 2007 in Review, Part IV	14 January 2008 21 January 2008 28 January 2008 4 February 2008
2008	How busy was 2008?	16 February 2009
2009	2009 in Review	11 January 2010
2010	2010 IN REVIEW: Review of the year	3 January 2011
2011	2011's technological achievements in review, and what 2012 may hold	9 January 2012
2012	2012—the big year	7 January 2013
2013	FEATURED CONTENT: 2013—the trends TECHNOLOGY REPORT: Looking back on 2013 TRAFFIC REPORT: A year stuck in traffic ARBITRATION REPORT: Examining the Committee's year	1 January 2014 1 January 2014 1 January 2014 1 January 2014
2014	Traffic in the fog: 2014's most popular articles include death, Facebook, and Ebola	28 January 2015
2016	IN THE MEDIA: Year-end roundups, Wikipedia's 16th birthday, and more	17 January 2017
2017	TRAFFIC REPORT: The best and worst of 2017	16 January 2018

But from the above, I see a trend of NOT doing yearly reviews, apart from traffic reports. One reason may be because the effort to do a yearly review is a lot, in other words, too time consuming as compared to what the output is and the readers it addresses. Anyway that aside...

MAIN IDEA: I wanted to suggest one idea for the yearly review to be in the form of a continent wise review. (since country wise is not possible of course). This would simply include a section related to each of the continents - Africa, Antarctica, Asia, Australia/Oceania, Europe, North America, and South America. If this idea is liked, maybe we could tag editors who specialise in each continent who are willing to contribute so that it becomes a collaborative effort and individual load is removed. Even short paragraphs from each of the 7 continents would be enough to form a decent sized article.
I am of course ready to contribute for Asia (& try other continents if others don't have time). Regards DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 09:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@DiplomatTesterMan: What exactly would you include in the scope of your review for each continent? New content or article improvements, like new FAs or GAs of relevant major topics? Edit-a-thons or Wikimeetups and conferences that took place in the continent? -Indy beetle (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: Sorry for the delay in reply. I wanted to complete a good portion of the below article before moving on to another one. As for this one... I had thought that if there were different users for different continents, then they could decide how to go about the review. The points you have mentioned cover the scope well. The only limitation should be that every continent would be given the same amount of space. But I had wanted a more informal kind of narrative, rather than a general one.

Continent	User
Africa	User 1
Antarctica	User 2
Asia	User:DiplomatTesterMan
Australia/Oceania	User 4
Europe	User 5
North America	User 6
South America	User 7

DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

If this section were agreed upon, I'd be willing to write up the Africa portion. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: Sorry I didnt reply earlier. I was trying to wrap up the Signpost stats article, which is now finally done. I don't think I have the energy for this one now :D even if it is shifted to the next issue. And also finding editors is a task. So I think I will let this one go for now. Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 07:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I would also like to work on an article related to Signpost readership since the very beginning (and find trends if possible). This simply involves seeing the number of pageviews for each year, and providing commentary related to the most viewed article ever, most popular category of articles...etc. I will go ahead if others think this article is ok. And of course, others can suggest ideas or add to it. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Pythoncoder: I was just thinking I could actually start with this one just now since I have a few days to spare and may not get time later on. Do you think this article is ok to start with, or do you suggest working on something else related to Signpost? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@DiplomatTesterMan: Sounds good to me. FYI There was a bit of talkpage analysis a while back: Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Archive_1#Traffic_on_May_issue's_articles — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 18:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Pythoncoder: Thanks. Thanks for the link too, really good pointers for the article, exactly what I am talking about! DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone know a Wikipedia editor who currently edits from a conflict zone? (It could be on any of the other language Wikis too. I like the idea of conducting an interview with such a user... DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Bri: I shifted the above content from the Newsroom... I didn't read the tag at the top, and then got confused whether it could have stayed there or not. I don't think it makes a difference right... since all these are suggestions, hence on this talk page, but suggestions for the upcoming issue, so Newsroom talkpage. Anyway. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@DiplomatTesterMan: At meta:Deceased editors there is Ihor Kostenko, uk:Користувач:Ig2000 who died in en:Euromaidan. Also deceased is en:Bassel Khartabil who died in the en:Civil uprising phase of the Syrian Civil War.

The documentation on meta:Editing with Tor is not sorted and there is published guidance in many places.

If you check news articles for conflicts for interesting pictures then often those come from people who are on the scene. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: Thank you for the comment and information. Will follow it up. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 08:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi the authors of Signpost,

I contribute majorly involve with Chinese Wikipedia. I am also a board member of Wikimedia Taiwan. I have to say Signpost has been an inspiration for us for long. Since 2014, we started the monthly newsletter of the chapter in Chinese, and one of the must read reference for our newsletter editor is your wonderful work.

I personally enjoy a lot reviewing the international related articles, such as news and brief, op-ed, or features. But the topics or sections that relate solely for English Wikipedia community, such as the rank of article views does not catch my eye balls.

I am highly appreciate your work, this is a honest and many of the times, very critical voice in the community. However, I am not sure whether I think it's good about the style in a dark fashion. I feel this is a balance resource that complementary to the Wikimedia Blog since this is the place not only shows positive things in the movement, and I appreciate all your work! Anyway, I hope my feedback helps you for the future articles! Happy holiday season. --Liang (WMTW) (talk) 05:18, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

--Zimbali Beyoncé (talk) 16:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to submit a story for Public Domain Day on January 1, 2019. Gnom (talk) 13:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Please let me know if you would publish such a story. A German-language draft can be found at de:Benutzer:Gnom/Public_Domain_Day#2019. --Gnom (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Also see 2019 in public domain. This is actually notable as we have works entering the PD from the US due to the date of publication rather than based on the death of the author. (eg starting tomorrow, works from 1924 get added to PD, whereas today the cutoff is 1923 or earlier. --Masem (t) 16:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, in the United States, as of Jan. 1, 2019, works from 1923 go into public domain. On Jan. 1, 2020, works from 1924 will go into the public domain. - kosboot (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

There's a thread on Reddit's UnresolvedMysteries (now apparently solved) on the fact that articles on Corbin Bleu appear on a very large number of the Wikipedias of various languages. Probably a SP item or story sketched there. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it should be present at this time. Now it is 998 and in January it will have over 1000. How about having it? 14.232.160.139 (talk) 10:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

See newsroom discussion: WT:POST/N. We're discussing including this. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 13:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

999 is looking long right now... — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 18:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether having 1000 archived pages of ANI is something to be proud of! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Just heard on Brian Williams' show on MSNBC's guest Jeremy Bash (Former CIA chief of staff) who stated that at one point in 2018, White House aides were on Wikipedia trying to find out whether the U.S. could withdraw from NATO. There will probably be a video clip at some point but I was a little shocked. Better double-check that article. #WikipediaInTheWhiteHouse Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I've edited the page Wikipedia:Moving_files_to_Commons#Tools to show how to enable the new system Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ronhjones: The new tool will be covered in the Tech report, and I've linked to that page. Thanks, - Evad37 [talk] 07:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Chief Technology Officer Victoria Coleman is leaving; see her email "A difficult goodbye" on Wikitech-l [1] - Evad37 [talk] 07:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

 Added to News and Notes draft - Evad37 [talk] 08:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• 'Insomniac since I was a boy of five', Sunday Independent. 'Instead of staring at the ceiling [Alan Farrell] says he reads the following day's papers from 1am into the early hours when they are first published online. "My worst attribute is wikiloops. I might look at something on Wikipedia and I would research something and then I would click on a link to the next page and the next page and all of a sudden it's three hours later and you've gotten nothing done and you are in a wikiloop, going down a rabbit hole."' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:bb6:aaa:6558:c1ae:6d56:9cd2:464c (talk • contribs) 23:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello to the folks at the Wikipedia Signpost Newsroom.

I am trying to bring more attention to a RfC I happened to start. Would anyone mind covering it as part of Discussion report? Thank you for your consideration. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 02:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Seems to be a relatively small conversation at this point. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Indy beetle hence why I am try to promote it.. My apologies for not being clearer. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 05:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@MattLongCT: My understanding is that The Signpost does not cover discussions unless they are large or they result (after their conclusion) in a significant change to the encyclopedia. The best bet for raising awareness about a subject would probably be to contribute an op-ed. I did this about Africa-related content—a subject I care about strongly but the rest of the community might be apathetic too—several months ago. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll put it in the “in brief” section in the Discussion Report if it’s still going on. It was launched right around the time of publication but it looks like the next issue of the ’Post will be published a day or two before it closes. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 21:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

{{done}}

You might want to note the following article from Huffington Post entitled, "Facebook, Axios and NBC paid this guy to whitewash Wikipedia pages." https://www.huffpost.com/entry/wikipedia-paid-editing-pr-facebook-nbc-axios_n_5c63321be4b03de942967225 Smallchief (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I just put it in the In the Media draft. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 21:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

If we're in the mood for something a bit more lighthearted, XKCD gave us a hat tip this week (and the article was immediately vandalized and protected). GMG^talk 21:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

we could use that pls.. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo, I'm unclear, what's the copyright status of XKCD comics? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The exact comic is [2] The copyright is Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License which means that we'd need to ask for them to release it CC-BY-SA. That could be pretty easy for them to do, or maybe not. I'd be more worried about a Commons Admin saying that relicensing is not allowed - or that they'd have to make a special announcement on their page. That shouldn't be needed, we could send the usual OTRS form and upload it here if they agree. They can keep it licensed any way they want on their page. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I mean, we can still link to it. GMG^talk 10:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

{{done}}

There should probably be a mention of the recent changes to the ReferenceTooltips gadget by User:Jack_who_built_the_house. ReferenceTooltips now supports Harvard-style citations, and the animations were updated to be consistent with Page Previews'. --Yair rand (talk) 07:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Nice short article celebrating WP Day in the Washington Post: Happy 18th birthday, Wikipedia. Let’s celebrate the Internet’s good grown-up One of the few articles I've seen in a major news outlet that acknowledges the work A+F has and is doing to redress gender imbalance. And a nice shoutout to jim.henderson! - kosboot (talk) 01:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

WaPo at us again: History has a massive gender bias. We'll settle for fixing Wikipedia Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

In light of Women's History Month in March, would be nice to have an update on gender representation both among Wikipedia's biographies and among its editorship. I've seen upcoming edit-a-thons citing statistics from close to a decade ago, so I'm curious if/how things have materially changed since then. Such a feature would have the benefit of doubling as an update for our Gender bias on Wikipedia, which reads as proseline and could afford to be more synthetic. czar 14:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

A potential place to start: wikimania2018:Program/Research on gender gap in Wikipedia: What do we know so far? (see slides) czar 14:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but I think there has been reasonable coverage by the Signpost over the years, & adapting the stuff into the article is the most important. WIR can help, I'm sure. Johnbod (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll be in attendance as an affiliate member and would be happy to provide some reporting. Since I'm a participant, my viewpoint won't exactly be neutral, but I'd be happy to write up a little something if there's a need. Airplaneman ✈ 00:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Airplaneman, certainly! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Occasionally I will delete a hatnote, often "citation needed" but sometimes old ones like "introduction needs expanding", that is five or more years old, and which has long become irrelevant due to edits, but which has lingered on like the Coelacanth. (For some reason, otherwise edit-happy wikipedians are shy about deleting hatnotes.)

This has led me to wonder: What's the oldest hatnote still on an article in wikipedia? I have no idea how to find out, but perhaps some clever Signpostian would know. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

If not, the help desk is often a good place to get answers to this sort of question. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712 and Evad37: Special:Permalink/890765568#URL shortener for the Wikimedia projects will be available on April 11th, for the next tech report. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Thanks --DannyS712 (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Added to the draft --DannyS712 (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

This was something I read several weeks ago in an actual newspaper. I was able to find it online. Someone edited Wikipedia many years ago with a hoax that became "accepted as faxt".— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

For the record, it was likely this edit. Mindmatrix 20:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about... Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019, which have now concluded. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, true, as I'm actually dealing with a bit of this myself at the moment. Anyway, probably worth mentioning in the next issue:

• https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/08/us/wikipedia-harassment-wikimedia-foundation.html

---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

There are many Portals-related discussion, but this is a big one.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Jacobs, Julia (8 April 2019). "Wikipedia Isn't Officially a Social Network. But the Harassment Can Get Ugly". The New York Times. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

I do apologize if this request must be addressed in other dialogues, however there is a problem need to be solved.

Please be so kind to rename https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Philharmonic_Chamber_Orchestra.

The title is wrong. The correct one is Philharmonic Chamber Orchestra Berlin, but not Berlin Philharmonic Chamber Orchestra.

I regret it is not possible to rename this manually (the Move option is disabled).

Thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkaralahti (talk • contribs) 05:43, February 12, 2019 (UTC)

@Hkaralahti: WP:WRONGFORUM. Please see Wikipedia:Requested moves. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Also please sign your posts with ~~~~ — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 20:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Tony has suggested we may wish to respond to to humour piece by SMcCandlish and Barbara (WVS).

Presuming the piece which mocks pronouns will avoid deletion, I suggest a humorous response in the next Signpost that targets the abuse that LGBT+ contributors have had over the last couple of years. I'm sure there would be sufficient case studies, especially reading through the more ignorant comments in Arbcom cases that make the top 10. I recall the hilarious fisting comment that someone made in the case against me, you know to reinforce how queer I am must deserve a joke about sodomy, and there are past delightfully ignorant comments about how to describe transgender people that should be good for a few chuckles by the average non-LGBT+ identifying Wikipedian. Coincidentally this may help the wider public have a more honest view of our Wikimedia community, rather than the faux lovely collaborative friendly haven that gets painted at wikimeets and in official WMF videos full of young people having fun and "being themselves".

Thoughts? --Fæ (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Fæ: Thanks for acknowledging that Wikipedia is meant to serve people like me: the "old straight white" man, cis-gendered, over-educated, and comfortable. This isn't Conservapedia but it will have to do. I don't think there will be any interest in your piece but we appreciate all suggestions. You and Tony might start a draft. The Signpost is constantly asking for contributors and you are welcome, as is everyone regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, religion, etc. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Fæ, how many places do you intend to make the same point? Are ten pages enough? A hundred? Please stop this behavior. You appear to be attempting to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

You seem content to live in stasis. I would rather have a future where things can get better. --Fæ (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

What say we compromise on a future WHERE YOU QUIT SPAMMING? That world would be at least a little better. Then we could improve the world even more and have a future where you aren't trying to get SMcCandlish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) fired from his position as a WMF Tech Ambassador[3] just because you don't like his opinions. I'm just saying.

BTW, if you are detecting an undercurrent of disdain towards self-appointed censors who make jokes about old straight white men, you are not imagining it. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

CoC, and whether a person incredibly insensitive to respectful treatment of queer people should be trusted with the WMF brand, is not a matter for discussion on this project. It is foolish to call basic issues of governance spamming. If you don't like it, follow your own free advice, don't read it, it's not even on this project. --Fæ (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon obviously means WP:FORUMSHOPPING, in more "WP:something"-specific terms. And going on and on and on about the same thing at new page after new page, because you're not WP:WINNING in the previous ones, certainly qualifies (it's also WP:Tendentious editing).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

In Fae's defense, RIGHTGREATWRONGS does not apply to Signpost content. After all, if one took the perspective of the aforementioned Humor article, it could be seen as PREVENTINGGREATWRONGS (that's my interpretation of the comments section, because I haven't been able to view the proper article). I am all for controversial humor, but it appears this subject should be dealt with in the more serious Op-ed form first. Unless all we want to do is ignite a firestorm. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

It's simply not true that GREATWRONGS only applies to in-article content; all of WP:TE applies site-wide, and it is regularly enforced at ANI, AE, etc., against talk-page and project-space disruption. However, it's unlikely to be applicable to an essay published in The Signpost in the first place, since it is for editorial content, and the piece envisioned sounds relevant to WP editing and the community. That is, this wouldn't be under GREATWRONGS, but because writing an opinion essay in a venue for opinion essays isn't tendentiousness, not because of what namespaces someone wrongly imagines GREATWRONGS can't apply to. There is actual tendentiousness here, but it's in Fæ's pattern of harping on the issue at page after page until they get "satisfaction" (they hope), a behavioral problem that got them long-term topic banned before and probably will again real soon now.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Um, I did not say "GREATWRONGS only applies to in-article content". My reasoning for why it wouldn't apply to The Signpost is the exact same as yours. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Just when I was worried that you might have stopped trying to stir up drama... Natureium (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

You don't get it. This is the collegiate approach. An easier option is to just let the crash happen, and wear the "I told you how bad it would be" t shirt.

Actually, that option is looking quite attractive this evening. --Fæ (talk) 23:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I lack Fæ's censorious impulse, so I have no opposition to this idea (though I'm not sure which Tony is being referred to, and Fæ dragging this micro-crusade all across en.WP and to Meta and to Wikipedia-L and who knows where else is a tendentiousness and forum-shopping problem). I think such a Signpost essay will be a failure if it dwells on going after my essay, instead of focusing on the actual problem Fæ wants to highlight ("the abuse that LGBT+ contributors have had over the last couple of years", though I don't know what special significance a time-frame that specific is supposed to have), because my piece wasn't abuse of LGBT+ contributors, no matter how hard Fæ tries to spin it as such. (For one thing, the assumption that I'm not within the LGBT+ umbrella is false, though I don't go into details about such matters in places like this, as it's rather unseemly to dwell on sexual preferences here.) An essay that actually focused on its real topic would probably be successful and potentially useful, whether done as a serious piece or a humor one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• As already noted, the March's Humor Chronicle has already been written and largely published. Concerning the April's one, an empty page, tagged with <this page has been intentionally left blank> seems to be a good candidate. Life itself is the most humorous source of humor, isn't it ? Pldx1 (talk) 09:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

So much of what we think of as humor depends on delivery and vocal inflection. One can't simply transcribe such humor and expect it to be understood or have the same effect. People wanting to write humor have to go back to humorous authors like P.G. Wodehouse and Dorothy Parker to understand how to write something humorous that won't be misunderstood. - kosboot (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Thought this might be on interest to Signpost... http://nautil.us/issue/70/variables/wikipedia-and-the-wisdom-of-polarized-crowds --Hammersoft (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

We already covered this research (back then in preprint form) in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-02-20/Recent research. Regards. Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about how successful DYK's April Fools Day was. Of the 19 hooks we had running in 2 sets, 13 of them made it onto the DYK Statistics page and we had numerous comments on social media praising us for our work. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@The C of E: do you have links to such social media comments? Like a twitter hashtag, or facebook groupies going wild? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: It won't let me post the link due to twitter being blacklisted. Just add h to the end of search in the url here and you should be able to see the bypass. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost should feature Wikipedia:Notability comparison test in its essay section for the April 2019 edition. Yes, I know that I am the author of this essay, but I really think that it is good enough to be featured. VarunSoon (talk) 06:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

That is a page that will not be able to be understood by anyone but logicians and mathematicians. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb:

• Usual parsing: this proposition is false since I consider myself neither a logician nor a mathematician and yet I am able to understand it.
• Charitable interpretation: Not enough people would be able to understand it.
• Response: Last time I check, I explain the background and context of the essay in great details, and I did write an informal statement of the test. This essay is of historical (Wikipedia) significance because it concerns a type of argument that was used in past deletion discussions. Its purpose is to vindicate such an argument. The proof is for people who are not convinced. Also, this essay is better than no essay at all. VarunSoon (talk) 03:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@VarunSoon: You may not consider yourself a logician, but you have studied formal logic at one point. Walk to anyone in the street and ask what

${\displaystyle \neg (J\rightarrow O(\neg X_{B}))\rightarrow F}$

or

${\displaystyle [n(a)\geq n(b)]\rightarrow [((b\in W)\rightarrow (a\in W))\wedge ((a\notin W)\rightarrow (b\notin W))]}$,

where ${\displaystyle n}$ is a notability function whose domain is a Wikipedia article ${\displaystyle a,\ldots ,v}$ and whose range ${\displaystyle n(x)}$ is the set of natural numbers ℕ^*, and ${\displaystyle W}$ is the set of articles worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.

means and you'll get blank stares. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Simply my own testimony here, but my eyes water at those functions. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: This still does not change the fact that the proposition is false. Also, in the essay, I wrote English first before the symbolization. The symbolization and the proof are extra materials. VarunSoon (talk) 04:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Extra materials which are unscrutable, unreviewable, and completely inaccessible. What you wrote could very well be true. But for all we know, you could also have written the equivalent of 2 + 2 = ^{Orange 2%}
, something that's not even wrong because we cannot cannot understand what you are writing. The Signpost isn't a logic journal. We write for a general audience, and this essay, whatever it is supposed to be, isn't directed to the general audience. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb:...Hmm, either I have overestimated something or you have not read the English part of the essay at all. VarunSoon (talk) 04:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll put it this way, I can't make it past the first sentence before having to look something up. And when I reach "Initial argument: It is the case that P, because of justification J.", I know I don't need to read more, because there is no point in reading something that is not designed to be understood. Print the essay, go to your local coffee shop, and see how fast people stop reading. I guarantee you they'll have given up before reaching "Ad hominem tu quoque". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Have you ever used variables and placeholders? Okay, I get it; it is the former that is the case. I did overestimate something. VarunSoon (talk) 05:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Plenty of times, I have a background in physics, run a few bots, code plenty of templates, and the like. And I've been on Wikipedia for 10+ years, with about a quarter million edits. And I still can't understand what you are trying to write. My advice, write as if your target audience is a crowd of intelligent gardeners interested in Wikipedia. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I pretty much have to agree with Headbomb here. It's pretty hard to get through unless you brushed up on your symbolic logic recently. Most Wikipedians haven't. And then, at the end - if I understood this correctly - it all comes down to the assumption that notability can be quantified. I'd disagree with that. So if article A had a notability score of 11, and article B has a notability score of 10 and was considered adequately notable to be included in Wikipedia, then article A should also be kept. Seems obvious if you accept the premise that notability can be quantified, which I don't. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Just to let you know what kind of "function" I think notability has based on underlying factors. It's probably most like a set of separate minimum standards that have to be met, i.e. all the following boxes have to be checked to be notable, if all aren't checked then it's not notable, so the only quantities you can report would be 0 or 1, and the results would be both trivial and misleading. Something similar that comes up in the real world is Grain_quality#Grain_quality_grade_and_specification Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Jimbo thinks his friend should be allowed to make COI edits because she's a good person. Surely someone with more time on their hands might want to write an essay about this. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Don't see much of a story there. "Jimbo asks for advice, wants to make sure a friend edits within norms." Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, to me it looks more like a request to waive rules for friends, especially those that donate money to the WMF. I don't have any friends, especially when I have a duty to perform. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I think there could be a story here. Smallbones, what do you think? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 01:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

The financial connection was not known to me at the time of my comments, I agree that with the financial connection there is a bigger story. Not sure how big, but it's not nothing and certainly worth looking into. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Where is Jimbo asking to "waive rules for friends"? The noticeboard edit linked to certainly doesn't show that. Jimbo's inquiry is "What is best practice for someone who has a COI tag but wants to do the right thing, in terms of getting that tag removed and getting further edits done to an article?" It is certainly possible to get a COI tag removed (legitimately) and it is certainly possible for a COI editor to legitimately influence further edits to a COI article. Jimbo's question is explicitly not asking to waive the rules, as he emphasizes several times that he wants advice on how a COI editor can do these things legitimately and above-board. As to whether Jimbo should be spending his time helping COI editors, that's a different matter (and could be a legitimate topic for an op-ed), but we shouldn't make up false accusations about him like some kind of sensationalist tabloid. Kaldari (talk) 21:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Reporting for duty! (BTW, I have much more time for The Signpost for the next 2+ weeks.) I'm pretty sure I don't want to write this article, but if somebody else wanted to, I'll suggest some guidelines.

• we should not bash Jimbo just for the sake of Jimbo-bashing. Save it for when he really makes a mistake. He's done enough for Wikipedia that we can certainly assume good faith.
• similarly, we should be respectful toward folks that give the WMF money. BUT if they *intentionally* go over the line and ask for special favors they are fair game. In general assuming good faith works with donors as well as editors.

I personally would like the rules for paid and COI editing to be tightened, but there are ways that folks can give us feedback on "their" articles that don't bother me at all, e.g. posting a freely licensed full article or even just commentary on their own website so that we can quote them and give real attribution (not just "somebody declared that they are paid editors and wanted this included in the article"). Another way would be to post their own video on YouTube and we can (in most cases - if the copyright is clear) link it. Something like the way, I posted (to "his" article) a commercial video featuring Ice-T which had him commenting on "his" Wikipedia article. It is copyright policy compliant, gives the facts on Ice-T's self-reporting of his life, funny as hell, the highlight of a pretty good article, and BTW confirms most of what is written in the article. My point is that a little creativity in addressing the perceived problem can go a long way. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Good morning everyone, I would like to write a column about Wikipedia in Spanish because Wikipedia: El Noticiero is inactive. The column will be called "El Diario Hispano". They would approve me, please.

Attentively....

--Villalaso (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost is on English Wikipedia. I think it would antithetical to print a non-English language article in the publication, seeing as most of the readership would not understand it. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

But, it would be news and opinions of users of Wikipedia in Spanish .... in English. Thus, the younger sister of Wikipedia in English can have a voice. Of course I will write in English. His new name will be: "The Signpost Hispanic." --Villalaso (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I think Villalaso is suggesting a column in the English language about Spanish Wikipedia, rather than a column written in the Spanish language. WP:POST/ABOUT says “The Signpost is a monthly community-written and -edited online newspaper covering the English Wikipedia, its sister projects, the Wikimedia Foundation, and the Wikimedia movement at large” (bold is mine). So I believe this is in the Signpost’s scope, though it’s of course up to Smallbones, the editor-in-chief. Por favor use {{ping|Pythoncoder}} si quiera una traducción —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Honestly when making {{Newsletters}}, I was wondering if we should have an interwiki update of some kind. I think there would be demand for that, although it would be a fairly hard column to write. Google translating the other newsletters would likely be OK for some routine coverage, but it'd be hard to keep track of everything, and we'd miss a lot that a native [language] speaker with actual experience on the [language] Wikipedia would know. There's potential here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh I see. Well as long as the material is written in English it sounds like good game for an article. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Might be worth an in the news mention. [4] -Indy beetle (talk) 02:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if this is really worth an "in the news" mention, but Everipedia has published a press release / about us. The article includes some interesting survey figures Everipedia gathered (potential bias?) that frames us an an exlusionist, biased website. It finishes with a not so subtle ad about the "more modern and inclusive alternative to Wikipedia". Naturally, the dateline lists the location famous for being a refuge to the common man and all other marginialised persons, the Cayman Islands. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

"In fact, Wikipedia has recently been in the news because a third of the site's content is created by just one man." Laughable. As was that claim back when it was made on CBS. The rest of the 'press release' reads like a one-side puff piece, which clearly exploits the ambiguity in a word like "user" (here meaning readers). Might be worth reporting on, but this certainly isn't what I'd call a neutral source. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Everipedia are just struggling for attention, especially since the blockchain fad passed. We may have biases, but at least we don’t openly welcome paid advocacy. If this came up last month I would suggest delaying publication of the latest issue by a day because Everipedia makes a great April Fools joke, but now I would just say WP:DENY. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 13:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and I found more evidence of the Wikipedia for being wrong’s crappiness:

• They charge people to edit.
• OMG!!! They use moar memes and GIFs! dAnK!!!!!1
  • Despite their low inclusion standards and greater memeness, they don’t have an article on PewDiePie vs T-Series.
• Their Wikipedia cloning system seems to have malfunctioned (cf red meat, Red Meat).
• You can (or at least could at one point) buy articles... er, buy articles and lock them so people can’t take out your spam.
• Ads.

Why did Larry join this again? It is truly the new Citizendium. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• There's a barnstar in it for whoever can find the original full text of the survey questions, and/or any actual information on their methodology. GMG^talk 15:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • • agree Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Presuming there was any to begin with. -Indy beetle (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

    All I've found is their own feedback survey, though the PR appears to cite something different. czar 03:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm very happy seeing this discussion here. I have mixed views similar to the above comments, but would love to get more guidance from contributors and readers. I put a reminder to myself yesterday about Everipedia in the In the media draft:

• Possible Turkey of the month

I've been considering a "Gobbler of the month" (or similar) subfeature in ItM for months (!) now. I sorta went half-way last month with the Breitbart News article written by a banned en-Wiki editor. But I didn't actually put in the direct criticism that I really wanted to - figuring that a straight news approach would work better. It didn't. It confused at least one reader and got her very upset, and justifiably so.

So my first question is: "Is ItM a straight report on news articles about Wikipedia -including just enough info on the content of the articles to let interested readers know if they'd like to read them; or is ItM a journalism review with critical commentary?

I've seen both done in the column, but mostly mixed together when critical commentary was included, which I don't think works well. I think GotM would let readers know that this section is supposed to be criticism. If that works maybe start an "Article of the month" for positive reviews.

My 2nd question is "Isn't it better to just let the turkeys die without giving them the attention they crave?" My tentative answer is - it would be if they'd just die, but they keep coming back. There's more than enough material to use here every month, e.g. sports writers who report short-term vandalism with word spread via Twitter, articles on how to get the best paid editor to get around the rules, folks who just misunderstand what Wikipedia is about or how we work. So for now I'm leaning to "let's try it a couple of times and see if it works." Somebody should tell these folks that this type of article is just turkey noise, at least once.

All feed back appreciated. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Just to let people know what I'm thinking of I'll post some work product (not even a 1st rough draft yet)

Gobbler of the month

Everipedia, which claims to be “world's largest online English encyclopedia” posted a press release on why they are better than Wikipedia. Everipedia’s 6 million plus articles include about 5.5 million old Wikipedia articles. Searching for “main page” on Everipedia will take you to a page titled “Everipedia, the encyclopedia of everything” with the text starting “Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. 5,532,166 articles in English” and the rest of Wikipedia’s Main Page from December 16, 2017.

The press release immediately invites skepticism by stating that “a third of (Wikipedia’s) content is created by just one man.” Note to Ser Amantio Di Nicolao - you’re good, but you ain’t nearly that good.

The core of the press release is based on a survey of 1,000 Americans. Neither the methodology or a full set of results are given, but a motley collection of questionable results include:

• A majority of Wikipedia users have never edited an article
  • They apparently mean that a majority of Wikipedia readers have never edited an article

Paying editors/being paid by editors cryptocurrency IQ, blockchain.

Maybe ask @David Gerard: for a 1 or 2-line quote. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I actually provided one to Decrypt! (Who I also freelance for, but anyway.) A quote, from a Crypto Expert (I go on telly and all) who is also a Wikipedia Expert (I go on telly and all): "These are all real problems with Wikipedia - and we're very aware of them. But that doesn't mean Everipedia's paid-editing model solves a single one of them, and they've given no evidence that it does." - David Gerard (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd support this endeavor. Suggest putting the word "users" in quotes to emphasize Everipedia's use of the word, not our own. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The 2019 Notre-Dame de Paris fire just wrecked one of the most famous architectural landmarks in the world. It could make a good gallery entry, both from before, during, and after the fire. Special attention should be given to the before section, given no more picture of the cathedral in its unburned state can happen. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

We should also ask people to contribute more pre-fire images if possible. Kaldari (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe Wikimedia will respond with something similar to the digital preservation efforts after the Brazilian museum fire? Something we should anticipate. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I think this would be a great gallery - we got 1000s of before photos (this must be one of the most photographed buildings in the world and there are many drawings and painting from before photography), there are lots of photos and at least one video during the fire, and now we have a set of photos after the fire. It might be possible to get sets of three photos (before, during, after) from different viewpoints. So far the after viewpoints are limited, but that may change. There are about 5 very good pix from during, but limited viewpoints (last I looked). Any volunteers? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about... Current feud over Criticism of the Catholic Church--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Currently has around 4 users involved; suggester is one of the main participants. Normally I like to see a bit more participation before I add something to the Discussion Report. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't really see how that's a particularly notable event on Wikipedia. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I have "come out of the ivory tower" and made my essay (Wikipedia:Notability comparison test) more accessible. Thus, once again, I propose it for the upcoming edition of Signpost. VarunSoon (talk) 10:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Much more digestible. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

The current issue of the Journal of the American Musicological Society (JAMS) (Spring 2019, Vol. 72, No. 1, pp. 279-295) has a review by Darren Mueller of Wikipedia from the point of view of musicology. He is clearly very familiar with Wikipedia including its social networks and provides good context for understanding issues. Beyond the uneven coverage of articles of musicological interest (sometimes very good, sometimes not, and sometimes non-extant) Mueller ponders the issues an open access encyclopedia means for academia. He notes that musicology tends to be written for and read by other musicologists. Wikipedia presents an opportunity to broaden the audience to understand and learn what musicology is and what musicologists do. His concluding statement: "...[Wikipedia's] presence invites us to think differently about the way musicological knowledge operates in the wider world. Wikipedia offers a chance to reimagine, collectively." - kosboot (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Kosboot: This looks very interesting. Thanks for the heads up. Did you mean that Darren Mueller is a Wikiapedian, or that the review is about Wikipedia? In any case, I tracked his email down and I'd bet I can get a copy of the paper. Is there a way for our readers to find a free copy? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Smallbones: I meant that the review is about Wikipedia. Members of the society can get a copy of the article immediately. It'll eventually be up on JSTOR. You might want to ask the Society whether they might offer that article as open access since it will be of great interest to many in the Wikimedia community. - kosboot (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Kosboot: Thanks, I've sent off an email to Mueller. I'll see what he says and try to get something in the next issue. I can't say what until I actually see the article of course. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Kosboot: I've got a copy now, thanks. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

https://medium.com/@adamrmor/do-museums-still-need-a-collections-online-9cf7cb07d5d1

©Geni (talk) 22:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Great stuff - where's the *best* place to use it? It deserves better than just a paragraph in "In the media". I'd like to include the video. Does anybody know which photo gets 250,000 pageviews per month? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost should write about this RfC to change TfD page/process: Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion#RfC: Proposal to make TfD more RM-like, as a clearinghouse of template discussions. —⁠andrybak (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@Andrybak: Queued for the “follow-ups” section in next issue’s discussion report. Thank you for the suggestion! —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 17:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

From TIME. GMG^talk 13:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Well isn't this peachy. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

There is a proposal to remove all sysops on Azerbaijani Wikipedia. However, as I proposed it, maybe I should not comment on it further. --Rschen7754 04:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Probably in Discussion report. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:36, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I actually started a draft about this in my User:GreenMeansGo/sandbox, just to see what I would come up with if I tried to write about it. I figured I would stew on it a couple days, and I haven't figured out how to end it. But I'm more than open to the idea if someone else wants to try to collaborate on it. GMG^talk 14:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I've finally gone over this and am pleasantly surprised. I thought it would be a total mess to explain, and you start out (and continue saying) approx. "this is a total mess to explain." It seems to work. It also strikes me that you don't take sides, even though it might be seen as criticizing everyone. Then there is the question of combining humor in an opinion piece partially about genocide. Again it seems to work - you are not making fun of dead people, only about how people have reacted to it.

Have there been any developments since May 11? If not I'd go with ending #3.

I'd be very interested in others reactions. There's a fairly large chance that this could be taken to ANI or ArbCom, perhaps by both (or all) sides. I guess I'd need 100% support from the SP staff and especially by @GreenMeansGo:. Do you want to go ahead with this. FWIW, I'll predict that if it goes to arbcom that the decision will be that everybody who complains about the article is wrong, that somebody needs to talk about the situation. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll be at military training mostly stuck on mobile for the next three weeks. Anyone who is in the mood for coauthor credit feel free to find a way to end it and publish it. I'm afraid I won't have much time to work on much of anything. GMG^talk 20:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

{{done}}

I tend not to like the Essay column. Either the essay is so old and accepted that everybody knows it already; or it is so new that it's likely not to be accepted. "AGF applies to everyone" is completely different and even newsworthy. It likely has some downside as well, so just checking on what other folks think.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:16, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Smallbones Seems like a good essay to use to freshen up the essay column. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

If you do publicize my essay, I would ask two things: First, that you make clear that I did not write it for the Signpost in an Editor's Note at the top. I am worried that, in the absence of such a note, my resignation will seem political. And second, that you do not present the essay as "leading to my resignation" or otherwise forming the majority of my rationale for resignation, since this is not the case. The essay documents the only portion of my rationale for resigning that I care to share, but that does not mean it represents my full rationale, or even a majority thereof. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Smallbones: Making sure the above is seen, with the added note that I am somewhat disturbed by the current note written at the top of the essay page that you've constructed. My resignation had absolutely nothing to do with the administrator account security motion, and the note reads like one is editorializing otherwise. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I thought I was straightforward in saying that I didn't know the cause of your resignation and that others should be careful in their interpretations. Well that didn't work -sorry. Let me then put the simplest possible intro without saying anything to others about interpretation. Let's try:

"The essay was written by BU Rob13 as an essay in his user space on May 4. We selected it for our ongoing series of essays. It was not submitted to The Signpost by BU Rob13." – S

I don't want to put you in the position where some folks might say "he in effect did submit it to The Signpost" . It is our decision on whether to re-publish it. That said, I usually assume that somebody who writes an essay wants it to be publicized. Since it is in user space rather than WP space I may reconsider that. Please let me know if you object to it being re-published and if you have anything else you'd like to see added or subtracted from the editor's introduction. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I personally did not expect that essay to become as public as it did, perhaps naively. I wrote it in a moment of frustration, and I still may yet delete it. If it was up to me, I would prefer it not to be reprinted in the Signpost, but at the same time, this project is based on free re-use of content, so that's really not 100% up to me. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Understood. I'm glad that you understand the free re-use of material on Wikipedia. I'm reconsidering. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I feel that as a courtesy to the author, we should not publish the essay. We shouldn't be publishing stuff when the author has made a good-faith request for us not to do so. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't like this essay, if only because it speaks too much to BU Rob13's personal experience and not the idea that even longtime editors and admins ought to enjoy the benefit of the doubt, too. It could be edited to make it more generalized and perhaps point to other examples but right now, this is only one editors regrets. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

OK - it's out. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

It's still referred to in the arbitration report: did you want it to remain there? isaacl (talk) 23:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't care if it's referred to there. My soft objection was more to re-posting it, because it could give the impression my resignation was done to give me some type of platform, when that is not the case. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

{{done}}

This one is on the Detroit Tigers who requested that their fans vandalize Wikipedia. As usual this type of blurb deserves some careful review. Please see the bottom of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In the media. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

{{done}}

One of my favorites is Wikipedia:An unfinished house is a real problem. Ipatrol wrote it almost ten years ago and I think it deserves more eyeballs. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

{{done}}

https://slate.com/technology/2019/05/donald-trump-wikipedia-page.html —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 12:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Definitely include this; I was coming here to suggest it also. Journalists and other outsiders rarely understand how Wikipedia works. This essay is a mostly-accurate account of our "backstage" work to create and manage the encyclopedia. Complete with amusing animated graphics of edits being added, reverted, added again. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

{{done}}

Wikipedia editors finding and fighting against clear promotional approach by North Face to gain Google SEO, as described by The Verge and Ad Age. --Masem (t) 16:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• Relevant discussions: Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom#North Face, ANI, commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Fhpatucci

Also is there any evidence that the images actually made it to the top of Google Images? The placement is so minuscule that it feels like the point was the stunt (i.e., the video), not the actual Google Images results. czar 01:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• The page views for The North Face did increase dramatically after the incident became pubic. And someone kindly placed a section about the embarrassment on the page too. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

{{done}}

I'm not sure of the exact appropriate venue for this, but there is a sister project proposal that I think would be useful for the signpost-reading community to be aware of at meta:WikiJournal. I'm happy to write a short article about what's been going on in the project over the last couple of years (prev signpost articles on WikiJournals: 1 & 2. Also relevant: 1 & 2). However I don't want to cause any canvassing issues, so no worries if you prefer to write something independently, or just have a single-sentence note in one of the other sections. Let me know what you think is best. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 10:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Smallbones and Chris troutman: Could I check whether you would be interested in something along these lines? I've also made a short suggested post tailored to the Kurier, here but the systems for the Signpost are somewhat different. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 02:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: I'm certainly interested in seeing a submission - perhaps 4 times as long as the Kurier piece, but the length is up to you. I've been talking with an author of a broader somewhat related piece and will likely hear from him tomorrow. I'll email you by Monday if I think there's some type of cooperation that might work. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@Smallbones: Works for me. I'll start drafting something flexible at User:Evolution and evolvability/Signpost draft. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 02:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: I did get a chance for a brief chat with him. He *may* contact you for some general input, but it looks like there's not much chance for cooperation this month. It does point out interest in the general topic, so I do look forward to your submission. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@Smallbones: No worries either way. What's the deadline for inclusion in the next issue? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 03:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: officially June 28, but there's likely going to be several submissions coming in at the last moment for this issue, so June 25 would be a lot better for me! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@Smallbones: Thanks. Full-length draft now finished and submitted. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 08:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

{{done}}

The Signpost should write about desysopping and blocking an active admin. Summary of situation provided by Kurtis follows. Bri.public (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC) Od Mishehu has repeatedly engaged in disruptive editing while logged out. The edits themselves were not egregiously harmful, consisting of nothing more than run-of-the-mill vandalism to articles, but it obviously does mean that he has lost trust. The technical and behavioral evidence is incontrovertible, as determined by multiple checkusers and arbitrators; there is no reasonable doubt that these acts of petty vandalism were committed by Od Mishehu himself. His private correspondence with members of the committee failed to adequately address the concerns raised. As a result of his inappropriate conduct, he has been desysopped, and is now indefinitely block by BU Rob13 acting in his capacity as checkuser.

Just so you're all aware, I've fixed my comment at the ACN talk page, striking out "articles" and adding "non-article pages". Kurtis ^(talk) 19:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Also: Nv8200p was effectively de-sysopped by Arbcom due to loss of account control. Now editing as Nv8200pa; neither account shows sysop privileges in List of administrators and near as I can tell they haven't requested restoration (WP:RETURN procedure). - Bri.public (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

{{done}}

Fram was blocked by WMF Office and they provided this nonsense explanation. Certainly, if we had someone that could pin down facts about it, that would be a good item for the next issue. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

{{done}}

In addition to the WMF for their inadequately explained office action above, I say someone else ought to be featured in our gobbler blurb. Journalist Sharyl Attkisson has announced on her website the beginning of the "The Wikipedia Correction Project (WCP)". On its face it sounds like any other old edit-a-thon geared towards correcting problems on Wikipedia, but it is actually a contest of sorts aimed at creating "Wikipedia-style page[s]" or "sections" that includes "information that is censored on Wikipedia" which will then likely be published "later this summer", presumably on sharylattkisson.com. As an example of submissions, the page lists two of these *ahem* alternative pages Attkisson has just published on her website: a bio of herself (which she says she created because her Wikipedia bio "has been skewed by agenda editors to present false and biased information on select topics in an attempt to controversialize the topics or me", no specifics given) and one on the polling center Rasmussen Reports. Attkisson's website says she is "a nonpartisan Investigative Journalist who tries to give you information others don’t want you to have".

For some background, Attkisson used to work for CBS News, winning some pretty important awards along the way, but left while fighting with the network over its coverage of how United States President Barack Obama and his administration handled the 2012 Benghazi attack. Her current Wikipedia bio includes media criticism which suggests she favors conservative media outlets. She also asserted that vaccines and autism have a link (a thesis which the scientific community has rejected), and currently works for the totally-not-all biased in-any-way Sinclair Broadcast Group. It seems she takes issue with these things. Late last month she took her grievances to Twitter. Her alternative bio is essentially a very dry read which includes little discussion of her actual work, mostly focusing on where she worked and for how long, her industry awards, and her personal life. Rasmussen Reports is an American polling company, which commonly takes polls on U.S. elections. Its Wikipedia article currently has a section entitled "Evaluations of accuracy and performance", which handles praise and criticism. The criticism section includes several comments from other journalists on the company's possible conservative bias and its failure to accurately predict the outcome of the 2018 U.S. Congressional "midterm" elections. The alternative article, apparently written by the company, includes a few paragraphs with what would probably count as promotional language on the supposed uniqueness of its questions and a direct challenge to its public criticism in what would be seen on Wikipedia as original research and argumentative essay-like material.

Atkisson has made allegations of "agenda editors who control certain pages and topics" on Wikipedia (source). She reiterates this on the WCP announcement page with a note at the bottom, which says "A nod to Wikipedia’s many terrific, hard working and well-meaning volunteer editors. They are simply outmatched, at times, by the powerful volunteer “agenda” editors often working on behalf of cloaked or paid interests." Of interest is this article on Wikipedia's "dark side", published by Full Measure, a website for the news show Atkisson hosts, which is syndicated by Sinclair. It is linked to on the WCP announcement page, as is an apparent link (which failed to open on my computer) where one can "Learn about a new online encyclopedia: Everipedia.org". Atkisson lists a series of "rules" for the WCP, one of which is "I retain all rights to make edits or not publish submitted material at all." That very comment is actually what aroused my interest in this subject, and makes it all seem Gobbler worthy.

In conclusion, we have a prominent journalist—who's own reporting integrity is disputed—who claims that Wikipedia is often controlled by editors acting on an "agenda" in the favor of "cloaked or paid interests". She says this includes information being "censored" on Wikipedia. In return, she offers a pseudo-contest for alternatives, where she as an individual has final say over anything that is published (which just reeks of that transparency she so desperately sought from the U.S. government, no?). As examples of what a submission should look like she offers one article about herself which curiously excludes any and all things controversial about her (dare I say the word "censorship"?) and another which is an article about a company, written by that company (*cough* paid interest *cough*). And it all includes a little side plug to Everipedia, where you can literally pay to have your article protected. For her apparent lack of a sense of irony, I say we award Atkisson "Gobbler of the month". Turkey all around—I call the drumsticks. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC) {{done}}