→Good job everyone!: new section |
Smallbones (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 119: | Line 119: | ||
It would seem I am again able to access Wikipedia. That was frustratingly bad timing, heh. Now that I'm back, I couldn't be more happy at what I'm seeing! This is the best issue of the Signpost I've seen in a while. Everyone who contributed this month deserves a pat on the back! [[User talk:Acorri|♦]][[User:Acorri|<span style="color: #342266"><b><span style="text-shadow:0px -3px 3px #CC66CC">Acori</span></b></span><span style="color: #005B0B"><b><span style="text-shadow:0px -3px 3px #11EB5B">Sage</span></b></span>]] 21:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC) |
It would seem I am again able to access Wikipedia. That was frustratingly bad timing, heh. Now that I'm back, I couldn't be more happy at what I'm seeing! This is the best issue of the Signpost I've seen in a while. Everyone who contributed this month deserves a pat on the back! [[User talk:Acorri|♦]][[User:Acorri|<span style="color: #342266"><b><span style="text-shadow:0px -3px 3px #CC66CC">Acori</span></b></span><span style="color: #005B0B"><b><span style="text-shadow:0px -3px 3px #11EB5B">Sage</span></b></span>]] 21:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC) |
||
:I'll second that. Above I said that getting the issue out was a great experience (no matter what the reader reaction was). The publication looks great, and the reader reaction has been great as well. Congrats to all contributors! [[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]]<sub>([[User talk:Smallbones|<span style="color: #cc6600;">smalltalk</span>]])</sub> 03:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:02, 5 April 2019
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Template:Wikipedia Signpost/Deadline Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Navigation
All done, let's publish!
@Chris troutman: This is my final approval. Let's do it (publish) Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Chris, just an aside here. There's a Russian custom, sometimes thought of as a superstition, that before starting an important journey, that they sit on their suitcases for a few minutes before making their departure. I think this is totally rational. Thinking, clearing your mind, talking a bit with your fellow travelers allows any stray or forgotten thoughts to come back and can avoid some real problems. If I continue as EIC, I'll continue taking this "suitcase time" for perhaps an hour before asking you to publish. Then there's the old saying about the first pancake ... Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks to everybody involved in this issue. I'll single out @BlueRasberry, Headbomb, and Evad37: and of course Chris t, but I really do mean everybody. It's too early to say "what a great issue!" - I'll wait to see the final product in its published form and for reader reactions. But I can say "what a great experience!" Thanks again. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Smallbones, Chris troutman, and Evad37: I see that it was published - we have the same problem as we did at the end of January, with many people's pages getting skipped due to
readonly
. I'll make a mass message list of the people it needs to be resent to --DannyS712 (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2019 (UTC)- 476 pages listed at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe/resend. I don't know what the message that is sent is, so can another mass-message sender resend it? --DannyS712 (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Smallbones, Chris troutman, and Evad37: I see that it was published - we have the same problem as we did at the end of January, with many people's pages getting skipped due to
- Also something looks off here - many of these were sent non-subst'd - then it switched to using subst....? — xaosflux Talk 15:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: I can do a bot run to substitute them (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 8) if we want --DannyS712 (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Check in with @Chris troutman: about how to deal with that after they get the rest of this sorted out. — xaosflux Talk 15:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: I can do a bot run to substitute them (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 8) if we want --DannyS712 (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyS712: I've manually mass-messaged the 475 (one was a blocked sock) and the results seem successful. Let me know if there's anything else we need to correct. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Chris troutman: don't know if you did already, but you could remove the sock from Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Chris troutman: I think its just substituting the messages that weren't subst'ed (see above) - once you give me the go ahead I'll do a bot run. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyS712: Yes, please fix; that's why you have the bot permission. @Smallbones: FYSA. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
The template in the mass message doesn't usually get subst'ed (e.g messages from Feb, Jan). The plain/subst'ed version is only really needed for the global mass message sent to other wikis, where our templates/pages don't exist. - Evad37 [talk] 23:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Evad37: so the problem wasn't that some weren't substituted, but rather that some where... oops, sorry --DannyS712 (talk) 23:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
I've overhauled a lot of little things here and there. Here are some of the highlights
- We now have an improved deadline tracker. The big changes are that the tracker is now full width, rather than fixed width in the noticebox, so it will look better at all scales, and it now features an exact countdown during the last week before publication. It is also very straightforward to update for non-techies. The deadline tracker is featured on both the newsroom and the newsroom's talk page, but you can transclude it on other pages (e.g. your user page) if you want.
- The newsroom now features recent change links for both the current issue (including reader comments) and the next issue, for easy review of what's being written. We also have an improved task tracker. The big changes are it now takes up much less vertical space, so you don't have to scroll up/down as much as before. However, smaller changes are
- A new
|Final-approval=y
parameter, to be used when the EIC give their final approval for publication. |Ready-for-copyedit=y
now displays instead of , to signal a call to action, rather than a completed stage|Copyedit-done=y
now hides Ready for Copyedit item the checklist, since the call to action has either been answered, or never issued|Final-approval=y
automatically sets|Status=Done
and vice versa, because they mean the same thing.
- A new
- A reduction of vertical space use in the 'banner space' at the top of this page see old page.
- A better organized {{Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Navigation}} see old version.
For some future changes,
- Done {{Signpost series}} is now much improved. It displays the top 5 most recent articles by default. I have also started the 2018 and 2019 indices so that the tag manager works on 2018 and 2019 Signpost articles.
- I'll be working with User:Tbayer (WMF) and others to develop {{Wikipedia Signpost/Research quote}} to improve readability and ease of formatting of the Recent Research column
- Done Make {{Signpost draft}} a bit more useful / more closely match the newsroom task tracker.
- Done Automated the most tedious aspects of the newsroom
- Centralize the submission process (which is currently split between the newsroom and the submission page)
- In progress Improving pre-loaded forms for several columns, to make it easier to write articles
If you have suggestions of where things are disorganized or could use some polish, let me know and I'll do my best to look at them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC) 02:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note that the {{Signpost draft}} template is used by the publication script – what changes were you thinking of making? - Evad37 [talk] 00:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Mostly adding a few links to resources/guides/newsroom to the template, and inserting some comments in the parameters when preloading. I don't believe this should break any script, but I'll ping you on any change I make to make sure. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, that shouldn't be a problem. Thanks, - Evad37 [talk] 00:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I might add a ready for copyediting parameter and rename some of them to match the newsroom templates parameters. This would likely allow bots to maintain the newsroom trackers. This is something that might require updates to scripts, but fairly trivial ones. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, that shouldn't be a problem. Thanks, - Evad37 [talk] 00:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Mostly adding a few links to resources/guides/newsroom to the template, and inserting some comments in the parameters when preloading. I don't believe this should break any script, but I'll ping you on any change I make to make sure. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Restructuring
I won't be completely off-Wiki for the next week, I'll stop in here briefly a couple of times each day. I'd like to get a conversation going about some gradual restructuring - say over 6 months. Somebody suggested that we review our standards for publication and put them all on one page so everybody knows what we expect before writing. I'll target that for month 2 if nobody minds.
A prerequisite for that would be an organizational structure - how do we make decisions? who is responsible for what?. I'll target that for this month, but let's keep it simple. I'll suggest having a 3 person elected editorial board that makes all long term decisions. Keeping it real simple, let me suggest 3 year staggered terms, and it should include the publisher, an editor emeritus, and 1 who could be anybody (staffer/reader etc.) Major duties could be continuity planning - e.g. what happens if the EIC resigns, closing staff discussions, telling the EIC that he/she made a mistake or even removing the EIC.
The EIC I see as the low person on the totem pole. He/she gets the blame if the paper doesn't get published on time, has to let (or convince) the staff get the majority of the work done, bring in new contributors, or do the work him/herself. In the last 2 weeks before publication that may involve some pretty abrupt no-you-can't-do-that's, or "sure just do it and get it right", or "let's get the opinion of the staff". Putting out a newspaper on a deadline isn't always a soft-and-gentle consensus process.
The 1st 2 weeks of the month should be dominated by the staff. Who's got ideas on what to publish, what changes should be made in the mix of stories. Plus actually getting the stories started. And "RFCs" on major changes which should be signed off on by the editorial board. But who is the staff? I'll suggest a working definition of "anybody who has a byline or any other significant contribution in the last 6 months." Keeping the governance open to any Wikipedian at all times would open the doors to disruption by folks with agendas or grievances who might not get anything done. Let 'em put in some work first before "getting a vote."
BTW, I'd like to work on a Walter Alston contract - let me know before the 15th of the month via RfC that you have a replacement EiC and I'll step down. There's no job security for EiCs anyway. I'll give 2 months notice (if needed) if I plan on leaving. Standard Wikipedia pay, health insurance, and vacations. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Personally, I'd rather keep things as fluid in terms of the Signpost organigram. It's not that a clear structure can't work, it's that editors tend to come and go and we just have to deal with that. Having a well-defined organigram isn't the point of the Signpost, the point is to have a quality internal newspaper. Wikipedia is blob of chaos that self-organizes according to the whims of those that happen to be there on a given day, and I don't see the Signpost being very different in the long run. So let's not fight the blob of chaos too much. People can take on the responsibilities as they want, with the collective group stepping in to patch in the holes when we get them. That's not to say that we shouldn't make efforts to have a bit of structure when we can, or stop trying to do outreach/call for writers, but as long as there's a clear EiC (or a delegate of the EiC when the EiC can't be around), then the real structure of the Signpost is simply write something → ??? → get EiC approval.
- I feel where we can make the most immediate impact is in the ??? part of that structure. Streamlining the drafting/submission process, and centralizing our advice, centralizing discussions pages so they're less spread out. We could also make an impact in the write something part, by scriptifying a lot of repetitive/cookie cutter aspects of certain columns. For example, the Featured content column is something that should be relatively easy to scriptify, which would significantly cut down on how time consuming it is to write it, with whoever writes it being able to focus on layout and review, rather than gathering every piece of featured content themselves. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I've been working on a mainspace article about Quadriga Fintech Solutions. The company's CEO died and only he held the passwords to accounts worth about $130 million. Contingency (or succession) planning is important. The obvious place for succession planning is with the editorial board. Lack of this planning almost killed the Signpost at least twice IMHO. There are other things only a board can do at short notice, e.g. removing the EiC for cause. I really wouldn't mind being removed (e.g. for incompetence) but I really don't want to be the final Signpost EiC. This is just "the collective group stepping in to patch in the holes" which you mentioned above - and an obvious hole.
- The collective (team, staff, contributors - pick your favorite word) is clearly going to have the major role in governance here. It's needed e.g. to legitimize the editorial board's role (by electing them), selecting the EiC (when there's time), and actually writing the newspaper articles. It's not necessarily good for quick decision making and making a commitment to follow thru on long-term planning.
- We do need to define "who is on the staff? who is a voter?" It ultimately should be open to every Wikipedian who has shown enough commitment to getting the Signpost out. But I don't think it should be completely open to waves of newbies driven by some political, commercial, or other interest. We need to have legitimacy and independence to stand up where necessary to the WMF, ArbCom, admins, businesses, political parties, etc. I think a "mostly open in the short-term, completely open in the long-term" model would be best. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Structure at the top is good, but I think it should just be a straight up community-appointed EiC (which you've been) + EiC delegates picked by the EiC, since the EiC who they'd trust with that role and who they work best with. These EiC delegates would default to being interim EiCs should the EiC resign/leave, up until the next EiC is selected. For the rest of the "staff/editorial board", we're not at a point where interest is high enough that we can be too picky with who helps, and start firing/appointing people according to a 'staffing policy' or a formal process or whatever. If you want to get involved, get involved. If trolls get on board, the EiC can step in.
- As for who gets to vote on the EiC, I'd say keep it simple and go 500/30, with an admin or 'crat for closer. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that we limit who can contribute to The Signpost, only that "to get a formal vote" would require that a Signpost newbie wait a month (to the next issue) and anybody who contributed in the last 6 months has a vote. I don't see the editorial board being much different than what we effectively have now. It's clear that @Chris troutman and Evad37: are doing a good job and I'd be perfectly happy to see them continue, with a couple extra defined but rarely used tasks, and a third person to represent all Wikipedians who have an ongoing interest in The Signpost, to break tie votes. I would not run for the 3rd position, but at the proper time and the right conditions might run for the "editor emeritus" position :-). Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- My personal opinion is there isn't enough interest in the editor-in-chief position to warrant community elections for it. Additionally, I don't really like the idea of it being a position that's lobbied for. On the other hand, if most of the time there is only one volunteer stepping forward, it probably won't matter much either way. isaacl (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Without commenting on the restructuring proposal (I agree those doing the work should decide on the structure that suits them), I suggest to plan for succession, there could be a deputy editor-in-chief who would split duties with the editor-in-chief. The issue though is finding someone with sufficient time to invest in the role. isaacl (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Headlines disappeared on article pages, current and last issues
@Chris troutman, Evad37, and Headbomb: I'm not sure why, but the headlines have disappeared on all the article pages. They were there earlier. I just checked the previous issue and it does not have headlines either. I'll check earlier issues in a bit. My guess is that a template was changed - maybe an April Fool's prank? In any case can we get the headlines put back, probably by reverting a template (is that the one with "v2 =" in it?)? Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Should be fixed. I touched something I didn't mean to touch. Or at least something I didn't think was used in live versions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, they are back. It had affected the archives, but then changed back when I checked a 4th year. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Smallbones: while you're at it, take a new look at the stuff in Newsroom improvements and related things above. You should find the new recent changes links in the newsroom, as well as the new deadline/draft templates of particular usefulness. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- It may take me awhile. May I ask anybody else who is watching this page to take a look and give preliminary feedback? Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Smallbones: while you're at it, take a new look at the stuff in Newsroom improvements and related things above. You should find the new recent changes links in the newsroom, as well as the new deadline/draft templates of particular usefulness. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, they are back. It had affected the archives, but then changed back when I checked a 4th year. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Should be fixed. I touched something I didn't mean to touch. Or at least something I didn't think was used in live versions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Announcement: WP:NEWSROOM is now almost fully automatted.
Thanks to pppery (talk · contribs), the WP:NEWSROOM now automatically detect the status of the pages listed at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue!
This means that if you update, for example, the {{Signpost draft}} template found on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/News and notes, WP:NEWSROOM will automatically reflect if it has a blurb, if it's ready for copy-edit, if it's been approved by the EIC, and so on.
It won't move things from WP:NEWSROOM#Irregular columns into the main area, or cross-reference pieces to the Submission page, but that's just about the only things it won't do. Very many thanks to pppery (talk · contribs) again! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Good job everyone!
It would seem I am again able to access Wikipedia. That was frustratingly bad timing, heh. Now that I'm back, I couldn't be more happy at what I'm seeing! This is the best issue of the Signpost I've seen in a while. Everyone who contributed this month deserves a pat on the back! ♦AcoriSage 21:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'll second that. Above I said that getting the issue out was a great experience (no matter what the reader reaction was). The publication looks great, and the reader reaction has been great as well. Congrats to all contributors! Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)