Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Template:Wikipedia Signpost/Deadline Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Navigation
Reader feedback
- Special:RelatedChanges/User:Bri/Signpost 2020-09-27 talk
All: You can use the link above to monitor feedback on the September 27 issue. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Pageviews
By issue
- February issue totals thru March 1, 2020, 2,134; March 3, 7,668; March 7, 13,254; March 14, 19,892; March 21, 32,508; March 28, 44,988.
- March issue totals thru March 31, 6,203; April 4, 26,276; April 11 42,591; April 18 50,059; April 25 57,878.
- April 26 issue totals 1 day - 2,119; 4d - 9,066; 1 week 10,657, 2W - 12,467 ;[1], [2]
- May 31 issue - 1st day 2,219, 4th day 8,154, 1st week 10,282, 2nd week 12,473, 3rd week 13963, 4 weeks 15,181 *[3], [4]
- June 28 issue 7,485 1st week, 9,907 2nd week, 11,174 3rd week, 12,847 4th week, 13,950 5th week 10 6 .
- August 2 issue [5] [6] 1st day 1981, 4th day (cumulative) 7,004; 1st week, 8,393, 2nd week 10,665, 3rd week 12,320, 4th week 14,099
- August 30 issue [7], [8] 1st day 2,128, 4th day 7,029, 1st week 8,512, 2nd week 9.903, third week 11,189.
- September 27 issue [9] 3rd day 3,693;
September issue published
September issue is published, thanks for everyone's contributions. I don't have permissions to do a few last things.
- Mass notifications via m:Global message delivery not sent But enwp subscribers have been notified, or will be soon
- Tweet not tweeted
- Facebook not updated
- Email sent from Signpost account to WikimediaAnnounce-L not sent
Cheers ☆ Bri (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Bri: Thanks for publishing! I'll take care of these other items now. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Chris would you mind following up on the mass message issue posted to my talkpage? ☆ Bri (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Bri and Smallbones: I sent the global mass message. The email was sent and the tweet went out. I'm not sure how we reverse the massmessage to enwp having been sent out twice. Also, I still after all these years need to make a Facebook account so I can send the message there because we haven't been in a long time. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Chris would you mind following up on the mass message issue posted to my talkpage? ☆ Bri (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Bri: in the future if you need I can send out the global mass message (just need to be added to the publishing script or however its done) or if you want to request global mass message sender rights at m:RFH I can grant them DannyS712 (talk) 01:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- FYI: I've decided to take a long break from writing for The Signpost. Just feeling a bit burned out. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Issue is published - thanks to all
Especially @Eddie891, Bri, HaeB, Gog the Mild, and Igordebraga: It is a bit thin this month - my fault - but it llooks pretty good to me. We'll see what the readers think. Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- ...Did think I had more time... Well, next issue. Kind of want to do a bit of a how-to. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 05:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Sorry @Adam Cuerden: we'd love to have a Gallery article focusing on your work and a "How to" would likely be even better. With only 7 articles this month, I clearly have to start working on asking people to contribute and following up. I view my main job right now to increase the number of regular Signposters, as well as occasional contributors. This isn't my favorite thing to do around here - writing is - but better applying myself to the work should bring us back up to a full staff. If anybody knows people who would like to contribute, feel free to suggest that they write a submission or contact me. Sometimes people just need a little nudge or a friendly invitation.
Next month's issue should be a thicker. Wikipedia @ 20 will be publishing their book of 22 accessible academic essays on just about any topic you can think of related to Wikipedia. It marks a major milepost in Wikipedia history. There should be 3 articles related to Wikipedia @ 20: an interview with the editors, an earlier version of the lead essay, and a book review. Anybody who wants to contribute to the book review should contact me. I'll likely be emailing everybody to ask what type of stories you would be interested in writing, how much time you want to spend on The Signpost, and your suggestions for improvements.
BTW, I think this issue turned out pretty well. "Thicker" doesn't always mean better. It's nice to have more stories because that draws in different types of readers, who then see the other articles, and The Signpost becomes a place where the community congregates to get reliable information and well thought out commentary about Wikipedia. But we don't do anybody any favors, least of all ourselves, if we just publish stories for the sake of publishing stories. We'll figure out the balance between offering the community as much information as they want and staying within our ability to provide it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Are there more articles for this month?
- @Adam Cuerden: - please let me know if you still want to do a gallery article. If you need any help submitting it, just go to the Newsroom, click on gallery, and you should be able to take it from there. Or just ping me! publication is on October 25th.
- I've got about 3 more articles coming. There are already 2 related to Wikipedia @ 20. Copyeditors should feel free to start copyediting "Interview" and "In focus"
- In "In the media" I think there are almost enough interesting articles. Feel free to add a few more (the good ones always show up on deadline). Writing up what's there would also help.
- Please let me know what else is coming in.
We could have a very nice issue this month. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- If a full op-ed on the topic we talked about isn't feasible, do you think I could make it a shorter item, maybe a subsection in the discussion report? ☆ Bri (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sounds ok to me. Did you see Chris's note below? Are you ready to publish again this week? Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
A question of taste?
I just wrote this up for ITM and then wondered whether anybody might be offended by the last 2 sentences. Any feedback appreciated. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Monday is Indigenous Peoples Day in Decorah, which is Why You Should Know the History of Chief Waukon Decorah. The Decorah, Iowa, newpaper celebrated Indigenous Peoples' Day, more traditionally known as Columbus Day, with a summary of the life of Chief Decorah taken from the Wikipedia article - with attribution. Indigenous Peoples' Day has been officially celebrated in Iowa since last year. It's an interesting story, especially the part where townsfolk thought they were reinterring the Chief's remains, even though others believed he was still alive. Wikipedia is always glad to help in these situations.
- I added a comma after Iowa. I'm not sure it'd be seen as offensive so much as just confusing. My reaction was "how is that possible?" until I clicked through and realized it was perhaps the wrong body. Given that uncertainty, we
shouldshouldn't be stating as fact that he was reinterred. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)- You mean "shouldn't be," right? I've changed the paragraph here a bit - maybe that'll work better. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- I added a comma after Iowa. I'm not sure it'd be seen as offensive so much as just confusing. My reaction was "how is that possible?" until I clicked through and realized it was perhaps the wrong body. Given that uncertainty, we
No longer have opportunity to publish
To editor Smallbones: My real life schedule may be changing and I do not think I can continue to publish, going forward. I would recommend you find a new publisher. I would be glad to help that new individual to the degree needed. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- To editor Chris troutman: Thanks for letting us know. I've always wondered how (or why) you could continue to do this very necessary work, with no obvious reward. Some folks are just nice people, I guess. For this week, I hope we can get Bri to do it, perhaps with some help on sending out the notifications from any admin who happens to pass by. If that's not possible, we'll try plan B or plan C. Thank you very much for your help.
- Sincerely,
- Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Bri, HaeB, Nosebagbear, Newslinger, and Eddie891: I'm just trying to see what options are available. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- I can publish again next Sunday. Same caveat wrt Facebook and Twitter. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks @Bri:. I'll have to learn how to publish as well. That said, after finishing the editing, I'm somewhat mentally distracted or just worn out, so that's not a real solution, but a last resort for publishing. I do know that Bri sometimes has time schedule conflicts, so he's not the full solution. Which means that we still need somebody - preferably an admin(?) - to publish on a regular basis, and probably another person as backup as well. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
To editor Eddie891: Thanks. Smallbones(smalltalk) 11:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks and best wishes Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Discussion report
E-in-C should decide whether this comment is permissible in-column. It's a little bit of my feeling about the matter. Would be fine to move it to the discussion post publication. I don't feel like I have provided enough material for a full op-ed column. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Kudpung's talkpage
I know we don’t usually comment on user talkpages in this section other than the founder’s, but User talk:Kudpung has racked up 60+ kB in a couple days and it’s got some provocative points about the state of Wikipedia affairs from many sides including sitting Arbcom members. Worth including? ☆ Bri (talk) 04:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- I haven't looked at that page, but just as a general statement, we should probably ask a user for input or at least give them a heads-up before putting a bullseye on their talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Followup: I read the initial comment by Kudpung and decided that there was a bit too much animosity for my taste to continue reading. That may be my loss, but today is not the day for me to put that drama in my head any more than I already have.
- SO, before we consider quoting from or commenting on that discussion in a widely-read place like The Signpost, we need to ask ourselves "would doing so help build a better encyclopedia." My hunch is "no" but as I said, I didn't read the whole thing, there may be some essential information in there which should be widely published for the good of the project. Someone mentally prepared to sift through drama should read through it and evaluate it.
- We also have to think about the side-effects: If discussion that conversation sours a lot of people to The Signpost, then the all of the good, useful things we publish next month won't be as widely read. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Regarding the opinions on what modes of thought may be guiding the current arbitration committee, I don't see it as news but I suppose possibly an op-ed. (Personally, I wouldn't recommend it: I think people are finding good things in decisions they agree with and bad things with decisions they don't, so I think an op-ed that tries to tie everything back to specific guiding motivations will unduly increase animosity, but I can understand that others might have different recommendations.) Note I have commented in the discussion, specifically on the point of how the community is responsible for setting and enforcing policies and procedures that it deems desirable. isaacl (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Somebody had pointed me to that page and I found it horrifying and informative at the same time. Lots of "highly placed" people talking about how little influence they had? Is that how others read it? That's why I think it is horrifying - if these folks don't know how Wikipedia is governed, why should any of us have any confidence in the governing process? So I think it raises all sorts of questions. It would be hard to write it up well, but we could drop lots of names! Somebody - maybe somebody who is participating in the discussion already - should write it up. If they are careful (and follow WP rules!) I'd give it better than a 50/50 chance of getting published. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't read it that way, but of course my contributions reflect that. I don't see evidence that the participants don't know how Wikipedia is governed, or that they feel they lack influence. What I see is editors wishing that the collective governance structure we have would produce results they agree with. isaacl (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Somebody had pointed me to that page and I found it horrifying and informative at the same time. Lots of "highly placed" people talking about how little influence they had? Is that how others read it? That's why I think it is horrifying - if these folks don't know how Wikipedia is governed, why should any of us have any confidence in the governing process? So I think it raises all sorts of questions. It would be hard to write it up well, but we could drop lots of names! Somebody - maybe somebody who is participating in the discussion already - should write it up. If they are careful (and follow WP rules!) I'd give it better than a 50/50 chance of getting published. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Regarding the opinions on what modes of thought may be guiding the current arbitration committee, I don't see it as news but I suppose possibly an op-ed. (Personally, I wouldn't recommend it: I think people are finding good things in decisions they agree with and bad things with decisions they don't, so I think an op-ed that tries to tie everything back to specific guiding motivations will unduly increase animosity, but I can understand that others might have different recommendations.) Note I have commented in the discussion, specifically on the point of how the community is responsible for setting and enforcing policies and procedures that it deems desirable. isaacl (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
BHG RfA
Any thoughts on how we ought to cover Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BrownHairedGirl 2? Personally, I'd find it helpful to have some additional contextual background, for those of us who largely missed the portal wars or don't know what Worm is referring to by the fiasco that made ArbCom feel pressured to go hard on BHG. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Specifically, should we mention the Arbcom decision Amendment request required to allow discussion of the very issue that led to de-sysopping? And how the request itself led to an immediate
Kafkaesque
catch-22 for the candidate? Bri.public (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC) - Let's wait to see how this pans out. If the RFA is started in the next few days, it will probably be over with by the end of the month. Whether it is news, and what "news" there is, will depend largely on how the community reacts to it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
All hands on deck!
We're scheduled to publish Sunday afternoon, and there is a lot of stories yet to come in, mine included. There's a "new" story, about masking IP addresses that concerns me a great deal. The WMF is saying that the masking "proposal" will go through, if not right away. There actually is no real proposal with any amount of detail yet. Given the "choices" I see this as between a) accepting whatever the WMF wants (because of legal requirements!) or b) banning IP edits on individual project (1 at a time). Either case is a huge story, perhaps the story of the year.
I'm seriously considering delaying publication for a week (to Nov 1). Please let me know below what you think. And please start submitting articles and copyediting in any case! @Bri, HaeB, Eddie891, Sdkb, and Adam Cuerden:
Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think the E-in-C is correct in identifying the IP masking story as of huge interest to the community as it will affect our anonymous editing profoundly and could have unintended consequences in enabling logged-out editing for nefarious purposes (I'm thinking of block evasion specifically). With our staff limitations, I don't think we can cover it adequately in two-three days; I just added a placeholder to News and notes about 24 hours ago. To sum up, I agree with postponing so we can get at least a better idea of how fast moving this issue is, and tailor our treatment of it accordingly. - Bri.public (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps keep the current publication schedule and put out a special edition in a week or two for the IP masking topic? isaacl (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Personally, I think delaying would be a good choice. A special edition sounds like a lot of work... Eddie891 Talk Work 18:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm leaning toward delaying by a week. Unless there are other opinions added, I'll decide in about 7 hours. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't have a strong objection to a delay; I just think having a regular cadence is better for maintaining momentum, both with the writers and readers. "Special edition" just means publishing an extra edition with probably just one story. It's more work than usual but I don't think it's a lot of work compared with actually writing the story. isaacl (talk) 23:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think people will be up in arms if it is published on or about October 31. Nov. 1 is "on or about." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
November 1 it is, then Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- The countdown clock seems to malfunction if the two dates are in different months, so I fictitiously moved the publishing deadline forward to 31 October. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Bri: I suspect it has to do with this part of Template:Wikipedia Signpost/Deadline/core {{{next-month}}}|{{#expr:{{{next-day}}}-1}} (and the correstponding {{#expr:{{{previous-day}}}-1}} ) - that's basically passing November 0 as the date when the deadline is November 1st. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 18:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Bri:Should be fixed now. I used the #time function, a little excessively. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 19:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'd love a week, honestly. Imsomnia is great for image restoration, terrible for writing. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 07:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Adam Cuerden: you've got a week from today to get it in, plus 1.5 days for copyediting and tweaks. Smallbones(smalltalk) 11:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- The countdown clock seems to malfunction if the two dates are in different months, so I fictitiously moved the publishing deadline forward to 31 October. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)