Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 9

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 → Archive 15

All ready to publish

@Chris troutman: All ready. Go for it! Back in 5minutes if there are any concerns. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Smallbones: Published, list email sent, tweet out. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, @Chris troutman: and all who pitched in. I may have tried to make this too difficult this month, but we got it out, and we'll see the readers' reactions. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Reader feedback on April issue

You can monitor reader feedback with the link above. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Email list

Bri, could you please take me off the list of admins on the email system we created for the staff. I still get half a dozen requests filling my mail box every day. I think they are probably spam, but the more I can distance myself from Wikipedia, the happier I will be. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I will find my creds to take you off ASAP. You can also unsubscribe via https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-en-signpost-priv ☆ Bri (talk) 05:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I didn't know that this list existed! I just signed up, but if the traffic is all spam and no Signpost, maybe we should just close it down or at least review who has access to it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 12:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
It was created by Bri at my suggestion while I was E-in-C. It was part of a plan to enable more offine preparation of 'hot topic' articles without unserious interference from the community. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Bri, I have unsubscribed but it doesn't remove me as an admin of it. Whenever you have time, please do what you can, because it's displaying my email address. You may also wish to check on how many users are legitimately subscribed to it. Most of the requests for moderation I receive are from vandals or spammers. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I have removed Kudpung as list admin.
We probably should have a second list admin from the newsroom in case I lose the password or whatever. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Deceased Wikipedian

I'm sad to report that Ronhjones has passed away. More details on his talk page. Graham87 05:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I have some even sadder news that I can now share publicly: Ron and his wife Sue died together in a house fire, as noted in their obituary from the London Inland Waterways Association newsletter. The friend of theirs who confirmed his passing also told me this info, but I didn't want to say it here without confirming that it was publicly available or I had permission. Graham87 16:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Graham87: thank you very much for sharing this here. There are also users who have passed away in 2020. I hope that this month one of The Signpost's regular contributors will have time to create an obituary section in "News and Notes". A few days ago I sent an email to Wikiemdia-l with this information. Also, Dutch Wikipedia lost an administrator who was not listed on English Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians list when I looked at it a few days ago. ↠Pine (✉) 01:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I moved it to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Obituaries Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

On the Bright Side for May 2020

I have content in mind but not much time to work on it this week, and unfortunately User:Clovermoss is away. I hope that this coming weekend I will have enough time to add some content. OTBS may be light this month. ↠Pine (✉) 01:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  • @Smallbones: There is an interview coming for this month regarding Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia's milestone of 500,000 articles. ↠Pine (✉) 05:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
    • @Pine, Pharos, and Puddleglum2.0: I've moved up 3 columns on the Newsroom page: Interview, Project report, and a new column "On video". OV will be on videos, or about topics that are covered on video. If there is a better rubric, please make your suggestions. Smallbones(smalltalk) 11:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
      Smallbones, Looks good, just one question; am I putting together this interview, or is it being copied from elsewhere? Either way is fine by me. I don't think there will be a WikiProject Report this month, I'm having increasing trouble finding active projects that wouldn't be cliche, for lack of a better word, i.e Milhist or WiR. Cheers, -- puddleglum2.0 01:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
        • @Puddleglum2.0: I was thinking there was something on your plate from last month _as I said above, I've been sorta out of touch so far this month. As far as the interview. @Pine: - are you handling this? I got a cryptic email from an Egyptian Wikipedian but wasn't sure what to make of it, or even sure how to respond on the Egyptian wiki. I suppose I could just answer the email. Please let us know how you think it should be handled. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
        • @Puddleglum2.0: It's probably too late for this month but you might want to check out "Lingua Libre is a WMF-funded oral language archive run by Wikimedia France." You are right that successful new Wikiprojects are as rare as hen's teeth. It can be a pretty unorganized form of organization. You might look at more rational organizational forms, e.g. affiliates, GLAM partners, cross-Wiki groups like "Wiki Loves ..." There might be an op-ed in the question "Why WikiProjects were once a successful form of organization but now seem to be failing, and what's replacing it?" Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Smallbones: as far as I know, I am the only one covering this topic. See arz:نقاش_المستخدم:Pine#Interview. @Puddleglum2.0: if you're looking for new content, would you be interested in reviving the Sister Projects Report? I think that The Signpost had this as a series awhile back, but I don't remember how long it lasted or what happened to it. There is plenty to cover that is happening on the sister projects. ↠Pine (✉) 04:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pine: Thanks, the interview looks good. @Puddleglum2.0: Checking our archive, it looks like the "Sister projects" column ran from 2009-2012. (BTW, I'm always amazed how much info is available from our archive) One article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-11-09/Sister projects might give you an idea what they were doing. A lot of this material (e.g. passing mileposts) might be added at News & notes, if there's not quite enough material that month for a full story. Smallbones(smalltalk) 12:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Smallbones, I could definetly try something like that, but it probably won't be ready in time for this month, though I'll try for a WikiQuote Report. An op-ed like the one you mentioned above would actually be really interesting, if its ok with you I can probably have one done for the June issue. How does that sound for you? -- puddleglum2.0 17:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
@Puddleglum2.0: give either a try if you'd like. There are 2 weeks left before publication, but I don't feel that we're lacking content for this issue now (more is always appreciated of course). One word of warning however about opinion articles - my feeling is that the best of these always require gathering more facts than a straight news article! Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Smallbones, yes - I definetly wouold not have an op-ed ready by this month. Thank you and all the best. -- puddleglum2.0 17:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Smallbones, Hi, I drew up a short GOCE update -I'll and links and stuff soon and fix akward prose, but if you would format it correctly within the rest of the article, that would be great - I'm not quite familiar with News&Notes. Thanks a ton. -- puddleglum2.0 01:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Style question – I guess this is for Smallbones. Our article Egyptian Arabic uses the spelling Masri but the interviewee uses Masry. Perhaps the latter is nonstandard transliteration but I'm not sure if it's a good idea to correct it. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bri: I think I'd stick with the official spelling on Wikipedia, thanks for noticing it. @Pine: if you think it's important, please check with the interviewee. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Two submissions - Lindberg and transit routes

I have a fuzzy request for support to get these articles published. I reviewed them both and would like to support their inclusion in the next issue.

Both are timely, both are big topics, and both writers are willing to engage with the editorial process here. I know the typical wiki process is to be bold but I thought that I would check in here. I am willing to serve as lead editor presenting these, but I still wanted to check in here.

I have a specific request that someone assist by performing the technical move of these articles to wherever they need to be to be staged for publication. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I've moved the transit routes article to "Community view". I did a copy and paste move since there was only one editor ever on the source page.
On the Lindberg article, there is very good reason to wait. I'll send @Indy beetle: an email directly. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Apologies

You may have noticed that I'm running behind this month, but there are still over 2 weeks before deadline, so I should get this turned around in plenty of time. You may have also noticed that my writing at the end of last month was below par. Sorry for both.

The problem has to do with the specifics of the coronavirus lockdown in my house. Things have been quite crazy for the last 4 weeks or so, my work routine is totally out of whack, and I don't have any place where I can concentrate while I work. This affects my writing (including e-mails) much, much more than my reading or other research.

I'll try to e-mail everybody individually where I see any issues - they're fairly routine as far as I can see. The emails may be a bit shorter than usual. I do see about 3-4 articles that have come in directly to me (or left from last month) so I don't see any problem getting over 10 articles this month, but it may be a shorter issue than usual. I don't know how long my personal situation will last - perhaps as long as the pandemic will last, and when will that end? Maybe a bit of let up over the summer? Any suggestions appreciated.

Anybody who I don't contact, please let me know if you have a submission, or just put it in the right slot in the Newsroom.

All the best,

Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I dig the problems with a busy household. IMO you don't have anything to apologize for over last month's issue. Are we thinking about advertising for openings on the newsroom? Maybe a managing editorship? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Arb report

It is hard to tell where to put this comment. Bri, this is not off to a good start; DGG is recused from this case precisely because of his personal involvement with several prinicipals, and those particular statements of his were made at the 11th hour, before the Workshop closed, and are based on ZERO evidence-- or better stated-- based on a misread of the evidence. Since they were made at the 11th hour, it wasn't possible to correct his misstatements on the page. You might notice from an indepth read of the Workshop that DGG was confused about who had even filed the case, and has had several significant misinterpretations of statements and evidence throughout the Workshop. I suggest you might want to read more closely, as so far, the page gives undue weight to an involved (recused) arb. It's quite bad enough that a recused arb can make that kind of statement at the 11th hour with no evidence, but for the Signpost to repeat a statement that is based on no evidence, and leave the implication that DGG is an active arb in the case (rather than recused because of his personal connections) becomes even worse. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if these crossed in the mail or whatever but I noticed some oddities and followed up with DGG shortly after starting the report, to see whether he is recused. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, he is quite recused, thankfully[1] ... you'd probably be better off to quote the statements on the Workshop page from the active, drafting arbs (Maxim[2] and David Fuchs[3]) ... they put out some feelers as to which way they were headed. Thanks for the quick response! Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk)
Bri, I see you could have missed the recusal because he initially refused, but I gave the link above ... it is on the case talk page. Also I linked above to preliminary proposals at Workshop from the drafting arbs. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
And here is where WhatamIdoing had to explain to DGG and Trypto that what they claimed as "evidence" is not; it is somewhat shocking that an arb (even if recused) could put up that kind of statement with no evidence, no diff, but there it is, in cold hard print. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
And here is the section where multiple editors had to remind DGG that he had the case filing all wrong; there are a few too many examples of same on the Workshop page, but this is the most noticeable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The decision on Medicine case is now overdue and I believe it will be extended past our publication deadline. Anyone who wants to help write this month's report is invited to pitch in – the outline of what I'd intended to include is now at the draft. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Smallbones: I have quoted GorillaWarfare, DGG and Atsme in the report. It would be my preference that feedback on the content of the issue/column go through you, so maybe someone else should ping them on the fact that they were quoted? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Research newsletter

Etherpad for contributions is here

News and notes

There have only been three months without an RfA started?

Just wanted to correctly report on the recent "dry spell" of RfAs initiated for News and notes. If anybody can double check me, I think I've identified only two three months where there were zero new RfAs initiated going back to 2007. I'm using the date of transclusion to WP:RFA as the marker.

If this can be confirmed, it would be appreciated. The data at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship by year are only partially helpful because they use the day the RfA was closed as the marker. However due to the 1-a-day or greater RfA average through 2017, one only really needs to check 2018 and later. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

p.s. I've done some analysis of RfA transclusions from which my conclusions are drawn. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:51, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
p.p.s. I've gotten an off-wiki request to make this research more visible, so I will be linking it from the NaN report, unless someone here thinks that's a bad idea...? ☆ Bri (talk) 04:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

News & Notes related update

@Smallbones: would a quick and short update in news & notes this month about the GOCE drive be ok? At this rate I don't know if we'll entirely clear the backlog, but it might be good to have a follow-up to last months wikiproject report. I don't have strong opinions either way, but it was just an idea that came up recently. Cheers, -- puddleglum2.0 17:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Puddleglum2.0: I'm at the beach (and it is raining) I think Eddie is doing the Good Article follow-up, but maybe check with him that it's not GOCE! Your follow-up on GOCE (a paragraph or 2?) would be good. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
@Smallbones: Awesome, sounds great. Have fun at the beach, even despite the rain! =D @Eddie891: were you planning on writing a GOCE update? Cheers, -- puddleglum2.0 02:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Puddleglum2.0, I’m just planning on doing a GA backlog drive report and featured content right now. Will chip in on whatever else needs to be done. No specific plans for a GOCE piece. Smallbones: hope you enjoy the beach- sorry about the rain! There’s spectacular weather up here in central New York; just about the first nice weather of the year. I’m spending as much time outside as I can while it lasts, but will try to finish up my articles this weekend. Regards to all. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

-@Eddie891 and Puddleglum2.0: I'll put Eddie's Good article follow up in "Project report". Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Smallbones, Sounds good! I've still got some more work to do on both my articles-- no excuses for being behind this month other than that I'm swamped in real life with work and good weather. Hopefully they'll be done in a day or so Eddie891 Talk Work 21:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Breaking news

Wikipedia Is Badly Biased by Larry Sanger made it on to Fox News [11]

and

Wikimedia Foundation Board announces Community Culture Statement, enacts new standards to address harassment and promote inclusivity across projects with something at Village Pump Policy. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

If you've ever tried to edit articles in the American Politics DS sphere, the first item comes as no surprise. Just as my latest a recent encounter, a rally involving two heads of state and over 100,000 people is non-notable, according to some. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Also see the WSJ article Trump Considers Forming Panel to Review Complaints of Online Bias" which doesn't mention Wikipedia directly but does say

The administration also is considering new recommendations for revamping federal protections adopted by Congress in Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which gives online companies broad immunity from liability for their users’ actions, as well as wide latitude to police content.

Critics across the political spectrum have argued that Section 230 now affords too much power to the giant tech platforms.

Right now this general topic looks like the main news/opinion topic for this issue. We already have a conservative tending opinion article on bias. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I have some thoughts regarding the content of Larry’s blog post, but I think they would be better suited to the comments section of the next issue. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Two additional comments.

  • I just realized that WMF released the statement on Friday, traditional [12] for "bad news" from orgs. Did they want this to get less media coverage, not more?
  • The statement refers to bans/sanctions for violating "these [safety] policies and the Terms of Use" (emphasis mine). Is this an oblique statement about undeclared paid editing?

Love to hear what the newsroom thinks. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Bri, "oblique statement about undeclared paid editing" Highly likely I think. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Two questions on the upcoming issue

  1. Will this be covered? I read about it off-wiki for the first time, surprisingly.
  2. I see that several pieces of what are planned about media coverage are articles where I added {{press}} to the talk page. Would it help the Signpost if I deliberately posted them somewhere as well? Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
    Koavf, Thanks for bringing these up-- the Signpost tries to catch all press mentions, but it's hard to do, especially on a volunteer basis. That being said it would be very helpful if you could add them somewhere as you see them. The best place to put such press mentions is at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions or in the 'brief notes' section of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In the media. Best wishes, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
    Eddie891, Thanks. I'll do that in the future. re: #1 above: https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2020/05/22/wikimedia-foundation-board-announces-community-culture-statement/ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Universal Code of Conduct

Just wanted to make sure that everybody here knew that the WMF's Universal Code of Conduct has been whispered about for a long time now. We mention it here Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-06-30/Discussion report during Framgate. We should, for the sake of the record, find some way of mentioning its early public mentions in our coverage on the WMF's announcement. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The strange part about all this is the near total silence from the WMF about their plans. There is no draft code of conduct in circulation, no past on wiki discussion, and the first the wiki community heard of this was from the press. Even now there is no communication between the WMF and community on this issue in any apparent public forum. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
We can certainly be that forum (where?). Well, the announcement is in "News from the WMF". Probably the big thing is that they will consult with the community. Let's make like a community and consult. Anybody want to write this up? Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Breaking news II

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the news this afternoon. May be worth a statement from The Signpost. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Copyediting - All hands on deck!

OK, I've got my personal time situation straightened out, and have nothing to do until Sunday afternoon except edit, write, and sleep Signpost.

There will be 16-17 articles, maybe a couple more. Only about 2 are now copy edited and 5 more are ready to be copy edited. Please dive in if you can. Anybody who hasn't actually submitted the agreed article needs to do so very quickly.

I expect to be fully ready to publish at noon NY time on Sunday. Waiting too much after that just makes things more difficult IMHO.

@Puddleglum2.0, Indy beetle, Megalibrarygirl, Sdkb, and Bluerasberry:


Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

from our Twitter feed

French Wikipedia's Admin newsletter reveals that some editors there approached paid-editing firms posing as customers, asked the editing companies for examples of each firm's work as a portfolio of results, and using some investigation and CU, they uncovered hundreds of malefactor accounts. With the EiC's permission, I'd at least want to re-tweet the thread. We might consider interviewing the fr-wiki editors for next month's issue. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Cross-posted to WP:COIN, I expect there will be some folks eager to dive into this trove of information. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Wow - this will be in News & notes, probably only a couple of paragraphs unless somebody here can read French very well. BTW, I love the French idiom "False noses" as translated by Google. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Indy beetle, Chris troutman, Puddleglum2.0, Sdkb, and Eddie891: Any help on this *BIG* story would be appreciated, especially if you read French well. Coordination may be difficult - consider this a scramble - please do what you can and don't worry about duplicated efforts. I'll contact MER-C who has blocked 87 editors on enWiki, leave an English -language not on the French Wikipedia, try to contact a French-speaker I know should be interested in this, and whatever else I can think of.

Please note that my schedule dictates a deadline of about 24 hours - with luck I can extend that by maybe 5 hours. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

It looks like one of the main editors involved, Utilisateur:0x010C, has babel en-3. I left a note on their user page. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@Sdkb: I've got a big email from Jules* which I'll get in shape for the article. I did really make a mess with the edit conflict. Why don't you clean up the top part (that you've been working on) e.g. delete everything that you don't want in there. I'll wait an hour till 3pm New York time and add anything from the bottom part (that I was working on) plus Jules* material. That might take me 45 minutes, e.g. till 3:45. Thanks. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@Smallbones: Nice about the email! And sorry about the ec — I hope my tweaks didn't step on your toes. I edited the lede a little more, but I don't have anything more to add for now, so feel free to start editing it yourself again. No word yet from 0x010C. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Everythin in the top looks fine the EC is my fault for not saving more ofter. I'll start editing N&N in 10 minutes and it might take an hour. In any case I'll note it here when I'm done. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I've divided the top and the bottom sections. Top for notes that I can check out and add to the bottom, which will be the final version.

that way we can avoid edit conflicts. Perhaps just take a single paragraph (or a new Paragraph) and rewrite it in the top (notes) section so we can plug-and-chug.

Believe it or not I still haven't gotten to Jules* 1st long email, though I've read others. This will take some time. BTW he gave 4 French press stories (including Le Monde) All lokk fairly RS:

Somebody might want to squeeze the juice from these. In the meantimes I'll add 2 lines about them to In the media (hopefully somebody can copyedit the paragraph before tomorrow).

@Chris troutman: do you want credit for first reporting this on enWiki. So far the wwriteup just credits Bri.

BTW "False noses" is Google translate for sockpuppets. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Please do credit Chris, it was his post that tipped me. I'm following this and led some effort at COIN since yesterday afternoon but my time is limited. Do you want to keep Signpost related discussion right here? Le Monde is the national newspaper of record and should be the focus of our analysis. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@Smallbones and Bri: Certainly not! Please give credit to @Otourly who notified The Signpost's Twitter account (@WikiSignpost). I assume the Twitter handle belongs to @Otourly:. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Quick notes on Le Monde piece
  • Incorrectly asserts Wikipedia is libres de droits (free of rights -- copyright free?)
  • Most content is based on exclusive interview with "Jules", pseudonym of a fr.wiki Wikipedian (@JulesWP Twitter account linked by Le Monde)
  • "In total, almost two hundred accounts were blocked or deleted, suspected of being remunerated for writing promotional content and contravening the founding principles of the encyclopedia, largely fed by volunteers."
Email me if you want a slightly cleaned-up English version ☆ Bri (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Just read the Le Monde piece via Google translate. I love the false noses haha. Can we figure out what the appropriate number of affected accounts is? They cite 200, whereas so far we have 80. Also, they interviewed one of the people at one of the firms who were exposed; we might want to include a quote from that. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd be comfortable going a bit slower here now, if somebody want to clean it up and add some highlights , give MER-C's material its proper place, I could move on to starting "From the editor" (Oh no!) and just a bit of other EIC work. BTW 80 paid-editing firm account, 120 company PR single-purpose accounts. Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I just added a few quotes from the PR guy Le Monde interviewed. I'm going to go ask at the WP:Embassy to make sure Google translate isn't causing me to take anything out of context. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Update: requested at Embassy, but I've never used it before so I have no clue whether it's likely to receive a timely response. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
For prior incidents of paid editing, should we mention Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody? I'm not too familiar with the history, but that seems to be the big thing in the past. Also probably WP:TOUSL. This would be for the last paragraph, which would give very general context, e.g. "Undisclosed paid editing has long been an issue for Wikipedia..." {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Given that the last use of that talk page before you was in November, I wouldn't hold my breath. But don't worry about it we can have a disclaimer (near the end?) saying that all translations from French were via Google Translate (people will understand) and maybe even add that all quotes from non-native English speakers were edited for length and grammar. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Woah, I didn't notice the timestamps haha. And that's despite the embassy being linked from the Main Page! Someone, please put that thing out of its misery! If we don't find a French speaker to translate, yeah, I'd think a disclaimer would be very needed, but even that's a little edgy — we never want to put words in anyone's mouth that they didn't say, and there's a risk of that if we're relying on Google Translate. I know a few French speakers off-wiki, so I'll reach out to them. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
The article should be accompanied by a sidebar which indexes Orangemoody. I'm still figuring out how indexing works. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello, yeah, I have just notified @WikiSignpost on Twitter. The great investigation work has only been made by @0x010C: and @JulesWP. Otourly (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Growth team features

@Smallbones: I noticed there's no coverage of the WMF's recent outreach on the new growth team features. With the caveat that this is an area I've taken an interest in, I was wondering if it'd be okay to add this as a bullet point for the "brief notes" section:

New user experience for newcomers being designed: The WMF Growth Team, which seeks to boost editor retention, has been piloting several features aimed at making it easier for newcomers to contribute on increasingly large Wikipedias in different languages. They are now seeking feedback on a prototype from English Wikipedia. The features include a newcomer homepage with links to resources, tasks, and positive reinforcement, as well as structured tasks, an algorithmicslly-generated feed of suggested newcomer-friendly edits.

{{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

That's cool , we might even need a few more WMF announcements (yikes!) You should probably sign the paragraph as -Sdkb Note that a simple "S" won't do it in this case
Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

From the editor submitted (by Smallbones)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/From the editor There are some fixes required, and then some copyediting will be needed, But I think I can take care of the first in a couple of hours, and the CE won't be difficult.

I am asking folks here e.g. @Bri, Sdkb, Chris troutman, Megalibrarygirl, and Bluerasberry: to comment on the content. It may not be a popular article, but I'd feel like I'm committing dereliction of duty if I didn't write something on the topic. All comments appreciated. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Be advised, I just drank my bourbon that puts me down for the night. I don't like your "from the editor" and I'm not sure why you thought it was a good idea. In it, you do an ok job of bouncing from topic covered to topic covered, as if your summary is a textual table of contents for the reader. This, to my mind, isn't typical for the EiC. I thought the point of this feature was to bemoan the lack of volunteers for this publication. I also take a different view of the UCoC, which is almost certainly SanFran's effort to ban folks like Eric Corbett and Fram preemptively. AGF'ing with the WMF is a fool's errand. On the good end, your piece is in English and understandable. Again, I just don't see why. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/coronavirus-update-global-death-toll-tops-360000-as-brazil-south-korea-iran-and-the-philippines-record-spikes-in-new-cases-2020-05-29 365,000 worldwide. @Bri: the 2 links are fine.
Hey Chris, thanks for reminding me to pour some Knob Creek for myself. The Seattle rioting is whole miles away from where I live, so should be OK? I also read From the Editor and came away with a somewhat warmer-fuzzier feeling from it. It might be interesting to try an issue-at-a-glance wrapup, you think? Maybe taking a break from the "help us we're drowning in newswriting" repeat-play isn't a bad thing. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: I understand we disagree. The question for me is whether folks will try to close us down for saying WP:AGF? Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The individual paragraphs are pretty good, but the piece as a whole seems as though it's a bit wandering between them without enough tying it all together. From the editor pieces are necessarily going to be a little like that, since they have to touch on a bunch of different stories that may not have the most obvious connection, but we might be able to tie it together a little more. The framing device you set up at the top of normal vs. abnormal is good, so I'd say maybe lean into that: in each section, talk about the linked article as an example of something abnormal because of the virus or normal chugging along despite the virus. Then at the end, perhaps frame the harassment policy question as a potential change to what's normal. It's a weighty/complex topic that you don't have a ton of space to set up, but if you don't try to present it as though you're presenting a complete argument, there might be a way to make it work. Does that help? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, yes. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
For my fellow Americans, I call this one "The State of Our Democracy". That's our US Congress in session on TV through the broken window.

@Smallbones: On note of the protests, I rushed into downtown at 7 o'clock this morning after seeing on the news that my beloved city, Raleigh, North Carolina, had been struck by rioting/looting. I figured it was important to get the photos of this historic stuff for Wikipedia, but once I got there everything sort of turned into a meditation for me. The photo I've provided is of a TV through a smashed window my favorite wings bar. I think maybe for a future gallery/Signpost article we could do a special on when our regular editing work takes an unexpected personal turn. That certainly happened to me. -Indy beetle (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Smallbones: No, I don't think editors would revolt for you asking everyone to AGF. Your piece isn't an unqualified recommendation of WMF's UCoC and we can all agree harassment continues to be a problem. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks @Chris troutman:, we should be ready to publish in 2 hours. You might want to be careful with the formatting of News & notes. It works for the draft, but I'm not entirely sure why. Thanks again. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
"We all know the type of editor behavior we want to stop " actually we don't. We can agree on some of them, but as various current and recent cases have shown, we have a number of live rails, speed v accuracy, how insignificant an edit can be and still be worth doing en masse, and most controversially, can deletionism become harassment if an editor follows a contributor of articles of borderline notability in the way that our systems and processes encourage us to do. That said it is your editorial, and despite lockdown I haven't run out of popcorn. ϢereSpielChequers 18:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Details!

@Eddie891: in the Project report I found the last number for this backlog drive. There's one from 2007 missing in the article. There's also a date given as "August 201" (only 3 digits in the year). Can you take care of that? Smallbones(smalltalk) 05:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Smallbones, added 2007 number, date was fixed by Bri, think I added context to answer Indy beetle's question Eddie891 Talk Work 12:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks @Indy beetle and Eddie891: I thought this looked perfect, but just before approving publication I noticed the top graph is running off the page (to the right). As soon as somebody @Bri:? figures how to fix that one - it's ready to go. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Smallbones, unfortunately, that is above my technological skills. My guess would be that changing |width= to something will fix it, but I got nowhere briefly experimenting. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
It looks like I got it! I set width=515 (no "em") at both top and bottom of the graph. BTW following something else in your article (Signpost series box) I seem to have fixed the text width problem at News & notes. That was pure guesswork though. Can somebody check this change? Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
the text at N&N was left aligned for me, I believe that's because you weren't using a signpost block start template. I've added one- feel free to remove if you want Eddie891 Talk Work 14:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
The formatting of system-generated graphs was a lot of trouble for me in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/News and notes. I gave up and just screenshotted, uploaded it to commons, and included it as a plain PNG. That’s probably a viable workaround for the Project report, if it comes to it. Unfortunately there’s no way to be sure about layout fidelity with so much diversity in graphics resolutions, browser versions, OS platforms, mobile vs desktop, skins, etc. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Ready to go very soon

@Chris troutman: say 30 minutes. It looks like I'll have to cancell the Discussion report. I've tried to contact Pythoncoder. Could somebody give a second opinion on whether there is enough content? Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll wait 10 minutes. Others are still C-editing Research report. The I'll cancel Discusion report and send you an email. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Standing by. The discussion is sparse but it wouldn't be out of place for you to approve it so long as the UTRS and Taiwan issues were fixed. As always, I push the button IFF you say so. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Smallbones there are some late changes for you to review in OTBS before you proceed with publication. For references, see meta:Steward requests/Permissions#User Ghaly@arz.wikipedia and meta:Special:CentralAuth/Al-Dandoon. ↠Pine (✉) 17:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

will review this and wait for below. I think Tilman is ready. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I've just added some breaking news to News and Notes. We hit an interesting milestone an hour or so ago. ϢereSpielChequers 18:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, RR is ready to go (feel free to flip the "Final-approval" flag). Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Featured content missing some

What is the criteria for a FP to be included in Featured content? I feel like I've multiple times seen images not included and haven't been sure why, so posting here in case it's just a mistake. E.g. this time spitfire poster, Ellis Island hospital, and Alexander Fleming aren't there (and possibly others). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, Smallbones, Not sure what's up, but I'm on it. It should list all promoted Eddie891 Talk Work 17:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
The FC report is generated by a FC_Importer script which imports the featured content from WP:GO (or the associated archive). It would appear that somehow the week of 17 May wasn't included Eddie891 Talk Work 17:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Smallbones can I have ten minutes to add the week? Eddie891 Talk Work 17:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Ok, finished basic inclusion up Eddie891 Talk Work 18:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Also @Pine: that was an interesting last minute development. Looks ok to me now. I've decided to buy @HaeB: a watch for his birthday. Smallbones(smalltalk)

OK, time to publish

Everybody please step out of the way and put your keyboards down. Chris needs some room to publish. Please go ahead @Chris troutman:

Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Smallbones: starting now. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
It's going to be a good issue and will generate reader feedback. Sometimes it feels critical but we should all take pride in creating something important. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
To editor Smallbones: Published, tweet sent, email sent, and archiving and resetting for another month. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. More in 5 minutess. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to everybody involved - the authors, copyeditors, tipster, interviewees ... As always to Chris troutman and Bri. I do think this could be a great issue, it certainly was a challenging issue in many ways. We'll see what the readers say.

BTW, we do need a bit more organization at deadline. It's usually not hard to chase down 1 or 2 last minute issues, but if we have 4 or 5 often enough that will lead to a serious problems sooner or later. Some of this is obviously my fault - I've had a tough month. But I'll likely email a couple of folks and better explain how I think the deadline should work.

Special thanks to everybody who contributed to the French paid editing story. Getting an important story like that near the deadline and coming up with a pretty good article is always enjoyable. That was worth the whole month for me.

Thanks again. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Reader feedback on May issue

You can monitor reader feedback with the link above. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration report

A few readers suggested a title commensurate with the open state of the case. I recommend changing the title to "Board member to receive editing restriction". ☆ Bri (talk) 03:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Support I don't know if this is a vote (probably informal even if it is), but this seems reasonable to me. -- puddleglum2.0 04:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Lurkers

Just a topic of interest for the newsroom.

  • There are 267 watchers of this page.
  • There are 47 watchers of May's In the media, 40 watchers of News and notes, 35 watchers of Op-Ed, 33 watchers of Discussion report.
  • All these numbers are far greater than the number of active Signpost contributors.

Presumably, the watchers of the articles put them on their watchlist during construction, since it's kind of uninteresting to watch changes to a published column. People seem to be interested in our pre-publication process, but I'm not sure what else to conclude. Invisible oversight? Potential recruits to the effort? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  • @Bri: in addition to the regular contributors, watchers here probably include former contributors, WMF staff, people who are watching for discussions that should be suppressed, and people who watch both The Signpost's content pages and the discussions about them. ↠Pine (✉) 04:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    Probably it also consists of editors (like me) who watch the page because they're part of a discussion and then when the disussion ends they forgot to unwatchlist it? My watchlist has more than 200 pages, mostly due to counter-vandalism, so its tricky to scroll through them all, which leads to simply just forgetting. I guess that's what I would venture to think. -- puddleglum2.0 04:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
A lot of these may be editors who at one point (possibly years ago) watchlisted the generic "Next issue" version of these pages; once the article is moved to the dated page name during publication, that new page is then automatically added to the watchlist. Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Ok, that solves it for me. The numbers more or less carry over from issue to issue, but I'd never figured out how they switched from one issue to the next (but how then do they switch back to "next issue"?) Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
They are watching the basic ‘next issue’ page every time it gets created, so moving just adds a page to the watchlist and as the next issue is recreated users automatically watch it again. Not sure about the tech behind it but I’ve experienced this with The Signpost and users who move their talks to user talk:Example/archivenumber before recreacrating their talks. Hopefully that makes some sense. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • It's a pretty radical thing to have an open newsroom — I can't easily think of any other journalistic entity that does. And while it's in keeping with Wikipedia's ethos, I might support if there was an effort to make it closed. Newsrooms need to have discussions about which content is or is not appropriate for publication, and when those discussions are public, that process is hindered and the line between published and unpublished content gets blurred. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm one of them, and have a pretty easy answer: who doesn't want an early peek at the news? Sometimes it's interesting to see the process play out, but more often it's just because I look forward to the Signpost and like to see the content early (and, I suppose, flag any potential issues, but that's secondary). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I generally watch pages I copy edit, and talk pages that I want to follow, which would account for watching some published articles. isaacl (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Isaacl and Rhododendrites: - don't worry, we still love you and all copyeditors! Writers - feel free to email me if there is anything sensitive, or even if there's not. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Gallery and OTBS for June

Hi @Smallbones: I am trying to arrange another interview for June's OTBS. For a gallery, how about photos from the Seattle Japanese Garden? ↠Pine (✉) 04:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

should we publish the interview under "Interview" and just leave OTBS until you are ready with it? For Gallery, I'd like to have something every month, topical if possible (e.g. do we have pix of riots this month, or perhaps photos of people killed by police). With a resource like Commons we should always have something, even if not topical. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Smallbones: personally, I get plenty of news of violence from the news media. Also, headlines in the United States mainstream media, while often good subjects for Wikipedia mainspace articles, are not necessarily what I want to write about in The Signpost. This is not to diminish the significance of the incident in Minneapolis, bad policing, and the peaceful protests and harmful destruction in U.S. cities. Being timely is good, but also consider Wikipedia:Recentism. If you prefer, I can put the Seattle Japanese Garden photos and also the interview into OTBS and leave The Signpost's Gallery space for a different topic. ↠Pine (✉) 18:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Go for it on OTBS, however you want to do it. Just let us know so that we don't do exactly the same story in 2 places. Duplication doesn't matter unless it's 2 big or medium sized articles, e.g. 2 mentions of the same story in paragraphs in "In the media" and "news and note' or in an Op-ed usually would just give slightly different viewpoints. But 2 big stories can be a problem.
  • For the Gallery - you're right that this would be a horrible time for timely topics. In general topical is more of what I want, e.g. Megalibrarygirl's Gallery of women in March- I just loved that. Timely and topical do have major overlaps however. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi @Smallbones: OTBS is underway. OTBS usually does not include lengthy descriptions of high profile news. The only time that I can recall of OTBS providing coverage that could have been in N&N was for English Wikipedia's 6 million article milestone. Regarding the gallery, see June#Events in June for some ideas. ↠Pine (✉) 06:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Smallbones and Bri: I pinged Misaochan regarding the interview for OTBS. The interview can wait until next month if it's not done by this month's publication time. The rest of OTBS is ready for copyediting. ↠Pine (✉) 00:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Pine: did you forget to mark OTBS ready for copyediting? ☆ Bri (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Bri: I am waiting to hear from Misaochan. ↠Pine (✉) 01:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oops! I misunderstood and removed tohe intrview section @Bri and Pine: I'll self revert and put the ready for copyediting in. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Smallbones and Bri: I removed the content for Misaochan's interview due to the time constraint. If there is an OTBS next month then I hope that the interview will be published then. My level of frustration with WMF is high enough that I'm not sure that there will be an OTBS next month. I have some projects that I would like to do for Wikipedia, but I'm tired of conflicts. ↠Pine (✉) 07:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I suggest we compile a list of the contributors' names for the Gallery. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bri, Megalibrarygirl, and Pine: I've clearly changed my mind on "this would be a horrible time for timely topics". If we have the time this could be the definitive use of "Gallery" as a photo essay. As far as giving credit to the photographers, it will take a lot of time and the photogs are given on Commons as usual. The photos are not set yet. Perhaps somebody could list all the photogs at the end of the article, maybe in small print, since there will be 40-50 photos.
There is another set of contributors that we should also list - the writers and people who picked the photos for inclusion. I want to make a written statement in the text that the photos and the selection of the photos are not NPOV. On a photo essay, I don't see how they can be. So I might state my POV very briefly as "black lives matter" (no caps?), others who write or select might want to briefly state other POVs, e.g. "do your duty", "I love America in spite of its flaws". These will likely be controversial, but so be it. These contributors should write their own "brief POVs". So who wants to be listed as coauthors? Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I can do that, Smallbones. Where do you want it listed? Do you need help with the captions? I was going to leave captions off of most, since I like that aesthetically, but I'll caption them if you all want. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
@Megalibrarygirl:

I like your aesthetic idea, but some very basic info is needed to keep the reader from getting lost. I don't want to comment in the captions in any way, so let's keep it as simple as possible on the captions: (1-3 word description), location, date (without year). I see 2, a flag and a map that can't easily fit this format.

There are 63 photos now. 50 max in the finished product. They will be rearranged. 2-3 paragraphs of text (total) will be added between blocks of photos. And some non-US protests need to be added. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I compiled a list of photographers: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-06-28/Gallery/photographers - Bri.public (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The gallery is looking great. Maybe we could get one or teo images from non-US cities? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Just noting here that the map in the Gallery is titled "US and Canada" but it does show one in what I believe is Bermuda, part of the UK a British Overseas Territory. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Related but personal

For awhile I've been thinking of getting some article about "Wikipedia after the pandemic" i.e how the pandemic will change the 'pedia. If anybody has ideas on this let me know. The mood I've been in over the last week though is getting to me. I don't remember 1968 being like this. I really hope I don't feel like writing "June Meltdown" for the next issue. If anybody knows of a good optimism course, let us all know. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Smallbones: I just spent a few minutes thinking about this. I can't really come up with any really major ones, which actually makes me fairly proud. Unlike pretty much all the social media platforms, which have had ongoing and largely unsuccessful battles with misinformation and other ails, we were pretty much ready for something like this, and all we needed to do was just get to work using the methods/policies/tools we've already established. The talk pages histories at WT:19 and Talk:COVID-19 pandemic chronicle things from there. There were some areas where we lacked sufficient coordination/standardization (maps is the big one that comes to mind), some kinks to work out (here's a very small recent example: T253743), and some features deployed widely for the first time (for instance, excerpts), but on the whole, I don't think the pandemic has necessitated a course correction for Wikipedia. For the world, absolutely, but not for Wikipedia. Does that qualify as some grounded optimism? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Subscribers

Just FYI, being a good steward of our subscriber list, I removed almost a hundred names of editors who have been gone for a least a year, some for a couple years. It's not many compared to the vast number but this sort of scrubbing has to be done every now and then. Otherwise, our monthly publication lands on an unwatched talk page, piling up until it hits the limit. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Chris. That sounds like a lot of work. Did you have to click 1,106 links, then click "User contributions" for each of them? I counted 1,017 subscribers left. I'd guess this list of subscribers is the most important notification that we have, but there must be at least 4 other methods. Do we have any idea which others are the 2nd most important? Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
As one point of anecdotal data, I have used the watchlist method. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@Smallbones: I used Navigation Popups. I don't know that we've ever collected data on how people find our latest issue, whether talk page notification, watchlist notification, Twitter, the mailing list, or my preference: {{Signpost-subscription}}. I imagine someone could identify the inbound traffic's origin. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I noticed our founder is a subscriber. How many people find the link on his talkpage? ☆ Bri (talk) 01:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I've almost always found it there. That includes the last year, it's just an interest place to wait. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

This Month's Wikiproject Report

Hi all! For this month's WikiProject Report, I noticed that project Black Lives Matter was created recently by User:Another Believer. I thought that before I put time into preparing questions though, it might be a good idea to get advice here - I know this is a more contemporary topic than most Reports. It might be an interesting read, but I'd like a go-ahead from higher up before I put any time into it. Thanks. -- puddleglum2.0 02:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Puddleglum2.0, my 2 cents is that WP:BLM is most definitely the project to interview this month. I'd be happy to help with drafting questions and conducting the interview if that'd be helpful. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb, that sounds great! If you want to help with questions, I've created the Wikiproject Report page here, so if you want to help out, feel free to contribute there! Once we get enough questions, I'll drop a note over at the BLM talk page to get some interviewees. All the best, -- puddleglum2.0 03:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Puddleglum2.0, I added a few potential questions. How do they look? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb, overall, great! I've removed one question, as it's answered in the very top of the main page - I usually include the "Statement of Purpose" in the article lead. I've dropped a note on the talk page - we should be getting answers soon. Thanks! -- puddleglum2.0 00:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Puddleglum2.0, sounds good! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@Puddleglum2.0: something that's just occurring to me now is that, by the time we publish, a lot will most likely have changed. I wonder if we're diving into this too soon by posting there already. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb, sorry to report so late, didn't see your ping. The questions should be timeless, the less should be written more closely to the deadline though. Speaking of though, I'm really busy this week and struggling to keep up with IRL, so if you have time, it would be great if you could draft the lede and I can hopefully find some time to skim and review it. sorry this article has been more your work - life is crazy and unpredictable. :) All the best -- puddleglum2.0 23:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

This all looks very good. Don't worry about the project being very new. It also is, for now at least, very big and active for a Wikiproject. There are lots of good people on the member list. It will get something done. I think we're likely to get scooped on this - but don't worry we can do it better. Some of the outside press might even make it into the article - I'd have a fairly long introduction on this - perhaps Another believer explaining his motivations with outside press info in there, and maybe groups like Blacklunchtable.com asked to comment separately if they'd like. Don't be afraid of being creative. Go for it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

BTW, we'll likely print https://medium.com/freely-sharing-the-sum-of-all-knowledge/we-stand-for-racial-justice-49c31afbabca in News from the WMF. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Gallery Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Gallery

We pretty much have to have coverage of George Floyd, the protests, the reactions to the protests, US and international in this month's Gallery. There are thousands of pix from around the world at Commons.

  • Please help me go through all the categories at Commons and add some of the best, most striking photos and videos to the gallery

Some Guidelines:

  • Different people have different views on these matter. Please respect the photographers' POVs while respecting your own. Getting every photo NPOV is not possible and is not what NPOV means. Having a range of POVs is.
  • I'll cut down the number of pix when the time comes, but for now add pix until we get up to about 120
  • Don't include pix that are likely to get deleted at Commons, no fair use allowed
  • Any help appreciated.

Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Smallbones: do you want the pics emailed to you? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
@Megalibrarygirl: I've had some emailed to me and I'll add those, but the easiest way is just to add them directly. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

BLPCRIME and recent events

We might have some editorial decisions on how to report issues like the one that resulted in this request for page protection. The page in question has been referenced by The Independent and other RSes. But are we going to wade into a tidal wave of celebrity accusations? ☆ Bri (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Traffic report

Yesterday, Sushant Singh Rajput received over 7 million page views (more than the main page), unfortunately due to tragic news. [13] Levivich [dubious – discuss] 04:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion report

Taiwan described as a country by Wikipedia is definitely newsworthy and has been picked up by at least one media outlet in Taiwan. I added it to In the media. However, this is the outcome of a 4 June RFC that I don't see any coverage on. We should probably talk about it in our own discussion report. This has been a contentious area and is covered by discretionary sanctions. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Possible essay?

Please see [14] which is in French and first appeared May 22. There is a news article in English about the article inFrench ‘A woman’: Wikipedia page records trials and achievements of invisible women

Should we make this our "essay" article this month? Google translate seems to do a pretty good, but not perfect job. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

  • I think it's time to have a humor column only now and then, when something actually funny is available. Perhaps editors of the French Wikipedia find this amusing, but then the French think Jerry Lewis was a comic genius so go figure.
    BTW, in a little side-clicking while writing this post, I came across Jerry Lewis#Critical acclaim in France, which could itself be pressed into service as a Signpost humor column, being (apparently) a masterpiece of subtle parody:
==Critical acclaim in France==
While Lewis was popular in France for his duo films with Dean Martin and his solo comedy films, his reputation and stature increased after the Paramount contract, when he began to exert total control over all aspects of his films. His involvement in directing, writing, editing and art direction coincided with the rise of auteur theory in French intellectual film criticism and the French New Wave movement. He earned consistent praise from French critics in the influential magazines Cahiers du Cinéma and Positif, where he was hailed as an ingenious auteur.
His singular mise-en-scène, and skill behind the camera, were aligned with Howard Hawks, Alfred Hitchcock and Satyajit Ray. Appreciated too, was the complexity of his also being in front of the camera. The new French criticism viewed cinema as an art form unto itself, and comedy as part of this art. Lewis is then fitted into a historical context and seen as not only worthy of critique, but as an innovator and satirist of his time. Jean-Pierre Coursodon states in a 1975 Film Comment article, "The merit of the French critics, auteurist excesses notwithstanding, was their willingness to look at what Lewis was doing as a filmmaker for what it was, rather than with some preconception of what film comedy should be."
Not yet curricula at universities or art schools, Cinema Studies and Film theory were avant-garde in early 1960s America. Mainstream movie reviewers such as Pauline Kael, were dismissive of auteur theory, and others, seeing only absurdist comedy, criticized Lewis for his ambition and "castigated him for his self-indulgence" and egotism. "The total film-maker, so admired in France, made Hollywood uncomfortable, since the system has always operated otherwise."
Appreciation of Lewis became a misunderstood stereotype about "the French", and it was often the object of jokes in American pop culture. "That Americans can't see Jerry Lewis' genius is bewildering," says N. T. Binh, a French film magazine critic. Such bewilderment was the basis of the book Why the French Love Jerry Lewis.In response to the lingering perception that French audiences adored him, Lewis stated in interviews he was more popular in Germany, Japan and Australia.
"Singular mise-en-scène" – Well, that's one way of putting it. EEng 20:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I have started the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Humour and am interested in whether folks here think this is funny. So far it's via Google translate, but that doesn't look like a major barrier, with a little copyediting or help from the French authors. Another possible problem is the references. French references seem to work on English Wikipedia! Most of the time at least. So far about 16 of 20 seem to work, the others I just stripped to bare refs. Only 140 more refs to go! I doubt that Jerry Lewis has a lot to do with this - you either think it's funny, or you don't. @Megalibrarygirl and Slimvirgin: - what do you think? Smallbones(smalltalk)
Um, that "column" (or whatever you call it) is what I was talking about above. I'm generally considered to have the most catholic idea of what's funny of anyone within a 2000-mile radius, but I have no idea at all in what way that's supposed to amuse. None. It might be an Onion reject. The article linked at the very top of this thread quotes someone's breakthrough insight that "Humour has always been the tool of the oppressed, a means to wittily expose what cannot be said" and I heartily agree, but first it's got to be witty. EEng 22:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
@Smallbones: instead of being funny, I find it rather beautiful. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Still looking for feedback on this. Whether it should go in "Humour" or "Essay" is now a question. I do think that there is a misconception involved in the "oppose" - articles in The Signpost do not have to appeal to all Wikipedians, for example an opinion piece might be opposed by half or even more Wikipedians - if that happens, so be it. Or the "Recent Research" column might never be read by 1/3 of Wikipedians, but that does not mean that we should discriminate against the 2/3rds that might be interested. I have pledged that we will not use humour to put down any protected groups, including any group whose members do not have a choice in their membership. I don't believe that this column would put down men, women, or people of any gender, the French, or any such group. It really just pokes fun at society as a whole, but maybe it does hit pretty close to home for French headline writers, not a protected group in any sense. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

This isn't about anyone "opposing" anything. There's just nothing I can see funny about it; I can't even see what's supposed to be funny about it. It seems to be trying to be a parody of something but I can't tell what, even after reading the link at the top of this thread (which seems to be machine-translated from something else); seriously, can you give some indication of what the joke is? It's clearly trying to make a point about women's achievements being underappreciated, and there's something about some habit of French headline writers writing "A woman", or something, or something, or something, but beyond that it makes no sense. And it's certainly not an essay. It reminds me of this falls-flat-on-its-face attempt at parody from 35 years ago [15], which has always haunted me as the archetype of the embarrassingly strained attempt at satire. EEng 15:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I'm from fr-wiki, please accept my apologies for my poor English writing. Many French-speaking media and social media enjoyed the pastiche (usually, pastiche is closer to a parody than to a hoax). Several news items are listed at the top of the Fr talk page, all of them very positive about the wikipedia page. A member of the main syndicate advocating visible women in the news declared the pastiche is both funny and well-spotted. Its purpose is to mock the newspaper's habit to declare "a woman has done this". No one ever writes in France "a man becomes the president", "a man becomes a pilot". Men are economists, civil servants, philosophers, engineers... why don't newspaper call us (I'm a woman) by our first and last names and say "Jane Name, an architect, creates the biggest bridge on Earth"? We're not "a woman". ;) Kind regards, - - Bédévore [knock knock] 17:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Your English is fine. Finally someone has explained it. I get it now. The problem, then, is that you haven't seen headlines like that in British or American publications for at least 20 years. That's not to say headlines don't point out when a woman breaks a significant barrier: God willing, in November there will be headlines proclaiming the first woman US vice-president. But they don't announce every achievement by a female as if it's a outlier, so as things stand I think the point will be lost on most readers.
I can vaguely believe that this piece might be salvaged somehow, but if that's to happen there will need to be a very careful translation plus an intro explaining the cultural and linguistic background. EEng 18:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Maybe I could add to the intro. An English-language editor has suggested that we alert our readers that the practice of referring to women's achievements in headlines using "A woman" is now long past - "you haven't seen headlines like that in British or American publications for at least 20 years"[16], followed by 4 or 5 references already in the article. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Or maybe you could not, because it would misrepresent what I said. I distinguished headlines which (a) appropriately acknowledge breakthrough achievements by women in areas traditionally dominated by men from (b) thoughtless headlines treating women's achievements as curiosities or aberrations (which is what I meant by headlines like that, because that's what our French colleague was talking about), or worse (c) organizations clumsily showcasing women as windowdressing. From our French colleague's comments I gather there's a lot of (b) still to be seen in France, but the headline you linked is probably (a) -- though possibly (c), but I don't think so -- and your mention of references in the article is irrelevant because the article's references are in French and I made it clear I was speaking of British and American publications.
I've tried to help but it looks like my efforts are ineffective. The intro you recently added will help, I think, and I guess we'll find out in due course how the piece is received. EEng 16:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
I think it would work better with some mock ups of actual newspaper headlines with attributions to the sources (or out-of-copyright images of headlines) heralding accomplishments of "a woman" and just going into the piece, without an intro. I don't think trying to explain the context is effective; it drags out the reveal and it loses its punch. isaacl (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
That sounds like it might really help. EEng 19:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Humour

There is a humour column listed for this issue. Is it really supposed to be there? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

No, it just resets automatically Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

For the research report

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19#Academic_pre-print_with_quantitative_analysis_of_Wikipedia's_response. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Tor users

Just out: The value of Tor and anonymous contributions to Wikipedia reported by the official Tor blog, about a report by researchers at NYU, University of Washington, and Drexel, concerning edits made via Tor network through 2018. According to Meta, English Wikipedia tends to block many Tor exit nodes under the WP:Open proxy policy. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In focus

This article is copied over fro Wikipedia@20, so only needs light copyediting. Some copyediting issues I've left are

  • The use of the LGBTQ+ outreach logo at the top. I like to use the same images as Wikipedia@20, as much as possible, but I also don't like using somebody else's logo without permission (even if its on-Wiki) @Bluerasberry and RachelWex: Could you see if the use of the logo is ok or suggest a different image?
  • I trust the reference formatting I used meets both the academic and Wikipedia standards.
  • I substituted "article" for "chapter" in many cases, but chapter is used also as in Wikimedia chapter. Somebody should double check that.
  • We could put in Wiki links or even links to Facebook and Twitter. Go ahead and link 5-6 of these if you think appropriate, but let's not overdo it.

Other than that, just a light CE by somebody not associated with the article so far should do it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

We are talking about File:Wikimedia LGBT outreach logo.svg. This is fine to use. This used to be the logo for Wikimedia LGBT+, the organization, but 1-2 years ago the organization changed to File:Wikimedia LGBT+ logo.svg. That leaves this logo free for anyone to use, as it is the meta:Wikimedia Community logo and available for anyone. I will do copyediting and post back here when done. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

ED's recent Medium post

Regarding the ED's recent Medium post: IIRC, the post was made within hours of ENWP concluding that taking any stance on the issue would be an unacceptable breach of neutrality.

While the Signpost does not require everything to be completely neutral, there's a line between "giving an opinion on Wikimedia-related topics" and straight political advocacy on a wide array of non-Wikimedia-related topics, and the post is clearly the latter. I'm not sure it could be reasonably accepted in the project space at all, let alone be a good idea to send it out from the Signpost. Given the community position regarding the acceptability of using the wiki for dissemination of (non-WM-related) political advocacy, I think the Signpost should summarize, contextualize, and link to the post, rather than directly copy-pasting and publishing the raw content.

(Note: The post was originally on the Executive Director's personal Medium account, not on the Wikimedia Foundation blog. The WMF blog originally created a redirect to the post, but the post was then added to the WMF blog itself (presumably due to legal/technical/privacy issues that a redirect would cause).) --Yair rand (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. You might want to post it again in the comments section when the article comes out in The Signpost. We are an independent newspaper published to inform and entertain all members of the Wikipedia movement. Just as we are independent of the WMF, we are also independent of ArbCom, the editors who choose to participate at WP:ANI, as well as those who participate in RFC's that aren't related to The Signpost, with the exception that if there is a clearly stated rule (e.g. WP:BLP) that applies in project space, we have to follow that rule the same as anybody else. Think of journalists at The New York Times: they can publish what they like, subject to their own editorial control systems, without prior censorship. After publication anybody can take them to court to correct or punish anything published that broke the law. And certainly all journalists have to follow normal everyday laws against illegal parking and the like. But if the Mayor of New York City, joined in by the Governor of New York, and the President of the United States, tell them that they cannot publish something, they'll almost certainly publish it just to defend the principle of no prior censorship. Same applies to The Signpost. If Katherine Maher, Jimbo Wales, ArbCom and a unanimous RFC of 100 editors told us that we could not publish the article as an act of prior censorship, we will certainly publish it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
As a side note, it doesn't quite work that way. The New York Times would still judge the item on its own merits to determine if it should be published. Various levels of government might, for example, urge the news media to forego publishing details of a crime during an ongoing investigation so that they could be used to identify the true perpetrators from pretenders. It wouldn't turn around and publish the info simply out of contrariness. isaacl (talk) 09:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
@Isaacl and Yair rand: - My post above assumes that a potential story is "subject to (the newspaper's) own editorial control systems". There's no reason that editors can't change their mind, especially if there's new information or if they are asked by the authorities to delay publication to, e.g. help catch a criminal. But we're not talking about that here. Yair trots out an entirely bogus theory that an RfC against a WikiBlackout supporting Black Lives Matter prohibits The Signpost from publishing an article by the ED and COO on the current upheaval. Then he speculates that the article could not "be reasonably accepted in the project space at all, let alone be a good idea to send it out from the Signpost," i.e. a threat that he will get the article removed, censored, according to some non-existent rule. That's just intimidation, and I am not about to quietly accept anybody trying to intimidate The Signpost. Yair - if that's not what you meant to say you need to apologize right now. If that is what you meant to say - then just take it straight to ArbCom, to see how fast your complaint is laughed off their page. Or perhaps you'd prefer that I publish your "Letter to the editor" in the forthcoming issue, together with my shorter reply. Your choice - my choice is just to say "no" to intimidation. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
@Smallbones: I'm going to write a fuller reply soon, but I'd like to say now that that is not how I intended my post at all. --Yair rand (talk) 00:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I didn't read the post that way, though I can understand in the context of some of the previous community conversations why you might interpret it that way. To me it was disputing if the article fell within the scope of Wikimedia-related matters, which I think is a reasonable question to ask in this case, no matter which answer I personally agree with. isaacl (talk) 00:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
@Smallbones: There are two primary points I wanted to make:
  1. WMF statements such as these would be best published in the third-person, "WMF said X", in my opinion.
  2. Coverage would be improved by giving context. (For example, information about the recent relevant rejected proposals, and the location of original publication, as well as perhaps some points of relevant WMF internal policy, among other things.)
While strictly speaking, inclusion in the Signpost has a lot more leeway than your average project-space page (notwithstanding the confusing controversy last year over "It"), I think the Signpost should try to take more care than that space in determining what should be included, taking into account community norms and the potential for alienating people. However, for the Signpost, whether or not something is a good idea is a judgement to be made by the Editor. I don't think it would be a good idea to publish a WMF post advocating changes to US healthcare law and criminal justice reform in the Signpost's own voice, and you've noted my opinion, which is all I can ask for. I do see how my post sounded threatening, and I apologize for that. --Yair rand (talk) 01:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Apology accepted. You'd be surprised how many people come to this page (or others) telling us what we have to do. Sorry if I over-reacted in your case. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikimedia rebranding June 2020

About rebranding -

  1. This weekend's meta:All-Affiliates Brand Meeting might be the start of the biggest protest the Wikimedia community has ever organized
  2. The WMF rebranding proposal has been controversial for months, several hundred people have contributed significantly to the discussion, I read the wiki community as alarmed and scared, and there is no good journalism or summary or timeline of this yet
  3. The WMF says that rebranding is about renaming Wikimedia to Wikipedia or about color changes in the logo. The Wikimedia community says the rebranding discussion is about community self governance.
  4. There are some in the wiki community making serious claims of either extreme ignorance or dishonesty in Wikimedia Foundation dealings on this issue
  5. Statement this morning from Nataliia on the board, this is not an obvious response to many wiki community concerns, but also not bad

I have some people who are submitting content, will try to organize this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I've tried to contact a writer on this, a friend of yours BR. The email got through, but I'm not sure the message got through. In any case we absolutely have to have an article or two on this. It's really about opinion at this time so I'd love to have a calm reasoned opinion piece. No possible outing of the Board Chair or anything like that please. The second article might just be straight news about which opinions were expressed at the All-Affiliates Brand Meeting.

I really don't want to enflame this issue. Let's talk about it calmly. The stated issue, when it comes down to it is just whether to replace an "m" with a "p". Obviously, there's something more than that really going on: it's about a constitutional issue, power sharing between the m and the p. I wouldn't think that giving a platform here for somebody to say "Let's get rid of the WMF" would be of any use to anybody - in the long run. Nor would anybody saying "The WMF can do whatever they want." Let's try to find somebody who has a reasonable, practical alternative somewhere in the middle.

I'll email you BR. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

fears and rumors - WMF Deplatforming the Wikimedia community

No one is pushing the panic button but some Wikimedia community members are voicing awareness of the need for one. I am not sure where to start pulling journalism out of this.

The general idea is a nightmare scenario as follows:

  • There is the meta:Wikimedia mission (m:Mission?), and possibly in conflict, the wishes of Wikimedia Foundation staff. There is a trend toward the WMF staff defining mission-driven activities as what they decide even when contrary to community input.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation ceases to recognize Wikimedia community governance (when it differs from what the WMF desires)
  • The Wikimedia Foundation wishes to eliminate any claims that the Wikimedia community has on WMF revenue
  • The Wikimedia Foundation claims a position to speak for Wikipedia, the Wikimedia community, all readers, all volunteers, etc. entirely through its internal organization without community or volunteer input
  • Currently the Wikimedia community has elections for 5 of 10 of the board of trustees as described at meta:Wikimedia Foundation elections, then 4 more are non-wiki appointed experts, and 1 is Jimbo as founder. The board just expanded to 16 seats. There is fear that the WMF will appoint "community representatives" or control the elections to seat corporate minded people.

At the meta:All-Affiliates Brand Meeting the phrase "deplatforming the Wikimedia community" was spoken. This means disenfranchisement, disempowering, removing from governance, diprioritizing, or otherwise excluding the Wikimedia community from the resources of the Wikimedia Movement. The rebranding was one case of this. Other issues mentioned include the following:

  1. The disbanding of the meta:Grants:APG/Funds Dissemination Committee
  2. freeze on WMF funding to chapters, a variation of which happens every few months
  3. halt on funding for both online and offline Wikimedia events due to COVID-19 - offline clearly halted, rumor is / lack of evidence to the contrary suggests that WMF is not supporting online events
  4. In general, WMF revenue going up crazy fast, and money for any projects not controlled by WMF staff getting cut. Also no financial transparency in the way the Wikimedia community approves.
  5. Cancellation of Wikimedia Summit - meta:Wikimedia Summit 2020 - no online alternative
  6. Cancellation of Wikimania - WMF makes no apparent move to support with funding, staff, etc. any alternative meta:Wikimania 2020
  7. suspension of the Wikimedia community election for board of trustees
  8. speculation that the the expansion of board seats will increase WMF control of the board at the expense of community representation

These are rumors but at the All-Affiliates Brand Meeting my read on the situation is that some in the Wikimedia community have a real fear of the WMF being co-opted by executives who do a money and power grab to exclude any meaningful Wikimedia community oversight forever, and especially, that the WMF is getting super angry and fearful about the Wikimedia community closeness to the money which donors give to the Wikimedia movement.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Spreading fears and rumors is what I want to avoid. "Deplatforming" sounds something to me like "Defund the police" - if it means what it sounds like it means - just getting rid of the police (or of Wikipedia editors who don't toe the line), then I don't think it's a good idea to push this - unless it is explained in detail. Better to spend the time explaining (and documenting) all the real issues noted above. Now who is going to write it up? Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Makes me think of defenestration. EEng 04:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
That word "deplatforming" has been bouncing around in my head for a couple of days now. It seems very wonky to me. If/when we write this up, could we use something more in the realm of conversational English. Marginalizing? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh, Bracketbot! Port me to that platform for some horizontal integration! EEng 20:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

All hands on deck

Please submit all articles (except for the few I've approved for later submission) by Friday, June 26 at 11:59 PM NY Time. This will be another tight deadline issue and I might otherwise be overwhelmed by the time of Sunday publication. There are 4 articles ready to be copyedited now. One bright spot - due to relaxation of the lockdown, as of July 6 I'll likely have at least 4 more hours a day to work on The Signpost, so I shouldn't be complaining about that anymore. All help appreciated. I've cleared my schedule and have all day Saturday to write(!) and edit. @HaeB and Bri: - you're cool Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Smallbones, Featured content is down to the image captions and a title, otherwise can be ce'd. For the title, there's an unusual amount of sports articles, so maybe something about winning (without making it seem like featured content is a competition) I'll be back later today to finish up my work... Eddie891 Talk Work 22:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
The WPR should also be ready - I dropped a note on interviewee Phoebe's talk page regarding the last portion of their answer to the last question; it's a bit outdated, but besides that, it should be good - Thanks Sdkb for doing the brunt of the writing! All the best, -- puddleglum2.0 22:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

CHAZ map

I noticed the use of the CHAZ map in this article: WP:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In the media

If the map is included, it might be best to note that it was deleted from the article as likely inaccurate original research. See this discussion. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 05:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll likely delete it from our article. Smallbones(smalltalk) 12:25, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

"Alleged" for BLM interview

@Smallbones: Are you open to persuasion regarding whether it's necessary to say "alleged police killing of George Floyd" in the first sentence? My understanding is that, even if one feels that Chauvin's actions were in some way justified or understandable, there is no doubt from the coroner's report that they led to Floyd's death, which makes calling it a killing an objective description of what took place (and is what Killing of George Floyd does). Saying "alleged killing" comes off to me as introducing uncertainty where there is none in the name of false balance, which would be a disservice to our readers. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

The sentence in question is the first sentence in The Signpost's article "The global reckoning over racial justice arising from the alleged police killing of George Floyd in June..." I added "alleged". The authors added "Police" to the link to the Wikipedia article. We have to be very, very careful not to state that a police officer is guilty of killing Floyd. That is a matter for the courts to decide. I think the easiest way to do that is to use the word "alleged" - most people understand that that means we're not stating anything about legal guilt - not that we're saying anybody is not guilty. We simply cannot convict anybody in The Signpost. It would be a violation of the cannons of journalism and of WP:BLP. Another way might be to remove the word "Police" which was added by the authors.
BTW, I have a great deal of sympathy for stating the facts as simply as possible, which appears to be what the authors are trying to do. Nevertheless, I've added "alleged" in about three articles so far. Messing with the cannons of journalism and WP:BLP is just a step too far, IMHO. @Sdkb, Puddleglum2.0, Bri, Chris troutman, and Eddie891:
All comments on this welcomed. Smallbones(smalltalk) 12:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
IMO we should say "the killing of George Floyd". Taking any of my personal opinions out of the matter, the article is at 'Killing of George Floyd' so not piping it removes a critique that we are making any judgment as to Chauvin's guilt. Also, it's what the 'real' newspapers are doing. Take the WSJ article I read just this morning, it says Since the killing of George Floyd and the protests that followed, or this one The Memorial Day killing of George Floyd, a black man, by a white Minneapolis police officer touched off a series of mass demonstrations that began in cities throughout the U.S.. Though I have limited experience dealing with contentious BLP issues, it's also worth noting that the article was moved to 'Killing of George Floyd' after a lengthy discussion, where the closer wrote in part that "The arguments advanced in the discussion whose strength was given most weight in this close neither concluded that this homicide was a murder nor that it was a justifiable homicide. It was rather overwhelmingly agreed that that is a matter for the courts to decide. Those arguments only posited that, for now, the the title should reflect the official finding by the ME [that it was a killing]." Eddie891 Talk Work 12:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I think the death of George Floyd makes more sense, as we know objectively that he died. Use of the word killing imputes motive, in my opinion. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Smallbones, the simplest fact is that we do not yet have a jury verdict, and the move to Killing of ... was folly. While I count myself among those who personally believe that George Floyd was murdered in a city where police abuse is long-standing and rampant, it should be considered a BLP violation of the most egregrious kind for Wikipedia to be convicting Chauvin without a trial, and the only reason you are having to discuss whether to add the word alleged is that POV warriors won a naming dispute. I suggest that we should hold a BLP RFC about convicting people without a trial, in Wikipedia's voice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
There's no doubt that we are talking about a death while in police custody. If it was an accidental death, it is still a killing. The independent medical examiner found it to be a killing: there is no other health issue that could cause or contribute to the death. That plus the community decision for the title makes our choice obvious. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks to all who commented. I'm leaning with Bri towards "killing" or perhaps to "homicide" (I'll look at the coroners' reports to see if they are official). I'm not entirely convinced by Sandy Georgia's argument, but she makes it well, and it's certainly something to think about. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Are you and Bri privy to the evidence presented by the defense ... In a trial that has not yet happened? Is the press? I believe that Floyd was murdered, but what Wikipedia has done is indefensible, and we should hold an RFC to make it a BLP vio to convict a person in Wikipedia’s voice without a trial. The coroner is not the only voice, and this is folly. An example of letting the masses decide when all are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Let’s just go ahead and lynch Chauvin and see if that makes everyone feel better about what happened to Floyd and many similar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Odd use of 'lynch'. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

IMHO "lynch" is written all over this, and I'm not going to be a part of "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." However, I do believe that "homicide" is as neutral a term as we're going to get and it is an official report. There's another place (or 3) that this issue comes up in this month's paper. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

From Black's Law Dictionary 8th edition

homicide
The killing of one person by another.

From The Dictionary of Cultural Literacy via dictionary.com:

homicide[ (hom-uh-seyed)

The killing of one person by another, whether intended (murder) or not (manslaughter). Not all homicide is unlawful; killing in self-defense, for example, is not a crime.

But whatever ☆ Bri (talk) 02:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think any of that will be among the evidence at trial. I think the "lynch is written all over this" comment summarizes what Wikipedia has done, and as much as I regret Floyd's (IMO) "murder" and abhor what Chauvin did, and hope he receives his due, Wikipedia should not make itself out to be the jury. The article can be moved to "Killing of ... " once a jury has decided. But this is now beating a deadhorse ... sorry :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
While we're pondering the different means words can have, perhaps it would be worth considering whether comparing the titling of a Wikipedia article merits comparison to lynching which has been more in the public consciousness recently. Richard Nevell (talk) 09:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
While we’re pondering how to improve race relations in the United States, perhaps it is worth considering how Wikipedia furthering vigilante justice, which is precisely what lynching was/is, helps anyone or furthers anything worthy. We cannot amend for the past by engaging the same unjust practices. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I think engvar is to blame for editors' differences of opinion on this. Apparently, in American English, "killing" doesn't mean "deliberately" (or "wrongfully"), but in British English, it does:

  • American dictionaries:
    • American Heritage: The act or action of causing death, as of a person.
    • Merriam-Webster: the act of one that kills ("kills" defined as to deprive of life : cause the death of)
    • Dictionary.com (Random House): the act of a person or thing that kill [sic!] ("kill" defined as to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; slay.)
  • British dictionaries:

Simply "the killing of George Floyd", without any other descriptors, seems appropriate. – SJ + 15:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

No, ENGVAR does not explain my concern, which is that we should not label Floyd’s death in any way without having heard from the defense. We have one side of the story; Wikipedia should judge after the legal process does, not before. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I see the awkward thing about this one is that we have presumably all seen at least part of the video. Taking Murder of Meredith Kercher as another notable death, Sandy if there was no dispute as to it being a murder, but the investigation and court case was about who the murderer was, would you be OK with us describing it as a murder at this stage? ϢereSpielChequers 17:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
The legal process has already deemed this a "killing". It's a homicide according to two medical examiners. Wikipedia isn't saying that the police are guilty of anything. But it's the two medical examiners who say that this was a homicide, i.e, a killing. The use of the word "killing" is only an "injustice" or a "lynching" if and only if you think "killing" means "deliberately" or "wrongfully". If you take that out of the definition of "killing", as is done in American English (and this is an American article), then there is nothing wrong with calling it a "killing". It's not in dispute that this was a "killing" under the AmEng definition of the word. The defendants are not going to argue that GF was not "killed". They're going to argue that they're not legally responsible for the killing; but they're not going to argue that a killing didn't happen. Nobody is going to argue that GF died of natural causes or something. That part's already over with the two autopsies that found that GF was killed (manner of death: homicide). They also found that GF was killed due to police restraint, which is why "killed by police" is not a BLP violation, but rather a faithful summary of reliable sources.
To put it another way, if you think Wikipedia is doing something wrong by calling it a "killing", then it follows that the BBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, NBC, ABC, CBS, and every other major media outlet in the US and the world, are all also doing the same thing wrong. But of course, that's not the case. "Killing" meets the journalistic standards of every single major media organization in the world, hence their use of the term. I don't see why Signpost should hold itself to different standards than the standards used by the world's best journalists. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Smallbones appears to have made the change that is being requested here. See this diff. I agree that the word "murder" would be inappropriate until a court has given a verdict, but several other words would be appropriate, and using exactly the same word that appears in the coroners' reports is good. ↠Pine (✉) 18:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Gallery

There's not very many words to copyedit here, but I'd appreciate everybody looking at them and improving them. I feel like all I could come up with are platitudes. Any help appreciated. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Smallbones, the short captions look okay to me for the most part. There are a few photos where it's not so obvious what's going on, though, such as the one of people standing spaced at the U.S. Capitol, so I'd suggest further description for those. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not so much concerned about the photo captions as the small amount of text between the photos and intro. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Smallbones, for the text in the article, if you want something a little less platitudinous, the thing I'd talk about is the idea of "needs to be seen to be believed". We often think about our role as documenting the world's knowledge too strictly in terms of text, but images are a big part of it. The problem of police violence has existed for a long time in the U.S., but it's only getting attention now because it's been visually documented in a way that makes it impossible to deny, whereas the text descriptions before smartphone cameras were more easily dismissed. This applies to the protests, too, where, for instance, you have the NYT "visual investigations" team doing fantastic work using bystander footage to piece together a narrative of what happened in Philadelphia. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

"In the media" error

@Bri: It wasn't WP:BLM nominated, it was the project at meta; see my comment here. We shouldn't repeat the inaccuracy. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you – confirmed and so noted at ITM ☆ Bri (talk) 00:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Actually I think everybody messed that one up, including Harrison, myself, Bri, and maybe Sdkb. Harrison included links in 2 different places to the WP project on WP and the deletion on meta. That's the original source of the confusion. I think I've corrected ITM now so that it's not a sore thumb sticking out begging to be whacked, just an oddity (which is what I think it is). We might argue for a long time on who made the first or biggest mistake - I'd guess it was the nominator and that's pretty much the message of the RfC. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Need help copyediting

@Megalibrarygirl, Eddie891, Bri, Indy beetle, and Puddleglum2.0:

A lot of articles need to have brief CEs. I'm personally most interested in the Opinion piece I just posted, but can't CE it myself per besst practices. I do need a conclusion, but the rest can be copyedited now.

Thanks for any help. 15:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

OTBS for July

@Smallbones and Bri: at this time I think that there will be no OTBS for July from me. I don't know if I'll write for the Signpost again. I have not made up my mind regarding leaving the Wikiverse, but I'm thinking about it. Best wishes, ↠Pine (✉) 18:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Shoould be ready to publish by 2:15

@Chris troutman: Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

5 minutes. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Chris troutman and HaeB: all ready to publish. I'll be back in 5 or 10 minutes if there's any problems. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm starting now; please no more editing. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
@Smallbones: Email sent, tweet sent, publication out. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
@Chris troutman, Bri, HaeB, Eddie891, and Megalibrarygirl: Thanks to all (especially Chris). It looks like a good issue, but I'm going to have to learn to copyedit! We'll see what the readers say. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Smallbones, looks good — sorry I didn't have more time to help with the copy editing this month! One small typo I just noticed at the top of the name change interview: "It has been very successfully in doing this". {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration report

Reader feedback on the report suggested accessibility concerns for color/contrast schemes and redid a pie chart with IMO lurid colors. I plan to replace them with the WMF approved monochrome scheme here ☆ Bri (talk) 02:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should be up-to-date on this. I do know that the different types of "color-blindness" have effects that we can work around, but I don't know the best specifications. We ought to go with the best methods. @Bri, BradV, and Koavf: could you all together let us know the best methods and we'll try to follow them consistently. Smallbones(smalltalk)
For those just jumping in, the issue is with a pie chart present here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-06-28/Arbitration_report. Originally, it had a (pleasant) blue gradient with each slice a subtly different hue of blue but I changed it to a rainbow. While we often think of color contrast in terms of text on background color, there needs to be sufficient contrast for graphic elements as well (note this actually uses an example of a pie chart!). If anyone wants more explanation, I think that MDN is a good start and this Contrast Checker is a handy tool among many. If I can be of more help, please ping me, @Smallbones and Bri:. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Do you know if the (monochrome) base colors in the document that I referenced are suitable? ☆ Bri (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Bri, To use two example colors, Grey Base70 #c8ccd1 and Grey Base50 #a2a9b1 only have a contrast of 1.47:1 (via Contrast Checker), so this is not enough contrast for displaying elements next to or on top of one another that are these two colors. On the other hand, Grey Base70 #c8ccd1 and Grey Base20 #54595d have a contrast of 4.39:1, so that passes. The pie chart that you had in this article originally had contrast ratios around 1.32:1 (e.g. the colors #004c6d and #255e7e that made up the first two slices). If you want to use only WMF MoS colors in the future, you 100% can do that, you just have to check them against tools like this. Again, I'm happy to help if you think that I can and if that's in any way unclear, please let me know. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:03, 29 June 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 issue totals thru April 27, 5,033; May 2, 10,657 [17], [18]
  • May issue - 15,181 4 weeks *Pageviews list 1, list 2 (remaining 7)

By article – June issue

First day top 10 1,385, remaining 6 388 (1,773 total). Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Reader feedback on June issue

You can monitor reader feedback with the link above. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Politics

The reader feedback on the current issue's News from the WMF, 27 kB and counting, indicates that this is a highly charged area, and we risk alienating our own readers if not careful.

There's 120 days to go until the November elections in the United States. We might want to have a newsroom discussion now on how to handle certain things. The emergent issue is the Kamala Harris bio editing that I added to ITM; it is potentially also a DR item given the extensive writing at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Scrub a dub dub, another ~50 kB.

But this will likely be the tip of a large iceberg, therefore here is a proposal that we at least have a policy in place on how short/long things should be at ITM, and where "the line" lies before we invite an op-ed on certain election related topics vice regular news coverage. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

In the media

Death of Sushant Singh Rajput – more to the story than meets the eye

Background: DNA India debunked claims that Wikipedia reported death of Sushant Singh Rajput hours before it happened. However, they failed to look at the first diff adding the event to the article, made by an anonymous editor at 0855 UTC / 1425 India Standard Time. DNA India reported the news broke at 1429, so maybe there was an insider after all? This might be of sufficient note for a slightly expanded item in the column. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  • If DNAIndia posted the news at 14:29, they would certainly have received it some minutes before that, as would many news agencies. Also, the police discovered the body around 12:30, after which point an ever-growing number of people would have known about it. Also, the IP resolves to a PIN (postcode/zipcode) of 110001, which amongst other things contains the Government Media and Broadcast Centre. Black Kite (talk) 00:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    This reminds me of a similar situation. It amazes me how people look to update Wikipedia immediately, as if that makes a difference. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    • @Bri: if you want to write this up, please go ahead. There is another(?) Indian publishing house which has an extremely bad reputation around here, so I just avoided it. If you can avoid giving them any credibility, so much the better. email me if details needed. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Also, there were 4 anons plus an editor User talk:1dhruvsharma who has only ever made 1 edit (but managed to leave his email address connected!), who all edited from 8:55-8:59, so here's a likely scenario. There was a public announcement at 8:55 or before and everybody wanted to be the first to report it on Wikipedia, including one who took the time to register and enter his email. Ok, how about a second scenario - 5 policemen entered the apartment just before 8:55, saw the suicide, rushed to report it on Wikipedia, and then reported it to their superiors who notified the press. I'd email 1dhruvsharma before taking this one at face value. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

WikiProfessionals banned

Breitbart reported on the community ban, then The Blaze re-reported with some commentary on Breitbart's story. Ironically the author of the original piece is himself community banned. Not sure what to do with this one. Maybe we should just include the second link? Breitbart would require the EiC to request a whitelisting, I think confirmed. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bri and Gorilla Warfare: I wish we didn't have to avoid linking when there is a real news story to report. But we do have to follow Wikipedia rules, certainly if they are clearly stated. Otherwise I'll follow the canons of journalism, which would suggest link for any truly newsworthy story, avoid any non-newsworthy story that has a problem along this line, or follow current Signpost practice (which is at least pretty clear). So along the line of current practice, we don't link Breitbart or even mention them - mainly for the reason that nothing they say is reliable or even newsworthy - given that they can and do say some unbelievable nonsense much of the time. Naming that author, especially by his Wikiname wouldn't really be fair, since he can't reply here. Besides, he is an asshole. I don't see any problem mentioning The Blaze, or even linking to it - but is it an important part of the "Wikiprofessionals" story? I'll have to reread their story. Some of it seems accurate enough, but doesn't expand the story, I can include those points on my own without quoting or paraphrasing anybody. There is one part that intrigues me. They seem to be saying at the end that they haven't done any COI or paid editing to the article on The Blaze. A quick look at it tells me that it is as promotional as this type of article comes. I'll have to look at it closely and decide whether it's at all important. Maybe just removing the promotional parts would be better. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Smallbones, the spam blacklist was intended to prevent bad referencing, not external media mentions in the Signpost, so if we do think it's worth listing, I'd think we ought to pursue it. I agree with the hesitations, though — Breitbart isn't a media source itself so much as a political actor that can be the subject of media coverage. On the other hand, part of the function of "In the media" is to let readers know what media of all types is saying about us, even when it's incorrect/etc. So idk. One thing I take away from this is that conservative media is paying attention to us, which could have meant coverage of the Fox News decision, except that the middling decision is too complicated and not inciting enough to garner coverage there. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh wait, Breitbart already has an article on the Fox News RfC. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Deadlines

I've never been able to figure out how to make that deadline box do what I want it to do. My personal lockdown situation has improved immensely over the last 3 days, but I still feel as tired as a Himalayan donkey and as old as dirt. I'd love to have the copy deadline on Friday, July 31 and the publication deadline on Sunday afternoon August 2. Does anybody object?? Does anybody know how to fix the deadline template? Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Smallbones, no objections here, I've gone ahead and fixed it accordingly (I think). I'm not too familiar with templates though - if I broke it, feel free to revert. -- puddleglum2.0 18:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
@Puddleglum2.0: thanks. Have you got an interview/project set up for the next issue? If not, I'm sure folks around here can come up with a few suggestions in a day or so. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Smallbones, I was just thinking about that - I don't have anything planned - next month will be an anniversary interview for the Hurricane WikiProject, requested by a member. Suggestions welcome! Cheers -- puddleglum2.0 18:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Puddleglum2.0, You could interview active contributors to featured content (maybe just the coords if you get enough interest). I also think WP:VG is still pretty active? Perhaps Women in Red? Just some thoughts... Eddie891 Talk Work 18:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Eddie891, thanks for your suggestions! I try to stay away from the "perrenial" projects (including WiR, VG and Milhist, projects that are huge and everyone knows about for the most part) I didn't know that feautered content had coordinators - that might be an interesting interview! Would WT:FAC be the right place to reach out? I'm not too familiar with the featured process. Thanks for the suggestions! Cheers -- puddleglum2.0 19:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Puddleglum2.0, It might be worth reaching out to the coords on their talk page to see if there's enough interest for a whole interview. The FA coords are Ian Rose, Ealdgyth, and Laser brain, the FL 'director' is Giants2008 and he has two 'delegates', PresN and The Rambling Man. I believe technically anybody could close an FPC, but Armbrurst is in practice the closer. The FTC director is GamerPro64 and his delegate is Spy-cicle. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Eddie891, thank you, I think I'll do that! It would be interesting to see how all the different features content projects work differently. I guess we'll see how much interest there is soon. Best -- puddleglum2.0 19:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Be advised there is a cyclone-obsessed LTA who might pop up - Bri.public (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Can't link WMF due to outing

WMF CEO tweeted something that I can't include in In The Media. Ironic. Will follow up with EiC to see if we are in agreement. Bri.public (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC) @Smallbones: mail sent ☆ Bri (talk) 03:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC) @Bri: responded 3 hours ago. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Just noting that the Maher Twitter link has been revdel'ed twice that I know of (unrelated to anyone here). ☆ Bri (talk) 04:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

T2 removed

Just thought I should inform that speedy deletion criteria T2 has been removed per Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#RfC: Removing T2. --Trialpears (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

And there's more! X2 has also been removed per Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#X2 cleanup. --Trialpears (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Featured content

There was no recently featured topic this month, so what should I do for this section? Hello world 6 (talk) 01:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello world 6, I'm not sure if this would fit the normal format, but I think the most important thing to do regarding featured content is not highlighting any particular piece of content, but rather confronting how much of a problem it is that we have tons and tons of FAs about obscure coinage and random transit stations while meanwhile there are level 2 vital articles languishing at C-class status. Could we find a way to cover that? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that would be quite cool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hello world 6 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Obituary

Announced at WP:AN, User:Hasteur has died. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

We should probably include both new names at Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/2020 Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Will this be a light issue?

It seems to be quieter here than usual and with ten days to go till writing deadline, we only have five columns started. Are people on vacation? - Bri.public (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

It might be but, I should be fully free most of the next 10 days. Any help or new articles appreciated. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm slowly putting fc together this week- out of town, so won't be able to do more than the bare minimum this month. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Essay: Not compatible with a collaborative project

@TonyBallioni: Thank you for writing that essay. I did get caught off guard by item #7, Threats or implications of bringing in outside authorities, which is Wikilinked to WP:No legal threats.

In the context of "people being incompatible with the project" I assume "outside authorities" meant cherry-picked subject-matter authorities or at least outside groups that the editor thinks are subject-matter authorities, not the editor threatening to file legal action.

If you are looking for a phrase that matches WP:No legal threats, consider Threats or implications of filing legal action.

If I was caught off guard, I probably am not the only one. Just something to consider. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I was actually referencing people getting litigious/implying legal action/dancing around it as a way to intimidate while not directly running afoul of the policy. I don’t mind people tweaking, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Done, changed from "Threats or implications of bringing in outside authorities" to "Hinting at or making legal threats or implications of bringing in outside authorities". It's not perfect but at least part of it matches the Wikilink. If you or anyone else can improve it, well, that's what the edit button is for. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Essay: Not compatible with a collaborative project "How not to be blocked in the first place if this describes you"

A short paragraph directed to editors who see themselves in this essay who haven't been blocked yet may be useful. Perhaps something along the lines of

§ Does this essay describe you ¶ If you see yourself in this essay, please ask yourself "why am I here"? Assuming you are here in good faith and sincerely want to build a better encyclopedia, ask yourself "what do I need to do so I AM compatible with the project"? This may mean doing the hard word of stopping before each edit, taking a deep breath, and asking yourself "How will my fellow editors react? Will this edit make me look like I don't know what I am doing, or worse, that I'm not really here to help?" Sometimes making a user-space draft to edit, then setting it aside for an hour or a day, is enough to "open your eyes" enough that you see that maybe this time you should not actually save the change. Sometimes, the only option is to stop editing project before you get blocked for this kind of behavior, and not return until you have done the very hard work of changing who you are as a person.

That's just one possible way of giving guidance to those who are self-aware enough to know they fit the description but who haven't been blocked yet. Feel free to either copy-and-paste this, write something yourself, or leave this section out altogether depending on what you think works best with the rest of the essay. If you need me to make the edit for attribution purposes, please email me or I might not see your request before the press deadline. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Turkey vs Wiki, round 2

Sounds like there's new national legislation in Turkey today limiting social media. Haven't heard yet if it covers Wikipedia specifically. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

WikiLoop copyedit done

I just did the copyedit on the WikiLoop piece. I kept the edits pretty light, just fixing clear errors in grammar/etc. The piece could use some slightly deeper editing before the final sign-off, though. (There are too many external links, the piece isn't quite structured in a newsy inverted pyramid way, and it repeats itself a bit at points.) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry if ..., but it looks like ...

Hi all,

Sorry if I've been a bit out of it this month. The modified lockdown didn't turn out to be all that I expected. It looks like we'll have 12-14 good articles. I still have to write one, but should be able to complete it in time. If anybody has something to include, please try to include it by Friday pm. Copyeditors might as well get started, at first-level basic copyediting in any case. I've been meaning to check @Bri:'s Arb Report. Could somebody check that he's got everything. Otherwise I might give it the headline "Slow times at Ridgemont High." @Chris troutman: I fully expect to be ready at 2pm Eastern time, Sunday. I love that time! Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to all of the writers who are coming through marvelously yesterday and today. Copyediting should go full steam ahead, except on Arb report and News & notes, which still need some work. And I'm sure (?) I'll have another article late tonight! Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Could somebody check the ArbReport from a content perspective. I've just got this feeling that we must have missed something. I might even just delete the article, we wouldn't be missing much if I did. Please let us know. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Smallbones, not sure on the content side, but why not just merge it into N&N? The former is sorely wanting for content anyways... Eddie891 Talk Work 22:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Eddie891. It's a good idea. But I'm worried that sometimes publishing an incomplete report is seen as being worse than no report, no matter where it's published. Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Issue wide copyedits

I usually copyedit everything for consistency but can’t do it today. Recommend that someone keeps an eye out for the following:

  • Title and blurb should have sentence case, like a Wiki article title.
  • Blurb should have terminal punctuation; title should not.
  • Look out for missing italics for newspaper titles. There were numerous errors in In the Media when I last looked.

Cheers ☆ Bri (talk) 02:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Bri: BTW, you can tell I'm getting excited about this issue, which leads to me getting woried about the little things. Those copyedits you mention are some of my usual misses. The ArbReport is mostly me just worrying I think. Copyeditors, I expect to get one more article in about 3 hours (or maybe tomorrow AM).. @Megalibrarygirl and Isaacl: Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/COI and paid editing is in progress. Please edit fully or ping me if there are any problems. Smallbones(smalltalk) 12:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration report incorrect

The Arbitration report labels Lightbreather's appeal as having been successful. It was not. The box at the top of the relevant section contains the proposed motion, which was opposed 2-8. Tantusar (talk) 12:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Smallbones(smalltalk) 12:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Ready to go in 90 minutes

@Chris troutman and HaeB: we should be ready to publish in 1.5 hours from now. I've cancelled the Arb report. Even though nothing much seems to have happened it's difficult for me to triple check (which is what everybody seems to demand for that article). My COI and paiding editing column, could use a second pair of eyes doing some copyediting. Thanks. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Standing by for the go-ahead. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

COI and paid editing

I hope creating a new column title like COI and paid editing doesn't break the publication script. Was it necessary do this instead of publishing it under Community View? I would also point out that The Signpost has long had an op-ed but seemingly no editorial, to which the op-ed sits opposite. I guess we'll find out. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Archive_9"