Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions

The Signpost (talk)
About Archives Subscribe
Newsroom (talk) Coordination Submissions Suggestions
Writing Content Formatting (cheatsheet) Resources Style
Other Newsletters

This page is for suggesting news to be covered in the next Signpost.

Email a private tip to the EiC

For general discussion, comments or questions regarding The Signpost, please see our feedback page. You can also write a piece yourself! See the submissions desk for details.

Essay suggestion

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

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

@Headbomb:

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

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

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

or

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template:Newsletters

@DannyS712:, you should report on the creation of {{Newsletters}} and invite people to add Newsletters that are missing from it to relevant section. If they can't figure it out themselves, just dropping a message on the template's talk page should be good. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: report it where? News and notes? --DannyS712 (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

That's where I was thinking. Open to other locations, but it seems weird to include in tech report. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Okay. I'm adding it --DannyS712 (talk) 00:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Cool. It'd be a good idea to send a mass message about this to to all Wikiprojects. You're a mass messenger, and I'm a bit fuzzy on the details here. What's the steps for this? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: All of them, or the ones listed as having newsletters (or just the active ones). Basically, get me a list of pages you want a message posted to, and what message you want posted, and I can send it --DannyS712 (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

It would be all of them, since it's hard to know which newsletters have slipped through the cracks, or have non-standard names. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Okay. Ready when you are - see Wikipedia:Mass message senders#Before making your request for the things I need (targets and content) to send a message. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────┘ It might even be nice to list all newsletter issues that have come out since the last signpost. It could even be possible to have a section where newsletters can transclude/substitute in a little 100-200 word summary of an interesting update? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 11:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC) It seems the sort of thing that could be automated. Example of labelled section transclusion from Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Newsletter below:

On 23 May, user Prometheus720 created a talk page post, "Revamp of Wikiproject Biology--Who is In?". In the days since, WP:BIOL has been bustling with activity, with over a dozen editors weighing in on this discussion, as well as several others that have subsequently spawned. An undercurrent of thought is that WP:BIOL has too many subprojects, preventing editors from easily interacting and stopping a "critical mass" of collaboration and engagement. Many mergers and consolidations of subprojects have been tentatively listed, with a consolidation of WikiProjects Genetics + Molecular and Cell Biology + Computational Biology + Biophysics currently in discussion. Other ideas being aired include updating old participants lists, redesigning project pages to make them more user-friendly, and clearly identifying long- and short-term goals.

Read more...

Press release from Everipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Possible Turkey of the month

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gobbler of the month

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

maybe we get rid of COI rules for the nice, innocent people trying to help?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Column "El Diario Hispano"

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

Attentively....

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notre Dame fire?

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

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

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

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

Translation efforts for Arabic Wikipedia

Might be worth an in the news mention. [1] -Indy beetle (talk) 02:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion by Epiphyllumlover (2019-04-16)

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

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

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

Essay suggestion (redux)

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

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

In the Media: Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia [review in JAMS]

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

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

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

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

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

Adam Moriarty from Auckland Museum blogs about working with wikipedia

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

©Geni (talk) 22:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Play media

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

m:Requests for comment/Do something about azwiki

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestion by andrybak (2019-05-11)

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

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

Wikipedia Is Now Banned in China in All Languages

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

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

Would Essay User:BU Rob13/AGF applies to everyone work?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another "Gobbler of the month"

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

If we need to run an essay...

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

Late ITM Suggestion by Pythoncoder (2019-05-29)

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

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

Wikipedia and North Face

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

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

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

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

WikiJournals as a sister project

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestion by Bri (2019-06-06)

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

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