|
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Navigation
Submission Desk
Please propose Signpost stories you want to write (or have already begun writing). Submitted stories are published subject to the approval of the Editors-in-Chief, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Editor(s) in chief. We value the involvement of Wikipedians, and appreciate your submissions. If you have ideas or questions that don't fit neatly into this framework, don't hesitate to address us on our user talk pages, by email, or as a last resort, on the general Signpost talk page.
The Signpost's content guidelines may be useful to aspiring writers; take note, especially, of the statement of purpose section. We encourage you to contact us early in the process of developing a story. Different writers have varying levels of interest in editorial input, and we pride ourselves on finding the right balance with each writer; but in most cases, a brief discussion early on can help all parties shape our expectations, and can help produce a strong finished piece. We aim to support Wikimedians wishing to share news with their peers, and look forward to working with you.
- Ok, this is an article idea, and not a submission. FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dušan Kreheľ, I can see this going into the technology report. It is a bit short right now and could use some more background and explanation. I fully understand that there might be a language barrier as well. Could you perhaps expand it a bit? We can translate from other languages if you’re more comfortable with that. Thanks! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 00:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @EpicPupper: I updated the document. You look. Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 15:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@EpicPupper and JPxG: Ah, I wanted to have posted on 1 September. ✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 06:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article is done. --Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I like more a title "Pageview and compression" as now "Pageview compression". --Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 16:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The actual links:
--Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Separate discussion with several unresolved concerns about this draft: Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom#"Concept"_column_in_next_issue. Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Submission: User:Julle/Quality
- Column: Op-Ed
- Author: Julle
- Discussion:
This piece is about article quality and how it relates to readers and reader expectations. It argues that above a threshold we have long since surpassed, article quality – while important for our mission – most likely has limited effects on reader behaviour. Most importantly, this means that a) any attempt to do what Wikipedia does, only slightly better, is doomed to fail, and b) article quality can't in itself save us from being replaced. Suggestions for a better title for this essay are very welcome. /Julle (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Julle thanks, and sorry for the late reply! I'd be inclined to accept this as an Op-Ed. Would "The façade of article quality" work as a title, and "Article quality will not in itself save us if technology and user patterns leave us behind" work as a blurb (description)? Thanks! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 05:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- EpicPupper: No worries, and welcome back. I'm happy with the blurb. I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with "façade" to describe article quality, but a few suggested titles – if you're happy with any of them, take your pick. (:
- The limitations of article quality
- What article quality can't do
- Does article quality change anything for our readers?
- /Julle (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Julle the first one works for me! I've edited the piece. Cheers, 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 05:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ɱ: Right now the commons:Commons:Wiki Loves Folklore 2023. In meta:Volunteer Response Team private ticket:2022112310010222 that organizing team asked Wikimedia New York City to submit some kind of folklore story. I feel that what you have written about myths of this New York City train station is as close to contemporary folklore as anyone can find. You have established sources, told the stories in your own words, and you make an interesting case to sort fact and fiction here in Wikipedia.
- Are you able to add an image gallery to this story, including the four myths you describe? This could include the 2 clocks, the basement, and the painted ceiling. If you did that, then
- This story becomes good for Wiki Loves Folklore
- It becomes The Signpost's story contributing to that campaign
- Wiki NYC can showcase this piece at their next meeting, further cross-promoting it
- I do not want to put you out of your way for the images, but I think that people have already uploaded images of all these things countless times. Is there a reason you have not already included and labeled the images in this story?
- Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I can do this! No worries, we do already have images of the items mentioned in the story. Good to hear from you again! ɱ (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. ɱ (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Submission: User:KStineRowe (WMF)/Signpost Interview 2022
- Column: Interview
- Author: The Land and Lgruwell-WMF
- Discussion:
This is an interview of Wikimedia Foundation Chief Advancement Officer Lisa Seitz-Gruwell with questions submitted by User:The Land. The current link has the questions for this interview; the remainder of the content (answers) will be filled in before November 23, 2022.
--KStineRowe (WMF) (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Ping @JPxG: and @EpicPupper: - I think this would be of quite broad interest given the level of debate at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC_on_the_banners_for_the_December_2022_fundraising_campaign, which is only likely to increase when the WMF fundraising actually starts. The Land (talk) 10:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @KStineRowe (WMF) and The Land: Note that EpicPupper has retired from both the Signpost and Wikipedia. JPxG is the sole current editor-in-chief.
- I provided some initial feedback on the questions here.
- Re-reading the first question just now it strikes me that it states as fact that the WMF uses "a large part of its funds for grantmaking".
- Per the financial statements published earlier this month, "Awards and grants" amounted to just under $15 million in the 2021–2022 year just ended. This is less than 10% of revenue. I'd submit it is therefore a comparatively small part of WMF funds – especially when compared to the $88 million salary bill. In the interest of truthfulness, could we perhaps agree to just call it "a part" and name the amount?
- Regards, Andreas JN466 18:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@The Land: Thanks for organizing this interview. I support you in managing this however you will do it, and I appreciate your effort in this and in many other conversations related to Wikimedia community governance. I completely endorse your methods for this, but as you are doing this, I want to read the room and context here just in case anyone checks in on The Signpost editorial process. I am talking to myself and the ether here: I am making no requests of anyone and am just documenting thoughts.
- This publication The Signpost is community organized and has no budget.
- Since you the Land first started preparing this interview, one of the heaviest discussions in the history of the Wikimedia Movement has developed at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC_on_the_banners_for_the_December_2022_fundraising_campaign
- The Wikimedia Foundation is investing valuable resources in this discussion. With 4 board members personally commenting here, I can only imagine that the weight of the legal department, communication department, and grants department is behind them. When a group of people each of whom cost US$200,000/year get personally involved in an issue, they also appoint their staff to invest labor. It is hard for me to estimate the resources consumed by this discussion, but as my own guess, I will say that 4 groups of 5 people each discussed this issue for 10 hours. 4*5*10=200 labor hours * US$100/hour = $20,000 conversation minimum. I could be underestimating WMF investment, and perhaps by end of November 2022 $100,000 maximum investment could go into this if there are some 1-hour meetings of 5-10 paid staff people. I have never seen a response like this from the WMF in the past.
- The core issue is conflict between the WMF and the Wikimedia community on how money is spent. There are many big social and ethical issues in play here. I will not list them or describe them. I think lots of people who are here experiencing this know the issues, but I know of no one who has summarized them as journalism.
- Neither The Signpost nor the Wikimedia Community has any funding or financial resources to develop these conversations, produce journalism, or do research on these issues. The money is all on the WMF to build a narrative. There is an imbalance here.
- While the Wikimedia community wanted a response to these financial questions, the WMF has responded much more than I think anyone expected.
- I do not personally see anything pointed, controversial, or aggressive about the Wikimedia community asking questions. What I see are basic community demands for representation and access to information of the sort that no one ever imagined would be controversial.
- User The Land: thanks for stepping up, thanks for doing this interview. You will do great. You are still just one volunteer talking to a corporation which is running responses from grants team to legal team to communications team and then through the board. I think you will do fine. Your interview is still a volunteer interview and does not represent the entirety of the Wikimedia community, although I do recognize you as a Wikimedia community "leader" (not that we have leaders) and that you are an active editor, well liked, in good standing for many reasons.
- Thanks and if The Signpost can support you such as is possible from a volunteer newspaper, then ask. You definitely have encouragement to proceed as you have planned, and I hope that others find your effort as inspiring as I do. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update: After conversations with user:MPaul (WMF) I have revised a couple of the questions to reflect the changed situation as a result of the RfC and the commitments made by the WMF during and after it. I've updated the submission page to reflect this. The Land (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update: @JPxG: the content is now complete and ready for review. Thank you!--KStineRowe (WMF) (talk) 15:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is done. Please someone check my English, I'm not very good at it. Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 21:46, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
|
