Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom

Suggestions

Review desk

Opinion desk

Interviews desk

WikiProject desk

IRC channel

Notices

• Everyone interested in Signpost matters is invited to join the IRC channel #wikisignpost.^(webchat)

• I'm working on a "Quotation workshop" tutorial-like page for content writers generally. I will use some examples from The Signpost, which needs to manage quotations intensively. At this stage, could I quote here something I'll use on that page; it's a fragment from the "Ten rules for writing" by Elmore Leonard, American crime fiction writer, on which he was interviewed last year on ABC Radio National:

  "Never use a verb other than 'said' to carry dialogue'. Not 'stated', not 'declared', not 'exclaimed' ".

  PS, on exclamation points, you might be amused to hear his view: "I say you're allowed three per 100,000 words". :-) Tony (talk) 05:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have created a template for use on Signpsot articles when they are undergoing a major edit. Please note the parameters: {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Inuse|user=[[User:Example|Example]]}}. Regards, Rock drum _Ba-dum^Crash _{(Driving well?)} 13:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Fundraising campaign: grassrootsish approach; please report.  ℳono  01:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Please explain :) ResMar 02:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

My explanatory banner

Let's make the banner meaningful for a change.

Well, it's in now. ResMar 03:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for more neatly formatting references to previous stories on The Signpost: instead of the clunky "participants were prevented from further discussing their case on the case pages (see Signpost coverage)", perhaps a standard form of "and participants were prevented from further discussing their case on the case pages (previous story)? There are also instances of "previous", whereas I think that is the natural default. It may be appropriate to mark a link to a story in the current edition as such ("see story in current Signpost"). Tony (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The traditional "see earlier Signpost coverage" way of doing it is better than the "see previous story" suggestion; I don't see the former as clunky at all. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to be brutal, but HaeB, before you went to bed was the time to say "no" to everything that isn't finished. We have a copyedit sign now on WikiProject report ... that should go in next week's edition if it wasn't ready by the deadline. It is just unfair to allow the whole thing to be held up again by one or two late sections. Can we get into the rhythm of doing everything one or two days earlier, especially allocating the stories in ITN and NAN? I'd prefer to see a less voluminous Signpost, and I think the readers would, too. So why are we waiting, to pump up the size again? Tony (talk) 08:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that just to teach Mabeenot a lesson, I should run the first Signpost in ages without a WikiProject report? I think that realizing being the last regular section to finish should be enough, at least for now. To quote yourself from a few days ago: "No one minds if the publication comes out a few hours, or even 12 hours late, but not 24 hours late". And I'd like to remark that I was doing (and have to do) other things besides sleeping and Signpost, and need to process feedback that comes in late, too. Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No, and you're right, it was harsh. I guess I'm just deeply frustrated that the deadline can't be met. I'm sorry, Mabeenot. Tony (talk) 10:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Tony's suggestion: Standard weekly schedule

• Tuesday–Thursday: start. Start all pages that are to be included in the next edition. NAN and INN stories/links listed below.
• Saturday–Sunday: mature versions. Aim to have reasonably mature drafts of all pages for comments by the Managing Editor, fellow journalists, and other interested users. Signpost editors recommend any structural changes, reductions in length, expansions in scope, necessary coordination between pages, postponement to subsequent issue. Copy-editors go through the drafts.
• Late Sunday – early Monday: trouble-shooting. Fresh stories added to INN and NAN by the "Next issue deadline" (only if sufficiently topical and important).
• Monday: last minute tweaks & copyedits; publication.

Next issue Due for publication: !  Deadline this week is 3:00 UTC, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Issue/Next. Once all tasks are complete, the editor-in-chief (or nominated deputy) should complete the publication process.

News and notes Done

It's coming togethor. ResMar 15:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC) The "Briefly" section looks a bit longer than usual besides that it looks good. I am available if anyone needs any help.--Theo10011 (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Meh, there's only one major story far as I see, and a lot of minor ones. ResMar 01:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC) It has to be said that the coverage of the Pending changes analysis is not very substantial. There might still be some hours's time to add a sentence or two. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC) All they really did was publish the analysed results, so there's not much to write on it :L ResMar 15:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

In the news Needs copyedit

Check status At the moment, this doesn't look very good. The Wikileaks story is largely redundant to last week's ITN, which already had the subtitle "Wales on Wikileaks". I will try to rewrite it to make it more relevant, and also add a note about an Austrian survey. Other topics that would be good to cover: Google's "Health Speaks", see also [1] Wiki Project Brings Some Student Wariness at Singapore Management U.. Michel Houellebecq plagiarism [2] (apparently no English sources so far). I will add add least one sentence about it. The Canadian story missed last week, see [3] and tip line I don't think the Windows 7 phone blog post is a very relevant news item. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC) OK, I'll do the health speaks one, if only because I can see the deadline approaching. I already put too much time into The Signpost; a few more ITN and NAN journalists are needed. Tony (talk) 02:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks, and yes, we need to put out a call for ITN/N&N writers soon, maybe together with the announcement of the global delivery option. I'm also adding a brief note about "Wikimedia to open office in India in six months". Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC) 3 News stories that might be of interest for "in the news" section, [4] [5] [6], I am not sure if they have been previously covered or if they are notable enough. Someone mind taking a look?--Theo10011 (talk) 04:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC) another one [7].--Theo10011 (talk) 04:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC) OK, quick opinion: The Jimbo interview is mostly not about Wikipedia/Wikimedia-related topics, so it shouldn't be given too much room. It might merit a short mention, though (I think we did so for his opinion about Murdoch's paywalls earlier), and the remark toward the end about Wikipedia/Wikia is interesting. I am not familiar with thenewsoftoday.com, is this a notable publication? If so, it could be a brief item, it is a run-of-the mill vandalism story. CTV.ca: That is the Canadian story mentioned above, a bit older but still worth covering. The Mousetrap story was already covered last week. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC) I found 2 other sources for Chris Hansen story but both are blacklisted, most other sources are from blogs I found through Google news. It would make 2 Vandalism related stories for in the news section. I have to leave in a few minutes, I'm really sorry I couldn't be of any further help. I will be back later today to write them up if no one covers them in the mean time. Thanks. --Theo10011 (talk) 05:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC) I suggest we decide now which ones to finish and run. The deadline approaches. The others can go in next week's edition. I've asked an enwiki person from the Pharma WikiProject for a comment on the Health Speaks story, so if he gets back in time, it might be included. Otherwise, it can run as is. Tony (talk) 06:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC) OK, this is mostly ready for copy-edit now, except that some bare links need to be written up or removed. And Tony, has this issue been resolved? Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC) I can hadle n&n for the time being, however I'm unsure as to what effect school will have on my editrate. ResMar 15:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Good news, Mario. Thanks. HaeB, issue resolved, and I'm expanding the Health Speaks story with the other side: comments by WP's experts. Won't take long. Tony (talk) 01:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC) HaeB, I loved the "fed up" title. Readers like that kind of thing. And "The difficult relationship between WikiLeaks and Wikipedia" is misleading, isn't it. In what respect is it "difficult"? Sounds like the two organisations are huffing at each other in public. But we're not. Tony (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Ah, I've just read it properly. Yeah, the "fed up" needed to go. What about: Assange: Wikipedians "don't give a fuck about the material" Tony (talk) 03:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC) No, that is not remotely descriptive of the content. How about something using the "two behemoths" (the Independent's choice of words)? Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Aww shucks, I didn't think that would get past you. I don't like "behomoths"; the current title is fine, I think. Tony (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Marking this as "needs copyedit" now, removed [8] (but if someone still wants to write it up, go ahead). Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Can we mark it as copyedited now? Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject report Needs copyedit	Check status When will this be completed? We want to publish much earlier than last week. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC) I've formatted it, added the sidebar and put in a lead. All it needs now is a teaser for next week's WikiProject report and some good old copyediting. :) Rock drum Ba-dumCrash (Driving well?) 07:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Features and admins Done	Check status Waiting for FP judge, then the arrangement of pics. Tony (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion report Not started	Check status

Arbitration report Done

At last. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC) I feel the same way. When our readership expands gradually with the new interwiki subscription facility, it will all seem undeniably worth it. I want a weekly readership of 3,000. Tony (talk) 12:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC) [9] [10][11] What is the ArbCom directive in question, and how is it a concern here? Please try to resolve this as quickly as possible. Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC) The directive appears to be what I quoted in the section (which makes it all the more absurd to remove it as being in breach of the same directive). I'm concerned by the modification of the report which should have been discussed; timings of comments have been removed, when really, they are context relevant anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC) I see it is still marked as "in progress" - can we consider it finished now? Do the users who objected to earlier versions still have serious concerns about the present one? Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Technology report Done	May also need updating / some extra In briefs. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 18:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC) I've copy-edited it. One or two inline queries. Tony (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Resolved, thanks Tony. Moving to Done. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 11:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Sister projects On hiatus

Dispatches Needs discussion.

Is it ready or isn't it? Can easily be put off again if not ready by Monday 03:00 UTC. Could there be just a little mention of featured content at the top, since that is the theme of "Dispatches"? Tony (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Yes, it is. Any other arguments that are being brought up are repititions of old ones at this point. There's nothing wrong with the article, it's well enough written, comprensive enough, not some big thing, and fits the scope. In other words, it's perfectly ready for publication. If it gets delayed again, I swear... ResMar 15:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Book review Needs copyedit

Following last week's feedback, I have added more structure to enhance readability, as suggested by Ragesoss. Despite adding some things like section headings and an image caption, it is now slightly shorter (ca. 2330 instead of 2370 words) - for comparison: This (IMHO very good) review last year had around 2250 words, and the professional review of Shirky's book I cite (from the Boston Review) has almost 3300 words, but the Signpost review guidelines currently suggest "While there is no set length, between 600 and 1200 words is a rule of thumb." Ragesoss thought the level of detail in last week's version was appropriate, and I can offer some justification - the book review is enriched with some stuff that might otherwise be in ITN or N&N, about Shirky's presentation to Wikipedians last week (which was based on the book but introduced some new aspects), and Sue Gardner citing him in an interview this week. And I think it is a book that is highly relevant for Signpost readers; Shirky's ideas seem to be informing the strategic thinking at the Foundation to some extent, which was another reason for me to emphasize a Wikipedian/Wikimedian angle more than a normal Signpost review might already do. Still, I'd like to hear if there continue to be readability concerns about the new version. Last week, starting with John Broughton, several people suggested to split the review into two parts. Although I would like to avoid that for reasons of flow and coherence, it is conceivable to run what is now the "Motivating and cultivating collaboration" section one week later. One could perhaps frame that as the first part being more about the book itself and the author, and how it illuminates Wikipedia's role in society, and the second part being a summary of Shirky's presentation of numerous research results that shed light on why Wikipedia works. It will still a bit messy to separate it like this, though, and I would prefer to run it in one piece. Thoughts? Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Still far too long. I don't agree with Ragesoss that the level of detail is appropriate—at least not in some respects, particularly at the opening. It's such an interesting review, but it's too academic and not journalistic enough. The opening needs to create tension: readers love tension. Do you like his latest book or not? Can you give us an idea rather than embarking immediately on a backgrounding of his previous work? I suggest his previous publications be referred to further down, and more succinctly, rather than with this big paintbrush at the top, before our interest is captured. You might even consider zipping up the article title: Cognitive surplus: Shirky sets new challenges for the field". I don't know, I haven't yet read through it. Tony (talk) 03:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC) I'll think about a snappy addition to the title. (I mused "Wikipedia vs. TV" earlier, but that wouldn't quite fit the whole thing.) Do you like his latest book or not? - I give a judgment at the end of the second paragraph. I will consider moving that further up in the opening. I thought that the fact that he studied WP earlier than most other thinkers might add to reader interest. The statement about his relationship to Wikimedia might do that too, and is to some extent necessary for "disclosure" reasons - after all, this review of the book of a Wikimedia advisory board member is being published on a Wikimedia project. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Sure, but they don't have to go at the start. I suggest capturing readers' interest, getting straight into the meat, as soon as possible. His credentials and previous interest in WP could be worked in below as a passing comment. (e.g., "... as a commentator with a long history of interest in ...). Tony (talk) 06:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Other opinions? I'm now going to have a go at Tony's style suggestions, and might also be able to shave off a little more, but probably not much. If more people feel that it does not have readable length, I will split it as described, otherwise run it in one piece. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Did some edits in that direction, marking it as "needs copyedit" now - although I might make some more changes (e.g. title), they shouldn't interfere with copyediting too much. Still open to more opinions regarding splitting. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Regular responsibilities

Signpost journalists can claim responsibility for regular features, and continue writing their beat for as long as they wish. If you would like to be a regular writer for The Signpost, add your name to the appropriate task. If you'd be willing to cover a story that is usually covered by another editor, or are willing to cover it sporadically when the normal writer can't, add your name to the Backup list so you can be contacted when the need arises – the more the merrier. If a beat is not assigned to anyone and no draft for the next issue is listed above, anyone should feel free to write it that week.

Task	User	Backup
News and notes		Pretzels, HaeB, Tarheel95, Resident Mario
In the news	Wackywace	Sk8er5000, Belugaboy, Tarheel95, HaeB, extransit, Theo10011, Diego Grez
WikiProject report	Coordinated at the WikiProject desk
Discussion report	Mono and Wackywace
Features and admins	seresin	Tony1, Dabomb87
Arbitration report	Ncmvocalist	Mabeenot, Jéské Couriano
Technology report	Jarry1250	Occasionally: TheDJ, Theo10011
Sister Projects		Forty two
Dispatches	Coordinated at the Featured content dispatch workshop
Design & templates	Pretzels, Mono
Copy-editing team	Tony1, Pretzels, Tarheel95
Publication	HaeB	seresin
Talkpage deliveries	EdwardsBot

The Signpost is written by editors like you — join in!

Home

About

Archives

Newsroom

Subscribe

Suggestions