Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Resident Mario (talk | contribs) at 18:16, 31 August 2010 (→‎Next issue). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Signpost
← Current issue
WP:POST/N
Newsroom

Suggestions Review desk Opinion desk Interviews desk

WikiProject desk

IRC channel

Template:SignpostNavigation

Notices

  • 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)[reply]

  • Thanks to everyone who contributed to this week's issue! Two remarks:
    • Publication time: After managing to keep it within Monday during the first half of this month, we have unfortunately slipped back deep into Tuesday with the last two issues. The main reason was, as on earlier occasions, the lack of designated writers for "In the news" and (especially) "News and notes" sections. In the end, we managed to put together some pretty good coverage of all the important news (only some smaller items, e.g. from the tip line, slipped through the cracks), thanks to Forty Two, Resident Mario and the others who stepped into the breach on Tuesday. But we do need good writers who each week try to cover the essential news by Sunday evening.
    • Arbitration Report: Following this discussion, I'd like to remind everyone that while we have bylines and writers who thankfully sign up under "Regular responsibilities" to cover a certain beat in a timely way, Signpost articles are not owned. If someone sees specific possibilities for improvement of an upcoming story, they are welcome to point it out here in the Newsroom discussion (as it is already being done) or to improve the story themselves.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me, if I get a request from an editor on a foreign-language WP or the Commons, say, for auto-subscription, what do I tell them? Tony (talk) 03:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC) PS Publication was Wednesday, not Tuesday, for me. Tony (talk) 09:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're obviously talking UTC here (not my current time zone either).
Until someone sets up a delivery bot on that Wikipedia (see our earlier discussion), the RSS feed is probably the best option, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why, at F and A, we bother to take notice of the Monday 03:00 deadline. It seems that no one else does. Now we have a book review started after the deadline. Apparently it needs lots of work, and so does the Dispatches page. I say hold them off until the next week unless they're ready by the deadline. NAN and INN are always the hold-up. Do you want a deadline or not?
And furthermore, this week's edition is not only late, as usual: it is HUGE. This is not fair to anyone, least of all the readers, who are likely not to want to spend two hours reading the edition. The articles that are not tightly related to time (the content tools and the book review) need to be put off until next week. I'd like to see better forward planning to avoid these bumps, and greater flexibility to postpone. Can someone tell me what the status of this "3,000" page is? It doesn't appear below, but I've been asked to copy-edit it. God save us if we get the standard stuff copy-edited. It's all looking too much. I did intensive copy-editing on INN yesterday, and there'll be more now, I suppose. Can we have some planning or directives? Tony (talk) 23:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And PPS, the "3,000" seems to be very similar to F and A. I'm not happy with this. It should have been coordinated with us earlier. Why not a much briefer mention in F and A? It is too much for readers. And I take SandyGeorgia's comment "who reads it" (referring to F and A) on the chin, but it's pretty nasty. Tony (talk) 23:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deadlines are made for breaking, all the same. If you are expessing ire at 3000, let off. I didn't base any part of the article on your story, and it's written as a completely independant story covering a major Wikipedia milestone. ResMar 23:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"3,000th featured article" could be the subtitle of F and A this week, and a SHORT piece could be integrated into F and A. But the full catastrophe of quasi-blurbs for many articles, rather long, each, and worse, repeated articles that we've already treated in F and A, will make readers think this is all a joke. Journalism should not be voluminous: it is becoming a chore for readers. Tony (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm sure readers would love "Oh, we reached 3000 FAs everyone, good job!" slapped onto the end of their weekly read. ResMar 00:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neither "Dispatches" (in the sense of the tool story) nor the book review are holding things up right now (following other feedback I'll note below, I am either going to run the latter roughly in its current form or postpone it to next week).
Dispatches (i.e. the bureaucracy discussion) is indeed causing some delays.
But as with the last two issues (see above), the main reason for the delay is that we still don't have writers who take full responsibility to finish ITN and N&N in time. I have been waiting all day for someone doing the necessary work in these two sections (and did some of it myself), but the Signpost doesn't have any paid employees and I can't force people to do it.
I'm not happy that we are running into Tuesday again, but I'd also like to point out that this is still fairly average - look at [1].
Agree about the PPS, but that is already being discussed below.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tisk, I hope not every Dispatch I write turns into a war zone. ResMar 00:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've integrated the announcement into F and A and added Resident Mario's name as co-author. It works well because we had only five new FA promotions this week. The extended descriptions of the six simultaneously promoted articles are undesirable, since they have already been treated by The Signpost, only last week. HaeB, please note the temporary change of subtitle to "Featured article milestone: 3,000". Tony (talk) 03:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I share and appreciate Tony's frustrations about the delays. Fair enough that we have no writers for ITN and N&N, and fair enough that some topics are controversial by nature. But this is getting a bit ridiculous - generally, the value of news falls as it becomes more stale or old, be it for F&A, Arb or Tech, or ITN/N&N. Segments that don't fall into the category I just described really should be postponed until they are ready (or are up to snuff), and sometimes splitting things into a series is a good thing: internally, it would allow people to focus their energies on the part of the series that is relevant to that week's publication, and externally, readers would be more inclined to read the whole lot and not lose interest. So all in all, as always, part of the problem is the same one as usual (N&N and ITN), but the other part of the problem is that without very good reason, there is too much going on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and have posted below a draft standard schedule for weekly planning and decision-making. Please tweak or comment or remove as you wish, but at the moment there's not enough structure in our prep., IMO. Tony (talk) 05:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is a false assumption about the causes of the delay. Both the tools article and the book review can indeed easily be postponed in the case that everything else is ready and they would be holding up publication, and actually I did so already (with the tools story last week and the review this week).
To clarify for those who have not read the discussion about ITN: The current version of the Agatha Christie story has severe flaws that don't allow publishing it in this state (misrepresenting who is spokesperson for Wikipedia/Wikimedia). This is mostly not the Signpost writer's fault (although he added some inaccuracies), but we don't have an excuse for reproducing the Independent's errors after they have already been noted extensively on ANI and Jimbo's talk page. This could be quite damaging for the Signpost, especially as we are often seen as representing Wikipedia/Wikimedia quasi-officially (which we are not, but the misunderstanding is common).
Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just bin the stuff about WP spokespeople? I mean, it's such a harmless piece, who cares if we don't defend ourselves? The grandson is palpably pouting, anyway—you can sniff it from the quotes from the newspaper. Tony (talk) 07:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've fixed that story up. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good now, thanks! Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Canadian links are still there. Can they go in next week's? Tony (talk) 11:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look like the writer who added them will make them into a full story in time, so I am removing them. According to the commenters on the suggestions page, it is a major story in Canada though, so maybe it's still wotrth covering it in the next issue.
Two or three sentences about Sue Gardner's comments here would fit nicely into the Jimbo interview story (same topics: Wikileaks, India). If someone finds time to add them soon (while I am busy with N&N), go ahead. Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's Wednesday morning in half an hour. The lateness is particularly annoying because at F and A we made a great effort to shift back the "window", organise visiting judges to do their thing on the weekend. All expecting that the publication would be out on time. I don't know why we bothered. In my view, HaeB needs to draw a line under whole pages, and stories within pages, that are not done by late Sunday night UTC. I don't care if The Signpost goes out missing major pages. Too bad if it happens one week. Tony (talk) 13:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am extremely distempered now. I never said that you can lynch my writing and throw it across the floor. Who got my approval for this? ResMar 17:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Standard weekly schedule

  • Tuesday–Friday: start. Start all pages that are to be included in the next edition.
  • 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. Left-overs, unfinished—too bad, they go into the following edition.

Next issue

Due for publication: Error: first parameter cannot be parsed as a date or time.!  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

In Progress

Anyone able to start this? I'm getting worried already about the deadline. Tony (talk) 09:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do it, assuming I don't have to do any actual research :) ResMar 03:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some coverage of the NYC Wiki-Conference would be great, especially of Sue Gardner's keynote on Sunday. This can also be done (to some extent) by someone who is not present in New York, by watching the video stream (I already watched Clay Shirky's keynote on Saturday and am going to cover it a bit in the book review, see below). Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are chronically behind schedule aren't we :L ResMar 20:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Now, when I see the opening item (job opening for WMF rep in India), I feel like visiting the India-related WikiProject, and the Hindi WP, to leave a link and note about The Signpost; this might generate more interwiki readers. Tony (talk) 08:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
N&N needs a consistent writer. I'm willing to cover it every now and then, but writing it up completely takes the whole day and I'm not always willing to detract from my other things for it. ResMar 23:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First item: why not display the mainspace-only graph instead? Isn't that more important? And I see a whole lot of URLs at the top of the graph I've never heard of; could they be listed in plain-speak in the accompanying text? Is that Imdb at No. 3? What is "dx.doi.org"? And the text mentions the WP toolserver and google; which URLs are they on the graph? Tony (talk) 06:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was in fact the mainspace-only graph (see the description), which is why Toolserver and Google are not included. Describing URLs in plain-speak: Indeed, I had the same idea (there are Wikipedia articles describing all of the top ones, e,g. for dx.doi.org see Digital object identifier).
The "Briefly" section still needs some fixes/updates, I will take care of that.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously haven't written much if you don't know what those are. IMDB is on top because its linked out of every actor box, and dx.doi is the header site for referenced DOIs. ResMar 18:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the news

Needs copyedit
Check status

Bare links to one story atm. ResMar 04:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Agatha Christie story reads nice, but actually needs some major rework in light of this/this.
The other finished stories also need a look (e.g. inexplicably some important links were removed, including that to the source interview). And what is going to happen with the Canadian story?
Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a read through the AN/I report, and I know what you mean—and the IoS were wrong to refer to the two users in the way that they did. As a reader of the Independent I was tempted to write a letter to the editor explaining that the two users were not spokespeople or "approved Wikipedia committee member"s, but it would not do much good. I think what you are suggesting I do is make it clear that these people were not what the IoS reffered to them as—but where do I draw the line between a news story on the ending of The Mousetrap, and a news story on the fact that the IoS has blatantly lied about Wikipedia? They are surely both of interest to Signpost readers, and yet is difficult to have a report and then a report about how that report was factually incorrect on the same page. WackyWace 09:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't hesitate to add such information (provided it is is not written in an overly aggressive style). Providing additional context for a news story and, if necessary, noting incorrect information in it has always been on-topic in ITN. It is actually what makes much of its value and keeps it from being just a summary or even copy. This is also why the 2007 Signpost coverage on WP:SPOILER, elucidating how it took its present form, should be linked in this story.
Whereas the scope of N&N is more conventional - reporting news -, ITN concerns coverage of coverage, so to speak: Part of the newsworthiness for stories there is that a media outlet has decided to report on Wikipedia. (So even if a newspaper reports things that aren't news at all for our readers, we can still note it in ITN.)
Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've copy-edited this expanded version. It's pretty much ready: I think the Canadian stuff can be put off until next week. There's something about ANI there that looks like an unfinished tag. Next week? Tony (talk) 07:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject report

Done
Check status

If anyone has something wittier to say for the teaser, please replace my feeble attempt.  ℳono  22:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a hard project to write a teaser for. -Mabeenot (talk) 05:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copy-edited. Which WikiProject is being teased? Tony (talk) 10:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about "The universe according to WikiProject Universities"? ResMar 15:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Studying ..." is a nice subtitle. I understand the "teaser" being about next week's report. Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought "teaser" referred to the bit at the end on next week's report. Yes, "Studying ..." is fine. Tony (talk) 00:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Features and admins

Done
Check status
Waiting on FP Choice of the week Done. Tony (talk) 01:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to double check where we're at right now, do you mean done as in completed (green) or done as in FP choice is done but there's more to do (in progress)? Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've greened it. Please note that that the subtitle has changed for this week to accommodate the "3,000" report, which has been integrated into a section at the top. Tony (talk) 05:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion report

Not started
Check status

Arbitration report

Done		 Will cover CU/OS appointments next week when they come into effect. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technology report

Done

Recentchanges via XMPP might be worth covering. Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorporated in brief, probably ought to be sufficient? - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 21:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At least it's a lot better than nothing ;)
Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sister projects

On hiatus

Dispatches

Postponed

Hopefully we can work out all these issues before we get to the next publication? ResMar 21:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said there, this still seems a bit more like a Wikipedia list-style essay than a Signpost article at the moment. I think you're unnecessarily constraining yourself, and splitting it into a series might be one of the few ways of turning this into a Signpost-like article. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Define "Signpost like article..." ResMar 00:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issues will work themselves out if drafts are proposed and posted at WT:FCDW, as they always have been, where other editors collaborate to copyedit and make sure the Dispatch is up to snuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but the problem is that instead of doing that, he seems to be insisting that this be published now or never. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A sequence of short sections seems like a natural way of covering a variety of different tools. Some language may need to be made more formal, but that is not a major issue. Obviously, not every tool can be covered, so some kind of selection needs to be made, but that's what we do here all the time (with news items), it is part of journalism. Are there other objections? I see a little room for improvement (for example, the DYKcheck tool seems to have a too narrow purpose, and the DYK page itsself seems to be a better page to reach its target group), but all in all it is an article that readers are likely to find useful.
If anyone is seriously planning to extend this into a series, or to enrich it by interviewing the originators of the tools, we can and should hold off publication another week. But otherwise I think that one week should have been enough for discussion. If the author wants to publish it in this issue, I am inclined to do so.
It is not clear to me whether SandyGeorgia still has objections to publish it under the "Dispatches" section. But as said earlier, it is also possible to run it outside Dispatches, and there are actually arguments to do so (tools like WikiDashBoard do not really seem germane to the featured content processes, and most of the tools will also be useful for editors who do not work on featured content).
Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this does get published, I don't see why we should refrain from publishing any other essay in the Wikipedia space that would arguably be useful to contributors who do not work in certain areas (or are "dispatch themed"). One would have thought that there'd be a notable difference between the two (that is, one was more news-oriented rather than one should be published because the editor of it is adamant that he won't do anything more and wants it published right away). Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nt: If I can get WP:FCDW/3000 togethor and through fast enough (and it's now my first priority) it would supersede this bothersome article anyhow. ResMar 03:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you can get Tony to copyedit it before deadline, you might make it-- however, the 3000th deals with promotions I made, and I would need to review the Dispatch, and I'm traveling and unsure if I will be able to review it tomorrow. There does not have to be a Dispatch every week-- they were always very high quality, but never ran weekly-- getting it right is more important than meeting a deadline, even if we have to delay a week. In the future, proposing drafts in temporary workfiles-- as was always done in the past-- will be a quicker way to get the job done. 3000 FAs is an important milestone, and we need to make sure the Dispatch is well reviewed before it goes out. Thanks for taking that on! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In progress. ResMar 17:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not going to realistically make the deadline. I've quened the old article. I'm a bit dissapointed in narrow-mindednes at the moment. ResMar 00:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to note that all the articles featured in WP:FCDW/3000 were already featured in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-08-23/Features and admins. There needs to be some sort of coordination between the F&A and Dispatches sections.
Perhaps the 3000 story could be expanded with more about the history and statistics of FA? Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that would be a seperate article. This is about 3000 FAs not general history :) ResMar 15:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Milestone stories are always more about the project/process which is celebrating the milestone than about the milestone itself (which, as can be seen in this example, is somewhat arbitrary). If the main topic of WP:FCDW/3000 would be the 3000th articles (sic) themselves, then I would say that it is rather redundant (we don't need to tell our readers about the same featured articles twice in a row). However, that is not how I understood the main intention of the story. You may want to check Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-06-12/Thousandth FA, where more than half of the text concerned the FA process itself (including history and statistics), which most readers will find much more relevant. Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't this be more relevant? 6 articles were promoted simotaneously, not just one. ResMar 20:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this right: the 3,000 thing is going in next week? Is there any need for coordination with this week's F and A? Tony (talk) 00:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With last week's F&A, basically. I think that presenting the same FA twice should be avoided, but due to a lack of coordination quite some work seems to have been invested into the second preparations already. The question is more generally how we coordinate two sections that both (one at least from time to time) present featured articles and interview their writers. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But back then F&A consisted of mere lists, see F&A in the same issue. And the milestone dispatch did have historical information and contained the graph I was talking about. (Of course the 3000 dispatch already has historical information too, it is about the proportion.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The volume of historical material is more or less the same, and the chart used in that dispatch hasn't been updated since 2009. The Dispatch was written fully independantly from the F&A, in didn't really think about it then. The F&A talks about the articles themselves, anyway, while the Dispatch describes the process followed by the editors. In addition I'm not really sure anyone would be concerned about arguably minor repetition between two different sections on two different weeks. Wasn't there a much more serious such debate on repetition in reference to Lengthy arbitration? ResMar 15:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a general note, this seems to be spinning out of control, in several different directions, with various levels of misunderstanding. I'm just returning from travel, and haven't been able to keep up. First, ALL Dispatches should be put up as a draft at WT:FCDW and coordinated there, which would help avoid the problems we're seeing on both of these drafts. Second, neither of them are ready. Third, I'm unclear what HaeB's understanding of the Dispatches is, as both of the articles are within the scope of the Dispatches. Following a talk discussion in this format is confusing and unnecessary-- Dispatches should be proposed and finalized at the Workshop page and only listed here once they are ready to go. That will solve the coordination problem, and we can't be putting forward Dispatches here that aren't nearly ready for prime time. The 3000th FA needs/warrants/deserves a real article-- that Features and admins has expanded to include a weekly discussion of each article (which I wonder if anyone reads) should not preclude a separate discussion of an important milestone, which most certainly should cover more history and trends at FAC-- I'm hoping Tony1 will find time to bring that one up to snuff so it can run, and then the tools (which most certainly apply to all content review processes, which the Dispatches do cover, can run later once it's polished up). I do not object to the tools Dispatch running-- I do object to an ill-prepared and unreviewed Dispatch running. Long story short-- please use the Workshop page, which is what it is for, and drafts are brought over here once they are ready to go and have been properly reviewed and copyedited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following a talk discussion in this format is confusing and unnecessary - this Newsroom page is the common place to discuss upcoming Signpost stories, and has been since at least last year.
I'm unclear what HaeB's understanding of the Dispatches is - from Wikipedia:Featured_content_dispatch_workshop#Goal, I understand that their scope is "issues concerning featured content and related pages, particularly in relation to editing and how the processes work". That includes the 3000th FA of course, but I fail to see why the listed tools shouldn't be of equal interest to readers not involved in featured content processes, many of them are not specific to featured content at all.
And to answer the question in your edit summary, Ragesoss stepped down as the Signpost's editor-in-chief almost three months ago (because he took up a job at the WMF), after which I took over.
You can find more information about the Signpost on Wikipedia:Signpost/About.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
HaeB, if you want discussion to occur here, than I suggest a more friendly page format, including edit tabs on each section. (I also suggest, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", and it wasn't broke before :) Also, you left out a good portion of the Dispatch page description: "describes issues concerning featured content and related pages, particularly in relation to editing and how the processes work. The stories will be about (but not limited to): 1) interesting activities and decisions on the featured articles, pictures, lists, portals, topics and sounds, good-article, peer-review and DYK pages; and 2) high-quality contributions by individuals and groups." In other words, anything affecting content review processes, as you can see by reviewing {{FCDW}}. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"if it ain't broke, don't fix it" - an excellent point! Now look: I agree that section edit links could perhaps be an improvement, I'll notify Pretzels (the designer of the template) of your suggestion. But the current Newsroom system (save a few tweaks) has been used during this whole year to produce Signpost stories (long before I became editor), and during that time, the Signpost has been doing quite fine. And despite your concerns ("goodness, signpost losing its way") we have published many great stories, without checking whether their topic is something "affecting content review processes" and needing approval of five different members of the Dispatches workshop. The revamped F&A section keeps getting excellent reader feedback without Dispatches approval. See what I mean?
I agree that ResMar made a mistake in not posting a notification at WT:FCDW that he was going to use the Dispatches label for a Signpost story. I also acknowledge that the Dispatches workshop has produced some very good Signpost stories back in the 2000s, and one in this decade, in March this year. And I would love see it to do so again, and when it does, I will happily rely on you and your project to ensure quality. But until then, I would like you to take note of this comment by an entirely uninvolved user about feelings of ownership, and let us continue to do our work as we have been doing it successfully so far.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been fighting for this for almost 2 weeks now. What have you me do now? Polished up, by whoom! For what! As an aside, listing it at FCDW does nothing, as you have to run rounds notifying everyone anyway, since no one reads the damn thing. ResMar 23:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you didn't bring either up for discussion on that page, in what position are you to make these statements? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty. I've had it stuffed down my throat. It's writers indigestion, and it's bad. ResMar 23:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of the things that pisses me off the most at Wikipedia is the "it needs work" argument that, amazing, doesn't specify anything at all that needs work. If it's a copyedit it needs, we have a chimp and a typewriter working on it. If it needs expansion, well, where. Fighting for something you care about at every street corner is tiring. ResMar 00:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note for later reference: The non-redundant part of Wikipedia:FCDW/3000 has now been incorporated into Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-08-30/Features and admins.

As I indicated on August 29, I am ready to run the tools article as a special story without the "Dispatches" label (an option which had been suggested earlier by others, e.g. Tony), considering the needless trouble it has caused so far.

This has generated lengthy and largely unproductive discussions in last week's Newsroom, this week's Newsroom, on the story's talk page and on the Signpost talk page. I am very concerned that putting it off another week will let this descend further into unproductive bickering and sniping, greatly distracting from other Signpost work and frustrating productive new writers (note also Mabeenot's comment here). The only argument I see for postponing it are today's edits by Dispenser to the story, which indicate that he might do some valuable work on it if given more time. For this reason, I have now moved it back once more, to the next (September 6) issue. If the workshop makes a good story out of it until then according to their criteria, all well. If not, I will run it as a special story about general purpose tools, considering the positive reader feedback it has received already, e.g. by Tony (although he since seems to have changed his mind for unclear reasons), Ucucha (whose suggestions appear to have been taken up) and Quiddity.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I most certainly agree that this discussion has been unproductive, but I suspect my reasons are very different from yours. This format is unwieldy; I have responded on my talk, and am sorely disappointed at the direction the signpost is taking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I second this. I am very, very dissapointed that my report was taken without premission and slapped onto the end of something else entirely, entirely without my approval. ResMar 18:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Book review

Postponed

Of Clay Shirky's book "Cognitive Surplus", as announced a while ago. I am also going to incorporate some information about his keynote at the NYC Wiki-Conference. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to shorten this to get closer to the 1300 (or formerly 1600) words recommended in the Signpost review guidelines (currently it's 2370 words), but copyediting or other feedback is welcome already. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're not likely to get it much shorter without some brutal cuts. I strongly suggest that this be published in two parts (the second in next week's Signpost). I suggest splitting it so that the paragraph about the third chapter becomes the first paragraph in the text in next week's issue. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it's beutifuly writ, why waste it like that? :) ResMar 23:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's far too long. One senior WPian whose career was partly in professional book reviewing told me something like 800 words is typical. I think here 800 to 1200 is the benchmark. Tony (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's very well written but it'd be a pointless exercise if no one was ready to read the bulk of it. Perhaps it should be split into a series, with the first only addressing the first 2 or 3 chapters. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is well-written. The critic I referred to above said "You'll have to murder your darlings"; i.e., slash; I found it hard to do, though. If it's to be in two installments, can they be effectively packaged in two explicit themes? There could be a "Next week" teaser at the bottom. Tony (talk) 06:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who is that Wikipedian? In the text I happen to mention this review of the same book in the Boston Review, which has almost 3300 words.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. John: your edit made sense (I had been looking through for dispensable sentences before, but that one hadn't occurred to me), and "not likely" without damaging cuts - yes, I noticed that too :-/
Right before John's comment, I had just been talking to Ragesoss about this, who thinks that the length (or level of detail) is justifiable, but is going to make some suggestions in the next days on how to add subsections and the like to structure the text for readability. Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Review_desk currently suggests 1200 words as a (soft) upper limit - above, I got that mixed up with the length of our last review (by Tony), which had around 1336 words. Actually, the 1200 had been changed from 1600 fairly recently without much discussion. Now, these were never meant to be hard and fast rules. And I think that the level of detail should also depend on the book, and Shirky's has a lot that is very relevant for our readers, perhaps more so than other books that were reviewed (after all he is a Wikimedia advisory board member). And Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-06-15/Book_review, which I thought to be a fine read at the time, had over 2200 words, too. However, in the case of the present article I have obviously read it too often myself to have a firm judgment on it is still in the readable range or not, and as the Signpost editor I have a conflict of interest ;) As I had already indicated under "Notes" above, I am fine with postponing it one week to get more feedback, introduce sections or split it. I am moving it now.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it and rewrote/expanded the guidelines, and Ragesoss thought it was fine. Yes, my last review was too long at 1300+ words, but much better than the 1950 it was beforehand. I think an upper limit of 1200 is still too long: I'd say the guideline should be 800–1000. Reader just won't finish the review if it's long. Most newspaper book reviews are around 600, and you finish not wanting more. Trouble is, book reviews require a huge amount of work, so there's always a tendency to put more into the review, having spent all that time reading and thinking about the book. Tony (talk) 07:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just went through the top, trimming and smoothing; just a little academic and "thorough" for a journalistic piece. But it's very good, and I think better slashed than split. Tony (talk) 07:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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
It's your Signpost. You can help us.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom&oldid=382114786"