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)
• note: I took myself off as the lead for News & Notes -- not because I don't still love the post, but because getting seated on the board means I have even less time, and makes it inappropriate for me to be lead writer on this section (and I haven't been doing it for a month or two anyway). I will still contribute suggestions to the newsroom; feel free to incorporate these as you see fit. cheers, phoebe / (talk to me) 09:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Would anyone be able to find a place to mention the ongoing discussion at Valued Picture Candidates (Wikipedia_talk:Valued_picture_candidates#Dead_project.3F) about revamping and saving the project or shutting it down? — raekyT 14:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

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 In progress

In the news Needs copyedit

Check status Does anyone else find the Umberto Eco section just a little too long? - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 11:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC) I wrote the article and I found it too long(interview is pretty long too). Haeb mentioned that it will be trimmed down, please trim down as you see fit, Haeb wanted to leave in the "wisdom of the crowd" quote though.--Theo10011 (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC) I think it's an interesting story (and perspective) up until the part about free licenses and copyright which I thought wasn't particularly special - for me, the "wow" factor fades from that point onwards, so that's the part I'd probably consider trimming more brutally (if I was trimming; noting that I won't be trimming this week's issue). Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC) I rewrote it a bit to focus more on the Wikipedia-/Wikimedia-related content. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject report Needs copyedit	Check status

Features and admins Needs copyedit	Check status I'm on dial-up Thursday to Sunday. Tony (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC) (Concerning the "Needs copyedit" status:) What about the "TEXT" placeholders? Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC) Ah sorry, I missed those. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC) Ready now. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion report Not started	Check status

Arbitration report Done

I've retained last week's title (Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution) for this week's issue, but I'll definitely use a descriptive header next week. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC) See also the discussion about headlines on the last issue's talk page. In the context of various recent complaints about this section, I'd like to suggest postponing significant update additions which may arise to the next issue (for example, the part that forced us to include a correction note in the last issue had been added many hours after publication). This leaves more opportunity for feedback here in the newsroom before publication. Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC) But maybe a subtraction: It seems that "at least six days have passed" is outdated. Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC) "Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution" is POINTy, disruptive, and non-neutral, and this is consistent with NCM's entire writing pattern since he took over this job. It should simply be "Arbitration Report" or some similar neutral term. NCM keeps highlighting things such as delays and writes them in POINTy style, not non-neutral which is what a newspaper should be. Arbitration is not something that happens with the flick of a switch. NCM needs to make significant improvements in his reporting. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC) You're not the only one that agrees, Rlevse. I think attempting to abandon Wikipedia for the CRASH recruitment drive was the worst mistake made in this section's history. Ncmvocalist, you are heavily biased in your words and the issues you raise Cain over. I am of the opinion that you cannot maintain the neutrality needed to write this section, and your retaining the "tl;dr" name only reinforces that notion. You are, bar none, not fit for a non-Fox-News owned media outlet, let alone the Signpost. —Jeremy (v^_^v Carl Johnson) 18:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC) Could I make a gentle comment here? I think "tricky" has an inescapable ring of "Tricky Dicky Nixon" about it. Because some readers will see that, consideration might be given to removing or substituting the word. Tony (talk) 04:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC) What's wrong with just plain, ordinary, simple, objective 'Arbitration Report'? Pray tell, from whence stems the need for such editorialising? Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC) For a general discussion about these titles, go here. "Arbitration Report" is not an option because we have a system of (short) section titles - i.e. the page name, here "Arbitration report" - and (longer) headlines, here "Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution", or traditionally "The Report on Lengthy Litigation", a title that has been used continually since the very first Signpost issue in 2005 until recently, even though it might also be seen as highlighting negative aspects of arbitration. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC) My vote would go towards "The Report on Lengthy Litigation" just out of tradition and the fact that it has a better ring to it. Admittedly, though, the reports have started to get a bit less neutral sounding recently, and could do with a return to simply stating the state of each arbitration case in a short, neutral statement that is general enough that it doesn't need updated in between publications, but specific enough to inform about the case. It's a small but happy middle ground to aim for, and the best overall to aim for from a journalistic perspective (ironically insert "in my opinion" here =D). Ks0stm (T•C•G) 09:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Technology report Done

Could really use another story - finding it is the hard part! :) Might need to storyify one of the In briefs. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 09:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC) One duly storyfied - an interesting primer on data wikis. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 11:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC) It would be nice to add something about the end of Google Wave from a MediaWiki perspective, cf. [1], [2], [3], [4]. I might do so later. And there is [5]. Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sister projects Needs Copyedit

Strategic Planning Update --Theo10011 (talk) 08:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC) short update, might need another opinion.--Theo10011 (talk) 12:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC) It's good information but not yet enough for a separate Sister project report (see also my general remarks and links to previsous examples here). I will include it in "News and notes" instead. A more thorough overview of the Strategy project would be more than welcome though - it had been under-reported since Eekim's guest opinion article in February, despite a call for writers. Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC) Ok Haeb, I see your point. I expanded the report along the same line as Eugene's, I will expand it a little further but I think its enough for a separate report. your thoughts? the survey will be over by next week so I decided to provide the report this week, also I thanked Eugene towards the end of the report, not sure if it fits in but I wanted to acknowledge all his work. let me know what you think. thanks.--Theo10011 (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks! I think it has enough information to be a separate story now. When I linked Eekim's opinion article I should perhaps have clarified that I didn't mean it should be regarded as an ideal model for a Sister project report, these are two different genres. I would still be nice to describe some more basic facts about the project. Which of the 900 proposals will be adapted, and what it the process by which this is decided? Or what was the purpose of the proposals process? it might be worthwhile to tell the reader whether Eugene Eric Kim and Philippe Beaudette are volunteers or Wikimedia employees. Blue Oxen and the Bridgespan Group could be mentioned. Two interesting technical features that the Strategy wiki uses and most other Wikimedia projects don't use yet are LiquidThreads and the rating feature ("What do you think of this proposal?"), it would be interesting to learn about the project's experience with both. The survey says that the priorities "will be presented to the board for final approval at the end of August". The current wording in the report could be misunderstood to the effect that this will happen in October. By the way, the fall date for the approval of the five-year plan had already been mentioned in the April board minutes, see Signpost coverage (Foundation's five-year plan materializes). Also, you could link some more of the things you are talking about. And don't be afraid to highlight some more stuff that readers might find especially interesting - for example, I don't think many people are aware that the strategy project interviewed many high-profile experts, e.g. Ward Cunningham or Howard Zinn. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC) I have added some html comments within the body of the article, please address these issues while copyediting.--Forty twoThanks for all the fish! 05:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC) Ok Haeb I have corrected the article as per your suggestions, a couple of things though the date I used for the recommendation going in front of the board were verbatim out of Sue's email because I dont have an idea myself what the exact month is, Please correct it if you know the right answer. Second, I mentioned eugene and philippe, along with brisgespan and the blue oxen group, the thing is I am not sure if Philippe was officially an employee or a volunteer at the start, I think he might have become an employee in the middle of the process, so I left that out intentionally since I am not sure. Please take a look and tell me if there is anything specific you want me to look at.--Theo10011 (talk) 08:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC) I've done an intensive copy-edit, PHEW .... and have made rude inline comments throughout; sorry, you know what I mean: lots of things need clarifying. Theo, you could do some of this before HaeB gets to it. He will probably want to make changes after that, too. In a number of places, I think you're expecting too much in-house knowledge by readers. Also, the urgency of reading that all-important final link and providing feedback should probably be in the title, or at least highlighted somehow. Heck, 15 August??? It's almost upon us. Tony (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC) I fixed the interlinks.--Forty twoThanks for all the fish! 14:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC) ←Thanks, Forty two. I see that both Phillipe's and Eugene's links are dead. I will buzz Theo and ask whether he can attend to the page. Tony (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC) Tony I left a reply on your page, Forty two the interlinks usually have problems with the Strategy wiki thats why i used the external link, I am going to revert it and leave it as it was originally, they linked to both their pages right, if its alright. --Theo10011 (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC) I think a little clarification on what Brigespan and Blue Oxen Group are and a little bit more about their role in strategy wiki is required.--Forty twoThanks for all the fish! 16:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC) well the Blue oxen group is Eugene basically, its his consulting firm, didnt think it was necessary to mention that. As for bridgespan they just did the interviews and were on a couple of the task forces. They are both consulting firms basically, I could mention some of their former clients and their areas of interest but its going to be rather long and irrelevant to the process not to mention sound very corporate, let me know if thats what you want?--Theo10011 (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC) No, I guess just a link or something would do. And is it Brigespan or Bridgespan?--Forty twoThanks for all the fish! 16:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC) Its bridgespan as in 'bridge', I thought this was an update, eugene already did this a couple of months ago. It seems like this is turning into an entire introduction or a primer to the planning process, Eugene's update was shorter than the current article and half of it focused on the foundation's position on china. I intended to only update everyone of the current developments in the last month along with a small introduction, not explain the entire process. Someone please clarify if thats whats expected here. --Theo10011 (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC) Okay, I have fixed the typo (Bridgespan). I wasn't aware of the previous coverage. You can just mention the previous story by Eugene with alink to it. That should be enough.--Forty twoThanks for all the fish! 17:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Dispatches On hiatus

Admin stats Needs expansion

Please make sure the transcluded content is substituted into the actual page before publication. — Pretzels Hii! 18:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC) I will take care of the substitution at publication time if it hasn't been done already. Compared to the version submitted last week, it has been expanded significantly and I think it now has enough interesting information to stand well as a separate story. It still couldn't hurt to add some more context - how about File:Active admins by month, December 2007 to August 2010.png? The style is much more opinionated than the usual Signpost writing, and after all the piece grew out of an ongoing debate where the author is one of the most active participants. To his credit, he is of course aware of that ("essentially a press release submitted to the signpost"[6]) and (as suggested by Tony) he has solicited views by others, but there doesn't seem to have been a reaction. Rather than rewriting it, I think we should run it as an opinion piece now - it certainly fulfills the "fact-based and well researched" criterion from the Opinion Desk. This would basically just mean enlarging the byline to a micro-biography (one to three sentences). One other thing: The current headline ("RfA drought deepens in 2010—wikigeneration gulf emerges between admins and non-admins") is a bit on the long side. Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC) Yes - I'm not sure a drought can deepen ;) — Pretzels Hii! 18:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC) How about "RfA drought continues"? Dabomb87 (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC) Happy for you to make this an opinion piece and will add a byline. (But no photos plz) I didn't add the graph because it chops off the bulk of the scale, and I regard that as visually misleading. OK I will shorten the heading. I'm not happy with deepen either, but the drought has become drier and that is one of the key points I wanted to make. I would have said worsens but I was trying to be NPOV, however as an opinion piece I can definitely say worsen! ϢereSpielChequers 22:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC) The headline looks good now. I moved it (adjusted the section title) once more to "Admin stats", so that we don't have the repetition "RfA stats: RfA drought worsens ..." on the content page (which displays section title + headline), and also because quite a few readers might not be familiar with the abbreviation. I made some minor adjustments and added a link to an earlier Signpost article (about the introduction of Rollback). Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC) ←I plan to copy-edit a few pages, including this one, in a couple of hours' time. Sorry, I've been on an appalling connection from Thursday until last night. Tony (talk) 07:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC) Real pity, because I think it needs that input from crats and a few experienced admins; that's what readers engage with, and it would be a nice balance to what could be a little grey and statistical (although the colours in the table are great). I think an even shorter title would be better: "RfA drought worsens". The generation gulf is at least partly dependent on that, anyway. I'll c-e soon, in case you want to go ahead. But if you want to hold off until next week, I could help by emailing a few people for short responses to possible interpretations of the stats. Any chance we could put an extra graph in showing the ratio of passes to fails? I could do if you want. There's a good online journal article on the RfA process, which you could link them to. That article would bring another dimension, although it could be the subject of a whole article itself. Tony (talk) 11:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC) I've added a graph derived from the data in the table. It shows, graphically, the shocking double trends down to zero. This would need to be integrated into the text. The data can be milked further, I think. I recommend a two-part investigation: Part 1 would largely be this page, expanded; Part 2 would be an examination of the RfA process, drawing on the journal article I mentioned above. Both could very nicely draw on users' opinions. Just my thoughts. It's very troubling, I've got to say. What is going wrong with the admin system? Tony (talk) 12:42, 9 August 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
In the news	Wackywace	Sk8er5000, Belugaboy, Tarheel95, HaeB, extransit, Theo10011
WikiProject report	Coordinated at the WikiProject desk
Discussion report (fortnightly)	Mono and Wackywace
Features and admins	seresin	Tony1, Dabomb87
Arbitration report	Ncmvocalist	Mabeenot, Jéské Couriano
Technology report	Jarry1250	Occasionally: TheDJ
Sister Projects		Forty two, Theo10011
Dispatches (on hiatus)
Design & templates	Pretzels, Mono
Copy-editing team	Tony1, Pretzels, Tarheel95
Publication	HaeB	seresin
Talkpage deliveries	EdwardsBot

The Signpost needs your help putting together the next issue.

Home

About

Archives

Newsroom

Subscribe

Suggestions