Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Next issue: WP report needs copyedit
Line 124: Line 124:
|Notes11= This is the story that I had [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#Spam_attacks|announced]] back on July 26. (Waiting for the conclusion of the affair seems to have been the right choice, as coverage can be much more informative now.) I first intended it to be part of N&N, but it seems to long for that now. In copyediting, please take extra care not to introduce factual inaccuracies, and please note that although a case could be made that the story should mention the full names of the researchers (and they can easily be concluded from the links, or indeed just the context), I have intentionally used initials only, to reduce googleability. Regards, [[User:HaeB|HaeB]] ([[User talk:HaeB|talk]]) 17:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
|Notes11= This is the story that I had [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#Spam_attacks|announced]] back on July 26. (Waiting for the conclusion of the affair seems to have been the right choice, as coverage can be much more informative now.) I first intended it to be part of N&N, but it seems to long for that now. In copyediting, please take extra care not to introduce factual inaccuracies, and please note that although a case could be made that the story should mention the full names of the researchers (and they can easily be concluded from the links, or indeed just the context), I have intentionally used initials only, to reduce googleability. Regards, [[User:HaeB|HaeB]] ([[User talk:HaeB|talk]]) 17:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
:I just gave it a title. The article itself looks good. Using initials instead of full names reduce Googlability, but obviously one can still go to A.W.'s page and look the names up. --[[User:Deryck Chan|Der]][[User talk:Deryck Chan|yck C.]] 03:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
:I just gave it a title. The article itself looks good. Using initials instead of full names reduce Googlability, but obviously one can still go to A.W.'s page and look the names up. --[[User:Deryck Chan|Der]][[User talk:Deryck Chan|yck C.]] 03:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
::Thanks and sorry, there was an edit conflict - I think that "to prove a point" is a bit less precise, because it assumes he set out to support a preconceived opinion, instead of doing an open-eded study.
::Yes, using initials of course can't prevent readers from finding out the name quickly. Doing so would have meant to severely reduce the article's informative value (e.g. one would have needed to omit even the link to the ArbCom's decision).
::Regards, [[User:HaeB|HaeB]] ([[User talk:HaeB|talk]]) 05:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


|Task12=
|Task12=

Revision as of 05:13, 17 August 2010

The Signpost
WP:POST/N
Newsroom

Suggestions Review desk Opinion desk Interviews desk

WikiProject desk

IRC channel

Template:SignpostNavigation

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Adding to this week's discussion report.  ono  20:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

Needs copyedit
added 3 brief stories, the main article still needs expansion.--Theo10011 (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the news

Needs expansion

Still too short to stand on its own (and one of these three short items might actually be seen as N&N stuff). Here are three things that could (and should) be made into short items at least, if someone want to help out (I myself will first take care of N&N):

Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lamest edit wars is originally from informationisbeautiful.net whose source is our own lamest edit wars. I dont know if it fits in or how to correctly mention it but I will add a brief mention. the Newsweek piece however doesn't really present anything new, they are just reporting the same thing about how the number of editors are dropping off and then discuss strategies other places have tried. they are basing a lot of it around Felipe Ortega's research and previous work. I think a lead story is desperately needed. --Theo10011 (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reagle's paper would have made a good lead story IMHO, but we should publish soon. - Part of the function of "In the news" (as opposed to "News and notes") is to record how Wikipedia/Wikimedia has been appearing in the news recently, i.e. it is expected that the media reports that are mentioned might not contain much information about Wikipedia that is new to regular Wikipedians (although when they do, we should focus on that part). To put it another way, the Newsweek article is worth covering because it is a major news publication forming public opinion about WP/WM. And Ortega's and Lampe's objections are valuable information that we can add to the summary of the original source.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject report

Needs copyedit

Mabeenot left me a note on his talk page (he may not have a reliable connection, like me), so if he hasn't already started the Report on WP NASCAR by Sunday, please move the interview from here. Thanks,  ono  07:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back. I'll try to get this done today. You don't have to wait for me if you're wanting to publish before it's done. -Mabeenot (talk) 12:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Features and admins

Done

Discussion report

Postponed

The list collected so far looks like a good start. - For unrelated reasons, I just stumbled over this editorial by Ragesoss, where he introduced the Discussion report for the first time, as

"a summary of the most significant ongoing discussions and polls of community-wide relevance."

I think this is a useful definition (recalling the Newsroom and talk page discussions about the last issue of the DR). Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this hasn't been worked on much since the above. Mono, do you intend further changes or shall we publish it like this? Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have now reduced it to a list of brief items that is borderline acceptable for publication. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's publish this next week.  ono  00:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration report

Done
Trying a more specific headline in line with my comments over the past couple of weeks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technology report

Done

Added two stories in the tech report section, one about outage of search functions due to servers being moved and another about a new Wiki reader for $20. Not sure if the second one belongs there, Please take a look and move otherwise. --Theo10011 (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC) It would be a good time to cover the current state of the Google Summer of Code projects, as the "pencils down" date (August 16) is imminent and the evaluation period begins[4]. One of the developers has been blogging about his project here. Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I quite agree. My original plan was to invite the creators themselves, but unsurprisingly they're quite busy. As it is, I don't think I'll be able to get it done myself. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 19:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have written a brief report. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 12:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done a bit of copyedit tweaking, but don't hesitate to revert if needed or reword bits that can be improved (this applies normally anyway, but adding it on the record as it's a bit more substantial than usual this time and in case I forgot to say so at some point earlier). Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics report

On hiatus

Sister projects

On hiatus

Dispatches

On hiatus

Spam attacks

Needs copyedit

This is the story that I had announced back on July 26. (Waiting for the conclusion of the affair seems to have been the right choice, as coverage can be much more informative now.) I first intended it to be part of N&N, but it seems to long for that now. In copyediting, please take extra care not to introduce factual inaccuracies, and please note that although a case could be made that the story should mention the full names of the researchers (and they can easily be concluded from the links, or indeed just the context), I have intentionally used initials only, to reduce googleability. Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just gave it a title. The article itself looks good. Using initials instead of full names reduce Googlability, but obviously one can still go to A.W.'s page and look the names up. --Deryck C. 03:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and sorry, there was an edit conflict - I think that "to prove a point" is a bit less precise, because it assumes he set out to support a preconceived opinion, instead of doing an open-eded study.
Yes, using initials of course can't prevent readers from finding out the name quickly. Doing so would have meant to severely reduce the article's informative value (e.g. one would have needed to omit even the link to the ArbCom's decision).
Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:13, 17 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
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
Design & templates Pretzels, Mono
Copy-editing team Tony1, Pretzels, Tarheel95
Publication HaeB seresin
Talkpage deliveries EdwardsBot