Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom: Difference between revisions
→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
Suggestions | Review desk | Opinion desk | Interviews desk |
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)
- Adding to this week's discussion report. ℳono 20:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm away from 14 August—27 August with likely no internet access at all. WackyWace converse | contribs 17:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Updated Template:Signpost-subscription to reflect our new name. — Pretzels Hii! 21:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Next issueDue 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. |
added 3 brief stories, the main article still needs expansion.--Theo10011 (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC) |
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)
|
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, ℳono 07:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
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
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)
|
Trying a more specific headline in line with my comments over the past couple of weeks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC) |
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)
|
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)
|
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.