Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Archive 5

< Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost
Latest comment: 12 years ago by The ed17 in topic Purge Signpost and related pages regularly
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

A new managing editor of The Signpost

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments7 people in discussion

Friends, it's been quite a while since Skomorokh announced his departure from the position, to our regret. Things have been swimming along since, but in the long term we do need someone to make the final call on difficult decisions and to be a point of contact with the outside world.

Wikimania is coming up (12–15 July). It will need to be covered, presenting unusually high demand for efficient communications with participants and for executive decisions on journalistic priorities. We're faced with major changes in the movement, not least of which are the creation of the chapters association and the extraordinary shift to FDC-allocated funding for some 36 chapters and others. The movement is newly awash with money, staff, and projects. This changing landscape presents unprecedented opportunities for The Signpost to provide independent coverage. The journal has significant potential to evolve as a key forum for documenting the movement's narratives, but it needs to attract more journalists into the team and to extend its reach among the WMF's projects; a managing editor is going to be an important factor in achieving these aims.

At the risk of embarrassing User:The ed17 with a bold suggestion, he seems well-placed to take the mantle. He's had experience in running the MilHist Bugle newsletter, with the bonus of having operated the technical side of Signpost distribution. I wonder first whether he'd be prepared to assume the role, and if so, second, whether Signpost journalists and editors at large would be in favour.

I look forward guardedly to Ed's response. Tony (talk) 07:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I fully support elevating The ed17 to editor-in-chief should he be willing to take the reins. -Mabeenot (talk) 07:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I do too. I thought he has already taken over the role; he wrote this week's comment in the newsroom, but if it wasn't official then I'm all for it. Why did Skomorokh decide to leave again? (I'm terribly ill-informed on these things.) Rcsprinter (natter) 20:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Thumbs-up to Ed! -- Lord Roem (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Tony, I can't think of anyone more qualified for the job. - Dank (push to talk) 21:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
My full support! MathewTownsend (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Whoa, this is more support than I would have dreamed for a proposal like this. I've been a bit wary of trying to be an editor-in-chief over the last few weeks, even unofficially, because I have less experience at the Signpost than many of you folks. If I had been online earlier, I would have commented something to the effect of 'maybe, assuming many more people think I'm the right one for the job...' Apparently many more people do, though. I think you're all crazy. ;-) But more seriously, thank you – knowing you all think I am the right person to assume a role as important and prestigious as this makes me much more confident, despite my own concerns about inexperience. This has been open for less than 24 hours though, so I'll wait for another couple days to ensure that this consensus holds. If it does, I'd find it hard to decline such an honor.
If anyone has any sort of advice, comments, concerns, questions, etc., my talk page or email (the.ed17 gmail.com) are open. I'd love to hear from you. Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

"Wikiprojects"

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Mabeenot, I hear that you've been negotiating with foundation people to transclude The Signpost's "Wikiprojects" page somewhere else.

Were you going to raise the matter here?

Tony (talk) 16:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

HaeB/Tbayer and Matthew Roth have asked if the Foundation could contact some of the projects I'm interviewing for Reports to see if they could conduct follow-up interviews to run on the Wikimedia blog. Apparently, they've linked to our content in the past as part of their own research, resulting in some higher than usual pageview numbers for us and some good feedback over at the Wikimedia blog. They'd like to develop some fresh content that could either coincide with or build off of our WikiProject Reports, with a link to us included in their post. I mentioned that this summer I'd like to run some Reports on sports projects around the Summer Olympics, Tour de France, and other events which the folks at the Foundation thought were interesting. There was never any talk of transcluding or altering the Report in any way. It could be a great way to direct more traffic toward the Signpost. What do you think? -Mabeenot (talk) 04:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
More traffic would be excellent: I noticed with surprise that the maps report three weeks ago gained well over 2000 hits. But let's make sure this is a quid pro quo. The foundation wants to lift its profile as a journalistic outlet, and this shouldn't be at the expense of The Signpost—at least not without getting something back. Until recently, The Signpost has had something of a monopoly on such, and if we're not careful, we'll have our wings clipped, in effect. The Signpost has seen itself not just as an outlet for en.WP, but for the movement, given that there's certainly no competition from other WPs. One of our key advantages is that The Signpost is not the foundation, but an independent organ.

It bothers me that our Wikiproject pages should be just the platform for another outlet to pursue deeper reportage, I suppose. Where's the extra traffic coming from, do you think? Tony (talk) 04:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

HaeB/Tbayer suggested that some of the traffic from the maps article came from the Foundation's Facebook, Twitter, and Identi.ca postings, which linked to the maps article. I understand your concern about remaining independent of the Foundation and ensuring our content is not overshadowed by the Foundation's blog. Frankly, if they just wanted to steal our thunder they really don't have to ask since our content has always been freely licensed and they could always peek at the upcoming interviews which are developed in the open. Instead, they asked if we could share resources in a way that could help both organizations reach larger audiences. -Mabeenot (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
That's good, I'm writing this week's report (as a one-off) and wouldn't mind some extra traffic coming in from other venues. I too want to stay independent of the foundation, but Mabeenot gives some good points above which we are stuck with, although I don't think they will. Incidentally, can I just ask Mabeenot where the template for the sidebar is stored: I can't finish my report without it! Rcsprinter (shout) 16:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I just copy the sidebar's code from the previous report and swap out the old news stories. Your Report looks good. I hope you'll consider writing some more. -Mabeenot (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Since you asked, here is the May 1 Facebook post that surely contributed - along parallel messages on the official Wikipedia feeds on Identi.ca, Twitter and Google Plus - to the high readership number of the WikiProject Cartography report (the Wikipedia page on Facebook has over one million "likes"), and yesterday I posted this on Facebook linking Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-05-14/Special report. (I'm really not getting the "quid pro quo" remark - what would you have thought if we had demanded certain things from "the Signpost" in return for these links?!) We want to promote Signpost stories more often in this way, although of course not all of them are suitable for the much more general audience on Facebook etc.
The Wikimedia blog and the Signpost have different audiences as well - the Signpost is written for the community, while the blog has to cater to an audience that can't be assumed to know what "GA or FA status" is, to pick a random example from a past WikiProject report. For that reason alone, we wouldn't want to simply copy a past Signpost report to the blog, although it is certainly conceivable to write pieces that work in both venues (a bit like the recent research / Wikimedia Research Newsletter collaboration), or to edit the same raw interview material into two different products.
BTW, here is one blog post about WikiProject Gastropods that was written independently of the Signpost coverage: [1]. As mentioned in last week's IRC office hours, one idea is to produce a series of posts about WikiProjects on the Wikimedia blog, aiming at increasing participation in that WikiProject by making it appealing to non-Wikipedians with an interest in that WikiProject's topic. Obviously this has a lot of similarities to the Signpost's WikiProject reports, the main difference being that it would be targeted at non-Wikipedians specialists - i.e. no knowledge of Wikipedia customs can be assumed, but on the other hand interviewees would be welcome to dwell on aspects that a specialist audience finds more appealing than the average Signpost reader. (This could be as banal as namedropping, e.g. "when writing the article, I corresponded with professor X, who is considered the authority on the topic" or "band Y donated a photo of them so that we could bring the Wikipedia article about them to Featured Article status".) Ideally, with a blog feature on Wikiproject Z we would generate coverage in specialist journals/magazines/websites that cater to scholars or hobbyists of Z, and thereby would motivate that audience to contribute to Wikipedia, in a much more effective way than general coverage of Wikipedia can. ("Oh look, these people like geeking out about Z just like me, but they do it on Wikipedia!") My impression - but Mabeenot may correct me there - is that a main motivation for many WikiProject members to participate in the WP report interviews is their hope that the Signpost coverage will bring new contributors to their project.
Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC) (HaeB)

Question about coverage

Latest comment: 12 years ago31 comments8 people in discussion

I find myself less and less interested in portions of the Signpost these days. So much of it seems to cover WMF stuff and dwell on workshops, travels, and other WMF material which involve only a few people, and even fewer Wikipedia editors.

On the other hand, less and less information that actually informs editors (like pre announcements about technical changes such as the watchlist pending changes, the New Pages Feed etc.—situations that involve editors here on en:wp) are left out or buried in a mountain of WMF announcements. (This is the way it seems to me. I don't want to read where all the WMF people have traveled to, and what a good time 20 or 30 participants had in Brazil.) Besides the PR stuff, little is reported about what the heck WMF is doing.

Topics that interest very few working editors, like the Education Program, which was given its own page (which hasn't been used after it's initial advertisement—I see its special Signpost redlink has finally been dropped), and the Teahouse had great coverage in the beginning (large, detailed article and interview with the WMF grant person) but have nary a mention since.

It's hard to keep track of what is happening here on en:wp, and I find myself just giving up. I wish the Signpost would be the goto place where we could find out about pending changes etc. before they are unleashed on us.

(To find out if any featured articles have been delisted, I have to go through the contributions of the two editors who monitor that page and try to figure it out, as unlike the other featured processes, delisted featured articles are not recorded on Wikipedia:Goings-on)

And how does WMF spend its money, if most of it goes to the chapters and they do who knows what with it?

Please forgive my gripping. (My plumbing broke twice in the last few day, resulting in many thousands of $$ to re-plumb my whole darn place.) Best wishes to all, MathewTownsend (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The interesting question is really: what are we not covering? Certainly, we did not cover watchlist bolding, but we do cover the New Pages Feed and have done so on various occasions, albeit in the Tech Report. Some chapters' activities (basically those that don't blog in English) are poorly covered, and I recently discussed with Jan about improving upon that. I am (and probably others are too) always on the lookout for suggestions vis-a-vis what we don't give enough coverage too. (By contrast, I think it's unfair to argue about what we give too much coverage to: whilst you may not have been particularly interested in the women's meetup in Brazil, a sizable majority of editors consider editor retention the most important issue facing Wikimedia wikis at the moment. More often that not, negative details are also included which may not otherwise have found a route to the public domain.) Sorry for being so brief and generally unintelligible but I am caught up with exams at the moment, which also accounts for the rather poor quality of my recent reporting. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 23:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, I added things for a while about projects like New Page Patrol and the Feedback Tool, but my attempts to keep readers interested in the updates began to be removed. (However, this whining of mine is not direct toward you, Jarry, as I consider you one of the best and most informative Signpost contributors, definitely.
(to everyone in general): How about some follow ups about the WMF projects that were heavily promoted and then silence? How is the Education Program doing since it was dumped by WMF on en:wp? What does the WMF Liason Person have to say. (I'm always surprised that these liaison people (except for the wonderful Oliver/Okeyes (WMF) ),don't actually communicate en:wp. And if they do make a communication, the links generally go to other WMF Media pages where I can't find my way around, and have given up bothering to try (despite collecting bookmarks all over the place).
WMF funds these "liaison" people, yet where are they? Aren't they supposed to bridge the gap? I can't even remember their names anymore, except for Oliver/Okeyes (WMF), of course.
For example, are we going to get the promised (so-called) "metrics" on the Teahouse project, now that it's theoretically over and the grant money spent. We were promised to get monthly updates, but I haven't received any. And I'm really curious about the Education Program, which aside from complaints about the students' submissions to GAN, and a proposal to prevent professors from reviewing and passing their own students' work, I never hear about. And this is a massive program. What's going on? MathewTownsend (talk) 00:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Matt. Interestingly, we will be addressing at least one of your concerns in the near future. The Teahouse (afaik) is working quite well, which in our case means that there's not much news beyond 'hey, the Teahouse is working quite well!', heh. I believe we are reporting on what the WMF is regularly doing—but, as you have noticed, most of their work is not concentrated on en.wiki.
So cutting out the WMF for a moment, the principal on-wiki material we cover on a regular basis are the arbs, featured content, and tech updates. We are missing the discussion report on a regular basis, which I think would satisfy most of your concerns in this area. The person who wrote it last week indicated that he may author it on a biweekly basis... I'm hoping that he decides to.
I'm guessing this answer isn't going to fully satisfy you, though. :-) What am I missing? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
P.S. As for liaisons, there's only two: Ironholds/Oliver and Moonriddengirl/Maggie. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
There's more than two. For example, there is LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) who has been around for a while, for example, and User:Matthew (WMF), to name a few who are on the payroll. And User:HaeB has hinted that he works for WMF. And there are others. Check out outreach:User talk:Elly Koepf (WMDE). (That's apparently where the Education Program is being designed.) Check out [2]. It's just hard to find out who they are and what they are doing because they don't conduct business on en:wp. The Online Ambassador selection process is still not transparent. The online ambassador that couldn't get an article through GAN with two different reviewers because of copyvio and plagarism is still on the Ambassador Selection Committee. I know that an Education Program is being cooked up in Pine's sandbox.
Also, Consumer Reports has hired User:Bluerasberry to be a liaison between them and WMF, or with en:wp (not clear what his role is). But although Consumer Reports is a "nonprofit", that does not mean they are a charity or eschew making money. A 501c corporation (like Wikipedia is) is a tax status (I ran one myself), and means that you will allocate a certain percentage to "free services" - in my case it was 20%—money I was unable to collect for services anyway.
As far as the Teahouse project, where is the report and the "metrics". I'm assuming that WMF "declared" it was a success. But there were supposed to be bona fide "metrics", collected using scientific experimental design. How many new editors were retained? Whatever the number was, was it worth the money paid to the Project Manager for her six month grant? Did it disproportionately draw women, as it said it would? Is it still going on or what? Will editorial retention drop once the Teahouse is out of business?
So no. More blather from WMF folks is not what I want. It's feel good, happy face stuff from my point of view while the real problems are not being addressed. When I know that WMF spends money on a couple of editors in a Brazil bash who don't even edit on en:wp, it doesn't make me happy. I could go on. . . MathewTownsend (talk) 02:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Sounds to me like you've got an Op-Ed in the works. As Wikipedia's newspaper, we ought to play a watchdog role. A little opinion piece asking the WMF for metrics or questioning the use of funds or requesting progress reports or arguing that the Foundation hides some failures may draw a response from the WMF and a lively dialog. As long as it's well written and doesn't degenerate into WMF-bashing, I'd be for it. -Mabeenot (talk) 04:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
"As far as the Teahouse project, where is the report and the "metrics"." You can read them now at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Pilot_report / Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host_lounge/Metrics (e.g. finding that indeed "Female newcomers participate in Teahouse at a higher rate"). Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


  • "And how does WMF spend its money" - a legitimate question, but we put out a lot of information about that. Did you have a look at the blog (which also has much recent information about the education program and its outcomes, contrary to your "silence" claim), or for a more comprehensive summary of WMF work the monthly reports (some of the chapters also publish these), or the Financial reports?
  • Sorry, after months of trying to figure things out, I didn't know about those links you mentioned above. Do you think most editors know about them. Why is nothing on en:wp were regular editors can find it? MathewTownsend (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm open to suggestions on how to link them more prominently on this wiki. However, if one spends "months" trying to find out about how an organization spends its money, it might be a good idea to visit its homepage at least once. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Your links to "a more comprehensive sumary of WMF work go to "happy talk" blogs with individual "happy incidents" - no information about overall program metrics there. And readers can't post there, to ask questions or give reactions. What is the point of those links, except to show overall reports don't really exist? MathewTownsend (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
That's just not true:
  • The blog has a comment function, which readers do use to ask questions and express opinions about WMF's work.
  • Likewise, the reports on Meta have a talk page.
  • The WMF wiki has a feedback link as well.
  • The monthly WMF reports and the annnual Financial reports most definitely contain overall metrics about the organization. If you meant overall metrics about the Education Program, there is for example this blog post among those I linked above.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "I'm always surprised that these liaison people (except for the wonderful Oliver/Okeyes (WMF) ),don't actually communicate en:wp" - um, ever looked at Special:Contributions/Mdennis_(WMF)?
  • Yes, I tried to get help from her/him with my problem, but because I contacted her/him after posting on Moonriddengirl's page (or visa versa - can't remember which - I didn't know they were the same person - I was ineligible for help. So I spent a month or so trying to get answers and info from others. In the end, I was told by someone that my problem was "taken care of" - nothing else as all is secret. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "It's just hard to find out who they are and what they are doing" - Go to wmf:Staff and contractors and click on the user page links - admittedly, many of these descriptions were only added last month, as part of a push by the WMF human resources department to have everybody's job description out there, but by now I don't think this is hard to find - that page is just two clicks away from any Wikipedia page. (Contrary to what was said above, only Oliver and Maggie have "Community Liaison" in their job title. The WMF is much more transparent than any other comparable organization I know, and informing the community and the public about its activities is a high priority, but the direct talk page interactions of the liaison model are just one form of that (and one that is difficult to scale to hundreds of projects and languages). And yes, we are aware that many users do not subscribe to e.g. the Wikimedia blog or mailing lists and prefer to receive announcements and news directly on "their" wiki, but we try to take that into account (just last weekend I sent out a global message to ca. 600 village pumps in order to notify all Wikimedia projects about the IPv6 launch) and are working to improve the tools for that (if you happen to be at Wikimania, you are very welcome to attend the talk I am giving about this problem together with MZMcBride).
  1. Click "Wikimedia Foundation, Inc." in the footer of any Wikipedia page
  2. Click "Staff and contractors" in the left sidebar
Since your comment, that page has (coincidentally) been revamped to make it more readable, but even before that one didn't need to read through the whole page to find the staff member about whose work you want to know.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "And User:HaeB has hinted that he works for WMF." I wouldn't describe this announcement as "hinted" ;) (Besides, it is prominently stated on my user page.)
If you are referring to this exchange, it seems that it was just you who mentioned WMF in that context. Anyway, glad we could resolve the confusion. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The education program was "dumped by WMF on en:wp" in 2010 in form of the Public Policy Initiative, which received quite some coverage in the Signpost. I'm not saying that there couldn't be more current coverage, but it is quite natural that a news publication like the Signpost gives a novel model more attention than one that has already been in widespread usage for a while.
  • Were the general editors on wiki ever consulted about this? Most seem to feel slammed by the work load caused by the education program last fall. Is the general community (who bears the brunt) being consulted now? MathewTownsend (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Above, you described the Education Program as one of the "Topics that interest very few working editors". Here, you claim that "most" "feel slammed" by it. Isn't that a bit contradictory? Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Looking forward to the op-ed. I hope it will be factually accurate.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
(Replying to Matthew here) - there's a difference between community liaisons and the WMF-wiki facilitators, my apologies. I haven't seen any metrics on the Teahouse, but it's not going to be shut down – like the education program, this was meant to be handed off to regular en.wiki editors. Mabeenot has a good idea though. If you have evidence or a clear idea on which the WMF is not doing a good job, we can run an op-ed (or heck, we can try to address it first with someone like Ironholds or Maggie [that is what they are there for, if I understood their jobs correctly!]). As for the education program, I think you know I've been with them and can therefore confidently say that the whole intention was to transition it to an Wikipedian-led process. It's going through major revisions right now though; afaik I don't think there will be a steering or ambassador selection committee anymore, but I could be wrong, as I haven't followed discussions there in some time.
Otherwise, many of your points are responded to by HaeB, which to my knowledge are accurate (and are made in his personal capacity, not as the WMF). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • (quick comments due to demands of my off wiki life - please see responses interspersed above) So HaeB does work for WMF. I had no clue until yesterday. No, I'm no longer willing to run around to various blogs and WMF sites to try to piece together conflicting information. (For a while I spent a good part of my wiki time doing that and ended up by understanding nothing. It is all that wasted time I spend that feeds my emotions now. I'm not smart enough to figure it out.) It seems to me that even you admit you don't quite know what's going on.
Should I continue to spend most of my wiki time reading this stuff at their various locations (and most of it is in wiki-speak, so not very clear) in a continued effort to understand? Rather than continue to contribute to the encyclopaedia? (I gave up meaningful contributions meanwhile.) And what one or two clicks bring me to the WMF job descriptions? I have no idea what those "clicks" are.
Whose taking over Teahouse? e.g. requiring a minimum of 5 hours a week spent on Teahouse to be a "host" and some huge number of "invites" distributed weekly to carefully select "new" editors who often weren't technically "new". I recall comments that it was very labor intensive, considering the few editors it actually retained. And many of the questions were from older editors who just wanted a quick response.
I would consider an opt-ed piece except that I'm so sick of the whole WMF thing after trying to figure it out for several months, that I can't make myself continue to follow it on the various blogs, WMF sites, WMF personnel with unknown jobs almost all taking place off wiki - so they just published their job descriptions a month ago somewhere? After how many years? And I am 100% convinced any effort I put into an opt-ed wouldn't be worth it. It would just be answered by more WMF blather.
And I never did get a clear answer to my education program question that I spent several months asking, after Mdennis_(WMF) couldn't help because of "rules" about his/her role. They just keep holding more monthly meetings where nothing seem to happen. I got an invitation to one a few days ago. But reading the minutes of these meetings just shows they are getting no where and they didn't even hold a "monthly meeting" in May. They are always sending each other email (see SarahStriech's page) where an editor turns down a request to email, saying he wants things to happen in wiki.) They depend on email and I suspect on IRC. I don't think they want the rest of us to know.
And is there ever an outside, independent audit of WMF and chapter finances? To me they seem like the GAO in the US, only WMF bashes aren't in Los Vegas, but in politically-correct places like Seattle, New York and now St. Augustine - a hard to reach section of Florida, far from almost all major population centers. It's a pretty town, but Miami, Tampa, other cities would allow more to attend these parties. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I you felt I wasn't able to help you, Matthew, but you seem to have gotten this a bit confused. :) I didn't tell you that you were ineligible for help; I detailed to the best of my ability what help I could give you in my staff role at our conversation here. My difficulty came as a volunteer, when you later contacted me to ask me in that role to get involved with the close paraphrasing issue, here. Unfortunately, as I had explained at my staff talk page, I cannot act as a volunteer in a situation in which I have engaged as staff. We spoke of the matter again here. I tried to give you information on whom to contact, including suggesting you contact User:JMathewson (WMF), which you did. Ultimately, however, it was a volunteer and not a staff matter to resolve.
There are a number of questions above which others may have answered, but I'll note that you can tell when User:HaeB is acting as staff because he will edit using his staff account: User:Tbayer (WMF). He is speaking now as a volunteer. I am speaking in my capacity as staff. In general, those of who are on staff for the WMF who also volunteer keep our accounts separate.
Job descriptions are not new, although the website is being updated and there is a drive underway to make sure that all staff members have pages. But mine, for example, has been posted since I got the job at my user page on this and almost every other language project, Wikipedia and sister projects.
In terms of the meetings you're talking about, I wonder if you're actually think of volunteer activities, like Wikipedia:Wiknic? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 01:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

@"Sorry, after months of trying to figure things out, I didn't know about those links you mentioned above. Do you think most editors know about them. Why is nothing on en:wp were regular editors can find it?" -- ...because en.wiki != the WMF? The WMF has obligations to many websites, not just us. It makes sense that they organize all of their material at Meta.

From HaeB's userpage: "In July 2011 I started working as a contractor for the Wikimedia Foundation, supporting movement communications, and became a regular employee in May 2012. See also my work account. Although I work for the Wikimedia Foundation, contributions under this account are exclusively in my individual, personal capacity."
@Education Program, regular editors were the participants, and they were consulted in the fall when everything went to hell, afaik. If you're so concerned, you could always start an RfC...
The Teahouse, to my knowledge, is being taken over by volunteer editors, ie like us. The WMF provided funding and groundwork, then gave it to us to run.
@"WMF bashes", I don't think wiknics were started by or are even affiliated with the WMF. These are entirely Wikipedian.
So, going back to the original intent of this post, are there gaps in Signpost coverage you still see, even after the answers given above? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Yes. An obscure "announcement" by HaeB almost a year ago doesn't help me very much. How was I supposed to know about it? Really? His staff account: User:Tbayer (WMF)? Again, how was I supposed to know? And you wonder why new editors have a hard time. And the link I was given to the pages listing personnel on outreach or meta (or wherever) doesn't seem to include him. (Maybe it does, since he has a new name that I didn't know about.) Besides, most of those people are inaccessible, few have any presence on en:wp and I'm not important enough to be allow to post on that page. And emailing them is very ineffective, I have found.
Let's face it, of course the Teahouse isn't going to be shut down. It's already be "declared" a success no matter what. After all, it's another WMF project inflicted on the community. They're just trying to come up with the statistics for their theoretically "scientifically designed data collection" process. Then they'll dump it on the working community like they did with the education program. The comments on Sarah's talk page in response to her request for feedback were sparse and many had a negative tone, despite all the upbeat pr. Was the community ever consulted before. Was the money spent by WMF worth however many females were "reached out to" and will become assets as editors?
If the "bashes", (wiknics) are not affiliated with the WMF, why does a banner about them keep appearing on my computer window? Who decides where they are held? Anyway, the one nearest to me is an eight hour drive. Only four people signed up. Do they ever consult the community as to where to hold these things? The few other responses to the one "near" me have been that it's too far away, and question asked as to why they don't hold these near major population areas? It is being held in an obscure corner of my state, far from most metropolitan centers. In any event, I see the same few people going to those things and it just makes outsiders like me feel more outside. There is no WMF chapter within a couple of thousand miles from me. And they're the one's that spend the money. I'd like to know what they spend it on. My question about whether there are ever neutral audits of their finances wasn't answered.
And what are those "two clicks" I need to know, mentioned above, to access all this information?
I wouldn't care what WMF does, except that it "fund raises" constantly and uses the money who know how, but expects the vast, unpaid, working community to write the encyclopedia and take on the burdens of their "programs" like the Education Program. I feel they are taking advantage of well meaning editors, good people, who toil away creating the encyclopedia that WMF can piggyback off of and use for their own purposes.
@Mdennis_(WMF) - my questions were never answered. The plagiarizing/copyvideo Online Ambassador is still on the "Online Ambassador Selection Committee" and advertises herself as such - even though I've been given to understand that in actuality it no longer exists. Nothing constructive seems to be happening regarding the Education Program foisted on the en:wp community by the WMF. As for my "confusion", everything I did was recommended to me by my mentor at the time, or some other "higher up". No one seems clear about these theoretical distinctions about WMF roles, except that apparently WMF people can't be helpful to en:wp editors. And the Education Program is left spinning.
Why were my attempts to add info to the Signpost regarding the Article Feedback tool and the New Page Triage (or whatever they're called now) and other info I thought relevant start to be removed from the Signpost? Well, so I don't contribute anymore.
I don't expect my questions or concerns to be satisfactorily addressed. I don't expect you to report realistically about the Education Program or the Teahouse. I think it's quite clear that WMF runs the Signpost. Makes sense. They hold the purse strings. My best wishes to you in your endeavors. Don't bother about me. Regards, MathewTownsend (talk) 02:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
The Village Pumps are quite accessible as is the Community Portal, the links are there in the sidebar. WP:BOLD is one of Wikipedia's core guidelines, if you see something that isn't right be bold and change it, discussion will often get buried under layers upon layers of discussion. The staff lists are probably admin-edit-only, if you notice that it's not accurate raise the issue on the relevant talk pages. You can hide the fundraiser announcements in the Gadgets tab of Special:Preferences. See also my vector.css page and copy across any field names of objects you wish to hide.
You're also saying, "How come I can't..." or "Why can't I...", it's not about you, it's about the wider community and it's the community that we cater to. If your information was removed check the page's edit history and raise the issue with the editor-in-charge of the Signpost article, which you clearly haven't.
We operate independent of the WMF. A lot of your arguments are actually completely fallacious and unfounded, you seem to be forgetting that the WMF manages over 800 wikis in many different languages, their job is primarily administrative and technical. First and foremost, it is to keep things running and to ensure editors can continue to contribute, the staff don't necessarily have to edit as they often don't have the time.
You also fail to realise the WMF's funding is what helps keep Wikipedia running, if you have qualms about what they do you can go and edit Citizendium, they have a shortage of editors.—James (Talk • Contribs) • 3:13pm • 05:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
tea house: yo, Mathew's point of lack of scrutiny regarding the metrics was made by me in the week before we ran with this as well. i mentioned it to both Rcsprinter123 via irc as well as to Mabeenot by mail but Rcsprinter123 (rightfully) pointed out that the wikiproject report, thanks to its format, is not able to deal with the special features that distinguish between a regular project and this wmf-backed one.
education: the wmf us education program is not below my radar as well but in my understanding stuff with substance to get into - results, reports etc. - won't be on the table before july. if i'm right, Ed has in the light of this scheduled two specials on education. the one on the us program i mentioned here and one to look into what we got out of the wmf's Cairo pilot. as far as i know the state of non-substance (in the signpost's sense) until july is true for the working group to reform the us program as well. unsurprisingly, given this group will meet f2f for the first time mid july and i was rather unimpressed by their chat-minutes so far.
Wikinics: "If the "bashes", (wiknics) are not affiliated with the WMF, why does a banner about them keep appearing on my computer window? Who decides where they are held?" -> as far as i know: the interested community decides where to held them and how they are held. if you live in a place without such an event, it is my understanding that you are free to set one up as you see fit. on the banner-question: meta is arguing over this very question for days now; see for example here and here. not every banner is a banner run or even approved by the wmf.
finance: the money flows (and the coverage of it) as it does largely because an open community-process decided 2009/10 to invest donors money in the then called "global south" (among other things; and the plan agreed upon runs until 2015). i never met a person that is entirely happy with all aspects of the plan but that is, i suppose, the nature of large scale discussion and compromise to wrap it all up into something workable. wikimedia's finance & organizational structure is in its first real (conceptional) reform process in a ~decade right now and the result will frame what we can do & reasonably discuss about as a community for a long time thereafter. that's why it is important & why we cover it as we do (at least in news & notes). proper reporting by these entities where the money goes & accountability for it are major issues to be addressed in the reform and as Jarry mentioned above, there are real problems to get hold on what many wikimedia entities are doing with the resources handed over to them (funds, etc.) or generated by them via means they got from the wmf (trandemarks, etc.). random example: a report of activities in france in french by wikimedia france for its french members is fine as far as it goes but useless as far as the wider community is concerned (true for nearly all chapters on nearly all activities, if you put the annual report, usually written in very general terms, aside).
New Page Triage: "Why were my attempts to add info to the Signpost regarding the Article Feedback tool and the New Page Triage (or whatever they're called now) and other info I thought relevant start to be removed from the Signpost?" intersting, i wasn't aware of this and would be grateful, if you could provide some diff.-links here, Mathew. if i remove a brief note from news & notes for example (don't recollect to have done so in relation to this tool but i could be wrong), i usually have a good reason and i'm always prepared to explain it in concrete terms, best regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 13:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
"And is there ever an outside, independent audit of WMF and chapter finances?" - seems that this legitimate question got lost among the many comments above. The Foundation's finances are indeed audited by an independent auditor, currently KPMG, see wmf:Financial reports and also wmf:Audit committee. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Quick note about Teahouse metrics

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Our metrics report will be announced soon, including the fourth installment of the Tea Leaf (that's four installments in a pilot that was four months long... :) ) as well. Our pilot report is near completion and we'll ping ya'll when it finalized :) I think you'll be excited about it as we are and we are also very proud of it! So happy to hear that folks are interested in following up about the pilot and we look forward to the next exciting phases of the Teahouse. Sarah (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Sarah. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

wiki-bash banners - how to get rid of them?

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I've got it checked in my preferences to hid them. Yet they continue to appear. I close them each time. Yet they still appear. Who sets these up? Who decides to hold them far away from population centers, especially in a state that is thousands of miles from a "Chapter". I was told to open my own 501(c) corporation and open a chapter if I want one. Seriously. So chapters thousands of miles away from me get to spend all the money - even though my state is the third largest in population in the US. So I have no means of having input. Some statistic above said that a poll showed that something like 43% of editors didn't know about chapters. Well, why should they? The chapters are for the special few. Most of the US is not within reach of a chapter. We have no representation.

I was told by a "helpful" wiki-bash organizer to hold my own wiki-bash for myself and another editor with 83 edits who may live a few hours drive from me. I checked the four editors who are going to the wiki-bash in my state. They've all been on wikipedia six or seven years. And wikipedia is serious about attracting and retaining new editors? Hard to believe. Should I just be bold as someone suggested above, and insert my complaints into the Signpost? MathewTownsend (talk) 01:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

In order:
  1. The notices are run through [4].
  2. The Wikinics are set up by regular Wikipedians who decide to list whatever location they want and see if people attend. You could set one up for your city and see if anyone would like to go, although it's a bit late in the game.
  3. Chapters are much more complicated. I'll just note that the US is unique in not having a country-wide chapter, though I'm not sure as to the exact reason why the first US chapter, WMNYC, decided to only include that region. (I'm more experienced with on-wiki matters, not WMF or chapter topics) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Re: removing CentralNotice, my User:M.O.X/vector.css has the code for hiding CentralNotice and other notices, take what you wish. James (Talk • Contribs) • 8:30pm • 10:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Archiving

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

May I suggest that a bot be given the job of archiving threads on this page and at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions after 30 days? Pine✉ 08:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

This page, probably. Not so sure about suggestions; it should probably be a case of only archiving ticked-ff suggestions (but after 30 days, surely it's no longer news?). I'm ambivalent, in other words. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 12:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I archived everything before May 1 (inclusive), threads posted thereafter, I left there. James (Talk • Contribs) • 8:52pm • 10:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I changed the frequency of archival from every 90 days to every 45, that should be enough. James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:01pm • 11:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Late

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Is Issue 25 late in coming? I thought it should have arrived by June 18. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 07:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

We're working on it right now. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Received. Great job :D. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 04:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I still haven't received my notification: it's more than four hours now

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Could someone check the bot, please? Tony (talk) 00:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I've sent a message to MZM. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Minor edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just a minor correction: capitalize "there" in the "Wiknic 2012" Brief note. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

French anyone?

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

Does anyone on the Signpost staff know French? After our successful article on a Czech project a few months ago, I'd like to try highlighting more languages in the WikiProject Report this year. The French Wikipedia's very active WikiProject Cycling would be a very attractive option with the Tour de France and Summer Olympics next month. I could use a bilingual partner to help approach and communicate with the project's members. You'll get to be in the byline. Anyone interested? -Mabeenot (talk) 05:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I stormed out of French classes age 16 when the teacher was unspeakably rude to me and didn't know I was doing music as an extra for the finals. I know an en.WPian who's got good French, so will ask him privately. And he has written occasionally for the SP. Without wanting to pre-empt Ed's views on the matter, I personally feel this is a great idea. You'll get lots of cooperation from other-language WPians, and it's spot-on the way the SP has been going. Tony (talk) 07:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Why not pick somebody out of Category:User fr-N that is a little interested in cycling? fr 5 and fr 4 would be good places to find them as well. Rcsprinter (converse) 09:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Moi je parle français si ça vous intéresse :) benzband (talk) 09:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Sweet! -Mabeenot (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. Benzband has translated the interview questions and we've asked Vlaam over at the French Wikipedia to review the questions before we start inviting interviewees. This is coming together a lot faster than I thought it would. Exciting! -Mabeenot (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
This is a hands-down great idea and happens to fit in perfectly with our goal of expanding beyond the English Wikipedia. Nice work, Mabeenot! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Note about Pending Changes in the Discussion Report

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

My two cents: not yet. Attention is a precious thing, and my preference would be not to direct your readership's attention to the current discussion when it hasn't gotten anywhere yet. We may be able to get people to have a look once; fewer people will be willing to look twice, so if they don't like what they see now (and they won't, not much productive is happening yet), that may be the only shot we get to attract their attention. Other opinions welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 13:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've removed it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Draft articles?

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

I just read through the (excellent) July 2 Signpost and was surprised to see that the WikiProject Report is a "draft article, which must not be treated as a final piece". Is this a goof-up? Because its funny in a way. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I was afraid I'd make some horrible blunder, so I decided to play safe  . ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Dammit, I was afraid that I'd forget something when I published at 6am my time. Thanks for the help, everyone. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Boy, you are one dedicated Signpost guy, staying up till 6 am for this :). ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 05:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Eh, it was my fault I had to stay up so late for it, so not really! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Cover redesign?

Latest comment: 12 years ago42 comments9 people in discussion

I think that our front cover page at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost really needs a bit of a redesign. It is just a list of the articles with some links at the bottom and top. However, I was browsing through the archives and found this revision here designed by Mono that uncannily fits the bill. You can browse right through the whole edition, see links to individual articles. I also thought we could have the week's Technology Report poll in there lower down as well, as shown here. My idea is to create a real front page like on an actual newspaper instead of simply some links. It's old and boring and needs a spruce up. So, what do we think? I hope we can garner enough consensus to change it. Rcsprinter (articulate) 11:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I suggest a thumbnail pic each week, related to one of the pages. Tony (talk) 12:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I like Tony's idea. If we're serious about this, let's put a poll up for it. Lord Roem (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
OK, yep, I've thought this for a long time. I'd like Jarry's opinion on the technical side. But much less technical would be a re-think of our page names. HaeB and I went through them on IRC last year and thought about shorter, snappier names, plus removing the duplicated "news" from two of the names. Time for a revamp? Tony (talk) 12:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Technicals is okay, but I'm not a massive fan of mono's design. If you want to read the Signpost in a single page, that options is already available, and far nicer than reading it in a tiny frame.
That said, I wouldn't be opposed to creating a real front page, should it be easy enough to do. Of course, most readers subscribe via their talk pages, so creating something short enough to post directly onto people's talkpages (with different header/footer, duh) is probably advisable.
On the maintenance front, it's probably best to think in terms of "Take as much first story from each report as you can fit in this design and then put continued links at the end". I don't think we want to be creating much of an extra burden on editors in chief.
I have no view on renaming the reports, except that I am by my nature a traditionalist, so personally wouldn't change them. But that's just personal taste, I can't really give a reason to support it. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 13:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Re the image: I was referring to the notifications that go on people's talk pages—not the compact boxed ones, but the separate threads. In terms of drawing attention to The Signpost, it's a winner to have a small thumbnail, I believe, perhaps to the right of the listed page names and short headlines. This week, I saw the Phil Gomes pic at the paid editing story and thought it would be one of a number that could be suitable. NAN or ITN would normally provide the obvious choices, though.

As for page names, HaeB and I tossed around, without conclusion, simply a shortening rather than wholesale change in all but one case; mostly, this involved removing what might be considered redundant and repetitive words; this would be the opportunity to make the names more easily distinguishable from each other. At the time, only one change seemed to be urgent because of calls to change the theme: Features and admins was immediately changed to Featured content, which seemed to pass without comment by readers and editors. These are possibilities:

  • News and notes -> News
  • In the news -> In the media
  • Featured content – unchanged.
  • Wikiproject report -> Wikiprojects
  • Technology report -> Technology
  • Arbitration report -> Arbitration

Remember that they're all in Signpost context, listed as parts of it; so "report" from the last three doesn't seem necessary to convey precisely what they are. The "notes" in News and notes strikes me as a bit tired, and probably harks back to our origins as an internal newsletter rather than the only regularly published outlet in the whole movement that has the potential to cover a complex environment in journalistic terms. In the media says what it is, unambiguously, and avoids that double-up in wording. Just a thought for your consideration. Tony (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Jarry here. Putting everything in one small frame is a bad idea, as it's not easy to read. Assuming it's technically possible, I'd like a 'real' front page, and if we get a workable design, we could change the section names at the same time (assuming there's consensus for that). For those, I like dropping 'report' and ITN->ITM, but I don't like dropping "and notes" because it makes the section rather plain. (does that make sense? It does in my own head, not sure about yours). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Keeping "and notes" is fine by me. Tony (talk) 03:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
^ same here. Agree with dropping 'report'. No need. Lord Roem (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm fine with dropping "report" from the main Signpost page so long as we can continue calling them reports in the actual articles. When the WikiProject Report references its past reports or notes interesting developments in the actual interviewing or newsgathering process, it makes for less confusion to say "the WikiProject Report" than simply saying "WikiProjects." -Mabeenot (talk) 05:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I suppose that's an option too -- just declutter the main page, but keep the names in the articles themselves to distinguish them from other similar things. Tony, what do you think? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
And on a related note, can we drop "featured content" from the actual article names (so we don't repeat it on the main page or in the article header)? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Is anyone currently working on this? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
    • It appears not, which is a pity. However, we could pursue the neater page titles in a five-minute typing job. The only unresolved caveat seemed to come from Mabeenot, concerning Wikiprojects. I don't quite understand why it's such a problem to change the name of the page; if citing the page in a relatively unfamiliar context, you simply say The Signpost's "Wikiprojects"; or you could add "report" after "Wikiprojects" to clarify, without retaining it as a formal part of the title on the page. Same for the others: "Please see this week's Wikiprojects report." -> click on link to page headed "Wikiprojects", no logical or semantic problem, as far as I can see. Tony (talk) 04:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Back to my original proposal, for the new front page rather than the new report names: is everyone happy for it to be taken to that, or not? Suggest new changes to the one I put forward on 6 May. Unless anyone has any objections, I think I'll do it this time tomorrow, in time for publication. Everybody said yes to a revamp, so I'll carry it out. Objections below, code tweaks and changes, then I'll reveal the new Signpost frontier to the community. Signing off - Rcsprinter (lecture) 20:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the Ed17 and I decided over email we'll unveil this next week. Until then, you can view it here. Rcsprinter (talk to me) 20:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm? You're going to put in place a frame-based design? But why would anyone want to read it in frames? (Or do I misunderstand?) - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 21:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Please don't use a format that has scroll bars! (This is the same plea I made above.) MathewTownsend (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Arg! Please no scrollbars. This layout seems unlike anything standard anywhere--it feels like either TOC right (cf. WP standard TOC left and content below it) or a navbar/directory right with scrolling pane left of it (cf. every other website on the whole internet). DMacks (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
OK, OK. We'll drop the scrollbar idea. Feel free to edit my sandbox and change anything you like, add new ideas. What would you like then? I can't redesign it if you don't tell me everything you want. The Ed17 suggested columns with a little of each article in it, and a picture, but there is the concern this will get all messed up on some older browsers. A good idea is to try and get it like an actual newspaper, or maybe like one's website. Again, anybody who feels they are good with code edit my sandbox (linked above) and we can discuss it here; I'm trying to encourage active discussion, rather than just insisting on what you don't want. As we pretty much all agreed we need a new front, we need to all help design it! Come on people, I can only do so much by myself. Join in. Rcsprinter (tell me stuff) 15:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I think that a bot-automated snippet approach, not dissimilar to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/, is the way to go here. I'll try to put something together later in teh week if I can. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 19:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
That's great, thanks Jarry. Put it all in my sandbox ready for Monday please. Who would run a bot for updating it though? Maybe we could use technology like with the popups which show a small snippet of the first bit of the page. I'm not that advanced at coding though so anybody step in, please! Thanks again Jarry, wonderful idea. Rcsprinter (message) 16:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, with any redesign, we're going to take it slow so we don't find that it's broken twenty minutes after publishing. :-) We'll aim for the first edition in June – hopefully Jarry will have rough coding together by next week, and we'll talk it over and refine it over the next week or so. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Me and Jarry1250 are working on sandbox versions and are hoping to implement it in a coming week. See User:Jarry1250/sandbox 2 and please tell us your comments. Rcsprinter (chatter) 15:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I like it (sandbox 2). You might consider "more" instead of "continue". And (1) is there a possibility that we might have a thumbnail in the talk-page notifications the bot sends around, and (2) could we implement the non-controversial page-name changes? Tony (talk) 10:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
As a screen reader user, I find it annoying that the headings aren't in the right place semantically. The bold text "News and Notes" should not be part of the heading entitled "Is the Requests for adminship process 'broken'?", the "Discussion report" text should not be part of the "News and notes" heading, etc. Graham87 05:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I also like it. Tony, the page name changes have to be made in the SP itself, not the new front page. We could start those anytime, but seeing as this is close to fruition, I think it'd be easier to change it over all at one time. Graham, I'm not sure I understand you, but I'm about 75% sure that's because I don't use a screen reader. To me, there's a column on the left with "Investigative report" (break) "Is the Requests for adminship process 'broken'?" (break) text text text (break break) "News and notes" (break) "Ground shifts while chapters dither over new Association" etc. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Aha, sorry Graham - is it better now? (Ed: the issue was that the words "news and notes" weren't in (specifically came before) the heading, so the screenreader lumped them into the preceding section; should be fixed now). - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 18:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I see. You can tell I don't think in terms of html. Jarry, do we have to use thumbnailed images? Which is to say, can we just use the images themselves with no captions? I'm thinking that that BBC has the right idea here; the thumbing border and caption just look out of place to me. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Yup, no captions is better: tease them about the content. Tony (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm a bit late in replying, but yes, the new header layout is much better. If you're going to avoid captions, add "link=|alt=" to the images so they're ignored by screen readers. You're not really meant to use that trick for images that require attribution, but I think this is a perfect place to ignore all rules, since the image will also be in the full article anyway. Graham87 02:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite possibly getting too far ahead of myself, but Jarry, can we get a poll for the new format when it goes live? I'm thinking that I could write a "From the editor" describing the new changes and including the poll + ways to give us specific feedback. I'm not opposed to having a note on the bottom right of the front page as well, but I'm hoping to get as much visibility as possible... I like pointing out when we're trying to do good things for the benefit of our readers. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget to mention I was the one with the ideas who was pushing it. How soon can we put this in? Rcsprinter (rap) 16:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I suppose it's a question of how much impact we'd like the change to have. If Jarry works out any bugs, we could do it as soon as this week, but there's an argument for holding off until Wikimania to show off what we're doing to improve our readers' experiences to the wiki movement. There's also a counterargument that doing that would distract from what will be a very big news week for us. I have my own thoughts, but I'd like to know what you all think. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
A custom poll is fine by me; but do remember that only a minority of readers actually ever see the front page. I'm actually away from tomorrow until a week tomorrow, so I won't be able to have it set up in time for Monday's issue alas, though you could invite comments.
Just so we're on the same hymnsheet, it'll be easiest if the first couple are manually crafted. Then, when the design is finalised I'll make the bot dump in a "default" front page which can then be tweak as and when necessary. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 21:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I missed your reply Jarry, but if you have the time after your trip, would you like to work on getting the new format together for this week's edition? Custom-crafting the front page for the first few editions sounds good. I wouldn't like an 11th hour surprise. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, Jarry1250 has confirmed he will put it live for the week's edition. Rcsprinter (talkin' to me?) @ 09:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistency in Arbitration report

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The front page summary for the Arbitration report disagrees with the report itself. The front page says that one case was opened and one closed. The report says neither happened. JRSpriggs (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah my mistake, it's been fixed now. Thanks JRSpriggs! James (Talk • Contribs) • 11:38am • 01:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Nope James, that was my mistake. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Article 4 million approaching

Latest comment: 12 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

Hi, guys. :) As you are very likely aware, we are at 3,965,392 articles and should be reaching 4 million pretty soon. This is a massive milestone that the Wikimedia Foundation wants to be sure is celebrated in its blog, as it did the 3 millionth ([5]). Since it's an English Wikipedia specific accomplishment, they felt like it might be appropriate to let the community take point on writing up the event. Naturally, that immediately leads to thought of the Signpost. :) Would you guys be interested in writing something about it, when it happens, that could be published both on the blog and in the Signpost? (With some variations in the versions, as the blog's style and audience is a bit more general, but the basic information could be much the same for both.) They'd want to be prepared to get it published as soon as reasonably possible after the big moment, of course. Maybe some of the support materials could be prepared in advance? The details would be forthcoming, but I wanted to touch base with you first and see how you felt about the idea. (I didn't post this under suggestions, because this is almost certainly not going to happen next issue...and the scope is a bit broader than that. :)) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

We'll obviously be covering it; we'd be remiss in our duties if we didn't. :-) So, if I understand you correctly, you'd like us to write up a story that would run in the Signpost and the WMF blog at the same time? My major thought is that if we hit the mark on a Tuesday, I'd really not like to rerun what was in the WMF blog days before (we publish each week on a Monday; the blog does things all week), but I suppose we could just write up two somewhat separate stories... let me converse with my reporters and see who will be writing our half of the story, and then I'll get back to you asap. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Good point. :) Honestly, I don't think there needs to be any overlap between the two stories at all, if that's a concern. I'm just not wanting to ask too much of you guys. :D Two somewhat separate stories would be perfectly fine, if that's not too much to ask. The main goal here, I believe, is to celebrate the event and to give voice to the community that reached it for the more general readership of the blog. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to sync the announcement of the four millionth article with my opinion piece on the four four million article "milestone". I linked it right up above. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
If you could, would you add that to the opinion desk so that anyone watching that page and view and comment? Assuming we hit the four million mark in June, I believe we'll have room for it – if it runs into July, we have a few outside (ie non-Wikipedian) op-eds planned + Wikimania stuff to deal with. We'll cross that bridge if we get to it. Maggie- we're still working a few things out. I haven't forgotten you. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Sven, what would you think of running that mildly critical article set off against something positive written by, say, someone from the WMF? (note that I'm speaking off the cuff and haven't actually asked anyone to see if this is possible, just throwing ideas out to people for consideration). Basically I'd be looking for two different views of the milestone, not for competition between the two. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
You only think it's mildly satirical because it falls so far outside of your viewpoint that you struggle to accept that it's written in seriousness. I'm dead serious, we have four million pages and hundreds of thousands of them are utter crap. But yes, if you want to run it side by side with someone else's piece, go ahead. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Running out the door, will reply to WSC later, but I didn't say satirical, I said critical(!). I don't think it's satirical, for the record. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Sadly I'm pretty sure we won't reach the 4 million mark this month. There's some discussion on this at Wikipedia talk:Four-million pool, and on my revised estimates I'd expect that we will reach the 4 million mark in the second or third week in July, possibly during or very close to Wikimania. Elements of the story that we should try to cover would include:
  1. How long each million has taken and how long the fifth million is likely to take.
  2. What we think was the four millionth article.
  3. If we are gong to have some criticism I think it needs to be balanced by celebration and put into context. After all, despite the introduction of BLPprod and the drift to deletionism, we've now built a 4 million article encyclopaedia. ϢereSpielChequers 00:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you, WSC, which is why I wanted to run Sven's piece as a counterpoint to what will be the dominant narrative, while at the same time giving due time to what I'm sure will be the theme to all the regular news stories about the event (aka: mostly positive). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it may not be long now! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I started writing up a draft at meta:Wikimedia Blog/Drafts/EnWP 4 Million Article Milestone#Draft article because nobody else would. 64.40.54.45 (talk) 02:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Main Page slot

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The Signpost should have a slot on the main page. Once every week "today's featured article" should be a Signpost article. On such days the bottom of the page should have links to community pages like WP:VP. It will help us to gain editors and this newspaper to gain readership. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 21:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The main page (in my view, and I think most others) exists to exhibit our featured and timely content. A more likely option would be a link in the toolbar; but I don't see that as very viable either. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I can't see much benefit from this - the Signpost is essentially editor-facing, while the main page is deliberately reader-facing. I enjoyed the article on the Egypt program, but I'm not sure it would be of wide interest to someone not already wanting to know what's happening "internally".
Ways to promote the Signpost - and other things, such as centralised discussions - to new users would be worth investigating, however. Andrew Gray (talk) 09:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#Centralized discussions :) benzband (talk) 10:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Opinions needed at the opinion desk

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

We have a new proposal for an op-ed on creating a "Library of Wikipedia" -- see here. Would anyone here like to comment? Four eyes/two brains are much better than two/one. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I just saw this article, which is basically an opinion piece: http://www.trcommons.org/2012/05/how-right-wingers-took-over-wikipedia/ -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Historically we've only run opinion pieces from established editors for two reasons. First, if it's being published elsewhere, the author already has a distrubutor, and copyright (among other things) becomes an issue, and second (and more importantly) the vast majority of commentary on Wikipedia from outside of Wikipedia is by loons, either POV pushers (like the above linked person), banned users, or just sloppy bloggers who want something to boost their search engine index but can't be arsed to understand what they're writing about (also like the above linked person). Sven Manguard Wha? 00:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
It's called the "Opinion Desk" for a reason. Also, your personal insults are not welcome. Being an "established user" does not exempt you from civility rules. The fact that you want to link your own blog (and push your own POV) completely defeats your argument. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 23:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Wait, I thought I was being criticized. I missed the right-winger link. Failure on my part... and no hard feelings Sven. Wer900 • talk • coordinationconsensus defined 23:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Ed, You may peruse, my blog, and select anything you think will work. "Four Million" is the most timely, and "Interacting the R·I·G·H·T way" is probably my best piece. If you want to use one, let me know and I'll do the setup. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Stale content?

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The banner says "16 July 2012", but the links are to last week's sub-pages? -- John of Reading (talk) 10:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It should be addressed now. While the front page is still being tested, I'm updating it manually. Sorry for the confusion. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 11:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Article reviews too many topics

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

I find the layout of this article to be aesthetically repulsive. I like each of the subtopics featured in this collection but it is intimidating to click on this because it contains several unrelated articles and I do not want to read them all at once. Also I think that each unrelated topic is not being fairly titled because it all has to be lumped into one title.

I propose that some kind of subsection system be used. Congratulations to Signpost organizers who are able to collect so much good content that it attracts complaints for being too much at once. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not the first time this has been mentioned, and I personally understand the issue at stake. I know HaeB will want to comment, but I think going forward - specifically as even more research is done into Wikipedia - it's going to be necessary to decouple the research newsletter and the Signpost report, having the latter exactly the same as the former but with a couple of the topics edited out. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 21:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, half of the current length would be more digestible for SP readers. Tony (talk) 06:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I have heard from several readers that they would prefer it if the research newsletter came out twice as often (fortnightly) but with half the length. Unfortunately, this would probably mean that the organizing/editorial work takes up more time altogether for the same amount of content, and I don't think Dario and I could handle that at the moment.
More specifically about Bluerasberry's comments, I'd like to point out that the report is actually already quite neatly divided into subsections. That it is indeed somewhat intimidating to navigate is partly because of the lack of a table of contents (TOC's are suppressed by the Signpost's layout templates). Compare the Signpost version (without TOC) with the version on Meta (with TOC). I wonder if there is a way to modify the Signpost template to (optionally) enable TOCs when a section is viewed separately, while still suppressing them in the single-page view - the research section might not be the only one to benefit from that.
(There is more to say about this, and unfortunately I am short on time; but I didn't want to let this slide without an answer.)
Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 04:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
This might be a daft thought, but afaik you can force a toc with {{tocleft}} even if it is suppressed. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Where is talk linked from the single-page edition?

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Most blogs, news media articles, etc. have a link to comments and talk. Oftentimes at both the top and bottom of the article. I don't see any such links in each article section of the single-page edition. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

New front page

Latest comment: 12 years ago18 comments12 people in discussion

The new front page is up at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost. Any comments? Thanks to Jarry1250 and Rcsprinter for getting this going. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Visually, I like it; but for ease of browsing I would prefer to have clickable section headings to take readers to the full story, rather than relying on just the "continued→" at the end of each section. bobrayner (talk) 10:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Seconded—that's exactly what I came here to say! Qwfp (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Agreed! Dislike ""continued→"; it's in the same vein as "more". Definitely suggest making the section headings clickable. The lead in text is hard to read, squeezed into two columns like that. And I'm very likely just to skip an article if the lead in is not of interest to me (e.g. the Technology report). In the other format, I clicked on the whole report, and most likely would see something on the article somewhere that enlightens me. Just my preference, as I read by skimming, unless something particularly grabs me. MathewTownsend (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Agreed. apart from that the new layout is fun though. benzband (talk) 11:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
          • Fifth'd! Though I do love the new layout regardless. --PresN 15:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
            • Me too. That was my second reaction: I would much rather have a clickable headline than hunt down little continuation buttons.
              My first reaction was to wonder whether including lede snippets was just a way to bulk up the page and make it less evident that there are 1/3 fewer articles than the previous edition. I will probably ignore the snippets and just continue to read the columns that I follow and ignore the ones that I don't. Overall I would rate the change as mostly harmless. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
              • Well, this is why we asked for feedback! The section headers are now linked. @Ningauble, the number of articles fluctuate per week depending on how much news happens in a week, how many specials we have, and the segments running (eg. the discussion report is biweekly, and recent research is once a month). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I've just noticed. This is great, but what happened to the "From the editor" report explaining? Rcsprinter (warn) @ 17:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
It didn't happen due to time constraints. This seemed to work just fine, though. I'll highlight the change this week, probably with a call for feedback on how we're doing and where we can improve. It never hurts to give people an outlet to express their views, after all. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Don't like the blurbs under the section headings. Mostly they are a long string of text and if I don't like what's there I won't bother to click through. Also, for Featured content, the long dull blurb (enough already with the Beatles) is like the long dull blurb that appears with the Featured article on the main page which is also a put-off. MathewTownsend (talk) 11:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • A problem with the new frontpage content is that most subpages cover multiple items (including "In brief" lists). So the introductory text on the frontpage tends to mislead you into thinking that the subpage only covers the first (main) item. Each week, I have to remind myself to check relevant subpages even if the introductory text is about a topic that I am not interested in. For example, in today's technology report, the frontpage refers only to a feature about SVG translation, so readers might miss the "In brief" item about next week's 1.20wmf8 deployment (which will have a greater impact in the short term). Conclusion: The frontpage introductory text for each subpage either needs to revert to being a generic heading, or needs to include at least a very brief indication of all the other items covered on the subpage. — Richardguk (talk) 11:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
But the alternative is to pack a reference to everything into the title. Gigantic titles are not good. We rely on the assumption that regular readers know that the title covers only the top one or two (sometimes three) stories, and that new readers will explore. Putting "In brief" into every title every week is kind of boring, don't you think? Tony (talk) 11:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree that it's not a pretty option, but as a regular reader I keep finding that I have to nudge myself not to skip subpages solely on account of my lack of interest in the first item alone. Perhaps, instead of appending "In brief" (which is uninformative), a one- or two-word bullet-point for each "In brief" item could be appended to the main item teaser. Taking this week's technology report as an example again:
In the first of a series looking at this year's eight ongoing Google Summer of Code projects, the Signpost caught up with developer Harry Burt.  Also: system update • bug fixes • bots • archive dumps • metadata • new staff (continued→)
(Disclaimer: I'm interested in SVG too, not wanting to disparage {H/J}arry's project but needed an example!)
— Richardguk (talk) 12:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The old style headlines for News & Notes and In the News solved this problem effortlessly by listing the main items, then "and more" — Pretzels Hii! 15:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
That's not a bad idea, Richard. I'll try to include something like that for next week. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Ed. I've never had a not-bad idea before, yay! Might quote your endorsement on my CV.   — Richardguk (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

New format

Latest comment: 12 years ago9 comments9 people in discussion

Loving the redesign. Kudos to whoever did it! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It looks very nice! All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I kick-started it and then Jarry1250 helped me with the design. Thanks for all your kind comments! Rcsprinter (Gimme a message) @ 15:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
New look is quite good. HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to be a contrarian, but I like the simple, clickable table of contents as a front page. Keep it simple! We shouldn't have to "market" the Signpost, waste time making squibs for the front page and worry about it being pretty. Also, the squibs don't/can't adequately summarize the content where the page has several sections. The Signpost should be "just the facts". -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Could probably provide both, actually. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 16:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The simplified version is available at the cover's actual location which will be [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/YYYY-MM-DD]]. James (Talk • Contribs) • 4:47pm • 06:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I like the new Signpost cover format, with descriptions in addition to the titles. I'd limit the descriptions to 60 words. Good bye! --NaBUru38 (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Move Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost to Wikipedia:Signpost

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

The name of this newspaper is The Signpost. It is currently located at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost because its name was originally The Wikipedia Signpost. I propose that this project be moved to Wikipedia:The Signpost. All links should redirect to Wikipedia:The Signpost. I do not think this is controversial. I think that the name should be well-defined and having this project named with something other than its name is confusing. Could someone second this and make the move? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

  • This was avoided at the time of the name change because it is technically very difficult. The Signpost template structure is very complicated and we have hundreds of back issues to maintain too. Also, the fact it remains within Wikipedia: namespace makes the change less effectual; perhaps one day the Signpost would be better placed on Meta. (NB If it were to happen, it should be just to Wikipedia:Signpost) — Pretzels Hii! 19:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Pretzels, how hard would it be to have a bot copy the necessary templates into new pages and remove "Wikipedia"? I agree that modifying all of the existing templates would be difficult and extremely time-consuming, but I wonder if this way would be possible. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The long-term integrity of this newspaper is greatly dependent on its brand identity. It is not respectable to have an ambiguous name for a publication. I brought this up because lately there have been some stories in The Signpost which I think are news events with relevance beyond Wikipedia, and should it happen that any big story break in this publication - and I think that will happen soon and with increasing frequency - then it would be embarrassing to start correcting misunderstandings about the name because of amateur incompetence in technical management. It is not to much to ask that the community who reads this paper be able to do so under the title it has used for a long time. It would be very harmful if somehow the ambiguity about the title were ever injected in broader media. The name is not "Signpost", "The Wikipedia Signpost", or "Wikipedia Signpost" - I propose creating a strong brand identity for The Signpost and not leaving room for ambiguity.
May I ask for comments on the extent to which others think that this is an important and timely issue? What is the scope of the problem - must all articles ever written be renamed? Is there anyone here who can propose a plan for fixing this, even if they themselves could not implement the plan? Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I've always disliked that cumbersome "Wikipedia:Wikipedia" in the URL. It would be nice to have that fixed, but it's not a huge deal. BTW, I switch from "The Signpost" to "the Signpost" in running prose because I though we decided on this a while ago. I notice the talk-page notifications present both words in italics in the section header, but maybe that's ok for formal titles. We also have, of course, no "the" in "Signpost stories", which is as it should be. And yes, if the URL is changed, it should be to just Wikipedia:Signpost. Tony (talk) 12:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I understand the reasoning behind a clear brand, but surely moving to Wikipedia:Signpost is pointless in this regard? — Pretzels Hii! 17:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
If a bot cleans up after the rename, it'd be a trivial and unnoticed change for the most part. Having Wikipedia:Wikipedia always looked rather odd in my opinion and is quite redundant, no offence intended. James (Talk • Contribs) • 8:55pm • 10:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Using the Signpost as a source in BLPs

Latest comment: 12 years ago15 comments11 people in discussion

This may or may not have come up before, but as an FYI: the Signpost is being cited as a source for negative material about a living person in their Wikipedia biography. See [6], [7], [8]. I'm curious as to the thoughts of Signpost staff and readers about this. MastCell Talk 19:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I do reflexively cringe at the thought of using the Signpost as an RS, but is there a more reliable source about the Wikipedia Community and its members than the Signpost? My main hangup would be given our timelines, information is copyedited but not exactly fact checked. Still, I think the Signpost does have a reputation for accuracy within the community. Interesting question... Would it be better to link directly to the Arbitration Ruling rather than the Signpost's Arbitration report? More primary, but less of a chance for loss in translation. Ocaasi t | c 21:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, there are more reliable sources about the Wikipedia community; the New Yorker, the Guardian, the BBC, CNN, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and various university presses have covered the community, along with dozens of scholarly articles in the academic literature.

The Signpost is community-written and community-edited, like pretty much everything on Wikipedia. The current editor, like several before him, is pseudonymous. I don't see how this adds up to the sort of editorial oversight and fact-checking that we expect for garden-variety sourcing, much less for contentious material about a living person. MastCell Talk 23:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's acceptable when about a Wikipedian's editing of foundation projects. Tony (talk) 03:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost and the Arbitration proceeding are both primary sources, which can be used to provide extra background, but should not be used on their own to source claims according to WP:BLPPRIMARY. Wnt (talk) 03:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
If someone's "editing of foundation projects" hasn't been a significant enough part of their life / notability to be covered in a reliable source then there's no reason to be mentioning those activities in the article at all. If it has been covered in a reliable source then use the source. 46.31.205.66 (talk) 12:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
All true enough, but I think the Signpost is certainly a secondary source like any other is. As for reliability, why not treat it like any other small newspaper or large blog? Wikipedia pages may be "everybody can edit" but in practice, there's very little editing other than for grammar b/c the articles are published under bylines. The Signpost would be a reliable secondary source in my book. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not an independent source, just like a university newspaper isn't an independent source. Especially about the foundation projects. All the meet ups and such are portrayed in such a happy light. Everyone enjoyed everyone. If there was "controversy" as in the Berlin one a while ago, then it was "productive" and everyone left with warm feelings. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see you hold that view Mathew, but I'm not sure it's entirely accurate. When we do happen to cover meetups, I fail to see where any newsworthy controversy would come from. I'd be interested in hearing where you think such negativity could arise from. With regards to Berlin, if this is what you are referring to, I'd hardly call that flattering coverage. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
That's not the article, but I'll have to look around to find the one I mean. (This is no reflection on you, Ed, (you are good!) and the article I mean was published before you became managing editor. That article was the first clue that there even were chapters! MathewTownsend (talk) 13:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost is still a creature of Wikipedia. So far as I understand, you don't have a number of skilled workers, each of whom signs off on all of the details of a project. Rather, you have volunteers collaborating, some of whom generate some details and some of whom generate others. Is this an editorial process whereby a fact, not established in any other media source, but culled from diffs, arguments on Wiki etc., will with some certainty not be misunderstood or misrepresented? Wnt (talk) 06:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Signpost has about the same reliability status as any other blog which doesn't have a respected publisher or author behind it. In general, this doesn't matter much since ready alternatives will be available - most Signpost content will refer to other sources that can be used as primary sources if necessary (eg here, the arbitration decision). Rd232 talk 10:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and quickly jotted off an essay about this at Wikipedia:Beginning-to-end responsibility. Good or bad, I'm not sure... Wnt (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
As always, whether something is a "reliable source" depends on the claim. There are a lot of things I'd be happy to cite the Signpost for, but not what was claimed in this case, that the ban was for "decided bias and disruptive behavior". In my experience, the WPian community hears something different (and milder) from those words than, say, an academic community would understand from them if a professor were terminated from a university on the same grounds. - Dank (push to talk) 18:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It's only slightly more reliable than Wikipedia Review and this blog. Count Iblis (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk sections are too narrow

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Please lessen the width of the right sidebar in the talk sections. Talk is being squeezed too much. I am using a 17-inch CRT monitor at 1280 by 1024. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

  • The reduced transclusion width is a deliberate design decision to clearly differentiate article content from reader comments - similar to the larger margins on Signpost articles denoting their unique status as by-lined, static, and sometimes opinionated pieces. You can view the comments as a regular page by using the Talk page of any article. --— Pretzels Hii! 17:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I do agree it feels quite cramped by about the fourth indent (it's similar to the problem we get with looking at discussion pages on the mobile site). Differentiation is good, but this method interacts badly with our usual way of handling discussions. Rather than force the right margin, could we experiment with marking them some other way? We could run a narrow coloured bar down the left margin, or tint the background for the whole comments field. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Maybe there could be a combination of a narrower right sidebar and some kind shading of that sidebar. Other possibilities could be narrower left or right sidebars, combined with shading of the sidebar and/or text background. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

(unindent). Comment. Where are the layout templates? I would like to look at them and see what I and others can do. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Extraneous date after authors' names

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I've only just noticed it, repeated after our names at the top, just under the big date. It's redundant clutter. Also displays way back, too, but I know it hasn't been there for long.

Does anyone know how this has happened? Tony (talk) 07:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

  • This is because the date wasn't originally in the header masthead; that spot used to contain "News and notes" or similar. That info has since been made a subhead and the date is in the masthead for consistency with the issue front page. Strictly, the date under the headline is unnecessary, but it's standard for articles to list their publication date there. — Pretzels Hii! 08:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Rename op-ed section

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Proposed on [9] after much confusion. --Nemo 06:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sold -- we'll have confusion no matter what if I forget the standard disclaimer again (face->desk). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Almost impossible to find discussion

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I have Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue on my watchlist. When I go there I see no links to discussion of the Signpost articles. When I go to the single-page edition I still see no links to discussion of the articles. When I go to Book:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-08-20 I still see no links to discussion of the articles.

Only when I click on a specific article from the Signpost do I see discussion. There needs to be an explanation of how to find the individual article discussion on the entry page, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue, and on the single-page edition, and on the book edition (Book:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-08-20). --Timeshifter (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You mean this discussion page, or just the general comments section? I don't know why you'd want them on a frontpage like at /Issue, because they're article specific. That said, I can see why you'd want link from single-page-view. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 15:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I just want links to the comments. So people know that there are comments, and so that they can get to the comments quickly from anywhere. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

(unindent). The issues are clarified and discussed in more detail here:

Improved Signpost

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Nice to see the Signpost (27 Aug 2012 Edition) featuring Pictures on the main page news stories. I am sure that it will make Signpost more appealing for readers.Congratulations to all the people behind this initiative.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 05:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Single-page Signpost

Latest comment: 12 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

I haven't commented before because it really isn't a big deal, but it'd be nice if:

  1. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single was archived with the rest of the Signpost and
  2. Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single was a transcluded collection (also archived) of the associated talk pages rather than a redirect to the main talk page, paralleling what the Single-page version does with the articles.

I generally read the Signpost in the single-page version, looking at the comments only for certain articles. A single-page archive and a collection of the article comments would, therefore, be quite handy to have. Thanks. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 10:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that would be a nice idea. As I understand it the Single-page versions are transclusions of the articles themselves, so archived versions would be transclusions of the main content, so seeing this implemented wouldn't be very hard. James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:04pm • 11:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, this sounds very doable. Would you like back editions generate at the same time? - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 14:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Back editions would be great if it wasn't too much work. Otherwise, if you do an example or two for me, I'm sure I can do the rest. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Is anyone going to look into this? Like I said, I can do the back editions if I'm given a model, but I don't know that I can figure out how to set the first one up. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for reminding me about this. I'll get on it next week, I promise. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 11:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! --Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I've created the last six months of archives at (e.g.) WP:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2012-08-20. If the format is good, I'll create the rest, add it to the regular bot run and link it from places? Would that be good? - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 18:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Sounds/looks good! (Sorry, I've been away for a while.) --Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Any chance of doing talk pages as well when you have the time? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Academic study: The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration Community

Latest comment: 12 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

I recently came across the study The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration Community – How Wikipedia's reaction to sudden popularity is causing its decline by Aaron Halfaker, R. Stuart Geiger, Jonathan Morgan and John Riedl – it seems to have been quite a major study, published in a recent issue of American Behavioral Scientist focused on Wikis, and put together with the support of the Wikimedia Foundation, and specifically Oliver Keyes, Maryana Pinchuk, and Steven Walling. However, I can't find that it's been reported on in the Signpost. Have I just missed it? If so, I'd be grateful if someone could point me to it. If not, then I would suggest it would be worth a paragraph or two, especially since it gives some specific recommendations. --JN466 21:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Great article. I skimmed it. I am going to link to it from here: User:Timeshifter/more articles and less editors.
I would like to know if the charts in the article are free images. I want to upload them to the Commons. Some quotes:
Wikipedia has changed from "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" to "the encyclopedia that anyone who understands the norms, socializes himself, dodges the impersonal wall of semiautomated rejection and still wants to voluntarily contribute his time and energy can edit". ...

Once desirable newcomers are detected, Wikipedia should develop effective mechanisms to reach out to them. The ways of reaching out that are most reliably successful are human-to-human: an experienced Wikipedia contacting a newcomer to establish a supportive relationship. However, the current mentoring system in Wikipedia has been relatively unsuccessful, and unable to achieve scale (Musicant, 2011). Wikipedia should explore novel ways of reaching out effectively to its most valuable resource: quality newcomers.

Sounds like Help:Teahouse is one part of the cure to Wikipedia's problems of editor retention. Some female warmth to counter the dickish fanboys and their clannish fratboy groupthink. :)
Help:Teahouse should be in the sidebar under interaction. Live, friendly interaction is the key. Not policy wonkishness from some of the pricks that hang out at WP:AN and the Village Pumps. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Abstract: "have lead to a more restrictive environment" ... oh dear. Tony (talk) 04:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
You have found a typo in the web page version's abstract – and that is all you're going to say about it? This looks like it was a major study, supported by Foundation staff. JN466 00:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I am checking with Maryana if this has been published yet in ABS or is still forthcoming. --JN466 01:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Please see User_talk:EpochFail#Rise_and_decline_study and http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:The_Rise_and_Decline JN466 01:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
It's not a typo, but an embarrassing spelling mistake (read/read; lead/led) in the very public abstract. I encounter it all the time among native speakers—professional researchers are serial offenders. And "Despite" is illogical in the second sentence, which should be "Despite historically garnering massive amounts of contributions, Recent research has shown that the number of active contributors in to Wikipedia has entered a steady decline, after historically garnering massive amounts of contributions, and suggests that declining retention of newcomers is the cause." The "Also, ..." is bad, and the "mechanisms ... is shown" is a blunder. These are the kinds of things FAC would pounce on in a nomination.

Going from micro in to macro in the abstract, Sue Gardner has already made this point publicly a number of times over the past year without having to rely on numerical data; I'd have suggested framing the hypothesis explicitly in terms of testing the foundation's assumptions (while that's just icing on the cake, it would have made for better news coverage inside and outside the movement).

This brings me to my overall impression—that the study tells us nothing we didn't already know. A significant problem is how to distinguish (in data terms) between the ill effects on retention of the things we can change, and the suppressive effects of the natural maturing of the project and the inevitable filtering process in professionalising the product (you can't have a professional product without turning off amateurs, at least those who aren't open to improving their own skills). And I'm inclined to think that the motivation of many newcomers to create new articles (encouraged by the foundation's mindset)—rather than to do the hard yards by improving existing articles—might have featured more scientifically in the "guiding research question" of "Why is Wikipedia failing to retain new editors?". So I find the scope of problematising rather narrow for the claims made in the abstract. Tony (talk) 03:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

While I share your views on the points of grammar, I don't think this is really material here, nor does it invalidate the work the researchers and Foundation staff put into it. As for the rest, this was a major study, and while you personally may feel parts of it could have been done better, you can't really argue that that means the study and its conclusions and recommendations are of no interest to the Signpost's readership. User:EpochFail, who is one of the authors of the study, has said he will do a write-up of it, and I for one look forward to reading a summary of the study and its findings in the Signpost in due course. JN466 10:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Tony. Newcomers have the same problems whether they are editing new articles or existing articles. "Professionalizing the product" is not the problem. Wikipedia produces a good product given enough editing. But it takes forever to resolve many content disputes, and so in many cases not enough editing occurs in a timely way. There are 2 main reasons for that in my opinion. One; lack of friendly, quick, content dispute resolution. Two; lack of something as simple as the ability to watchlist individual discussions on talk pages. They are discussed here: User:Timeshifter/More articles and less editors. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm with Tony on this. Typos and vandalism are getting harder to find, but if you do deal with them the pedia is as welcoming as ever. When it comes to adding content we are far less welcoming of unsourced and poorly sourced content, I'd like us to be nicer about that, and I'd like the editing interface to prompt newbies for a source when they add content or change sourced material. But we have increased our standards in recent years and that has made us more elitist. It would be interesting to run some research to see the different retention rates of new editors over time divided by whether they cite reliable sources. My hope is that we are seeing a shift to a slightly smaller editor base but with better sourcing of the new material that sticks. If we had a deteriorating retention rate amongst those whose edits demonstrate a good understanding of sourcing then I'd agree that we have an editor retention problem. ϢereSpielChequers 11:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
This assumes that there is a lack of people intelligent enough to use good sources. There are plenty of such people in my opinion. But they are leaving as well as people who are not so intelligent. They are both leaving, or editing much less often. If the decline in the number of active editors is inevitable no matter what we do, then there is even more need for faster, friendlier content dispute resolution. Faster, friendlier content dispute resolution is also something that educates editors in the process. So it helps with two problems: getting better-sourced content faster, and making editors more intelligent as to sourcing and polite content dispute resolution. Both of those make for a group atmosphere for getting things done. Getting things done makes people proud, and makes them want to stay more. We need moderators. See User:Timeshifter/More articles and less editors. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
@Timeshifter This assumes that there is a lack of people intelligent enough to use good sources. No, not at all. Some of the people we will lose simply can't be bothered to tell us how they know a fact, and won't look things up in a library even if it was 5 minutes walk away. Others would love to but don't have access to reference sources. Some may lack the education, and perhaps there are some who lack the intelligence, but I'm not convinced of that and would definitely not assume that was a significant cause of our lower retention rate. As for your assertion that we are losing both types of editor, and that overall decline is inevitable, well I disagree. We have seen a dramatic change in the editing community, many of the early adopters and pioneers have moved on, I'm pretty sure we are seeing the greying of the pedia as the average age goes up by more than a year a year. As I said it would be interesting to get some research here, but my belief is that the trend in recent years to the reversion of unsourced edits has a differential effect - those who make sourced changes are unaffected, those who make unsourced changes are driven away or just possibly start to make referenced changes. As for your idea about poor dispute handling causing problems, well yes, there are several problems on this site and dispute resolution is one of our most difficult challenges. Content disputes have long been one of the causes of good editors leaving, but I see no reason why it would be worse now than seven years ago. Such disputes only involve a minority of articles and probably the same articles or sort of articles as were contentious in 2005. So without a major change since 2005/6 how could it account for a significant part of the change in our editor retention problem? ϢereSpielChequers 14:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

(unindent). ϢereSpielChequers. I did not assert that overall decline is inevitable. "Content disputes have long been one of the causes of good editors leaving, I see no reason why it would be worse now than seven years ago." It seems worse to me. I went for much longer periods of time back then without major content disputes, and I have always tried to use good references. There are far more POV warriors now, and more tagteams, sockpuppets, etc.. They stop or hinder editing of many articles across a much wider spectrum of topics for various periods of time, and they don't care about the quality of references as long as their POV is topmost in an article. Content dispute resolution now seems worse then it was back then. Admins got more personally involved back then. But there aren't enough admins now to do that. They don't have the time. There is a lack of admins due to the lack of enough people able to get through the much more difficult admin approval (hazing) process. What is needed are content dispute moderators. See User:Timeshifter/More articles and less editors. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Timeshifter I was responding to your comment "If the decline in the number of active editors is inevitable no matter what we do," and yes when I said "your assertion that we are losing both types of editor, and that overall decline is inevitable" I meant decline in the overall number of editors. We do need a certain minimum number of edits simply to maintain the existing site and keep it up to date, but I'm pretty sure we are a long way above that threshold. So we could continue with our current slow decline in editing resource for some time before the pedia stopped its net improvement and started to degrade. As for the decline in the number of active admins, I'm aware of this and have been measuring it for some years. I'm not convinced our real shortage is people who could get through RFA, I think its more that plenty of good candidates have decided that the combination of the hazing at RFA and the extra hassle and scrutiny that comes to admins means that it just isn't worth standing. I've nominated several candidates in the past, but the usual response I get when I ask someone to run is that it isn't worth the hassle. I'm not convinced that content dispute moderators are the solution, or that they would find it any easier to get appointed. As for whether content disputes are more frequent now, well my experience is the opposite of yours, but the Wiki is a big complex place, it is entirely possible that I'm just lucky and yours is the more typical experience. Can you think of any way to reliably measure the dispute level over time? ϢereSpielChequers 11:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

New Facebook page

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

First, there is now a Facebook page for you all to like at <http://www.facebook.com/wikisignpost>. Go like it. :-) Second, I need a profile picture that fits in the box, and a cover photo that isn't just text. Ideas, thoughts, help? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Can I suggest File:WikipediaSignpostIcon.svg for your profile picture? I don't know what to do for the cover photo, though... --Philosopher Let us reason together. 07:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Done! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to intrude, but I read this and noticed you are enquiring about a cover photo for your Facebook page. I have designed many for various other profiles/fan pages, and don't mind offering my services here too if you wish. Let me know rough ideas of what you'd like to be on the cover image/text/font-type/colour etc, and I'll get one whipped up in no time. Wesley Mouse 18:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
No worries, anyone is free to comment! Let me think about what I'd want, and I'll get back to you asap. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Fox News and Commons pornography

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello! I wanted to share this article by Fox News about pornographic content on Commons. As we say in Spanish, I don't know if laugh or cry. Good bye! --NaBUru38 (talk) 15:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration report?

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Has the arbitration report gone away for good, or is this just temporary? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Temporary; arbcom has gone to sleep, so there's no point in irritating readers by enticing them to click and see just a couple of sentences. In these cases, it's in the In brief section of NAN. Tony (talk) 01:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
From last week's letter from the editor: the "Arbitration report" will be discontinued as a separate page until we have enough content to warrant more than a few sentences. The report will now appear in "News and notes" under the 'In brief' section each week. -Mabeenot (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I missed that. (Note to self: next time, smoke crack after editing Wikipedia...)--Guy Macon (talk) 08:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Basically, there's no point reporting to users about cases that are highly unlikely to be taken on-board by the Arbs. Most readers generally don't want expanded information on the other aspects of ArbCom, aside from motions, unless said requests involve contentious cases, like Race and Intelligence. So far, there have been no open cases in almost 2 months and there have been very few motions. This is a good thing but it also puts me out of a job! :P James (Talk • Contribs) • 3:41pm • 05:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, you should have a job again soon with the Arbcom election RfC heating up and the election itself in a couple months. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I eagerly await that day! :P James (Talk • Contribs) • 5:48pm • 07:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

A possible glitch

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Some things in the latest release are looking a bit... unfinished. Maybe it would be best not to go live until articles are complete? bobrayner (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

We're not sure what happened yet, but are looking into it. Thanks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Is this the reason why 'September 24' issue is archived? GoodDay (talk) 10:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
The archives should be fixed now. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Glitchy link in Gibraltar article

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi -- in the Gibraltar article, section Jimmy's talk page, first line, there is a link to User talk:Jimbo. That's actually an indef-blocked doppelganger, and while it redirects to the right place, it might to better to use the correct link. Looie496 (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Minor typo in headline for this week's discussion report

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The subject line says it all, I guess. In the discussion report, ""Hotcat" should be "HotCat". I've fixed this in the main onwiki places – the main SP page, the main page for the issue itself and the affected article, but feel free to change it in any other pages that might need fixing. Graham87 13:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing this. J36miles (talk) 14:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

article on web sites disappearing

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm not sure if this appropriate for the Signpost since it is more about the general web than about Wikipedia, but this link is to an article on how items on the web are disappearing (and doing it faster than I expected) which impacts our external links: gigaom.com/2012/09/19/the-disappearing-web-information-decay-is-eating-away-our-history/ RJFJR (talk) 13:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I included it in this week's News and notes. Thanks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

The current Signpost and related pages should be purged at least daily and possibly hourly from shortly before publication until a day or so after. This sounds like an ideal task for a bot. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

This could be done quite easily: Ed, if you think it's worthwhile — which we'd have to figure out — I can set up a little Toolserver script/cron job/bot to do so from, say, whenever someone clicks a button to two days afterwards. David, I assume you're talking about this in regard to changed headlines/text/etc, correct? —Theopolisme 21:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm speaking of any changes that would benefit from frequent purges. The issue that got my attention was cached transclusions. Some of the behavior of templates changes when the next signpost is created and/or when its scheduled creation date passes. If these are cached and the caches are stale, things don't appear as they should. Then there is the obvious case of the single-page view, which is so important that readers are invited to purge the cache as they read it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
This would be helpful, as we have had comments about the page not updating in the past after we publish. Could you set the purge to run for a day or two after Living Bot (talk · contribs) edits the main page (WP:SIGNPOST)? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't have the skill to do this quickly. Perhaps Theopolisme (talk · contribs) does?? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Sure, I can put something together. Can you help compile a list of pages that would need to be purged? Perhaps at Wikipedia:Signpost/purgelist? —Theopolisme 15:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I believe the only other page is Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single. All of the other pages are newly created for each issue. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Archive_5&oldid=1166788587"