Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Calendar: current deadline is highlighted, and current UTC date is 2024-03-28 09:25:24.
February 2024
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
29 30 31 01 02 03 04
05 06 07 08 09 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 01 02 03
March 2024
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
26 27 28 29 01 02 03
04 05 06 07 08 09 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
April 2024
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
01 02 03 04 05 06 07
08 09 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 01 02 03 04 05
The Signpost currently has 5509 articles, 691 issues, and 13421 pages (4359 talk and 9062 non-talk).
Current issue: Volume 20, Issue 4 (2024-03-02) · Purge
issue page · archive page · single-page edition · single-page talk (create)
Articles and pageviews for 2024-03-02
Pageviews for 2024-03-02 (V)
Subpage Title 7-day 15-day 30-day 60-day 90-day 120-day 180-day
WikiCup report High-scoring WikiCup first round comes to a close 365 381 381 381 381 381 381
Traffic report Supervalentinefilmbowlday 385 399 399 399 399 399 399
Recent research Images on Wikipedia "amplify gender bias" 1105 1148 1148 1148 1148 1148 1148
Obituary Vami_IV 767 794 794 794 794 794 794
News and notes Wikimedia enters US Supreme court hearings as "the dolphin inadvertently caught in the net" 1128 1178 1178 1178 1178 1178 1178
In the media The Scottish Parliament gets involved, a wikirace on live TV, and the Foundation's CTO goes on record 716 747 747 747 747 747 747
Articles and pageviews for 2024-02-13
Pageviews for 2024-02-13 (V)
Subpage Title 7-day 15-day 30-day 60-day 90-day 120-day 180-day
Traffic report Griselda, Nikki, Carl, Jannik and two types of football 426 581 820 820 820 820 820
Serendipity Is this guy the same as the one who was a Nazi? 725 1004 1286 1286 1286 1286 1286
News and notes Wikimedia Russia director declared "foreign agent" by Russian gov; EU prepares to pile on the papers 1695 2077 2419 2419 2419 2419 2419
In the media Speaking in tongues, toeing the line, and dressing the part 595 791 1066 1066 1066 1066 1066
Gallery Before and After: Why you don't need to touch grass to dramatically improve images of flora and fauna 485 702 990 990 990 990 990
Disinformation report How low can the scammers go? 871 1376 1793 1793 1793 1793 1793
Crossword Our crossword to bear 446 643 906 906 906 906 906
Comix Strongly 458 636 900 900 900 900 900


About 7 articles are basically ready[edit]

@JPxG and Red-tailed hawk: the following look ready to me. But there really are no copy editors this issue, so I shouldn't do the original writing or formatting and light copy editing and then the final copy editing. About 7 articles should be ready

  • Disinformation report
  • In the media
  • Gallery
  • Serendipity
  • Traffic report
  • News from Wiki Edu (please don't forget it this time)

I don't know anything about crosswords, but

  • Crossword looks done

I don't see much of a future for this News and notes so I think it's best to just leave it out,

fiddle with the pix for the landing page and publish what we have and give everybody at least 13 days until the next issue.

You're not going to be able to create anything that's missing by your self in any reasonable amount of time IMHO. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can pitch in on copyediting the things Smallbones wrote. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got the Disinfo report & In the media, and some miscellaneous changes elsewhere. Sorry, that's all I can do tonight. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I won't have the time to commit to doing copyediting; I began reviewing a GAN yesterday and I'm in the process of updating the article on the Super Bowl. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have beefed up "News and notes" and think it now has enough content to be published. Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much, HaeB. Work ... Andreas JN466 12:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have some severe reservations about the Wiki Edu piece, and I was in error not to mention them last time. Essentially, the article being discussed is rather concerning. Of course we don't expect student editors to never make mistakes, and some amount of copyediting and formatting is to be expected from others; but the article they wrote is a heavily promotional vanity piece, to the point where it resembles COI/UPE. The fact that a student wrote this for college credit, to me, almost seems worse than if they'd just been paid to post a CV on Wikipedia -- it indicates that we are instructing people to write like this. I mean, here:
His academic pursuits reached a pinnacle when he earned his Ph.D. in organic chemistry from the University of Oregon in 1964.
[...]
Smith, who holds a Ph.D. in organic chemistry expressed his ongoing commitment to Delaware State University as trustee emeritus. He plans to stay engaged with the university and continue attending board meetings in a non-voting capacity, expressing his desire to support Delaware State University's growth and evolution. Reflecting on his time as both interim president and board chair, Smith highlighted the need for effective communication and a shared understanding of goals between the university president and the board for successful decision-making. Smith's years of working at Delaware State University led the university toward continuous progress, positioning it to become one of the leading HBCUs in the country.
There have been controversies in the past with promotional articles about academics, and specifically with Wiki Edu: my understanding is that, rather than malice, this type of behavior is simply so ubiquitous and expected among professional academics that it just feels normal to them. At any rate, I don't really feel comfortable running a piece in which we straightforwardly endorse this as a work of art. I don't really know if this is something that can be resolved by copyediting, without essentially gutting it and writing a different article in its stead. jp×g🗯️ 03:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG: Not surprisingly, I completely disagree with you. This was written by a college freshman (it's pretty hard to call him an academic in his first semester) not writing in his first language, probably his first few months outside of Egypt. I don't know the reputation of Rutgers-Newark and I don't want to put it down in any way, but at least technically it can be called an inner city university. Now, I recall my first semester at University without any of those difficulties; the author of the Wikipedia article seems to have done a lot better than I did.
If I recall correctly, only about 2% of Wikipedia editors in America are Black vs. about 12% percent in the US population. And we have nothing else in The Signpost related to Black History Month. Smith, the subject of the Wikipedia article, is clearly notable. A Black from Memphis, TN earning a PhD in the 1960s and getting a job at DuPont - the top chemical company in the world back then, maybe still today - and then working there for 40 years rising to Vice President of Research - yep that's quite an achievement. What I see in the original article related to your complaint is one peacock term "pinnacle" which would have been better expressed as an "accomplishment" or "achievement", but that's just one word. The final paragraph is not a major flaw either, it's a difficult thing for many people to write an article without a conclusion. It's more repetitive than promotional. Finally I think you are wrong in your criticism of Wiki Edu - who else is reaching out to new editors in any similar way. Don't expect perfection, and please don't bite the newbies.
What was it that attracted me to this article? It's really simple. The simple joy expressed by "I felt like it was a piece of art that I kept looking at". I still feel that way when I write a good article, but I'll guarantee you it wasn't with the first article I wrote on Wikipedia.
I think you've still got time to put it in this issue. Please do it. It's a good article, and it doesn't break any rules. Perhaps it may be controversial with some folks - so much the better.
Smallbones(smalltalk) 05:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I see that I'm 45 minutes late for getting it in the regular way. And you are more than a full day late, didn't ping me, didn't even show up before the deadline. But don't worry, you can still put it in. Smallbones(smalltalk) 05:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean the kid. He didn't do anything wrong: he was doing what the professor said he should do, which is what students are supposed to do. They aren't supposed to know everything (otherwise why would they go to school?)
My issue is that this seems quite similar in nature to a previous incident, where some combination of poor training and bad communication led to students being roped into writing bad articles, which got the axe, and after which everybody got mad online.
My concern here is that, when he took a class that purported to teach him how to write Wikipedia articles, it seems to have instead taught him how to write speedy deletion candidates, and then a bunch of people signed off on this for some reason. Sure, maybe the guy is notable, but the notability is not clearly commensurate with the volume that was written. In short, I don't know what our answer is supposed to be when someone reads this and asks 'but the article was extremely bad, why are you bragging that people got a student to write this and then approved it'?
As for the delay in editing and publishing this issue, that was my fault and I apologize for it.
I would write more here but I will have to sleep first jp×g🗯️ 06:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-Signposter here). That WikiEdu article is indeed a really bad advertisement for their program. The instructor and the WikiEdu advisor failed the student and Wikipedia. It was flagged at Wikipediocracy and I made two sweeping edits fixing it up: the first fixing extensive repetition and a lack of specifics, not to mention burying his primary claim to notability, his interim university presidency; the second adding another honor and more sources. (The original article was a disservice to the man.) I've been waiting for you to publish the item in order to write a comment. Since the item didn't get published, and is a republication of an in-house blog entry, the kindest thing to WikiEdu would be to not publish it to further cement their bad reputation on-wiki. Alternatively you could write an independent article on the failings of WikiEdu, in which the trumpeting of this article would be just one example. As a news and commentary organ associated with Wikipedia, I think you shouldn't be simply republishing other projects' blog entries anyway, but I'm not a Signposter. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"(Non-Signposter here)": That can easily be changed, Yngvadottir! I think you are pretty well informed on all the topic areas we cover, and help is always appreciated. Just chip in whenever you feel like it. Best, Andreas JN466 17:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliment, Andreas, but I would be very bad at it. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Post-publication (issue 3)[edit]

As usual you can see user feedback on the issue with this link that I created. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20-3 In the media[edit]

Hello! I just wanted to bring you a bit of news that likely didn't make it to the yesterday's issue: After Midnight incorporated a wiki-race from Snoop Dogg to the Great Depression in one of their quizzes from the show's latest episode!

It might not mean much, but I thought it was still pretty funny! Oltrepier (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who was working on the Scottish Parliament situation? Oltrepier (talk) 12:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to know, because I can try to expand the entry a little bit, but it looked like @Bri wanted to double-check the news independently... Oltrepier (talk) 12:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please go anead with it, I will be short on time to contribute. If you mean the TODO there, it was actually inserted by Red-tailed hawk. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bri Right, thank you for clarifying.
I'm planning to get it done this evening (watch out, Italian GMT here...) Oltrepier (talk) 18:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: The article should be ready now! Sorry if it took so long... I should note that I've managed to retrieve all of the mentioned edits on Alex Cole-Hamilton's page, except for the last one. I can't find anything about the edits on Michelle Ballantyne and George Adam, either. I guess I'm just too tired at the moment...

On a side note, I've got a feeling that this story is a very strong candidate for one of the next "Disinformation reports": God only knows how many MSP articles could have been touched by those IP users. Oltrepier (talk) 21:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MSP = Member of Scottish Parliament, not "mainstream press", that threw me for a second! Thanks. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About the 20-3 issue[edit]

Hello! Do you need help completing or reviewing any of the columns?

I'll try to go through the short entries over at "In the media", at least! Oltrepier (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think any help is welcome at this stage, Oltrepier! Please do whatever you can. Andreas JN466 17:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm too involved to report on it, but WP:RFA2024 seems like something I'd expect the Signpost to cover. Sdkbtalk 18:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delay[edit]

I see that most of the started articles for this issue aren't in copyeditable state, so I think it would be condign to put off the publication for a day (or maybe a little longer). jp×g🗯️ 18:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG I agree, it would help us work on them a little more calmly... Oltrepier (talk) 10:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will see to get RR into a publishable state within the next six hours, and should also be able to help out a bit with N&N and/or ITM.
Looking at the other blue links at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom#Article status:
  • Traffic report looks ready to be copyedited (CCing Igordebraga to confirm)
  • WikiProject report has substantial content already but also lots of placeholders - Shushugah, would you prefer this to be postponed to the next issue?
  • Tips and tricks and Obituary still consist mostly of Lorem ipsum and should probably be postponed or removed
  • News from Wiki Edu seems problematic per the discussion above
  • Web report is an inscrutable draft that was last edited in December and should probably be moved somewhere else or be deleted to avoid confusion
Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes, please do postpone my WikiProject report, I will ping again new/existing contributors. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CaptainEek and Adam Cuerden: Are you still working on your respective columns? Oltrepier (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a ton of paperwork regarding my dad's death. Next issue. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 18:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam Cuerden I'm so sorry, I didn't know about it... Oltrepier (talk) 10:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it doesn't seem that CaptainEek was planning to work on the obituary, based on the thread above (which probably would have been better placed on the suggestions page).
Overall it looks like we should go with N&N, ITM, Traffic report and RR, only. (RR should be publishable now, after Bri and I had to wrestle a bit with the rather unwieldy Nature paper, but could still use some copyediting. The former three still haven't been marked as ready for copyediting and also lack titles and blurbs.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HaeB Oh, I messed up, sorry.
To be honest, I could have write a brief obituary myself, but since I never got to know Vami personally, I'm afraid of just "phoning it in" and sounding dishonest... Oltrepier (talk) 11:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shushugah: Any progress regarding Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/WikiProject report since last month? Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a need for more articles for the upcoming edition, I'd gladly writeup a report in the next few hours on the WikiCup (first round just finished), like I did a few months back, if there's any interest. @JPxG:? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would there be any interest in me writing something up about it for this edition? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for JPxG (who is currently tasked with making the final calls on such questions), but it sounds like a good idea to me! Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11 You've got my co-sign, as well!
On a side note, has anyone had any updates on Wiki Loves Monuments? Oltrepier (talk) 10:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The organizers came out with a big announcement on February 26 informing the world that ... "we approach the highly anticipated announcement of the winners of the Wiki Loves Monuments 2023" ;) I would check the social media channels mentioned there if you are looking for future updates. Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK - will make sure to write one up in the next few hours. Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it... BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG, HaeB, and Oltrepier: Wrote it up here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/WikiCup report. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did some quick copyediting. The layout is still messed up due to an apparent bug in the series template (also in this earlier story) - CCing JPxG as he appears to have looked into that template most recently. Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I worked around the series template bug. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it looks good now -- I don't know exactly what's going on, layoutwise, with the sidebar templates. I haven't had time to check it out; I am a little burned-out on Signpost technical maintenance, so it may be a while, and in the meantime perhaps we just need to have the repeated end and start templates (unless anyone else can fix what's going on there). jp×g🗯️ 22:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I am going to start going through now and making ready. jp×g🗯️ 22:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nap and we roll. jp×g🗯️ 11:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @JPxG Wait, I'll try to take over the obituary real quick! Oltrepier (talk) 13:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @JPxG: Right, now the obituary should be ready to go, as well. Since I never got to know Vami personally, I was afraid of doing everyone a disservice, so I just used sawyer-mcdonell's note and gave him writing credits. Please let me know if it's still OK. Oltrepier (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the credit! I'll add that @AirshipJungleman29 copyedited & reconfigured it at my request, so I'd request that he be given some credit too. :) sawyer * he/they * talk 19:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sawyer-mcdonell Sure, I've done it just now. Thank you for clarifying! : ) Oltrepier (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lovely! sawyer * he/they * talk 19:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Issue 2-04 publication[edit]

Since JPxG has said he's making ready for publication, I want to suggest people go pencils-down ASAP so we can get this thing out the door. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That "start going through now and making ready" announcement was made over 20 hours ago, followed by no pertinent edits yet. I am very very unconvinced that team members making further edits in the meantime is the main hold-up here (btw, I see you made some additions to N&N yourself right after posting that "pencils-down" suggestion here).
Generally speaking, as we have discussed several times here over the last year or so, the problem is the lack of reliable deadlines (this issue was supposed to be published over three days ago). They just won't be taken serious if the EiC just sits back and waits for everything come in, then swoops in days after the supposed publication time to edit heavily and make decisions (and late-adds his own stories without a chance of them getting reviewed by others). Rather, one needs to be actively involved in the run-up to the deadline, e.g. by following up on stale drafts or providing feedback when asked. Both of these tasks had to be taken up by others in this section, and if it helps we could think about devolving that role more formally (in any case I would like to already highlight Oltrepier's great work on curating this issue).
Apropos, it would be good if the next issue's publication date could be set to a Sunday again per our usual custom.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, @HaeB, although I did what I did mostly out of my natural selflessness... mixed with self-annihilation. : )
But jokes aside, I think all of the articles we agreed on publishing are actually good to go now; I've only left Vami's obituary un-ticked, because I wrote it myself, so I thought another pair of eyes would only improve it before giving it the final green light.
By the way, I take advantage of this discussion to let you know that I won't guarantee you to be able to contribute as much to the next few issues, due to real-life priorities (mostly study priorities). Sorry for it... Oltrepier (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I would call it devolution. In the ancient times of 2022 tasks were divided to some extent (e.g. the editor-in-chief and publication manager were separate people). There was also one issue a month instead of two. Then for a while there were two editors-in-chief, and overall more manpoower available for writing and editing, and this swell of momentum was at the time the main impetus for moving to two issues a month. Well, now there is one EiC, who is me, and no publication manager, and it is somewhat difficult to find time for editing and formatting and publishing the whole thing as well as shepherding articles through the editorial process. Some of the stuff you've mentioned, I don't really know how to avoid. For example, if I publish articles marked for publication without editing them at all -- some of them from this issue were marked as ready for final approval and still had lorem ipsum at the start -- it will just look bad, and if I let stuff get published that's too edgy and spicy and unsubstantiated we will get dragged to ANI and our articles nominated for deletion and our editorial control eroded further (I am willing to fight these battles over stuff that is newsworthy and of public interest but not for, say, throwaway off-color remarks about the length of fingers -- we know how that went last time). If I just omit articles from the issue that aren't ready and don't add to them, it is sitting back and doing nothing, but if I complete unwritten articles by adding stuff to them (or write my own) it is swooping. I postponed publication of this issue by a couple days because none of the articles were close to ready, which is being late. At any rate, I have not contributed a piece of original reporting in multiple months.
I would very much appreciate if someone were able to help out with the publishing process.
I think that, if nothing else, the technical work has made it a lot easier to do this (the newsroom automatically displays all the articles without having to be manually edited every time, there's an automatically updating calendar in the deadline template, the deadline template itself is far simpler and easier to use, the draft templates give better help for article and image formatting, the publishing script/tagging script/draft templates/display templates now allow images without excruciating hours of manual formatting) -- so, while it still takes time, it no longer requires someone to go elbow-deep into the task beyond knowing basics of wiki markup.
I've mentioned here once or twice that the faster schedule has proven somewhat difficult, and that there would probably be less stress if we moved back to monthly publication, and it didn't seem very persuasive. Nonetheless, I think that for the next issue I am just going to set the date to three weeks from now, and if we manage to figure out something that allows an issue to be released two weeks from now that's great -- otherwise I do not think it's worthwhile. jp×g🗯️ 05:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20-3 News and notes[edit]

@HaeB What about moving your entry on the US Supreme Court hearings to the top of the column? To me, it looks like the most eye-catching bit of news... Oltrepier (talk) 11:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, feel free to move it! Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obituary[edit]

I just wanted to make sure the Signpost was aware that photographs of Vami_IV contributed by his family are available in commons:Category:Vami_IV. Courtesy ping: Bri. All the best. ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 08:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I came to say the same. Another image to use would be the rose design that he made and carried on his talk page in memory of others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024[edit]

Hey, thought I'd throw it out there – if someone's doing a piece at WP:RFA2024 (probably something worth covering in terms of project/policy news), i'd be happy to talk about it on the record to help round out the piece :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interview with WMF leadership[edit]

I have a draft at

@Smallbones and Jayen466: Thanks for helping to coordinate this

Details:

  1. This article links to the unedited draft video interview. If needed, I can have that unedited version in Wikimedia Commons within hours, and it is shareable as is. I do not expect to have an edited version uploaded till end of month.
  2. I did this interview as a Signpost journalist. I would appreciate anyone calling out if that seems inappropriate, and if rather this should be from me as an individual community member.
  3. The tone of this interview is giving a platform to WMF to say what they like. To me, the community interest here includes 1) confirming that the communication channel is open 2) providing the editorial service of linking to name-dropped concepts 3) curating links to background information not mentioned 4) hosting a comments section for anyone to react and 5) publishing this in the record as a collection of conversations on this topic, which could be useful when there a need to cite everything discussed on this topic till now.
  4. I appreciate anyone checking to add more links or more cited sources that I may have missed.
  5. I appreciate any feedback on this interview as a precedent for getting video interviews into The Signpost. I or anyone else could do more, if this format works.

Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at this yet but adding new media formats to The Signpost beyond pure print seems like a healthy and good direction for us. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Bluerasberry,
Thanks for this. I was wondering if you want to include some further sources at the end? Such as:
Hope this is helpful. Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 08:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue immediately after 20-4 Recent research[edit]

As usual, we are preparing this regular survey on recent academic research about Wikipedia, doubling as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter (now in its thirteenth year). Help is welcome to review or summarize the many interesting items listed here, as are suggestions of other new research papers that haven't been covered yet. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing this [1] is on your radar. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't, thanks for the heads-up! On first glance it doesn't quite seem to be in scope for "Recent research", e.g. because it is not an academic publication, so I think "In the media" might be the best section for it. Depending on the publication time of this issue (cf. below) I might be able to do a brief writeup if nobody else beats me to it. Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup[edit]

I noticed the next edition of The Signpost comes out soon. Was wondering if there'd be any support for me writing another article on updates of the WikiCup like I have twice before? I'd be glad to make it an annual column if anyone supports it (kind of liked doing the past two articles). Thoughts? @JPxG: BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This issue[edit]

Somewhat large backlog to get through, which I will take a crack at tomorrow. Somebody has mentioned that there hasn't been an arbitration report in some time, so I will try to get something written. jp×g🗯️ 10:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will the arbitration report have something to do with the comment at AN: It's no surprise that the environmental modeling software company with four Wikipedia articles is the one that has a Wikipedia admin on its payroll.? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I just added a story to N&N which should make it into a viable standalone section. ITM isn't quite yet, though.
Given that only "Interview" and "Humor" appear to be without major content gaps at this time, I think it is safe to assume that the updated deadline is not realistic either, so I just went ahead and tentatively moved it a bit further (JPxG, feel free to adjust to the actual intended publication time).
I'll aim to have RR publishable by that time, and hopefully I can also contribute a bit more to ITM. Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will be on a plane in a couple days, and the couple weeks after that I will be on the same computer (but with a comically tiny screen). My hope is to spend most of tomorrow working and packing, and I don't know how much of an impressive arb report can get done between that and everything else, it might be kind of thin gruel. Some things that need to happen still:
I think all four of these are good, and should be run in this issue; they have to get moved into articles and formatted properly (and piccies found). If someone could help out with this I would experience extreme pleasure (I will apologize for taking care of these extremely late on my own behalf). jp×g🗯️ 10:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think all four of these are good, and should be run in this issue - can you explain your assessment more in case of the third piece? I don't see any content in the linked submission (User:JWheeler-WMF/Designing a new Community Wishlist).
Also, not to get into wider discussions about balancing opinion and journalistic reporting (or independent coverage vs. advocacy by interested parties), but four (or 3.5) different WMF-authored pieces in a single Signpost issue seems quite a lot. Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
last night i offered to help out with the Signpost (via discord message), but i'm not sure where to start, or what would be most helpful... anyone have any suggestions of things that need doing? ... sawyer * he/they * talk 04:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In the media links some news items that still need a (possible quite brief) writeup, and (as discussed above), this could too. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i can definitely try my hand at blocking down some summaries for In the media :) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 04:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i've written a blurb about Lucy Moore/women on Wikipedia (although i wasn't sure what to put for the subtitle), and added the sources about alleged anti-Israel bias on Wikipedia mentioned at Wikipedia:Press coverage 2024#March - i haven't written a blurb or anything for that topic though. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 06:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! I added one sentence. Someone still needs to find a catchy subtitle for each.
Two other recent news items that seem worth covering in ITEM if you're interested: [2] (see also our earlier coverage: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-09-16/News_and_notes#A fork in the Roads WikiProject), [3]. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i recall discussing the roads wiki fork with other editors on discord - it's something people are interested in. i can write a little something about both! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 07:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @HaeB and @Sawyer-mcdonell - I hope that I am posting in the right place and tagging the right users; if not, please forgive me. ;) My question is whether it is possible to include more caveats about the World Jewish Congress (WJC) report that is covered in the In Brief section titled "Accusations of bias"? The Foundation takes allegations of bias on Wikimedia projects seriously, so several staff have reviewed the report. They found that the WJC report makes a number of unsubstantiated claims of bias on Wikipedia. It lacks adequate references, quotes, links, or other sources to support its purported findings. Further, the report misunderstands Wikipedia's NPOV policy, as well as the importance of anonymity for user privacy on Wikimedia projects. Thanks! LDickinson (WMF) (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
having read the WJC report myself, i completely agree with the WMF's conclusions here about the poor quality of the report - as a very new contributor (mentioned above) i'm unsure of the best way to include such caveats, so i'll ping @JPxG (who himself added to the blurb) for some more input. i also wonder whether it might be better to move this to a full story rather than an in-the-brief blurb? currently we only have 1 lead story at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In the media ... sawyer * he/they * talk 00:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is certainly room in ITM (and other Signpost sections) to include context and informed criticism about the covered publications.
I just made this into a full story, taking Lauren's note above into account and adding other context and links to previous related coverage.
@LDickinson (WMF): thanks for the input, and generally speaking (i.e. without having formed a conclusive opinion about this specific report myself) it is great to see the Foundation pushing back publicly against shoddy research and defending Wikipedia against unfounded bias accusations. (As you might be aware, we too have been doing this at the Signpost at various times, including for some pretty egregious examples.) My only feedback would be that criticism of such faulty research is even more useful (for our audience and probably also for the criticized researchers) if it is concrete and substantiated itself. Are the reviews by WMF staff that you mentioned public, or could they be made public? It would be great to be able to link them in our story.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LDickinson (WMF) Out of curiosity, has the WMF published any comment/response to the WJC report somewhere? If not, do you intend to? For the interested, I used it as a ref at Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and another editor added some more. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @HaeB, @Sawyer-mcdonell, and @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, thanks for updating the write-up to include the Foundation's assessment of the report. I’d like to add an important point: The Wikimedia Foundation welcomes research that can help improve the quality of content on Wikipedia. We strongly recommend researchers to do so in accordance with the policies and best practices that researchers and the Wikipedia volunteer community have developed (e.g., Research:FAQ). We are committed to further examining any additional information shared about or related to this research. Could this be included in the story?
As is our typical practice, we will respond to any relevant media inquiries with our assessment and comments on the report, rather than posting a public statement. Thanks again! LDickinson (WMF) (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I'm not sure how much our readers would benefit from reading through generic PR truisms like The Wikimedia Foundation welcomes research that can help improve the quality of content on Wikipedia (I mean, it would be quite surprising if *discouraged* such research). I know that these have value in other text genres like press releases, but the Signpost, like most journalistic publication really, usually tries to focus on the actually newsworthy information.
As for We strongly recommend researchers to do so in accordance with the policies and best practices that researchers and the Wikipedia volunteer community have developed (e.g., Research:FAQ): As a general statement this is likewise commendable but not very newsworthy. However, if included in this story, many or most readers may, not unreasonably, perceive it as an insinuation that this "strong recommendation" was not followed in case of the present report. And that brings me back to my above feedback about your earlier (already included) statement, which I don't see you addressing: Criticism is more valuable if it is concrete and substantiated (after all, unsubstantiated claims was one of the problems you raised yourself about the WJC's criticism of Wikipedia). So which policies and best practices did Dr Lir violate concretely in her report, in the Wikimedia Foundation's assessment? Again, I'm not against calling out researchers' failings and am not defending this report. But we do have some responsibility about what kind of negative statement we highlight and publicize in the Signpost. And sometimes academics who have made mistakes hit back aggressively instead of addressing valid criticism (see e.g. this very extreme recent example, smaller versions of which exist in many places), so we need to be prepared to defend this coverage if needed.
By the way, the FAQ you recommend is essentially unmaintained, and horribly outdated in various parts and incomplete in others (notwithstanding the very commendable efforts of one staff member back in 2021 to fix several other parts, as a side project at the Wikimania hackathon). E.g. related to the policies and best practices part, it makes no mention of the WP:NOTLAB policy that enwiki instituted in 2017.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayen466: Were you still going to write up the UCoC item you added to N&N? Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am going to head out in a couple hours, and that is probably the last time I'll be online today. So far it looks like we have most of a usable ITM, traffic report and N&N, a couple light columns (humor and comix) and an interview due to be uploaded in full on the 28th. I don't see anything for recent research; I had hoped to have more time for a discussion or arb report but did not. I think that it might be better to hold back for a day or so; if we just ran on the 28th we could probably have a full RR and interview as well as enough time for a discussion/arb report. jp×g🗯️ 12:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the update (but, broken record, please also have the deadline template reflect such information for the benefit of everyone contributing to this issue; I just tried do to that myself, again).
    It sounds like you were saying that we won't publish before the 28th (UTC?) in any case because of that interview. As always, I'm committed to not have RR become the bottleneck that holds up publication, I'll now aim to have it in a publishable state in about 24h, which I assume will still be well before the new actual deadline. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To highlight a few other still open tasks besides those discussed above, in case Sawyer-mcdonell or others would like to chip in on those:
    • Copyediting and drafting headlines, as per the list at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom#Article_status. (The lead story in N&N has actually been available for copyediting since Sunday already, but I hadn't marked N&N as "needs copyedit" yet since some other draft items there are not yet done.)
    • Fleshing out or removing the remaining missing items in N&N and ITM
    Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    i can definitely work on those! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 21:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    speaking of headlines, i'm not sure i'm familiar enough with how we do headlines to be confident in that - i looked around for some kind of guideline about it, but couldn't find any. i did do some copyediting & fleshing out, though. i think the graphs story for N&N is pretty well-written, from the perspective of someone who is not very technically-inclined; i could start something for the UCoC story if no one else has something cooking up. also, are we thinking there will just be one main story for ITM? ... sawyer * he/they * talk 02:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Re UCoC, we haven't heard back from User:Jayen466 since the above ping, so yes, it would be great if you could start writing that up (a brief item instead of a full story would still be better that nothing).
    There isn't really a guideline about headlines as far as I'm aware. So I would just say go with your sense of what you might find most informative and interesting as a reader yourself. (Some current team members love to indulge their personal sense of humor with these, but we're getting some reader pushback on that.) In N&N, NightWolf1223 has already helped us out in the meantime.
    Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    sounds good! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 04:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:The last good place[edit]

Just came across this study yesterday. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, we covered it extensively in November already. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We got mixed up on the publication dates – the online journal had published a year ago, but the print edition ran it just last month. Therefore I included it again in the Recent research draft thinking it was new, but fortunately HaeB noticed. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vami IV last FAC[edit]

Last issue contained a moving obituary from his colleagues to Vami IV. On 5 March 2024, Boundary Fire (2017)—his final Featured Article Candidatewas promoted. Here is the FAC discussion, which saw Volunteers Premeditated Chaos and Guerillero shepherd the piece through the closing stages of the usual robust review process to achieve for Vami the final, finest accolade a Wikpedia writer can earn.

Acta est fabula, plaudite.

——Serial Number 54129 12:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]