Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom

To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions and Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions redirect here.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Calendar: current deadline is highlighted, and current UTC date is 2024-08-05 18:48:51.

The Signpost currently has 5569 articles, 697 issues, and 13571 pages (4421 talk and 9150 non-talk).

Current issue: Volume 20, Issue 10 (2024-07-22) · Purge

issue page · archive page · single-page edition · single-page talk (create)

Articles and pageviews for 2024-07-22

Pageviews for 2024-07-22 (V)
Subpage	Title	7-day	15-day	30-day	60-day	90-day	120-day	180-day
Obituary	JamesR	441	441	441	441	441	441	441
News from the WMF	Wikimedia Foundation Board resolution and vote on the proposed Movement Charter	367	367	367	367	367	367	367
News and notes	Wikimedia community votes to ratify Movement Charter; Wikimedia Foundation opposes ratification	5716	5716	5716	5716	5716	5716	5716
In the media	What's on Putin's fork, the court's docket, and in Harrison's book?	443	443	443	443	443	443	443
Humour	Joe Biden withdraws RfA, Donald Trump selects co-nom	819	819	819	819	819	819	819
Essay	Reflections on editing and obsession	342	342	342	342	342	342	342
Discussion report	Internet users flock to Wikipedia to debate its image policy over Trump raised-fist photo	3160	3160	3160	3160	3160	3160	3160
Crossword	Vaguely bird-shaped crossword	310	310	310	310	310	310	310

Previous issue: 2024-07-04 · issue page · archive page · single-page edition · single-page talk

Articles and pageviews for 2024-07-04

Pageviews for 2024-07-04 (V)
Subpage	Title	7-day	15-day	30-day	60-day	90-day	120-day	180-day
Traffic report	Talking about you and me, and the games people play	365	486	561	561	561	561	561
Special report	Wikimedia Movement Charter ratification vote underway, new Council may surpass power of Board	716	939	1356	1356	1356	1356	1356
Sister projects	On editing Wikisource	544	666	740	740	740	740	740
Recent research	Is Wikipedia Politically Biased? Perhaps	845	1142	1267	1267	1267	1267	1267
Opinion	Etika: a Pop Culture Champion	427	567	648	648	648	648	648
Op-Ed	Why you should not vote in the 2024 WMF BoT elections	627	817	890	890	890	890	890
Obituary	Hanif Al Husaini, Salazarov, Hyacinth, and PirjanovNurlan	406	523	602	602	602	602	602
News and notes	WMF board elections and fundraising updates	653	982	1175	1175	1175	1175	1175
In the media	War and information in war and politics	631	811	902	902	902	902	902
In focus	How the Russian Wikipedia keeps it clean despite having just a couple dozen administrators	973	1235	1391	1391	1391	1391	1391
Humour	A joke	533	706	798	798	798	798	798
Gallery	Spokane Willy's photos	262	354	407	407	407	407	407
Discussion report	Wikipedians are hung up on the meaning of Madonna	6782	7057	7201	7201	7201	7201	7201
Crossword	On a day of independence, beat crosswords into crossploughshares	331	431	510	510	510	510	510
Cobwebs	Counting to a billion — manuscripts don't burn	354	469	517	517	517	517	517

Articles and pageviews for previous issues/years

Improving The Signpost

Firstly, regarding deadlines, I believe a significant shortcoming of The Signpost is that the editors themselves set the deadlines. There is a reason why teachers set the deadlines for students. It would be preferable if an uninvolved editor were responsible for setting these deadlines. I'm looking forward to contributing to future issues, and my hope is that The Signpost becomes a periodical, published on a regular schedule (such as on the 1st and 15th of each month). Readers know when to expect the new issue, and subscribers can look forward to their subscription template being updated on those two days. Contributors will also know these deadlines and work to them for their submissions.

Secondly, we should take further measures to boost morale. I suggest featuring a piece on the Main page (possibly a big suggestion, but I'm throwing it out there). This can be a new one or one from the archives. I don't know how the main page works (at all), I strongly oppose the idea of editors nominating their own articles, or anyone affiliated with The Signpost getting involved in this. Svampesky (talk) 11:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say you are in charge of 'the deadine'. What happens if the DEADLINE arrives, and half the articles aren't copy edited? Do you publish anyway? Do you sack the writers and hire new ones at the very competitive rate of 0$/hour? Do you demote them?

We're volunteers here, the Signpost isn't an assignment.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not much of a critic, but it was more about boosting morale. During my time as a reader, I wasn't particularly aware of The Signpost. I try to write my pieces for those outside the Wikipedia community. If we, as a community, collaborate to showcase our work, it may encourage others to participate for the deadlines. Perhaps I'm being overly ambitious... I think the Main page integration is something we should work towards. Svampesky (talk) 12:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the archives, it seems that The Signpost used to be published on a regular schedule. What was the atmosphere like back then? In 2019, for example, it was published on the last day of each month. Svampesky (talk) 12:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It kind of was, and it kind of wasn't. I am glad you mentioned this, because otherwise it would be another useless piece of information stuck in my head and of no use to anybody, which may be of some interest now. Some months ago I was going through the old revisions of the main Signpost page (to extract the subheadings out and store them in the module, which had previously just been lost forever after the page was overwritten each issue). Well, I figured I could just get a list of publication dates, then take the largest diff for each day, and then that would be that day's issue -- but not in the slightest. In reality, they seem to have almost all been somewhat late, ranging from one day to several days (the "date" of publication, i.e. the part of the URL that has the datestamp in it, only occasionally being the actual day on which an issue was published back in the days before SPS.js). jp×g 🗯️ 13:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the broader issue of publishing intervals, I wrote about it at some length in Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-01-16/From_the_team; there's even a big graph of publication intervals over time. Basically, there was a weekly publication schedule from '05 through '16 or so. During 2016, publication slowed down a bit, and in 2017 it ate shit entirely for several months (there was nothing at all between February and June). The current schedule of publishing every three weeks is, depending on perspective, either a bold step up from running once a month or a cravenly retreat back from running once every two weeks (which we did a fairly adequate job of through '23 and part of '24). I must say, though, publishing every two weeks was quite arduous -- like Headbomb says, it would often be the case that we'd hit deadline and not have any articles. (not just that there was a bunch of stuff that needed copyedit/expansion, there would be straight-up nothing in some of the drafts besides lipsum).

At any rate, on the bright side, I think this is one of the fullest issues we've had in a while, in no small part due to some of the more recent additions. I think that if this energy can be sustained, it bodes well for the paper. jp×g 🗯️ 13:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at all of this later. I'm pleased that these suggestions (including blue-green user links) have not been perceived as the difficult-newbie telling everyone what to do, but I'm still not going to self-declare myself as the Peculiarity writer on the about page. I have several ideas prepared for upcoming issues. If I can write something good, my next piece will focus on the UK politics. An election is happening today, and I plan to write all my political pieces after. I'm not much of a critic, but I can provide suggestions. I have some notes with ideas that could help with engagement. I don't think anyone at The Signpost should get involved with Main page space; instead, we should continue our efforts and wait for an someone uninvolved to suggest it. I can also offer a non-Wikipedian-reader perspective, as I was only mildly aware that The Signpost existed. Are you able to see the page views from logged-out vs logged-in? Svampesky (talk) 14:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the sentiment, but it's just hard to reconcile with the day job sometimes. We all have to juggle work and other commitments along with Signpost deadlines. I actually think we are muddling through quite well at the moment.

Andreas JN 466 14:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm consolidating all my thoughts here: User:Svampesky/Ideas/Signpost. Please feel free to add it to your watchlist. I prefer not to make too many suggestions outside my userspace. My knowledge is limited on technical restrictions and the time required for implementation. Svampesky (talk) 23:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get serious about the deadline

We have to have a real deadline in order to

let readers know when we a coming out. People want to know when there is new material to read, without checking 2 or 3 times a month
let authors know when to actually submit their work. If you don't have a real deadline, people will often wait until just before the time when they think you'll actually publish. In my experience, having a deadline is the only way that newspaper production is organized. It's a waste of contributors' time not having a deadline. If JPxG is going to show up for the first time after the deadline, so too will the submissions, but there won't be any any copyeditors around, or any chance to get early feedback on an article. In short it isn't a production process, it is just chaos. "News" is time dependent. If we want to have news in our newspaper, the news writers have to know when it is going to be published. (I'll have more tomorrow or Wednesday)
Just a suggestion, if the eic consistently is 2 days late in publishing, he should just show up 2 days earlier.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support to light a fire under JPxG, who is a very competent EiC. I support The Signpost's mission of being the Wikimedia movement's online newspaper. While JPxG performs admirably to support and enhance this mission when active, his first appearance being after the deadline undermines the credibility of The Signpost and its mission. Svampesky (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment (as an alum from long ago): You can choose to have releases on a fixed schedule rather than to fixed quality. Then every issue is guaranteed to have a few easy-to-compile beats, basic stats, and a reminder of where and how to submit or discuss the next issue. In that case it's fine to have shorter issues published by a broader range of editors comfortable w/ the mechanics of publishing, even if the EiC isn't available. Experience running the shorter routine issues can be a way to get experience editing. Complex stories that would benefit from more review can still get pushed to a later issue. Since the wiki is not paper you can even include teasers pointing readers to drafts in progress if you want public input.

And you could choose to, say, color the archives [or even the headers of the updates posted to talk pages :) ] to distinguish routine vs major issues, special editions, &c. – SJ + 16:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same. One of the things that has been a problem is that deadline will roll around and there will not be a whole lot ready -- but as Sj says, it's not really the end of the world to put out an issue that doesn't have every possible thing in it. Probably Smallbones is right too, and consistently doing this for a while will stop people from thinking that it will be fine to get stuff in late anyway, and this chicken-egg thing will resolve itself. Well, at any rate: I'll be there. jp×g 🗯️ 02:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, on this note, we went out merely one day late this time, albeit at the cost of not publishing some of the stuff that rolled in after the writing deadline. This of course feels bad, because there is a bunch of crap left over for the next issue that probably could have been ready with a couple hours of editing and checking, but on the plus side it was a hell of a lot less stressful than the typical process, and it was almost not published late to boot. jp×g 🗯️ 10:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In case there are anyone here who don't know what Douglas Adams said about deadlines, it's on Wikiquote. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only a simple caveman, and your electronic boxes with words and sounds frighten and confuse me, but perhaps it would make more sense to publish stories as they are ready, and simply send out a digest of completed articles every month? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Epic hrrmery -- some five hours to publication

I have been looking over the stuff in the newsroom every few hours: I note we are missing a couple of things, particularly the discussion report. @Svampesky: any update on that?

At any rate, I have stuff I would like to write, and will not get to -- so it goes. I plan to run it with whatever we've got in those few hours, and if the issue ends up being very thin gruel, I suppose it can just be the thin-gruel issue. jp×g 🗯️ 16:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I finished it yesterday, but didn't want any inaccuracies in the page history. It will be published by the deadline. See Special:Diff/1235504982. I do all my Wikipedia writing at roughly the same time in the evening (which is now). Svampesky (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder for folks who would like to help out with copyediting that you can go through the list at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom#Article_status and look for those that are marked "Ready for copyedit".

The top story in News and notes still looks very drafty - @Bri, Jayen466, and Bluerasberry: is any of you planning to wrap it up before the deadline? (to ping the three folks currently listed as authors there)

As usual, I'm aiming to have RR in a publishable state by the deadline.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have the top story in form which appears publishable but anyone else can edit it further. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Svampesky/Drafts/Signpost/Trump_raised_fist_photo @JPxG Svampesky (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well, it's almost midnight here so I guess this is a tomorrow task. Imagine being only one day late. jp×g 🗯️ 06:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:10 Technology report

I recently got a pop up on my phone browser (Safari) about night mode on Wikipedia. Major new update for the next Signpost. I'll be working on a different piece for the next issue. Is it possible for the page of the piece automatically turns to night mode, even if the viewer hasn't set it up? That would be best. Svampesky (talk) 11:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can probably use TemplateStyles for this. – SJ + 16:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:10 Essay

The essay "Reflections on editing and obsession" looks like it sat for over a dozen years unpublished. I'd like to revive it, either as an Essay or as Cobwebs? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we had cleared all of those out! Yeah, this looks quite good. jp×g 🗯️ 07:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of cobwebs, I was fixing some template stuff and found User:Jorgenev/Minors and Wikiproject pornography, from 2011, which is formatted as a Signpost article but doesn't have the draft template or anything on it. It doesn't seem to have ever been published in full. There was a brief mention at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-09-26/News_and_notes but it looks like a bunch of the stuff never made it in. Is this anything? jp×g 🗯️ 01:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's over 10 years old. Whatever relevance it ever had is long gone. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

JPxG, should we run the essay Wikipedia:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article instead. I remember this essay from when I joined and I made a newbie error by moving the shortcut around. Is it appropriate for events on Wikipedia from the past couple of days, or is it in poor taste? Svampesky (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The end of an era ...

Just noticed: The current English fundraising emails have a picture of Lisa rather than Jimbo. Email 1, Email 2, Email 3, Email 4. Don't know how long it's been this way. I hadn't looked in a while. --Andreas JN 466 17:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of new stuff

coming later Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 July 14 Trump photo for Discussion report
Also the story of [1] and User:Benpianao800.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki/OKA @Piotrus: suggested this and it will be a good one for Discussion report. The talk page has more [[2]] and there's a village pump discussion Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Unnecessary_delay_in_publishing_articles_translated_for_$$_by_an_NGO. User:7804j should be interviewed (e.g. via email) He's started and financed an article translation project and pays the translators. Some very good ideas here, something like paid Wikipedians in residence. But he hadn't thought through everything Wikipedian could find fault with. Lots of good people to interview Rosiestep, Ipigott. Piotrus, etc. But I'll be busy on other things. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Smallbones for suggesting a piece on OKA!

I think it can be useful to raise visibility on the initiative (which as you pointed out, has raised a lot of strong reactions from the community that I didn't always expect, both good and bad). I'd be happy to do the interview via email or voice/video call, as preferred. 7804j (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take the Trump photo discussion report. If that's okay? I've not been active on-wiki, per IRL commitments. I think I can make something good in the style of my previous pieces, where I try to explain a little bit to non-Wikipedians. But I'll first have to research the actual image policy, myself! Svampesky (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend that whoever does the photo discussion report has at least a little knowledge of US intellectual property law. I saw a lot of erroneous assumptions and interpretations in that discussion, which I skimmed. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have knowledge on it. I'll make sure to do thorough research on everything. I usually submit my drafts on the day of the deadline, but for this one I'll submit it days before. Svampesky (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:10 Discussion report

I have started research on policies and related matters for the upcoming 'Discussion report' which will be on Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 July 14#File:Shooting of Donald Trump.webp. This report will be crafted in the same style as my previous ones, where I clarify Wikipedia guidelines/policy for those unfamiliar with it, while not over-explaining for Wikipeidans (the main audience). In this instance, I'll be detailing the image use policy (which I'll first need to research myself). Svampesky (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. By "image use policy" I assume you mean Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, however, when I mentioned "image use policy", I was referring to Wikipedia's general policies on image use. I have since discovered the specific policy relevant, per my research. It's enjoyable to learn about Wikipedia policy 'on the job', but I will ensure this submission is completed several days before the deadline to refine any details. Svampesky (talk) 19:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Query. I'm reviewing the discussion and making notes on it (there is quite a lot to go through). However, I have observed that JPxG participated in the discussion. Could this be a conflict of interest, as he is the one that decides what is and isn't published in The Signpost? If so, my initial thoughts are that JPxG either pre-approves the piece, or has someone else approve it, ensuring that he has no editorial involvement. Svampesky (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am definitely out of this one, as well as anything about the article, as I decided to try camping out on the talk page with all the AP2 editors during a major ongoing world politics event. Not recommended for the faint of heart. jp×g 🗯️ 02:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Special:Diff/1235720801. A bot removed the image. JPxG, how should I proceed? Svampesky (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no proceeding: we are forced to write an entire article about this specific image and not embed the image in it.

The N in WP:NFCC might as well stand for Nationalsozialistische as far as exemptions and clemency go. Rivers of blood have been spilled over this, with the very silly conclusion that no fair-use images can be used outside of article space, ever, for any reason at all. The only thing we can do is come up with some freely-licensed shit, which is not going to be good, because it's not the specific image.

In my opinion, it is high time that somebody do something to change this, because it results in completely asinine situations like this one on a regular basis, but that's a 5-month Village Pump RFC that even if passed will have another 4 months of going through Legal. In the meantime I guess we can mspaint something, I don't know. jp×g 🗯️ 23:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found this when researching for the report, WP:NFEXMP. Would the report fall under this exemption? Svampesky (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG and Svampesky: I don't think so. I would suggest we use Template:External media to link to the image. This creates a little box with a clickable link to the image. Andreas JN 466 18:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your suggestion. I was unaware of the existence of this template. I don't believe it's necessary in this instance, as I normally prefer to keep the reader within the Wikimedia ecosystem, unless absolutely necessary to provide an external link. I've added this hatnote Special:Diff/1235872493. Svampesky (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipediocracy

I'll complete the write-up for the Signpost later today. I discovered numerous instances across the internet and social media where the discussion was posted. However, the template was placed because This was posted on Wikipediocracy. Let's be careful.. I'll mention this in my report. I want to keep the report accurate and not inaccurately label what was posted as 'canvassing', especially since there is no evidence that it was even posted on Wikipediocracy. I attempted to contact the site but received no response. Could someone verify whether it was posted, whether it constitutes canvassing, and obtain the necessary permissions to report on posts from the members-only boards? Svampesky (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=13631 -- in the off-topic forum, so members only (probably because it is about the entire shooting and not just the Wikipedia article). The original post is some guy I don't recognize asking about the NFCC tags saying he's never seen them before -- he links the FfD -- casualdejekyll says it fails NFCC#2, which at the time was true. Hemiauchenia concurs. Casualdejekyll concurs. At the time the image totally was just kind of plopped there, and there wasn't any cited commentary or anything -- so I think they were probably right to say this at the time.

People piss and moan for a while. Just Step Sideways (nee Beeblebrox) posts that people will probably write a ton of commentary about it. Some guy says in his opinion the image is pure propaganda because he's got his fist up. Chatter back and forth for the next page or so. Guy who said it looked like propaganda notes that it's all over the TV the next day, so it really does seem like the most representative picture. Then a couple more people mention tht they've been seeing a ton of news articles about the photo, then back to chatter about politics, then they take a moment for some griping about how some guy was mean to them once, then basically back to politics chat (that's the subforum it was in after all). I don't think it was really canvassed too hard one way or the other, apart from the simple fact that they mentioned it, and the people there tend to be more liberal than conservative -- but then so do Wikipedia editors, so who really cares? jp×g 🗯️ 16:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed the writing and I've emailed and spoke with Midsize Jake/Somey. I'm assuming that I would need to obtain permission from every individual poster to include those details (which I agree with). Additionally, the word count is nearly at its limit. I've kept it general, as there is a lot to cover in the whole report anyway. Svampesky (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A newspaper does not need permission to mention stuff that people said on some message board, with the possible exception of message boards at norad.mil or something (and then certainly not from the message board itself). If it's a website open to the public, on which half of our readers probably already have accounts, there isn't even really an ethical issue. jp×g 🗯️ 17:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People piss and moan for a while. Just Step Sideways (nee Beeblebrox) posts that people will probably write a ton of commentary about it. and then back to chatter about politics, then they take a moment for some griping about how some guy was mean to them once, then basically back to politics chat is such tabloid drivel. I don't think the report requires this information. The only pertinent detail is that it was posted in the thread, after which the template was placed onto the discussion. Svampesky (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was just telling you what happened since you don't have an account, I didn't think 99% of that deserved any mention. jp×g 🗯️ 23:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank you. I've had all of those conversations in real life for the past week, not really newsworthy! I requested Midsize Jake/Somey to reserve my username to prevent any impersonation, but I don't anticipate using the account. Svampesky (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't believe it qualifies as 'open to the public'. When I attempted to create an account, my registration was rejected because I was on a VPN at the time. I contacted the support email and was connected to the admin. Svampesky (talk) 23:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They wouldn't even need permission for that, the government could take them to court to try to stop the publication but theres no point at which they would have to ask for permission. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the Signpost is not the government; it just tries to play one on Wikipedia. Elinruby (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PPS it is also a newsletter not a newspaper.Elinruby (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please be advised that this discussion about the putative turning of a stray comment on WPO about Daddy Liberty leading the Secret Service into full-blown canvassing was also mentioned on WPO at 23:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC). — SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 00:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't accused WPO of canvassing in the report (or at least it wasn't my intention). I said the Template:Not a ballot banner was placed. This banner functions to deter canvassing. I've written Within twelve minutes of the discussion being initiated, it was posted to a members-only forum thread on Wikipediocracy, a site dedicated to criticizing and discussing Wikipedia and scrutinizing Wikipedians. This prompted the placement of a banner at the top of the discussion to deter canvassing. Subsequently, I explained the concept of canvassing and concluded the paragraph with Given the forum's varied viewpoints, it remains debatable whether canvassing occurred. I don't plan on quoting anything from WPO, as the only pertinent detail is that the template was placed onto the discussion because it was posted on WPO, as noted in the edit summary This was posted on Wikipediocracy. Let's be careful. If anything needs rewording, I think it's only the at the top of the discussion to deter canvassing part. Any suggestions on how to make this clearer? Svampesky (talk) 01:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WPO is a satirical website, which is at times critical of the various Wikimpedia movements, of poorly written articles, of Wikipedians' sometimes cavalier disrespect for BLP, etc., etc. It is not primarily a site dedicated to, as you put it, "scrutinizing Wikipedians", but you can write whatever you want. As for the Wikipedian obsession with canvassing, it strikes me as a somewhat exaggerated reaction to someone out there in the world pointing in here and laughing at us. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 02:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also did not mean to accuse WPO of canvassing, but it seems that this is how others have interpreted my actions, for which I sincerely apologize. casualdejekyll 02:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Casualdejekyll, how about this Special:Diff/1235769644? I've changed it to be less absolute about the intentions behind placement of the banner. Svampesky (talk) 03:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Casualdejekyll, I'll maintain that it was prompted by a post on WPO, as indicated in the edit summary. However, I've made it less absolute regarding whether you were actually accusing anyone of canvassing. Svampesky (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Casualdejekyll, I've now recreated the page so the errors won't appear in the edit history when it gets published: User:Svampesky/Drafts/Signpost/Trump raised-fist photo. I didn't know whether I was allowed to carry over Josve05a reflist that was added, so I left it to allow for them to do it on the new page. Svampesky (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think what's in the article is basically unimpeachable -- you have done basically nothing beyond mention the existence of the site and the fact that a post was made there, so I don't think there is any basis for complaint, unless somebody is simply malding for an unrelated reason. jp×g 🗯️ 02:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should obviously recuse yourself from any editorial decisions related to WPO, given your very open hostility toward both the website and those who comment there. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 03:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Just Step Sideways: As I've said several times, I do not have any kind of hostility towards the site in general, about which I remain ambivalent; this comment is quite out-of-line and I'd appreciate if you struck it. jp×g 🗯️ 04:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may have made that claim several times, but your commentary on-wiki says otherwise. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 04:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. jp×g 🗯️ 04:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Just Step Sideways Not in my experience, at least not in regard to Signpost matters. Andreas JN 466 08:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why Wikipedia content must comply with U.S. copyright law

Is it a) only because the servers are located in the U.S. b) only because the Foundation is incorporated in, and operates in, the U.S. c) both? The article presumes a is the case, but I am not so sure. ☆ Bri (talk) 06:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A commenter on said article has a take on this, actually. jp×g 🗯️ 13:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I acknowledged their input and kinda-sorta CYA mentioned this conversation there as well. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image is a derivative work

Can someone review whether the image falls outside of NFCC, and should be deleted or not? Svampesky (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

its 6 in the morning, i haven't slept in a very long time so i am really not excited about this, and i cannot presently spend another 10 minutes making a second ms paint drawing of stick figures in a way that is guaranteed will not cause anybody to think it resembles the photo that its purpose is to resemble -- if it, even with 90% of the subject of the image obscured completely by scribbles, is a derivative work that includes non de minimis elements of the original photo, we can just overwrite the fucking file with the painting by malevich i guess. i have now made the image be five pixels in each dimension -- there is no conceivable way in which it could ever be argued that this constitues an infringement of copyright -- if anyone wants to scale it down further, perhaps to a single pixel -- a naughty, bad boy single pixel -- please go ahead and be my guest. jp×g 🗯️ 13:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. You've now turned this into protest against Wikipedia's image use guidelines, and The Signpost should be neutral. After having a review, I'm actually in support of these strict guidelines. I also like it how the image isn't in the report to show how strict Wikipedia is. Svampesky (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it's up to you whether you want to have an image in the article -- it makes no difference to me either way -- i just ask that you not call it vandalism jp×g 🗯️ 13:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 'vandalism' that I was referring is the (since deleted) version where you scrawled a giant black scribble over the image. The pixelated version that you subsequently uploaded is not vandalism. Svampesky (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not WP:VANDALISM either. Obscuring or blurring the subject of an image is a specific thing explicitly shown on the Commons de minimis page (commons:File:Louvre at night centered censored.jpg, commons:File:Carla Del Ponte Mladić 1.jpg, commons:File:Cover Austria 1938-650px.jpg) and often done on enwp (e.g. File:YouTube screenshot.webp). This was not some fit of rage, it was the thing that policy and consensus have specifically demanded be done in these circumstances, dumbness be damned. The fact that this looks dumb and ruins the image is, well, of course it it does.

But vandalism is specifically defined as a deliberate attempt to ruin content for the sake of ruining content; something done for the sake of policy compliance is definitionally not vandalism, even if it results in an impossibly stupid outcome (e.g. the infobox image of YouTube having gigantic disruptive porno-style blurred images all over it). jp×g 🗯️ 23:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Satire is exempt from the usual constraints of copyright. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fist pump collage

If only we'd had time to create a placeholder collage. There's no shortage of this pose on Wikimedia Commons, it seems to be something he does frequently. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's something everybody does frequently. It's an extremely common gesture, at least in the US. One could make such a collage with pretty much any politician (or athlete). It's like a "high five collage." Levivich (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree, Levivich, with the "pretty much any politician" comment. On a somewhat thorough search I could only find one image of the other candidate making the same gesture. "Mayor Pete", zero, and it's hard to even imagine him doing it. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than one image of Harris doing it: [3] [4] [5] [6] And her supporters doing it back to her: [7] Here's Biden doing it: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Biden doing it next to Harris: [14] Obama doing it: [15] [16] Obama doing it next to Biden: [17] Michelle and Barack doing it together: [18] Barack doing it with others: [19] [20] Hillary doing it: [21] [22] [23] Bill doing it: [24] Bill doing it when he was younger: [25] Search Google images for "[politician's name] fist", there is no shortage of examples on the internet. Levivich (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's always slim pickings on Commons (even when you use Google Images and site:wikimedia.org instead of the horrible on-site search) and it almost always requires extreme effort to pick an image that isn't a gross misrepresentation of the subject. For example, for this issue's "News from the WMF" there wasn't a photo of this specific WMF board I could find -- and I didn't want to use a portrait of the author because she was writing on behalf of the whole board -- and there are really not many stock photos on Commons at all. So I just went with a photo of a conference table in an empty boardroom, which is not particularly exciting, but it at least isn't misrepresentation. In this case the article was definitely not about Pete Buttigieg, so I don't think an image of him would have worked. Frankly, it wasn't really about Donald Trump either, it was about a single very specific photograph, which it is not possible to use in the Signpost, which is why I had drawn an intentionally crude stick figure version of it. It should be noted that this was extremely obviously not a fair use image, and was not uploaded with a fair use rationale, as fair use images are not allowed on Commons, and also not allowed here -- rather it was an original drawing that loosely resembled the photo. jp×g 🗯️ 23:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My intent was to say I could only find one of Harris and zero of Buttigieg on Commons doing a fist pump. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Free articles to anyone interested: it would be nice to have a writer for the deletion report

@Svampesky, Sawyer777, and Oltrepier: and others who've mentioned wanting to write something before: WP:ORACLE is back up, I am in the middle of setting the schedule for it to run on the same regular basis as before (and did a bunch of overhauls to the code to fix busted/badly written stuff from before). Anyone who wants to write a deletion report should check out the lsat few months (2024 main page, July / june / may / april / march. I do have a skeleton deletion report from some months ago sitting in the drafts somewhere (with the stuff already prepped and sorted out, just requiring writeups for the actual discussions) but by now I think this is pretty old.

At any rate: the way I'd do deletion reports, when I had those as a regular feature, was to go to the monthly pages, click the column to sort the table by most votes, and by largest AfD size (these tend to give very similar but slightly different results). Typically, the top five or so would include at least something of public interest to the wider editoriat. The general categories I noticed were:

"influencer/meme/viral/youtuber/tiktoker thing".
"actual politics thing" and "extremely online politics thing" (by 2021 there was already a very blurry distinction between these, and by 2024 I think there is literally none whatsoever)
"wiki politics thing" e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikimedia movement, a lot of the stuff with "(4th nomination)" will be this
"subject which is not inherently wikipolitical, incidentally touches off some kind of recondite wikidrama" (e.g. random articles about tuskegee airmen that just happened to be the location where the gigantic ARS disaster went down... big batch nominations for Olympians/eclipses/geostubs/etc...)
"thing which is mentioned on an off-wiki site" (viral twitter stuff mostly)

Also, sometimes there are noms in the largest-by-volume category that are not actually that big of a controversy or heavily participated-in, they just happened to have some guy who made the world's biggest source analysis table, or two people cussing each other out in deeply-threaded extremely verbose posts for the full runtime of the AfD, or something.

July:

June:

May:

April:

March:

Geez Louise -- "Where is Kate?" has three separate AfDs, all in the same month, all of which are in the top six for that month individually. I ran the Quarry sql to reevaluate the biggest thousand AfDs of all time from 2005 to now, and apparently the third one is #13 by itself (203k). If you combine them all, it's, uh: 319074 bytes, which -- holy shit -- makes it the second largst AfD ever, second only to that Communism one a couple years back. The article about that one was pretty well-received, so this Kate thing might be something, if anyone wants to take it.

jp×g 🗯️ 02:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

amused to see Eric Hovde there; his ads have been plaguing my youtube viewing for so long. i've got stuff i'm trying to get myself to work on so i don't want to start something new, but if someone starts this deletion report i'm happy to help expand & copyedit. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 02:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG Unfortunately, I won't be able to help this time around (apologies for saying this just now, by the way), but thank you for the heads up, still! Oltrepier (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a go at drafting something for 'Where is Kate?' after I finish the Trump photo for the upcoming issue. I vaguely recall the article on her Mother's Day photo. There's a lot of policy around BLP, NOTNEWS and possibly FRINGE that can be discussed. For this one, it would be wise to not name any editors, as both of my previous pieces have been shared outside of Wikipedia; and they might not be familiar with WP:AGF. We can discuss at the appropriate time how we can best protect editors, while being a newspaper that reports on news about Wikipedia. In addition, I would prefer not to have the editors names in the text of the report as that would be indexed by Google. Those are just my thoughts, so I'll leave the final decision to you. I will also need access to the deleted article. I don't think it would be best to restore the article and that could reopen old wounds and was deemed a BLP violation, so is there a way of you giving me access to the all of the revisions for only for that article? Svampesky (talk) 11:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Woot! I think I remember you saying something about this one so I was hoping you'd like the topic. I can send you the deleted text of the most-complete version, but there are about nine hundred deleted revisions, and no way to send multiple of them automatically. I am trying to find out what the actual procedure is on temporary undeletion (I am hearing stuff can be undeleted into userspace but I think this would fill the logs with crap -- the redirect is fully protected so maybe it is harmless to just restore it there for a few days. I will find out. jp×g 🗯️ 02:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well, this was really dumb: the third AfD closed delete, someone recreated a redirect, it got deleted with the claim there was consensus against having a redirect, but then it was recreated again and then brought to RfD where overwhelming consensus was to keep, all of which put together indicates to me that there was never actually a reason why anybody agreed that it needed to be a redirect with no history. So I have just restored the damn page to where it was: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Where_is_Kate%3F&action=history - I think it should be fine now. jp×g 🗯️ 02:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exciting! I remember the Mother's Day photo was back-to-back headlines in the UK for around two weeks. I know the article spoke about a bit more other about conspiracies, and the photo was only a section of it. You will also need to restore the talk page. Is there a reason for that title? It seems in very poor taste. Was that the title for the whole thing or was it moved and that as the final title? Svampesky (talk) 12:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JPxG, quickly on holy shit -- makes it the second largst AfD ever. This is only true if you combine the 'Where is Kate' ones, and don't combine the others. The other top ranking ones have 'Xth nomination', so you would also need to combine those to get a true statistic. Svampesky (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there are a lot of nth nominations at User:JPxG/Oracle/Largest_AfDs. Most of them are spread out across multiple years, though. I don't think any of them are like, three noms back-to-back in the same month. Some of them are kind of weird also (logorrhea notes here):

List of notable converts to Christianity (3rd nomination) exists... but (2nd nomination) is just a redirect to it. And the base title is a redlink (maybe they were referrring to this one as the base?
ED has an assload, but they are spread out across like three years: Encyclopedia Dramatica (2nd nomination) (the big one) is 2008-05, but Encyclopedia Dramatica is 2004-12, Encyclopædia Dramatica is 2005-06, Encyclopaedia Dramatica is 2006-03, Encyclopædia Dramatica (3rd nomination) is 2006-06 (after it is 3rd (speedy keep 2008-07), 4th (speedy keep 2009-02), 5th (speedy keep 2011-01), and 6th (joke nom from Fools '17). Even across all these noms, no two happened within the same month (or even consecutive months).

jp×g 🗯️ 12:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Query. According to Where is Kate?-AfD3, the article underwent a 'deletion review'. I'm assuming that's the same as Wikipedia:Deletion review (as the linked discussion is a subpage of 'Wikipedia:Deletion review'), so was the article deleted at some point? The linked deletion review closed with 'no consensus'. Does that mean it was subsequently restored? Sorry for the confusion, but there is a lot of of text to review. I'll come back to all of this and I won't look at this again until after I've completed the Trump photo for the upcoming issue (which also has a lot of text to go though; and I like learning about Wikipedia policy 'on the job'!). Svampesky (talk) 12:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting something that I idly realized just now -- this is more of a cute factoid than anything else, I don't know if it will fit in what you're writing -- but the current size of the FfD section for that image ([26]) is currently 204,174 characters/bytes. The image itself is 18,336 bytes, meaning that the discussion is some eleven times larger than the image itself. This is really unusual, since files tend to be much larger (hundreds of kilobytes, into megabytes) -- it's just that this file is abnormally tiny due to the extreme image downscaling done for NFCC purposes. jp×g 🗯️ 09:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this later when complete the writing. The cover image should be the photo that's being discussed, intentionally stretched to maintain its low quality to convey how Wikipedia downscales images. Svampesky (talk) 11:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG, meaning that the discussion is some eleven times larger than the image itself. I'm glad that people who enjoy meaningless trivia have infiltrated with The Signpost. I have included this. I'm going to complete the write-up now and then email it to my friend to verify the accuracy copyright law. Additionally, I'm awaiting response to emails to ensure there's no libellous information in the report or its page history. I can put it on Google Drive, or something. so you can see it on the 'submission deadline', but it will definitely be sorted by the publication deadline. This was a big write up, and I'm pleased with myself that I got it all done in five days! Svampesky (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Related – Republicans pounce

WP:Articles for deletion/Republicans pounce

This might go well with our recent headline Recent research piece on liberal bias on Wikipedia, the mention of Conservapedia in the current In the media, and related media coverage that doesn't have a mention in In the media, but could: Daily Caller (yeah I know) and National Post. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:11 Recent research

As usual, we are preparing this regular survey on recent academic research about Wikipedia, doubling as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter (now entering its fourteenth 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) 01:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outage last night?

Last night I had some problems saving edits. I never know what this is about, but in almost 20 years on Wiki, I've only noticed this type of problem say 2-4 times. This morning I noticed news that there had been major problems around the world with airports, health care, etc. apparently caused by an update from a cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike. See e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/07/19/business/global-tech-outage If there is any connection with Wikipedia, I'd guess we should lead with it in News and notes. But I don't know the techies to talk to, etc.

@JPxG, Bri, and HaeB:

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No it was due to phab:T370304. Master s4 was being exhausted. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 12:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Josve05a:. So maybe we should have a mention that CrowdStrike wasn't the problem? BTW at https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cnk4jdwp49et Elon Musk says CrowdStrike was 'Biggest IT fail ever' says Musk. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP says 2024 CrowdStrike incident. Section on conspiracy theories coming in 3... 2... 1... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a good section on that talk page Talk:2024_CrowdStrike_incident#Wikipedia with several trustworthy Wikipedians commenting. BTW, we've been scooped by In the news on the main page, as well as by a very large Wikipedia article.

We should go over how to react to a conspiracy theory. I see 3 possible reactions:

Ignore it. But if the theory is already out there, this won't help.
A very short story, completely shooting down the conspiracy theory. The shoot down could include quotes from very trustworthy figures of authority.
A long story, completely ripping apart the theory, examining every detail.

Any of these strategies could actually increase the spread of the theory. But if we do it right it would be a service to our readers. I tend to favor a very short story. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Posted my Book review

about Stephen Harrison's The Editors, something I've been working on for a long time. It's not really ready for a final copy editing, but feel free to get started on it, I've left the arbitrary breaks in which always makes it easier for me to edit.

I suspect that this might be controversial, since there is another draft of this by another author. I've tried to get some private feedback, but been mostly unsuccessful. Feel free to comment here. I do think now is the time to publish it, since there are interviews with Harrison coming out - see In the media. And I'm almost sure there will be other reviews soon as well. Wikipedians should get their first review of this from another Wikipedian.

I'll note that in News and notes on the Global council charter, it looks like we're pushing something, but it's just not ready to push yet. I'll suggest we tone it down, it just has too many holes in it still.

I hope to finish up In the media tonight. If I have time tomorrow, I might do a Disinfo report on a topic I first heard about today. It's the type of thing that offends the hell out of me - the type of topic that I usually find easy to write about. It should be short and clean and have a happy ending.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, hello? This looks like rather uncollegial behavior, considering the other review that was submitted and discussed transparently on the submissions page. What are your arguments for giving your own review preference instead?

As discussed there, the marketing material for the book (on Amazon and on the author's homepage) already touts a blurb by you (from an earlier Signpost story about a previous version of what became the book). That might be an argument for giving other views room first.

I do think now is the time to publish it - as discussed on the submissions page: From a book marketing perspective this might be preferable, as pre-order numbers are considered an important signal in the US book market (hypothesized to have considerable influence on the eventual overall sales), which means that publishers and authors expend considerable effort to drive up attention before publication and create pre-order incentives. Still, I think it would serve Signpost readers better if we publish a review only once they will actually be able to acquire and read the book themselves.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @HaeB: for the response. I do understand that this situation is unusual, perhaps unique, for The Signpost. As I wrote above, I've asked around on how to handle this. More than once. The only advice I've gotten was essentially "submit it and see what happens." I've worked on the review off and on since March or April when I finished reading the book. But I don't think it's a good idea to submit an unfinished draft well ahead of time. I also think it would be unusual to post something like "I've got dibs on this story". I've been following this story for over three years and was really looking forward to writing the review. When the other review was submitted, I contacted @SGerbic: to see whether we could write a joint review. After seeing my (fairly weak) attempt to write a joint review using some of her material, she thought that our views were too far apart to do that. I agree with that assessment. She also suggested that The Signpost might print both the reviews, which I don't expect to happen.

What are your arguments for giving your own review preference? It's pretty simply really, I think the other review missed some important points and included other things that were just distractions. Yes, I'm biased. Ultimately it will be up to the editor-in-chief to decide which review he wants to publish. But absent any guidance, I though at least I should submit my review. BTW, I think our readers can order now and get the book sent out on August 13. I wouldn't see any purpose to a Signpost policy saying that we have to wait until the public has received books before we publish a review. Pre-publication reviews are standard practice essentially everywhere (at least in the US) as far as I can tell.

@JPxG and Bri:

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~I find both reviews to be excellent.~~ However, I would like to address one point: The only advice I've gotten was essentially "submit it and see what happens.". This seems misleading, as you didn't submit it in the conventional manner on the submissions page; instead, you posted it directly to the next issue (Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Book review). My opinion is that you may have unfairly used your Editor-in-chief-emeritus status to prioritize your submission over Sgerbic's submission. However, it's down to JPxG; these are just my thoughts. Svampesky (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe both reviews are excellently written; however, I have striked out my comment as, upon closer examination, it appears they could function as promotional material for the book, contrary to WP:NOTPROMO. Svampesky (talk) 15:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted the article in the same way I've submitted every article I've written in the last 4+ years. Then I posted this thread here, to make sure that everybody knows what is happening. It's completely transparent. We don't require e.g. HaeB to submit Recent research on the submissions page, he just posts it in the usual place. If JPxG want to replace my review with the other, he is free to do so, and he'll find it easier to do since I set up the page.

I do think that some folks are misinterpreting what a book review is. The format is pretty standard throughout the media, e.g. most book reviews are favorable, simply because most people won't write a review about books they don't think their audience will be interested in. And prepublication reviews are the industry standard because it's a convenience to the reader to be able to order a book when it's first coming out, rather than wait until it's old news. And book reviews are clearly opinion pieces, they always give something of the opinion of the reviewer. Let's not try to make our book reviews into something they've never been intended to be. Since the question of promotion has come up, I'll state (as is in the review) that I received an electronic copy of the book (which I can't sell or even give away - it has my name embedded in it) and that I'm an email acquaintance of Harrison, though we've never met in person. For example, in writing up "In the media", I might ask him about the meaning of a specific sentence. I do admire his writing and reporting style - but that is already in my review. I haven't and won't receive any payment or favors for the review. It's just a straightforward view about what I think of the book. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's completely transparent. Dude. You say above that I've worked on the review off and on since March or April when I finished reading the book. Yet when Susan submitted hers in May (in a thread that you were definitely aware of, considering that you emailed me about it), and several folks weighed in - Novem Linguae, Bluerasberry, myself and JPxG - you didn't say a word there. Not even when JPxG stated his intention there to run this alongside the release of the book, in contrast to all the arguments you are suddenly bringing up now to run it when the book is not available to the general public yet. BTW, I think our readers can order now and get the book sent out on August 13 - yes, I already said above that pre-orders exist and that driving up their numbers is considered an important book marketing technique. rather than wait until it's old news - surely you don't claim that this book is so ephemeral that it will be no longer of general interest in late August? As for industry standard, lots of professional publications run book reviews weeks or even years after publication.

We don't require e.g. HaeB to submit Recent research on the submissions page - in case it has escaped your attention for the last decade or so: RR 1) is always announced on this page a few days in advance of the deadline, and 2) maintains a public to-do list of papers to review, where folks are invited to sign up as reviewers. The latter is exactly to avoid the kind of situation that you are creating here.

Since the question of promotion has come up - Nobody suggested you were getting material favors for this favorable review. But optimizing the timing (or content) of a Signpost story for the goal of helping an author we admire to maximize their book sales would be problematic too. Our readers' interest should come first. And again, the book's marketing material on Amazon and on Harrison's website already contain a (rather fawning) blurb by you, attributed to the Signpost no less.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just my 2¢ The review should be published after the book's release and after its promotional period. The author sending an advanced copy of the book to Wikipedia for a review could function as promotional material for it. The book is a novelization of Wikipedia; should it be posted beforehand, it could be utilized as a promotional tool by the author, who might proclaim, We have the Wikipedia stamp of approval!, in the lead-up/first sales week in order to boost sales of the book. To avoid this, the review ought to be published at least one week after the book's release, once the initial publicity phase has subsided. To add, this would not be the case for a book not about Wikipedia. I'd see it as fine if the book was a novelisation of Twitter. Svampesky (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see any reason to redefine that standard practices of book reviewing just for the Signpost. And if Wikipedians choose to buy a dozen or so books a few weeks before they otherwise would have -so what? This is just not a case of promotion. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

standard practices of book reviewing^{[citation needed]} - as I said above, it's entirely standard to publish book reviews after (or on) a book's publication date. If you don't believe me, check (as a non-cherry picked example) this LitHub list from two days ago: "5 Book Reviews You Need to Read This Week", from The New York Times Book Review, The Atlantic and the Washington Post. All five were published on or after the reviewed book's publication date, none in advance.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

This discussion took me by surprise. I didn't expect to come in and find Smallbones questioned for a good faith book review. I feel that the objections raised in the conversation above ought to be rebutted lest we set unfortunate precedents or step on each others' toes further.

In my process of finding reviews to establish notability in wp articles, I quite often find pre-publication reviews from Kirkus and Publishers Weekly. E.g. for my last book article about The New Rules of War, there is a PW review from October 2018; the book was published in 2019. My advice to Smallbones is to acknowledge the advance copy but if necessary we can say there was no (other?) compensation involved.

As for the process of composition off wiki, lots of folks prefer to do it this way. As for regular contributors not submitting their ideas or works-in-progress for approval, not a problem at all as far as I am concerned; it still has to go through the usual review and copyediting and isn't sneaking something in the issue.

I find the suggestion that the submittal of a second opinion about a work of fiction is somehow "competing" with another author off-putting and stifling our own ability to express ourselves here. If we are going to discourage ways of contributing to The Signpost, it needs to be in a consistent and transparent way, not ad hoc. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification. My sole concern is the timing of the review's release in The Signpost being during the books promotional period; I offer no opinion on anything else. Book reviews are inherently promotional, which is unavoidable. Nevertheless, we can mitigate this unavoidable-promotion by publishing the review after the promotional period has concluded. The book is also a novelization of Wikipedia, and thus can serve as a promotional tool for the author during its promotional period. Svampesky (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: An embarrassment of riches ... Having had an advance paper copy of the book as well, I would suggest we use Smallbones' review first (whether in this issue or a future one). Sgerbic gives away quite a bit of the plot; I'd propose we run hers at a later date (definitely well after book publication).

Both reviews have their strengths, but I can relate to Smallbones' piece more; he verbalises things I felt too when reading the book. A strength of Sgerbic's review is that she relates the book's plot to some of Harrison's previous journalistic writings that I had not read; that was very useful info.

Anyway, that's my two cents. Both reviews are worthwhile to have. I have given both a quick copyedit (Susan's at User:Sgerbic/Book review of The Editors). Andreas JN 466 20:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If running one review first and the other later would lead to bad feeling, I'd suggest running both in the same issue. Flip a coin for which one is labelled Book Review 1 and which one is labelled Book Review 2. Andreas JN 466 08:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bri, this is misrepresenting the discussion above. Smallbones is not questioned for a good faith book review (at least not by me, I haven't commented on the contents of this review so far), but for his entirely unusual and uncollegial actions around it.

the suggestion that the submittal of a second opinion about a work of fiction is somehow "competing" with another author off-putting and stifling - read again. Smallbones did not merely submit "a second opinion", he wants his own review to run instead of the one that was transparently submitted in May and discussed by several Signpost team members back then. He even explicitly rejected the idea that both could be featured, i.e. promoted exactly the "competing" notion that you find "off-putting and stifling" (After seeing my (fairly weak) attempt to write a joint review using some of her material, she thought that our views were too far apart to do that. I agree with that assessment. She also suggested that The Signpost might print both the reviews, which I don't expect to happen.)

I can't help noticing that you apply your concerns about Signpost book review authors being "questioned" and met with "off-putting and stifling" comments very selectively here, to only one of the two. Have you spent a moment thinking about what kind of message we send to Signpost contributors if they make a good-faith effort to follow our submissions process, receive largely approving feedback etc., only to be muscled aside at the last minute by a Signpost bigwig who denigrates their review with vague claims? (note that in his response to my question above about arguments for giving your own review preference instead, Smallbones has provided no concrete examples for his insinuations that SGerbic's review missed some important points and included other things that were just distractions)

I quite often find pre-publication reviews from Kirkus and Publishers Weekly - nobody said that pre-publication reviews don't exist. Rather, the point of contention is Smallbones' claim that these are the default and the Signpost publishing a review only after a book is publicly available would mean to redefine that standard practices of book reviewing. As explained above, I consider this claim pretty much debunked, considering that e.g. the New York Times Book Review, The Atlantic and the Washington Post routinely also do that terrible thing that Smallbones insists is breaking the norms of professional journalism. (If you want to dig deeper into that, consider e.g. that Publishers Weekly is a "trade news magazine targeted at publishers, librarians, booksellers, and literary agents", to quote from that article's lede - not at the general public. Again, I think we should put our readers' perspective first.)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:11 Disinformation report

Should I/Bluerasberry move this from drafts to next issue? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to support Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Drafts/Disinformation report but would like anyone else to add their support to publication following any review, critique, or request for additional care if needed. The piece is submitted at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions#Disinformation_Report_Take_2.

I think this is one of the most interesting pieces ever submitted to Signpost in terms of this being an evidence-supported narrative of how shenanigans significantly contributed to the establishment of United States legislation, court precedent, medical policy, and political platforms. As this is a transgender political piece, getting this out now in election season would be timely. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My disinfo report I talked about above is ready. It's in my standard disinfo report style, so I'd usually put in here. But it looks like Special report is open, I'll post it there and let other people switch things around if necessary. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last issue published, I staged this at next issue in Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/Disinformation_report.

Anyone with comments or feedback please ping submitted Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist Bluerasberry (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones since you normally handle the disinfo report, could you please review this piece? Would love to hear your feedback! Best, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:11 Special report

I was thinking that I should give a warning about the controversial practice of short selling. While strongly regulated in the US, and very controversial, it is legal and has been practiced widely (since the 1600s in the Netherlands, 1820s in the US).

I've posted in the article:

"Readers should be aware that short selling, the practice of betting that a stock's price will go down, is a controversial business and that many short sellers have been accused of exaggerating their reports in order to drive the stock price down further. We are not aware of any such accusations in this case."

@JPxG: It will certainly be worth your time to fact check this very carefully before publishing. Strong accusations and controversy often follow short selling reports. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this was held over for the next issue. I'll adjust the section heading. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User:Ixtal/AAA

Sorry for the delays, since I had discussed with y'all sharing it months ago. We managed to shorten the query to <10 seconds so I'll be done with the data collection within the week. The associated graphs won't work on wiki (:sobs:) but I can host them on my website as a d3.js graph and link said website within the essay if that's fine with y'all. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Sign up for the 2024 DCWC! — Non nobis solum ♠ 01:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ixtal: This seems to me like it would be pretty cool. Is this still a going concern? jp×g 🗯️ 01:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:9 Special report

Hello! First of all, sorry for not being able to help with the up-coming issue: I've been pretty much snowed with other tasks and priorities...

Since the first ever election cycle for the newly-established Italian ArbCom has just come to an end, I feel like it would be nice to talk about it next time, so much that I'm considering to write a full Special report about it, by even reaching out to some of the most notable users involved in the process. However, if you feel like we should rather stick to a shorter blurb in the "News and notes" column, I'd be up for it, as well!

How do you all feel about this? Oltrepier (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are abjectly grateful to anyone who writes anything at all about the governance of the non-English projects.

Sounds interesting, in particular given the Orsini affair and the recent de-stewarding of one of the Italian stewards. Andreas JN 466 14:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayen466 I'm very happy to read this! So, do you think it deserves its own Special report? Oltrepier (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Up to the EiC, but there aren't too many projects that have an ArbCom, so if a major project creates one, yes, I'd say that's worth writing about. I also wonder if User:Gitz6666 might like to contribute some views or info to any article; he is a native speaker. Andreas JN 466 22:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the ping. I'd be happy to help, but I'm afraid that a contribution from me would be perceived as inappropraite, even inflammatory, by many it.wiki users. Notable points about the Italian ArbCom: 1. It has limited purview and doesn't deal with deflagging/desysopping. 2. The arbitrators' opinions/votes and their reasoning are kept secret from the community (see here at No 4), which I find quite extraordinary since arbitrators are elected by the community. I've written my views on this in my blog here (in Italian). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gitz. Oltrepier, Gitz's comments would certainly be worth referring to. How is your Italian? Andreas JN 466 14:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayen466 Uhhh, it's actually my native language, so... quite good! : D Oltrepier (talk) 07:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Superb!

I didn't know. Andreas JN 466 12:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Andreas that this sounds like a valuable topic to cover. FWIW, regarding the steward election outcome: I posted a brief summary here.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would be a good topic for a special report. @Oltrepier: would you be available to write something up about it? jp×g 🗯️ 01:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG Thank you for bringing this up again, because I almost forgot about it... : D

Due to more real-life priorities, I'll likely be able to write this report for the end-of-August issue, but I'd love to land it, eventually! Oltrepier (talk) 08:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:11 Technology report

Working on this column for the next issue. Going to be discussing a few things. Svampesky (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]