Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 22

Newsroom discussions prior to May 2018 are archived at WT:POST.

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Update on wikisignpost Twitter/Facebook posts

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

As a general update re social media, I have doing Twitter and Facebook announcements for each new issue since February (except last month's tweet, which someone else kindly took care of).

On Facebook I'm currently posting to the Wikipedia Weekly group from my personal account (example), since this tends to get much more engagement than posts from the wikisignpost Facebook page (which, as I understand it, can't post to that popular group), making it frankly speaking not seem very worthwhile to do manual posts from the latter. That said, it would be great to automatically forward the tweets to the Facebook page. This is possible - I have set it up for the WikiResearch Twitter and Facebook feeds using this IFTTT applet and it works fine. However, it seems that this applet only supports one page per personal Facebook account, meaning that I can't use it for wikisignpost since I'm already using it for WikiResearch.

Long story short: If someone else from the Signpost team has a Facebook account and would like to join the wikisignpost page's staff with the sole obligation of having that IFTTT applet set up once to run through their account (or if one of the other two current members, Evad37 and The ed17, would be up for that), that would be an easy win. I can walk them through the initial setup and there is basically no effort required after that.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@HaeB: Sounds fine to me. Ought I to send you an email, or what? jp×g 20:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@HaeB: I think I should still have access to that Facebook account/page. You can send me an email with instructions and I'll take a look on the weekend - Evad37 [talk] 09:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks both! Evad37, I have emailed you. JPxG, if you are still interested in being added to the Facebook page's personnel to help improve the bus factor, I think that would make sense too - for transparency, it currently consists of The ed17 (as admin) and Evad37 and myself (as editors). Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not up for running or posting anything to the Signpost page, as that would be a conflict of interest. I'm still on there only to help with the bus factor. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Which is much appreciated of course. (Apropos bus factor, we should probably have >1 admins in the long run.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

For the record, Evad37 has since set up the bridge, and it appears to work [1]. Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Adminship

Latest comment: 2 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion

Gorillwarfare protests crypto

Latest comment: 2 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

petition at

meta:Requests for comment/Stop accepting cryptocurrency donations

This editor is under attack from an army of cryptocurrency enthusiasts on social media who say the foulest things about her. For weeks or longer she has been saving their comments and republishing them in her twitterfeed.

https://twitter.com/molly0xFFF

If the petition gets big, then WMF will have to comment, and all the crypto newsletters will report this.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The new staff-selected Wikimedia Foundation board of Trustee member is a crypto enthusiast.

https://twitter.com/luisatlive/status/1480350092603363329

10 January, Molly / Gorilla sets up the anti-crypto RfC - https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Stop_accepting_cryptocurrency_donations&oldid=22572143

13 January WMF announces the new board member https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/thread/2GJOGXKJITWZDZU3NQZQXX2ENN2EEK25/

A respondent in the email thread notes that the WMF did not mention this person's interest in blockchain in the announcement, when it seems that blockchain is core to what this person does.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Here are the general sanctions on English Wikipedia for crypto, since May 2018 - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=842448517#General_sanctions_proposal

Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Bluerasberry: while I was writing @Gorillwarfare: an invitation to write a crypto opinion piece I stopped by here to check the deadlines. I suspect the rest will be history - of some sort Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Gorillawarfare: Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  - I believe the correct ping would be @GorillaWarfare: (I don't know if she checks notifications on the doppelganger account). jp×g 02:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    - Thanks JPxG, I definitely don't check notifications on my doppelgangers. I have published a little bit of writing on crypto (and am working on some more) at my blog, if that is helpful. I'm not sure I'd quite characterize my Twitter interactions regarding crypto as Bluerasberry has (unless there are considerable foul comments I haven't seen, which is certainly possible), but I have indeed been critical of the space there. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Some more WP-crypto-ish hullabaloo this month at [2][3]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- We have brief items at News and notes for both the RfC and the NFT art issue. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

End of phase 2 of Universal Code of Conduct development

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

story for next month's issue The last meeting of the Universal Code of Conduct development team was last week. Probably in February they will publish their final report and outcome.

The theme this time was procedure for enforcement of the policy, or policing violations.

Links are

project - meta:Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_draft_guidelines_review
the committee who would comment for Signpost - meta:Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee#Phase_2_drafting_committee_members

I got comments from a couple of Wikipedia community committee members who reported that the process was fair, they are satisfied with the outcome, and the Wikimedia Foundation facilitators were friendly and left the development to the volunteers. When we report this story I think one angle could be that the development process worked as planned and designed. Committee members will have comment.

The Signpost is good for crediting volunteer contributions, and I think this is a great opportunity to name and recognize the volunteers who drafted and debated this important policy. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: "Probably in February they will publish their final report and outcome." makes me think our February issue will be too early. Let's aim for whatever is possible with material available from them before February 14, and a paragraph or 2 in News & notes if nothing is available then. A full article (Special report?) in March or April seems more likely. Who wants to write it up? Maybe a paragraph this month in N&n that the baby is due soon? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I added a quick News and notes bullet, based on the discussion here. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

2 weeks + 2 days to publication

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Copy deadline Jan.28 (if possible) Jan. 30 publication It looks like we have a pretty good lineup for this month!

Interview with CEO Maryana Iskander by me
Opinion piece on crypto by GorrilaWarfare
From the editor or maybe Op-ed on COI/UPE editing
maybe something from me on Black History Month (switching story from Itm)
In the media looks ok so far
Deletion and Arbitration reports look like the are coming along
Traffic report looks ready for CE, 50 top articles of 2021 (my favorite of the year!)
Serendipity will be done - on Winnie the Pooh and copyright
Discussion report - looks like it's started
Gallery on "No Spanish municipality left unphotographed"
Essay on the prime directive, (let me know what you think)
Recent research - @HaeB: just my usual friendly reminder
There will be another Crossword. I'm looking forward to it.
We could have a From Diff or From WikiEd - any suggestions?
Any other suggestions?

Just a reminder - I've been looking for a replacement for the editor-in-chief - he's clearly in over his head (at least for time). I think there are at least 3-4 folks here who can replace me, plus 2 former E-i-Cs who've indicated that they're not interested, plus a couple of alumni. So here's a KITA. I want to leave (as E-i-C) after the March issue (my 3 year anniversary), and I'm not going to stay past June. I'd be happy to help people get used to the basics of the job, fill in occasionally if needed (after September), do everything @Bri: has done for me (e.g save my ass every month), and write 2 or 3 articles a month. But I need to stop this E-i-C stuff before summer really starts. Let me know - or decide among yourdelves. Thanks! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

A crossword will probably happen, but I may make it encyclopedia-themed rather than Wiki-themed since I am running short on words. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: Thanks, that sounds very good. Encyclopedias are definitely related to Wikipedia. If you want to branch out a bit more in Feb. or March or later. You might consider topics related to Black History, Women's History, or even those articles in Traffic report or Itm on an ongoing basis. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Smallbones has to leave editor position soon acknowledged and thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Scope of WikiProject Report

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Hi there! I was wondering what the scope of a WikiProject report is? Do the projects interviewed have to be strictly WikiProjects, or can they be working groups, affliates, etc? Thanks! I'm asking because I've started a draft at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/WikiProject report, but the project is a working group rather than a formal WikiProject. Should it be converted to an interview, or is it fine if it stays as a report? 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 16:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@EpicPupper: I support this. The point of profiling WikiProjects is to showcase collaborative activities of the Wikipedia community. Those activities by any name, whether WikiProject or working group, seem to be in the same spirit to me. I say proceed. If someone else objects, then we could still publish the content under another heading. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry thanks for the feedback! 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 22:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

EpicPupper might you address the line that says a working group is ... a working group? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Could someone please fix the line in the WikiProject report that says a working group is a working group? It's redundant. I don't feel like I should copyedit someone else's text, but it's one of the first thing the reader encounters:

Unreviewed featured articles 2020 working group is not a formal WikiProject, but a working group.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy note, already fixed. Sorry, forgot to reply

🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 18:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

5 days to go!

Latest comment: 2 years ago19 comments6 people in discussion

We'll be publishing at the usuak time on Sunday. It looks like there will be about 13 articles. If you are planning on getting something submitted, now is a good time. I'll be much busier than usual off-Wiki than for the usual publication. Help copy editing and on News and notes would be appreciated. I've been spending a lot of time with Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Black History Month but am almost done. I'd appreciate any feedback. It especially needs a Wikidata expert to write a couple of paragraphs. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I will be available to run the publishing script then. jp×g 12:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Great. Thanks Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

So I spent this afternoon finishing writing up the article on the WikiEd controversy, taking up Chris troutman's suggestion. It's undoubtedly an important and illuminating story, so I'm glad we're covering it, but two questions come up that I wanted to raise here.

It ended up being significantly longer than a normal news & notes section report, so I wonder if perhaps it'd be better to move it to make it this month's special report. Would that make sense?
In my initial draft, available here, I just included everything, as it's all already been disclosed on-wiki in the Education Noticeboard thread. However, especially given that it involves an underage editor, I think we should be sensitive to privacy concerns. I've made suggestions on which things to take out in this diff, including Wizzito's name. Does that seem like a reasonable approach?

Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to keep you waiting. I'm on it now. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bri, re this diff, is our style guide to use transcluded pronoun templates or to substitute them? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not aware of any usage guidance in the template documentation, in the MOS, nor do I think it is covered in the (written) Signpost style guide. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I'll subst, just for consistency and since we want published articles to be static. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

No crossword this month, I'm afraid, I haven't had time to come up with a good one. Ganesha811 (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok

If a snowstorm shuts down my internet ... maybe I'll send a smoke siignal! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Well my car won't start and the driveway needs to be shovelled. But the internet is working ok. A bit of warmth and everything should be ok though. It even has some advantages today! If the internet does go down here for the next 1 day plus, please do publish on time everything that has been approved for copy editing! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Smallbones: Serendipity just appeared, do you want it in this issue? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, please do publish it if I'm not here. Vysotsky and I have already had a discussion on it via email, so there might be a minor change or two. But it's ready for print now after copy editing. BTW it looks to me like a 90% chance I'll be here through publication. The main chance that my internet will go down is if it starts to get really windy or if there is a melt and refreeze which could bring down the wires. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, everything seems to be going smoothly here. It's time for me to start some serious snow shoveling. Long story, but I could be gone 3+ hours. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Back and warm and ready to go!. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, copy editing your piece, this sentence feels a little long and redundant: Cryptomining operations set up shop in locations with low energy costs—until a crackdown in late 2021, most bitcoin mining happened in China, where it relied on coal so heavily that the resulting coal mining accidents from increase in demand contributed to a crackdown on the practice. Would it be possible to rephrase? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
So it is, good catch. I've rephrased. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare: you might want to look at the use of "we" in the very last sentence, apparently referring to the WMF as it is now worded. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Fixed. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Mishandled WikiEd course leads to Twitter harassment

Latest comment: 2 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

Support this story No one asked, but this article covers some sensitive topics, so I wanted to state my support for it and document a review here both for this instance and for The Signpost to generally keep addressing tough issues.

@Sdkb: I support what you have written, and I regret that neither The Signpost nor the Wikipedia community can refer people further to support services for more information.

I like this story because it gives an example of a recurring cycle of problems: there is negative media in circulation which presents Wikipedia as bad for some bias against minorities such as women, African descent, Indigenous, LGBT+, and global south. Those problems are real, but a negative consequence of negativity in media is that new editors enter Wikipedia in an aggressive manner, assume the worst about our editors, and react as if the Wikipedia community review process is attacking them. This cycle is very common.

Showing this case as a real-world example is useful for identifying the problem and making discourse better. Criticism that I could anticipate includes naming a minor as a player in this, naming a school and professor, making assumptions that the online community around a twitter handle reflects on the school or professor, bringing blame to Wiki Edu, or to the Wikimedia Foundation Trust and Safety team, or to the Wikimedia community. Of all these possible risks, I think none of them should prevent The Signpost from covering this story as written, because all this information is sufficiently public already and because the issue raised is a solvable problem in the public interest to know. Although risk exists for all involved to be misunderstood or become inappropriately more visible online, my opinion is that these risks are small and that journalism about specific problems is useful in this case.

Here are some wishes that I have for this general situation:

Correct the power imbalance between the Wikimedia Foundation and the wiki community. The Wikimedia Foundation is the billion dollar entity and the community has few or no resources. It is unfortunate that sometimes the volunteer community, or even individual volunteers, find themselves blamed for problems which are the responsibility of the much more powerful Wikimedia Foundation.
Wikimedia Foundation Trust and Safety reports more de-identified data. In this situation and report the WMF safety team got a report of a problem. This team asks for a huge amount of community faith and trust, because they do not report outcomes yet they expect that people trust their responses. If anyone should be responsible for the mood of the wiki environment in tense conditions, then that organization is chiefly responsible yet also the most quiet.
I wish that the Wikimedia Foundation would fund the Wikimedia community to organize its own conversations on social and ethical issues. There is no documented precedent of the Wikimedia Foundation doing this. Organizing mass communication is beyond what most volunteers can do, so when we have complicated issues like this one arise, the community does not have the support to crowdsource solutions. Also we do not have funding to do outreach to minority stakeholders, or for minority stakeholder communities to participate in discussions like this one.

Good article Sdkb, respectfully done, thank you. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sdkb and Blueeasberry: I moved the section from News and notes to Special report. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure we're going to get criticism from at least one reader about connecting on-Wiki and off-Wiki identities. However I don't see how to avoid it and preserve a coherent story. The story is about exactly the coordination of on-Wiki activities by people off-Wiki, some of whom use real-world names. In essence I am seconding the opinion of Bluerasberry that it is undeniably newsworthy and even important to cover in The Signpost. The only thing I can think of right now to blunt the foreseen critique is that the off-Wiki forums are all public as noted (e.g. Twitter), but in the past this hasn't been really embraced as an exception to privacy guidelines. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I second Bluerasberry's opinion that this looks like a good writeup of a noteworthy topic. But can we avoid turning this talk page into a forum for "general situation" comments, musings about the Wikimedia movement, calls for funding of potential projects etc. that are not directly pertinent to work on upcoming Signpost issues? As for the concerns about the Twitter links: It looks like all or most of them are taken from last month's on-wiki discussion (which may be worth linking in full btw, besides the diff links to individual comments). Given this, it might be an idea to frame the article a bit more clearly as a Discussion report type summary of on-wiki debates, rather than a piece of investigative journalism. (Or leave it as is, and if it happens to lead to another oversighter abusing their tool in an interpretation of policies that's clearly out of step with community practices and needs, use this as an additional data point to further either an application of revocation procedures or a general community-led clarification of policies.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I already link to the Education Noticeboard discussion in two places (over brought the matter to the Education Noticeboard and a statement for WikiEd, as it's the main source; I considered whether I should have fewer links in other places to help the noticeboard links stand out more, but I generally lean toward linking generously as a way of citing sources and allowing people to read the original context if they wish.

On identities, WP:OUTING permits connection if the person has done so on-wiki. In this case, that has happened through the noticeboard discussion and through the WikiEd course page. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
These two places are what I had been referring to above as "diff links to individual comments" above (admittedly "permalinks to individual comments" would have been a bit more precise). My suggestion is about including a general link to the full discussion section that the article is based on. Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you mean; thanks for clarifying. I did permalinks since otherwise they'll break when the discussion gets archived, and I feel like Signpost pieces should aspire to be more durable. I'm not sure if that's something covered in the Signpost style guide, though. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Visual: @Smallbones and Bri: With the move, it probably makes sense to add some sort of visual element to the piece. I'll throw out a few possibilities here, and happy with whatever you prefer.
1. Howard University — File:Howard University Washington DC - Founders Library.jpg
2. Image of a BLM protest used in Black Women Radicals (although no connection to the group, as it predates its founding by several years) — File:Black women leading the way.jpg
3. A pull quote or embedded {{Tweet}} from the story.

Best, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

- OK, I think I'll go with the Howard U. pic. BTW, I like @Bluerasberry:'s comments - he's a good advisor and an occasional inspiration - but HaeB is right, this is the "shop floor" so we need to stick to publishing business (too many people are watching for long theoretical discussions). Easy solution - send me an email! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

This writeup looks good, and I agree with the comments above about it being important and necessary. Going over it, I notice a couple things that could be copyedited (some of the mentions of screen names are inconsistently formatted) -- I am in the middle of some other stuff but I can run over it before we send out the issue. jp×g 04:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Deletion report

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

We need E-in-C to approve addition of the Deletion report in the January issue. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Smallbones if you aren't snowed in, could you give this a yea or nay? ☆ Bri (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bri and JPxG: It doesn't look complete. I can assume nothing more is coming and take it from there. BTW, I assumed earlier that there was about a 10% chance of having my internet/power go down. I'm more optimistic now, say 5% chance. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

This, the arbitration report and the crossword should be done in a couple hours. jp×g 02:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the crossword! @JPxG: I put last month's answers on my usual page so you can link that in this month's edition. Ganesha811 (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Someone should look at the crossword and tell me if it sucks

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I haven't made a crossword in probably twenty years. I can't tell if it's too easy, too hard, or what. I have put it here. I have something that would maybe-sorta work to fill it out in the browser, which I'll add. I can post the clues here (as a highlightable spoiler or whatever) if anyone wants to check them. jp×g 08:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

OK - straight facts here. I didn't get a single clue on a very quick reading - but that's par for the course. The clues are much longer than usual. There is a 2 or 3 level structure to some of the clues - something like "If you know the answer to 3 down, then ..." This makes the puzzle harder and the clues more complex. I don't understand the blue (2nd) version of the puzzle. It looks just like a repeat of the 1st version. It also has the instruction (approx) "Don't click on the puzzle or something stupid will happen" Such an instruction guarantees the somebody will do what they were told not to do. So obviously I had to check what would happen. It did not delete the main page. So I tried it again. Still nothing. So I'd guess there is a mix of pure genius and some silly mistakes in here. Somebody who knows about crosswords should check it out. Just the facts. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Warning I'm awake and on the job until publication. But the new puppy and various relatives are making me think I got up on the wrong side of the bed. The roads are clear and if anything happens, I can easily go to a quiet place like Starbucks or a mall for a quiet place to concentrate while I edit. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Excellent. I am editing puppy-free. jp×g 17:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Final checks (January)

Latest comment: 2 years ago18 comments5 people in discussion

News and notes

Could somebody review the illustration I added, for possible offense? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Smallbones did you want to sign the WMC section, or is it intentionally left without an author signature thingy? 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 19:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Compliments on the artwork. Cats in News and notes are ok as long as they aren't crypto-kitties and don't violate BLP. Smallbones_(smalltalk)

Crossword

There's a pitch for new helping hands cleverly hidden in one of the clues (I won't spoil it by saying which one). But it refers readers directly to this page. Maybe it should be a link to the Quick Start instead? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Since publication is imminent, I went ahead and made this change. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's much better. jp×g 17:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Publication manager

Oops, @DannyS712: will you be able to publish today, possibly as soon as 10 minutes from now? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, dear -- I thought we were gonna roll in three hours. Well, I was going to try to get in a (very short) arbitration report, but I can publish now if we want. jp×g 17:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bri: @Smallbones: I'm here and I have the scripts running, so I am fine to run whenever (the permissions have been fixed as well). I would prefer to hold off a couple hours, if possible. Let me know what the deal is, I will finish off the Arb report in the meantime. jp×g 17:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

You were right, I was thinking 0900 Pacific for some reason but it's actually 1200 Pacific. Thanks for replying. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, I think we and especially @HaeB: have about 2 hours to complete everything. In the media only needs 2 top In briefs to be edited. I'll probably add some short in N&N. I'll defer to experts at Crossword. and check status on everything right now. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Confirming that RR is on its way and should be in a publishable form before 20:00 UTC. Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

It's probably useful to watchlist the Signpost deadlines template which should be the single source of truth for the publication time (and is also included on top of this page). Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bri: @Smallbones: I have just completed the arbitration report (feel free to murder me with kitchen utensils for doing it an hour before publication), will start taking a look at other articles now. jp×g 19:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I am starting up the script. I am planning to run it in about seven minutes. jp×g 19:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@HaeB: Recent Research looks good to me, is there anything else in "other recent publications" that you can add or should I just trim the empty sections? jp×g 20:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@JPxG: Good point - fixed. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I am rolling now. jp×g 20:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration report

Brought this feature back in to the article status table, per discussion above. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Ready to go - hands off the keyboards

Latest comment: 2 years ago29 comments6 people in discussion

@HaeB, Bri, and JPxG: and all Time to publish. Let's give JPxG room and go for it!! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Boom goes the dynamite. Everything worked fine this time, with the exception of mass-messaging global subscribers (couldn't find any documentation of what this means at WP:MMS, from what I can tell it's a local permission on meta-wiki, so I opened a thread for permissions request there). jp×g 20:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Delivery issue?

Spot check of enwp delivery is good, but I don't see global (yet?). ☆ Bri (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I think jpxg was having some trouble regarding perms (see above). 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 20:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I have permissions, maybe I can figure out what buttons to push to do it manually. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe it's a local permission on meta-wiki, which I've requested (if you have that, I will hold back). jp×g 20:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Yup, I've got the manual mass message form on Meta ready to press send. Just came back to check and make sure someone else didn't do it. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

It's been sent, 1-2 non-enwp spot checks look OK. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Outreach?

How's social media and mailing lists been going? It looks like the mailing list announcements are a bit behind. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 20:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Social media's been doing well, how are you doing yourself today? (Did you have a more specific question? See e.g. this recent thread)

Regarding announcements on Wikimedia-l, I don't think there has been progress since this discussion - would be great to get these going again. Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Nice to hear that social media's well. If it's fine, I think I'll send out an email with my personal address for this month just until everything's sorted out. If wanted, I can also commit to sending them more long-term, perhaps with the Gmail credentials if that's still needed. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 21:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

If there's a Gmail account, I would also be fine with using that to send the things out (so long as I was able to generate the actual text of what the message would be). I think it should be possible to set up a tool that automatically makes this type of post (for an unrelated website, I set up a webapp to post RSS items to a Twitter feed in December 2018 and it's been running without problem ever since). jp×g 22:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

A pre-generated text for the mailing list announcements can be found at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Resources#Publication, ready for copypasting.

Sending from the wikipediasignpost Gmail account would be preferable for various reasons, but until we can recover its credentials, a personal sender address should do too. Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I've posted a message from my personal account to the list. It's currently awaiting moderator approval. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 23:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

In the meantime while the credentials for the Gmail account are still being recovered, would it be worth it to set up a ProtonMail account? I see various advantages over Gmail, particularly privacy. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 23:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

My feeling is the clock has run out on recovering gmail. If you want to set up a new account somewhere else, I'm all for it. Smallbones: what do you think? ☆ Bri (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Medium looks quite unmaintained and outdated. It still lists Pete Forsyth as the EiC. Could we recover credentials to this? If not, perhaps a message on the subscription page warning that the account is outdated could be added. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 00:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Oops, meant to ping @Peteforsyth 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 00:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Does anybody object to setting up an Instagram and Mastodon account? Hopefully they could increase our reach by a little bit. We can set up Mastodon to mirror from Twitter, similar to Facebook, and Instagram would just need a bit of work each month. I imagine that we could post the "top" articles for the month (like Twitter) and pair them with appropriate images. If this is welcome, I can set it up. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 00:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I think I like these ideas – by "top" do you mean usually News and notes and the hottest special topic of the month? By the way you are dangerously close to being drafted as outreach manager, which I see is currently vacant (one can also volunteer by replacing "vacant" with username). ☆ Bri (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's essentially my thinking. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 21:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I would hold off on creating new Signpost accounts on various other sites before we have figured out how to handle their credentials in the long term. This is bound to create a lot of headache otherwise, as illustrated by the discussion here about existing accounts.

Once a Mastodon account is created, the mirror from Twitter is indeed straightforward to set up and maintain - I did that for @wikiresearch in 2020 (using moa.party on the recommendation of Nemo bis) and it has been working since then. (Although honestly it didn't increase our reach by a large margin - we now have 39 Mastodon followers compared to over 15k on Twitter.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that we should find a way to manage credentials. I could create a Bitwarden account; would that be fine?

Regarding reach: I think that we can make our social channels more engaging (images, more content in general, etc) and that will help with reach. Once we figure out credentials, I can try some of these out for a pilot period. Nonetheless, I think more social channnels will help even if the margin of increase isn't that high - every reader counts! 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 18:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

What efforts have been made to recover the Gmail account? FWIW, the last mailing list announcement sent from that address seems to date from September 2020, not too long ago and well into Smallbones' EiC tenure. Do we know who sent it? (It does not seem that mailing list announcements have been automated as part the publication script yet.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll hold off on creating a new email account until we confirm that the Gmail is really unrecoverable. As for automation into the mailing list script, Gmail and other mail providers provide an API which might be useful. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 17:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

In any case, thank you for sending out the mailing list announcement for this issue! Some issues though:

It went into the Gmail spam folder ("Gmail could not verify that it actually came from aleeas.com. Avoid clicking links, downloading attachments, or replying with personal information.") - at least for me, but presumably for many other recipients too. Are you using a custom email setup on aleeas.com?
Based on the header data, it took over four days for the moderators of WikimediaAnnounce-l to approve it.
The automated forwarding from WikimediaAnnounce-l to Wikimedia-l does not seem to have worked for this message (not seeing it here, even though another recent posting appears to have been forwarded correctly). This is a longstanding issue (phab:T115300).

2. and 3. are out of our hands, but might be a reason for CCing Wikimedia-l directly when sending the message. Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi,

1: aleeas.com is my alias, that's probably why it's showing up weird. I assume after a proper Signpost account (e.g. with Protonmail) that will not happen anymore.

2: Yeah. I think once a proper account is set up the address can probably be allowlisted, so that the moderators wouldn't need to approve it.

3: CC'ing Wikimedia-I is a good solution to this in the short term, yes. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 17:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@EpicPupper: Thanks for the ping. Yes, I set up the Medium site to experiment with republishing select Signpost articles when I was EIC, and to be honest haven't looked at it in ages. I'm of course happy to turn it over, and/or update it to current info. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 06:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Refocusing

Seems like the discussion has simmered down a bit. Who has access to the Gmail account currently? I feel like getting access to that is a first step to everything else (e.g. Bitwarden, which requires an email to sign up). 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 03:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Reader feedback

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

View reader feedback on issue 1 (January)

All: You can monitor reader feedback by pressing the button. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Note to self: this link will go there without applying my insane RC filters... jp×g 05:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

This button is great! Could this process of generating a link of pages for each issue be added to the publication script, perhaps? 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 17:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Oversighter feedback

As I predicted, we (I think?) received a vague warning about posting Twitter accounts. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks good!

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I think everything is ok on enwiki. It was a bit of a crazy process this month. Sorry for the several absences including yours truly right at the end. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I've updated the deadline template based on how it went the last couple months -- is it good to have the deadline on the 26th and the publication date on the 27th for February? jp×g 22:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, looks good to me. The practice for the last 3 years IIFC is to publish on the last Sunday of the month (e.g. 2-27-2022) and have the official copy deadline the day before. I think we missed 1 issue and moved another back one week -excepting Decembers where any convenient time between Christmas and New Year's Eve seems to be easy ernough to decide on. The logic of the last Sunday of the month is pretty simple. You can't forget "last Sunday of the month" and weekends work for most people. For me it often means a full free Saturday to finish up writing and help with the copy editing, plus a free Sunday to handle all the last minute stuff. I believe the 20:00 UTC was set jointly between HaeB, and myself with others inputs just as the most convenient. By the way, I just don't believe that delaying a deadline helps anything. Sure, somethings come up and delaying for 30 minutes-2 hours works as the last couple of stories are finished. But with everybody focused on "last Sunday of the month at 20:00" other people's schedules will start unraveling with anything more than a couple hours delay.

If we are going to change, it would be a good time to discuss it now, as I fully intend to quit as EiC (only) by Summer. My only suggestion - if anybody else wants a change - is to drop one Summer month. For me the "free weekend" is much more expensive when I could be at the beach. Suggestions welcome. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Labeling editors as administrators

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

In the special report comments, Barkeep49 wrote I don't get why I am "Administrator Barkeep49". The fact that I am an administrator is immaterial to this situation but this kind of labeling suggests it is. If you're going to name a PERM that matters in this context it would be "New Page Reviewer Barkeep49".

When I was writing the story, I briefly pondered whether I should label administrators or not, but I decided to do so. My reasoning is that, to be neutral and journalistic, I think we need to document the de facto reality of what happens on Wikipedia, not defer to any type of collective mythology. And while many admins might humbly aspire to WP:NOBIGDEAL, the de facto situation is that the community absolutely sees adminship as a big deal, and sysops' comments are given extra weight because of their status, even in situations where they're not using the tools. This makes it a pertinent thing for us to mention in contexts where it matters that it's a highly respected member of the community who is offering their thoughts.

As this is something that comes up regularly, I figured I'd bring it up here so we can decide on a collective approach. Should administrators only be identified as such in situations where they are using the tools? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

By that logic you should have identified me as "Arbitrator Barkeep49". I stand by my position that my being an administrator, or arbitrator, had nothing to do with this situation and so far as I brought expertise to the situation it was New Page Reviewer expertise. By identifying editors in this way the Signpost is not reflecting de facto reality, it's creating it as no one had referred to anyone's admin status in that conversation but now the widespread recounting of that events introduces that element. I am certainly aware of the status that comes from holding rights but one of the ways that status is perpetuated is by institutions like the Signpost saying it matters in situations like this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking it would be cool if there was something like a tooltip that would pop up for a username and show their permissions. Kind of like the topicons on my userpage. Then it would not be an editorial decision when to list the permissions. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Bri: if you enable "Navigation popups" under Preferences>Gadgets, you get exactly that! A pop-up when you hover over a username that shows edit count, date joined, permissions, and a couple other useful things. I use it all the time. It also previews articles when you hover over wikilinks. Ganesha811 (talk) 04:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
  - Hilariously, I have that feature turned on but never really paid attention to the additional information that it was telling me for users. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Featured Content article

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is anyone writing the Featured Content article? I'm willing to pick up this section for the next issue, if no one else is working on it. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to start it! 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 18:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

ANI discussion involving Signpost content

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This ANI discussion involves discusison, and subsequent editing, of 2021 Top 50 Report. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Outing in In the Media?

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

The draft In the Media article has a link to a page that lists the alleged full name and location (approximate) of two people (plus more, potentially) that are linked to a user account that uploaded a file. Does this count as outing? Not particularly sure, so asking to be safe. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 06:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Self outing on-wiki makes the off-wiki stuff moot. One of them lists his first name on his userpage and his last name here. Not so sure about the other person. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I actually think the 2 of you are talking about two different sets of people. The two people in the photos are not Wikipedia editors (as far as I can tell). The guy who gives his first name and last name on Wiki is the "self-outer". Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. Well, if it's not the editor we are talking about then WP:OUTING is not the issue, rather WP:BLP is or some less-codified privacy considerations. Since they knowingly had an interview with Input magazine – not only that but apparently posed for new photos for publication – I think it's all fair game. As long as we don't list their kids names, since WP:MINORS is a carveout to the usual rules. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Awesome. It's quite a nice and touching story. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 00:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

4 days until publication

Latest comment: 2 years ago17 comments6 people in discussion

We should be able to publish on-time (20 UTC) on Sunday. It looks like we'll have about 11 articles. Some need to be cleaned up/finished. Others haven't been submitted yet, and I've got a couple not even started yet!

From the editors - just lay out the procedure to replace me before JUne. Believe me, I need to be replaced!
Recent research - @HaeB: will have a special issue on gender gap research
Serendipity promises to be good again this month.
Traffic report - there was a suggestion to change the premis or the format - I have no objection to discussing that or even looking at a draft proposed replacement. But until then (at least!) we'll be sticking with @Igordebraga: who will soon be celebrating his 27th year (approximate) on The Signpost.
Essay and Humor - both are based on Wiki-essays this month, so lets save one for next month (say "The sky is blue" and print "Mailboxes" this month. Or vice versa if you prefer.)
Special report - I should be collaborating with (or just editing) @Jules*: this month on something special
News and notes seems to have enough this month. But as usual, lets look for some breaking stories/ Anything on Russia-Ukraine???
In the media - so many stories, so little time
@JPxG: anything being deleted this month?
more later. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I've postponed the essay, thanks for the feedback. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 18:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Re News from the WMF, WikiProject report, Tech report + Discussion report: I can clean these up and finish them by tomorrow, hopefully. @Sennecaster: Any updates on the featured content report? If you want, I can help by adding the most recent ones and blurbs. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 21:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Will be working on it today :) Blurbs would be great for the FAs especially. Sennecaster (Chat) 22:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Just 5 years here - 10 if you count this. The format hasn't changed because it's easy, and don't know if it needs to change just for the rare people who take what we write the wrong way. igordebraga ≠ 05:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I have some draft text for a "from the editors" report on the consensus-building for a new E-in-C. Will post later today. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Posted as "From the team". Feedback is welcome. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

Is there time for analysis of the impact of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine on Wikipedia? I see an uptick in ANI for related disruption. The article itself is the top ITN, of course. It's too new for pageviews but maybe when that comes in, that's the story for now. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I can write about it in NAN. It's in parallel with the Ukrainian article contest, so that might be an interesting perspective as well. If anybody wants to write a more detailed thing for a special report or related, feel free. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 18:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Crossword

I had an idea for one and will work on it tomorrow. Hopefully will complete in time - if not we can save it for next month. Ganesha811 (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm working on it now, but can't see the "Crossword" section to create a draft, and Humor was already taken (by a very funny piece, I must say). So I'm creating the draft at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Op-Ed for now. If someone could move it to the appropriate column, I would appreciate it because I don't know how. Thank you! Ganesha811 (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@JPxG: thank you again for doing last month's crossword! Could you add the answers to it to this page (User:Ganesha811/crosswordanswers)? Thanks. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Please ping me when the crossword is posted in the "next issue". Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
@Smallbones: it's posted at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Op-Ed - if you can move it to the Crossword column that would be great. Thank you! Ganesha811 (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
I moved it to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Crossword and added to publication table. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to all. It looks good (and hard). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

1.5 days to publication

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I removed the section in Nan about the Ukrainian editing contest. I'm sure their priorities are different now.
There's lots of copy editing to do.
I'll try to get In the media into shape tonight.

@JPxG: will you be able to publish Sunday?

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes. jp×g 13:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I've arranged the stories in the approximate order I prefer for publication. The exact order doesn't matter though, it comes out 2 ways in the 2 "contents" pages! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Lots to copy edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I've got a Special report to write up, and I need to concentrate on only it for about 3 hours, so I'll be gone that long. Check out Serendipity - that's great deadline journalism. Can anybody find PD (US Army? Navy's ok too) photos of WWII, the Spanish Civil War or the Ukrainian Fronts in WWII. That'll make one section even better. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The Traffic Report has been copyedited. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

By the Numbers has been copyedited. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I really phoned it in for the arbitration and deletion reports this month, but I've got them both written. I will try to devote some time to copyediting other features before publication. jp×g 14:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)