"WP:OP-ED" redirects here. For the guideline on not editorializing in article content, see MOS:OP-ED. For policy on op-eds and original research, see WP:NOROPED. For guideline on citing op-eds as sources, see WP:NEWSOPED.
Please propose Signpost stories you want to write (or have already begun writing). Submitted stories are published subject to the approval of the Editors-in-Chief, JPxG. We value the involvement of Wikipedians, and appreciate your submissions. If you have ideas or questions that don't fit neatly into this framework, don't hesitate to address us on our user talk pages, by email, or as a last resort, on the general Signpost talk page.
The Signpost's content guidelines may be useful to aspiring writers; take note, especially, of the statement of purpose section. We encourage you to contact us early in the process of developing a story. Different writers have varying levels of interest in editorial input, and we pride ourselves on finding the right balance with each writer; but in most cases, a brief discussion early on can help all parties shape our expectations, and can help produce a strong finished piece. We aim to support Wikimedians wishing to share news with their peers, and look forward to working with you.
Why page titles are important, and how you can helpEdit
Discussion: Hi there! I'd like to propose an article detailing why page titles are crucial to Wikipedia, and ways that readers can help (e.g. WP:RM, etc). Thanks! 🐶 EpicPupper(he/him | talk) 22:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Self-accepting now that I have the power, mwahahaahahahaha.... 🐶 EpicPupper(he/him | talk) 18:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Discussion: First time interacting with The Signpost, so apologies if this is entirely off base. I'm interested in writing a brief article about conspiracies and Wikipedia, specifically, the phenomenon of ascribing undesired coverage of onself or a topic one thinks is important to the sub-department of the global cabal that runs Wikipedia. This isn't by any means new, but has become a more salient in light of the invasion of Ukraine. It spans ideology; we see it in far-left, anti-American outlets like GrayZone (which became very cranky when it was deprecated) and far-right COVID disinformation purveyors (who regularly lament that the pharma-government regime that runs the world also runs Wikipedia and insidiously prevents them from proving that vaccines do cause autism and whatnot). Frankly, for those of us who actually know how this stuff works, it's kind of a hilarious look into how... less informed individuals interpret the machinations of Wikipedia (what an RfC is, how editors adjudicate, what Jimmy Wales' role is, and so on). WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 04:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Discussion: The Linguistic Society of America's Committee on LGBTQ+ Issues in Linguistics has for two years now put on an edit-a-thon for pride month on LGBTQ+ lingusitics and linguistics topics. Two committee members have written about their experiences and the impact of edit-a-thons as outreach. I mentioned to them that the Signpost could be a good place to publish these thoughts as well so that the Wikipedia community can learn about the experiences of subject-matter experts trying to help build Wikipedia as a means of public science communication. N.B. Sunny is also a Wikipedian, but I'm not sure they want their identities linked so I've refrained from pinging them. — Wug·a·po·des 21:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Urban Versis 32, and thanks for the submission! This piece looks great so far. My only feedback would be to expand it a bit; it's currently slightly short for what The Signpost usually publishes. As a suggestion, perhaps some words about creating a userbox and the rules around doing so (e.g. divisive content) would be helpful. I personally quite enjoy using this tool. Cheers! 🐶 EpicPupper(he/him | talk) 01:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Discussion: This piece is about a fictional interplay of metadata, self-reporting, talk pages and conflicting Wikipedia philosophies. Is this humourous enough? Your call. This is as much an article idea as a submission. FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Discussion: This, rather technical article, presents the author's personal efforts regarding the improvement of user comfort when working with pageview dumps and also the smaller size of data required for archiving. Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
@Dušan Kreheľ, I can see this going into the technology report. It is a bit short right now and could use some more background and explanation. I fully understand that there might be a language barrier as well. Could you perhaps expand it a bit? We can translate from other languages if you’re more comfortable with that. Thanks! 🐶 EpicPupper(he/him | talk) 00:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Discussion: NPP would like to include the following brief announcement:PageTriage, the suite of NPP software tools used by New Page Reviewers at Page Curation, is essentially unmaintained by the WMF (who created them). Dozens of Phab reports are stalled at "unassigned" or "needs triage". An open letter to the WMF has been written asking that resources be allocated to the maintenance of this tool. As there are too few active reviewers to promptly address the constant inflow of new articles, software improvements are imperative. Read the letter here, and if you support it, please consider signing it. Also consider helping to patrol new pages. If you are interested, check the criteria, read the tutorials and apply at PERM. We especially need people with the ability to judge the notability of non-English topics. MB 00:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Author: Please include in'News & Notes' or a suitable high visibility page at the E-in-C's discretion
Discussion: NPP would like to include the following brief announcement:PageTriage, the suite of NPP tools comprising the New Pages Feed and Page Curation used by New Page Reviewers, is an important firewall against inappropriate new pages and is also used to encourage users to improve their article submissions. The software is essentially unmaintained by the WMF who created it in 2012. Dozens of Phab reports for bugs and upgrades are stalled at "unassigned" or "needs triage".
An open letter to the WMF has been written by the NPP team asking that resources be allocated to the maintenance of this tool. Active reviewers (only around 100 out of about 750) are unable to keep the backlog at a sustainable level, and software improvements are now urgently required. The letter can be seen here, and anyone who supports it, can consider signing it.
More help is needed to patrol new pages. Interested editors can check the criteria, read the tutorials, and apply at PERM for access to the tools. New Page Patrol even provides a school for reviewers. Especially needed are reviewers who can accurately judge the notability of non-English and Asian topics.
MB 00:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC), Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:03, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Final tweak of the wording MB 16:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
@MB, Kudpung, and EpicPupper: I've expanded the brief note I added yesterday to News and Notes in line with the above (which I only spotted today). Diff. Does it look okay? Best, AndreasJN466 10:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
I'd suggest changing "Especially needed are reviewers who can accurately judge the notability of non-English and Asian topics." to "Especially needed are reviewers who can accurately judge the quality of foreign language sources." –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Discussion: This piece is about article quality and how it relates to readers and reader expectations. It argues that above a threshold we have long since surpassed, article quality – while important for our mission – most likely has limited effects on reader behaviour. Most importantly, this means that a) any attempt to do what Wikipedia does, only slightly better, is doomed to fail, and b) article quality can't in itself save us from being replaced. Suggestions for a better title for this essay are very welcome. /Julle (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
@Julle thanks, and sorry for the late reply! I'd be inclined to accept this as an Op-Ed. Would "The façade of article quality" work as a title, and "Article quality will not in itself save us if technology and user patterns leave us behind" work as a blurb (description)? Thanks! 🐶 EpicPupper(he/him | talk) 05:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
EpicPupper: No worries, and welcome back. I'm happy with the blurb. I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with "façade" to describe article quality, but a few suggested titles – if you're happy with any of them, take your pick. (:
The limitations of article quality
What article quality can't do
Does article quality change anything for our readers?
Discussion: Article about group work to counter myths and legends in one of America's most notable public spaces. ɱ(talk) 18:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
@Ɱ: Right now the commons:Commons:Wiki Loves Folklore 2023. In meta:Volunteer Response Team private ticket:2022112310010222 that organizing team asked Wikimedia New York City to submit some kind of folklore story. I feel that what you have written about myths of this New York City train station is as close to contemporary folklore as anyone can find. You have established sources, told the stories in your own words, and you make an interesting case to sort fact and fiction here in Wikipedia.
Are you able to add an image gallery to this story, including the four myths you describe? This could include the 2 clocks, the basement, and the painted ceiling. If you did that, then
This story becomes good for Wiki Loves Folklore
It becomes The Signpost's story contributing to that campaign
Wiki NYC can showcase this piece at their next meeting, further cross-promoting it
I do not want to put you out of your way for the images, but I think that people have already uploaded images of all these things countless times. Is there a reason you have not already included and labeled the images in this story?
Discussion: This is an interview of Wikimedia Foundation Chief Advancement Officer Lisa Seitz-Gruwell with questions submitted by User:The Land. The current link has the questions for this interview; the remainder of the content (answers) will be filled in before November 23, 2022.
@KStineRowe (WMF) and The Land: Note that EpicPupper has retired from both the Signpost and Wikipedia. JPxG is the sole current editor-in-chief.
I provided some initial feedback on the questions here.
Re-reading the first question just now it strikes me that it states as fact that the WMF uses "a large part of its funds for grantmaking".
Per the financial statements published earlier this month, "Awards and grants" amounted to just under $15 million in the 2021–2022 year just ended. This is less than 10% of revenue. I'd submit it is therefore a comparatively small part of WMF funds – especially when compared to the $88 million salary bill. In the interest of truthfulness, could we perhaps agree to just call it "a part" and name the amount?
@The Land: Thanks for organizing this interview. I support you in managing this however you will do it, and I appreciate your effort in this and in many other conversations related to Wikimedia community governance. I completely endorse your methods for this, but as you are doing this, I want to read the room and context here just in case anyone checks in on The Signpost editorial process. I am talking to myself and the ether here: I am making no requests of anyone and am just documenting thoughts.
This publication The Signpost is community organized and has no budget.
The Wikimedia Foundation is investing valuable resources in this discussion. With 4 board members personally commenting here, I can only imagine that the weight of the legal department, communication department, and grants department is behind them. When a group of people each of whom cost US$200,000/year get personally involved in an issue, they also appoint their staff to invest labor. It is hard for me to estimate the resources consumed by this discussion, but as my own guess, I will say that 4 groups of 5 people each discussed this issue for 10 hours. 4*5*10=200 labor hours * US$100/hour = $20,000 conversation minimum. I could be underestimating WMF investment, and perhaps by end of November 2022 $100,000 maximum investment could go into this if there are some 1-hour meetings of 5-10 paid staff people. I have never seen a response like this from the WMF in the past.
The core issue is conflict between the WMF and the Wikimedia community on how money is spent. There are many big social and ethical issues in play here. I will not list them or describe them. I think lots of people who are here experiencing this know the issues, but I know of no one who has summarized them as journalism.
Neither The Signpost nor the Wikimedia Community has any funding or financial resources to develop these conversations, produce journalism, or do research on these issues. The money is all on the WMF to build a narrative. There is an imbalance here.
While the Wikimedia community wanted a response to these financial questions, the WMF has responded much more than I think anyone expected.
I do not personally see anything pointed, controversial, or aggressive about the Wikimedia community asking questions. What I see are basic community demands for representation and access to information of the sort that no one ever imagined would be controversial.
User The Land: thanks for stepping up, thanks for doing this interview. You will do great. You are still just one volunteer talking to a corporation which is running responses from grants team to legal team to communications team and then through the board. I think you will do fine. Your interview is still a volunteer interview and does not represent the entirety of the Wikimedia community, although I do recognize you as a Wikimedia community "leader" (not that we have leaders) and that you are an active editor, well liked, in good standing for many reasons.
Thanks and if The Signpost can support you such as is possible from a volunteer newspaper, then ask. You definitely have encouragement to proceed as you have planned, and I hope that others find your effort as inspiring as I do. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Update: After conversations with user:MPaul (WMF) I have revised a couple of the questions to reflect the changed situation as a result of the RfC and the commitments made by the WMF during and after it. I've updated the submission page to reflect this. The Land (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Update: @JPxG: the content is now complete and ready for review. Thank you!--KStineRowe (WMF) (talk) 15:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Discussion: This is my view of what a wikipage parser should look like, which should have a new implementation and a new RFC about the Mediawiki wiki(page) language should come. Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 13:56, 3 December 2022 (UTC)