Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 27

< Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost‎ | Newsroom
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Jayen466 in topic Ten hours to go
Archive 20 ← Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30

Minor issue restructure?

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

We could also restructure The Signposts issues too. Make it easier for readers to pick their favourite columns. A made a mockup below. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Current Mockup


It'd be nice if we made the names of the sections a bit larger and less faded out. It's honestly hard to tell what's going on when the article title is "Information considered harmful" and then "News and Notes" appears barely legible near it. We're maybe getting a little too... out there with our titles. And, to criticise myself, you could say the same for "A little list with surprisingly few lists". Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8% of all FPs 02:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

After some thinking, I'm quite opposed to this idea. We put NAN, ITM, special reports, etc first because usually that's where the big headlines are. The Signpost should focus on those; it's not overly important to get more clicks on a humor article, although they are a good part of the publication, but as other major news sources do, we should focus on the big headlines. If you take a look at, say, The New York Times or Vox, they have the big headlines first. But this is just my opinion. Pinging @JPxG. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 03:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Feeder readback

Latest comment: 1 year ago12 comments5 people in discussion

Page is at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Readback/2022-08-01. Making these is kind of a pain, and seems like it would really be easy to automate. On the other hand, User:FormalDude has that discussion board thing -- could we deploy one of those and link to it from the main issue page? jp×g 02:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Meagre discussion of the recession op-ed at Hacker News. But submitting it there did add a few thousand pageviews yesterday.
It's worth bearing in mind that a good headline is absolutely key for Hacker News submissions. Andreas JN466 16:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Hmm. There was also a fairly popular tweet from @DepthsOfWiki. Generally it's kind of hard to tell where views are coming from (unless we happen to see the same thing that's sending everyone) -- Wikipedia pageview stats don't give us referrers... jp×g 02:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia pageview stats don't give us referrers For very good reason. If they did, I would barge into the WMF offices screaming my head off. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 02:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
That tweet was on the morning of Aug 2. Based on past experience, a 20-point thread on HN translates into a couple of thousand pageviews. A HN thread with a couple of hundred points translates into about 50,000 pageviews. Andreas JN466 09:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
RelatedChanges link is here:

here. jp×g 02:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Is this the first page like this? Because I could easily integrate it in the Newsroom (and your publishing script could be updated to create that page automatically upon publishing). I would also suggest a more serious name like "/Reader comments". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
We've had one every month for the last few issues. Usually they are just in someone's userspace (I had a few, and I think EP had at least one, and Bri had a few before that). It's kind of ad-hoc. jp×g 02:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
This is quite easy to add into the publication script. I'm doing an overhaul of it. Talk alter. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 03:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
*later. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 03:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

BTW if you have a link to FormalDude's discussion board thing, I could take a look at it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Last issue it was WP:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-06-26/Comments. I just created it manually (and haven't done so yet for this issue) but this should also be relatively easy to automate. ––FormalDude talk 03:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Ooops

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hello, Signpost folks,

I was deleting some broken redirect pages that resulted from page moves Signpost folks created when they moved articles around today. Unfortunately, I accidentally deleted some of the destination pages. I have restored all of the ones I could track down but if any of your writers find their pages have been deleted, first, I'm very, very sorry and secondly, just let me know and I'll restore them, pronto. I looked for a master list of articles for the next issue but couldn't find anything that was current. Again, my apologies. Liz Read! Talk! 04:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like a list, above, at "Minor issue restructure?" and luckily, I only see blue links. Liz Read! Talk! 04:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up :) 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 17:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I checked last night when you posted this, but it looks like I forgot to respond to the post -- it looks on my end like everything is intact. I appreciate you cleaning up those redirects (the publishing script isn't equipped to handle pagemoves/formats for pages that aren't getting linked to from the main issue page, so I had to frantically do six of them manually while the issue was live...) jp×g 21:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Essay

Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments5 people in discussion

I had the idea of doing a rapid-fire-style republishing of a bunch of short essays. Here are some good ones I found.

Feel free to suggest additions or removals to this list. Here's the query I used to sort them by size; you can remove the user essays category for some higher-quality results. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

"Keep discussions focused" seems a little too trivial. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8% of all FPs 21:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by a rapid-fire-style republishing? Multiple essays into one Signpost article? If so, I think I'd rather have a thematic issue with multiple essays dealing with a similar topic. Possibly with a synthesis at the end, trying to distill what the common elements are, and what the opposing philosophies are, if any. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree with this view. Great idea, tho, EP! — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 11:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Just remembered I wrote WP:NOSHORTCUT (yes, I get the irony), which might be short enough to fit in with the rest of the list. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 12:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I made a page for these at User:JPxG/All essays by size (with a sortable table, and links to the essays so that you can just read them using popups). jp×g 15:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:AREYOUNOWORHAVEYOUEVERBEEN is great, lol. jp×g 15:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
User:Gamahucheur/Don't Lift Your Leg
Wikipedia:Reporting interaction ban violations
User:Shii/WP:SPERGOUT
  • Not a "short" essay by any means at all, but this reminded me of something else. A few e-decades ago, by which I mean "in January 2021", I wrote Wikipedia:Analysis of citation issues for date and year articles, which was a fairly detailed dive into a fairly niche subject. I linked it on a couple of WikiProject talk pages, and in a couple then-current discussions of the issue, but I don't think many people saw it at the time. It might be worth publishing, though -- half a million uncited entries seems like at least kind of a big deal. jp×g 15:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Any WikiProjects worth an interview?

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments4 people in discussion

As y'all know I've been very inactive for the last month or so. However, I am doing much better now and can get back to editing so I was wondering if there's been any WikiProject activity in the last month (exciting new projects, big milestones, fun campaigns) that might merit showing to our readers. If not I was thinking of reaching out to projects that have internal publications (e.g. WP:MILHIST Bugle) to talk about how they run them, as it might be something interesting to our readers and useful to future/current projects planning on having a newsletter. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 16:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps relevant is Template:Newsletters -- I went through a while ago and updated each with the date of their most recent issue (which you can see as an editnote in the source of the template). jp×g 18:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Great recommendation, JPxG, didn't know that existed :) — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 22:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
If it helps, I write some of the Bugle. Decent amount of cross-polinnation between the two featured contents. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8% of all FPs 02:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
@Ixtal: There's the vital articles wikiproject and they're doing a drive right now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Vital Articles/30 kB drive. The wikiproject was recently brought back from the dead essentially, so if they haven't been interviewed recently around now might be a good time. Clovermoss (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Fundraising complaints on Meta and on Twitter

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See m:Talk:Fundraising#The_donation_fundraising_on_the_Hebrew_Wikipedia_causes_more_harm_than_good and preceding sections. Andreas JN466 13:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Professionally-designed banner

Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments6 people in discussion

I’d like to start a discussion about commissioning a professional artist to design an official banner for The Signpost. This can be used to recruit new contributors and as a background for our social media. I was thinking a scene-type image with journalists working with laptops on a hilltop to the left of a city portraying Wikimania, or an image of a newsroom with contributors working around miscellaneous gadgets. An example of a similar image for the first idea is here, and here’s an example of the second one. A potential artist is Christine Donath. I’d love your thoughts! Cheers! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 04:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Where do we stand with the idea of a user group for funding via WMF (or WMDC etc.) grants? I think Bluerasberry has gone down this road before ... ☆ Bri (talk) 04:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
We've applied. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 01:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
  • How about a Wikipedia-styled Lofi Girl parody. Haha. Schierbecker (talk) 06:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
    That wouldn't be a bad idea! Juan Pablo Machado would be the appropriate artist to commission in that case. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 03:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
    You might try running a prompt in DALL-E (I'm still on the wait list) or another image generator to see what it comes up with first as a reference. Schierbecker (talk) 03:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
    I think an original work rather than a parody would be more suitable for the Signpost. Perhaps something based on muckraker journals? — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 14:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
    Personally, I'd prefer we stick with out masthead. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Same here, honestly. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 06:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I think having a broad and specialized image for our Twitter account, as described by EpicPupper, is a great idea. Once it's commissioned and done this project will have it available for future use. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Alan MacMasters, the inventor of the electric toaster (Wikipediocracy article)

Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments2 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The recently deleted Alan MacMasters article (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alan_MacMasters) represents a major citogenesis incident. The Wikipediocracy blog currently has a post up that describes the hoax's reach and features an interview with the (now-banned) hoaxer. In my view it's worth including in ITM but I am not sure if the Signpost presently has a policy against linking to WO. Andreas JN466 21:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Now discussed in an Input Mag article by Annie Rauwerda: https://www.inputmag.com/culture/wikipedia-hoax-alan-macmasters-toaster Andreas JN466 21:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
It looks like the hoax made it back around into some credible stuff including "The history of making toast" published by Hagley Museum, and The Scotsman's "Scottish fact of the week". ☆ Bri (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Also about twenty different books. Andreas JN466 17:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Interesting. Regarding citogenesis, it appears books containing "MacMasters" are only from 2015 or later, unless I missed something. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
That was my conclusion as well. Online citogenesis was quicker: this BBC article was published on April 5, 2013, just a few weeks after the hoax started ... and like the Hagley Museum page, it subsequently was cited in the MacMasters biography, completing the citogenesis loop. Andreas JN466 19:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Actually, the name was first introduced in February 2012 in the Toaster article: [1]. By September 2012 it had made it into the Daily Mirror. So it took about a year to make it into the BBC article, not a few weeks like I just said. Andreas JN466 21:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Worth mentioning perhaps that the hoax spread to a bunch of other Wikipedias. I just deleted a sentence crediting MacMasters from the Dutch Wikipedia; there are still about ten other language versions left. Archived Google searches for Alan MacMasters toaster on wikipedia.org: https://archive.ph/BReFL https://archive.ph/Vm4OA Andreas JN466 14:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

September's FC

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@JPxG and EpicPupper: Just to note, I've started the September Featured Content. Because... I do that now, apparently. I've marked it as postponed. As last month, as long as it's not deleted in publication, it should slot neatly into the issue after the one [we're/everyone else is] working on's FC slot. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 00:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Active admin count falling

Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments5 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-07-31/Special report I reported on how a new active admin low of 500 was of concern.

I'm thinking of writing this up as a News and notes item. The active admin count low point for each recent year was as follows:

  • 2018 509 on 10/24
  • 2019 493 on 12/10
  • 2020 493 on 10/25
  • 2021 460 on 12/5, discounting some data glitches
  • 2022 449 on 4/4

We are probably about to hit an all-time low as the count is wobbling around the 450 point, and reached 452 on 13 August. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I think we could also run some kind of cool interview/opinion piece about the future of adminship? In the community we talk a lot about these decreasing numbers but I think it would be interesting to read something about what the future state of being an admin could look like as a result. Thoughts? — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 21:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
It hit 434 late last September Not sure what the lowest has been - there does seem to be some seasonal skews. Its definitely been on a downward trend since early 2008. ϢereSpielChequers 22:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Those September data were glitches. It was discussed on the bot page or the list talkpage, I think. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Here it is, very brief but corresponds to an anomaly 11 Sept to about end of month IIRC. User talk:Rick Block#Active admins ☆ Bri (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
I may put this off until September or later if it drops below 450; the count is now up to 457. Counts usually decline in the autumn. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
That may be wise. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 00:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Walking away in silence

Prodding Newsroom folk to think about how to engage with the community on this. I found this comment on WP:AN (archive 341) compelling.

I totally understand why an admin would just walk away. Wikipedia is voluntary. Being an admin is voluntary. So these are people who've volunteered to put up with complete and utter crap, mediate disputes that are as boring as hell, deal with pointless vandals, mess around in the internet-dregs, and all for nothing but a slight feel-good factor? I can't for the life of me see why anyone would be daft enough to be an admin on Wikipedia. And then if you get criticised for how you do it - well, I'd just walk away too. Of course anyone who asks to be placed in a position where they have more rights than others, has to behave. But if they lose the will to keep going when someone decides to start throwing muck at them - even muck that's deserved - I'm inclined to be grateful for what they did before they left, and just accept their right to walk away in silence. It can't be much fun.

I reached out to a former admin for their input, and may do so for a few more. Regards ☆ Bri (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Bri, you may wish to include a couple of admins who didn't walk away completely (they seriously reduced their participation), but were desysoped not for abuse of their tools but for genuinely acting in what they thought were the best interest of Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
I wrote up a thing at NaN about the metrics, but I'm up against the deadline for future work in this issue. I may take up the reasons for admin non-participation in the future. Feel free to email me if there's names you don't want to mention here. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikimania report in the Kurier

Latest comment: 1 year ago15 comments5 people in discussion

The Kurier over on de:WP has an article on Wikimania: see de:Wikipedia:Kurier#„Keine_Wikimania_war_so_katastrophal!“ by User:Ziko. DeepL translation (please ignore any infelicities of the machine translation ...) below:

DeepL translation

"No Wikimania has been so disastrous!"

(Caption:) Dynamic and upbeat: the logo of Wikimania 2022 in... in virtual space. You wouldn't wish it on any of the organisers: software makes the online gathering descend into chaos. Instead of an inclusive festival, Wikimania 2022, the main meeting of the worldwide Wikimedia movement, felt like a collection of fragments. What was (not) going on?

Wikimania 2022 was supposed to be a festival. Fewer presentations, more group contributions and workshops, and... unusual programme items. Or have you ever walked your dogs together at an online meeting? So, walking your own dog and then sharing it with others virtually via smartphone? Such programme contributions, like tasting selected dishes and talking about them, were probably intended to strengthen the feeling of presence a little.

This year there were to be far fewer contributions than in 2021, so that the participants would not be spread out over so many. That's why there were only three tracks. Especially on the first and second, but also on the other days, a lot of things were cancelled. Or they started fifteen minutes late or didn't get going because the speaker couldn't hear anything. If you then subtract walking, music programme contributions and tele-culinary, there wasn't much left that you would have liked to watch.

The platform flattened everything

(Caption:) I experienced the first day on a tablet. The mobile version was only available for smartphones, so I only saw a narrow strip. On the left you can see YouTube. The slides were barely legible.

The software actually made a good impression on me at first: tidily structured. With notifications. Many things can be adjusted. Also for people with visual and reading difficulties. Platform for programme overview, chat, also group chat, and video (including audio translations) in one. In addition to the desktop version, mobile versions for iPhone and Android. It was easy to imagine why this software called Pheedloop had been chosen.

In practice, however, a number of things did not work. Just one example: the smartphone app did not scroll properly, so I could only set those languages that were on the top half of the list! The big annoyance, of course, was that the platform kept failing to stream. Anyway, apparently YouTube (YT), Zoom or Jitsi were supposed to be the actual platform and Pheedloop only the window to it, so to speak. But links and integrations often didn't work. Sometimes a lot of clicking around helped, sometimes not.

Anyway, you had to work with several windows: The chat function on YT was deactivated. Why was that? Our experience with other Wikimedia events on YT shows that there is no vandalism there, and if there is, the channel owners can easily remove it. So we had to use the chat function of Pheedloop. Notes: of course there was the Etherpad for that.

A well-known Wikimania veteran put it this way: There was no previous Wikimania that to him was as big a disaster as this one. This was mainly due to the software, but not only.

Why so few visitors?

(Caption:) Perhaps the best way to experience Wikimania 2022? A Real meeting in Chile. In any case, the get-together in Utrecht (NL) was cancelled at short notice because of the heat and the lack of interest.

What a pity. I also have to praise: Pheedloop has the possibility to easily set up groups for a video chat. Technically, this worked really well. But: In almost all groups you read a sad zero for the number of participants. At favourable times there were less than 20 people in one of the group chats at the same time. At most, you saw a handful of people per group chat. So meet & greet largely fell flat.

According to the Pheedloop ad, there were only about 300-450 people total online at any one time. About 20-40 people had indicated their interest per programme contribution, as far as I could see (apparently everyone who clicked on it is counted). Few tracks result in many participants per contribution? I guess it didn't really work out that way.

Talking to the few videochat participants, it was said that the preparations for Wikimania were apparently only completed very late. It was only at the end of July that people found out whether a contribution proposal had even been accepted. In the social media, there were only a few hints that a Wikimania would soon take place and what to look forward to. Besides, if only a few wiki people have a contribution in the programme, then only a few wiki people mobilise their friends via social media to come to the Wikimania. There were also no famous keynote speakers who would have attracted more participants. Ultimately, frustration with the platform probably contributed to low attendance.

(Caption:) As sorry as I am for the organising team and the friendly WMF people, Wikimania 2022 was not a satisfying experience for me.

Moreover, one can always ask what can be done better for such an event. There were quite a few contributors who simply read out their preconceived texts. There was not much interaction. Some also said to themselves: I don't really register for a conference like this to attend music and dance.

It was also strange how many contributions were marked "Ideal for newcomers", although they were not at all suitable for beginners (for example, complicated discussions about the handling of the UCoC). Conversely, it is disconcerting when an event explicitly aimed at beginners is labelled a "masterclass".

A survey on participant satisfaction is currently underway. Not in German, by the way; German was only an option at all for some pages in advance. Basically, I found the interpreters I heard very good. (Namely the English interpreters for Spanish-language contributions.) What can be improved in the future, and what one wants from such a Wikimania in the first place, will hopefully be thoroughly discussed in due course. This Wikimania was too little for me in every respect. (Z., 15.08.)

This is fine work. Is anybody here working on a similar article for The Signpost? Andreas JN466 12:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Andreas. Ziko (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
This could work great. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 00:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
And on another note, we probably should keep a more regular eye on the other Signpost-style publications as well. They have good reporting. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 00:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Cool.   Ziko, would you be happy for us to run a version of this in the next Signpost issue (due to be published 28 August)? It will need some additional work to knock the machine translation into shape (we can help you with copyediting, if need be). Best, Andreas JN466 08:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Ziko says he is happy to do an English version for us but won't be able to get it done before Saturday. Andreas JN466 22:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
That's great, we already pushed back publication deadline to 31st due to logistics as well. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 22:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
@EpicPupper and JPxG: Where should Ziko put the piece?
I'd suggest Special report – it seems to be available this month. Andreas JN466 16:05, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
That seems like a good place for it yes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Alright! I have just finished my first draft, you find it at the page suggested by Andreas. Kind regards, Ziko (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Beautiful, Ziko. I've done a quick copyedit. Andreas JN466 16:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Ziko (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Should we mention Kurier in our Special report? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
    Up to Ziko. I guess we could say something like, "A version of this article was previously published in the German Wikipedia's Kurier." But I don't think it's necessary, for two reasons.
    For one, the article has changed so much that it is essentially a new article. Secondly, the de:Wikipedia:Kurier is different from the Signpost in that it isn't really a publication – it doesn't have an editorial staff, nor even a publication date – it's just a wiki page formatted in a particular way where anyone can post an article whenever they feel like it. So there isn't really a "publication" in the traditional sense to credit. Andreas JN466 21:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
    Hello, I agree that the text has so much changed that a link is not really necessary. Ziko (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The android Wikipedia app

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I've been working on a user essay about my experiences using the android Wikipedia app over the last month or so at User:Clovermoss/Mobile editing. It's still very much a work-in-progress but I was hoping that maybe this could eventually be included in a future Signpost issue when it is more developed? Thoughts? I have technically written for the Signpost before but that was awhile ago. Clovermoss (talk) 09:17, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking that I was going to eventually convert the list of random observations into a chart comparing what does/doesn't work on the app/mobile view/desktop view and written paragraphs reflecting on my overall experiences. There's an actual video I keep meaning to upload to Commons for the video section too. It shows how I interact with the app in general and how some things aren't nessecarily inituitive in a way that the screeenshots don't completely provide. I also plan to include stuff about my interactions with MMiller (WMF) and JTanner (WMF). There's a massive thread on my talk page that goes into all that. I've been pleasantly surprised for the most part and optimistic that they were willing to listen to my concerns, even if there's still some things I'm wary of. I'd want to give this a bit more time just to see where things go with the issues I've identified too, because it seems like people are working on resolving them. So, yeah, obviously all of this is still a work in progress. I was just making sure that this would be something that the Signpost would be interested in, y'know? Clovermoss (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, @Clovermoss! I've actually been eyeing that essay for a while. We'd be happy to accept this in a future issue. If you want it for September, the deadline is in a week, but no rush at all, as any time works great. Cheers, 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 00:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
@EpicPupper: I'll see what I can do, but it's very likely I'll need the extra month. It's interesting you've been eyeing the essay for awhile... out of curiousity, when did you find out about it? Clovermoss (talk) 00:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
@EpicPupper: I just wanted to say that I'm definitely going to need the extra month at least. There's still a lot I have in mind and as I said, I don't want to rush it. Clovermoss (talk) 11:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
When we run this, we should be sure to cross reference Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-04-26/Opinion#Mobile Wikipedia: Core design principles forsaken ☆ Bri (talk) 02:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
@Bri: Thanks for digging that up from the archives! It actually expresses some of what I wanted to say, I'll think I'll quote some of it. I think it's important to bring up that I'm not the only one whose looked into the functionality of mobile editing, even if I feel like I've been especially thorough with how the app works. Clovermoss (talk) 04:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We've submitted a piece for inclusion in News & Notes (or an appropriate page), with a new, copyedited version. I belive this has been approved by User:EpicPupper - please check. Based on the outcome of the appeal, and the results of a recent backlog drive, I will be submitting the article I mentioned last month, for inclusion in next month's issue to appear at the end of September. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC).

Candidates' video answers posted

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The WMF board candidates' video answers to six questions proposed and selected by the community have been posted on Meta-Wiki.

Written answers to additional community questions that were proposed but did not make it into the top six can be found here (so far, Legoktm is the only one who has provided answers on that page.) Andreas JN466 08:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Legoktm and Mike Peel are also the only ones that posted answers to my questions on the Signpost pages. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:03, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Complaining in a way that won't get me much sympathy.

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I'm kind of annoyed at how long Featured Content is taking to come together. But I'm also aware that, since I'm talking about the Featured content I'm prepping for the September issue, I'm not getting much sympathy. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 20:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

An old man once told me that you can find sympathy in the dictionary between sorry and syphilis. Thank you for your continued work bringing this material together for The Signpost. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Heh. Thank you! and I know I get things done ridiculously early. It's the only way I feel comfortable with doing major tasks. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 23:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Privacy issue at In the media

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I added a brief media item about the North Carolina Wikipedians. At least one of their members gave their RW name but wants to keep it separate from their on-wiki identity. I just didn't add any names to The Signpost. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Humour section

Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments4 people in discussion

See what you think. Thought I'd take a little blast out of the past. Hardly high humour, but it's newspaper comic humour. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 22:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I exhaled slightly stronger than usual, so it must be good. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Hey @Enterprisey! Great to see you popping around at The Signpost. We'd always appreciate more help - if you have some spare time, please let us know! Cheers, 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 01:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I have far too many things to do these days but would enjoy writing a tech report someday if my free time allows. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Well, always good to see contributors around! Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 04:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Just a quick note: If someone had plans for the Humour slot, I think we could always spin the comic to its own section. No reason it needs to block anyone. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 04:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  • It's late to mention this but I hope the fire was non-fatal. Using it as a topic of humor might be problematic, but especially if that is not the case. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
    @Bri: I suspect not, if I'm honest. Can always switch to the one for September if it's likely to be a problem, or I could switch image to File:Cole Thomas The Course of Empire Destruction 1836.jpg (which is, after all, entirely imaginary) Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 18:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Conor McGregor story in ITM

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@Smallbones: I seem to remember that en:WP has the most sophisticated bots and tools for dealing with vandalism (e.g. User:ClueBot and its descendants). Another factor might therefore be that es:WP has to do a lot more manually. I can't think off-hand of a Spanish editor I could ask. Andreas JN466 21:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

CommonsComix

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@EpicPupper and JPxG: Afraid I've gotten ahead of schedule again. Just save Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/CommonsComix for September. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 04:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

News and notes

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Fundraising emails

Something looks off to me ... the "from" address is not RFC 5322 compliant. The RFC requires a single sender or a comma separated list of senders. Are we sure this is right? ☆ Bri (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

That is what it looks like in the samples: e.g. [2] Andreas JN466 22:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
See also comments in this Medium post from a while back: "This one is so common that some people won’t consider it abuse at this point. But really, it’s an email from donate@wikimedia.org that tries to trick the user into thinking it’s from jimmy@wikipedia.org by putting that where a persons name is intended to go. Notice that in the inbox view, only jimmy@wikipedia.org is shown." --Andreas JN466 22:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Wow, this is really... not passing the sniff test.
From: "jimmy@wikipedia.org" donate@wikimedia.org
Header abuse? Disappointed in WMF. I considered adding something about "hijacking Jimmy's email" at NaN but I suppose it was done with his consent. Still, yuck. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
I started an RfC on these emails a few days ago at the Village Pump: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC_(WMF_fundraising_emails). Feedback there has been overwhelmingly negative so far, though this point about the address spoofing has not been picked up by anyone to date. Andreas JN466 11:16, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Andreas, I hate to say it, particularly where projects I work on depend enormously on the WMF's collaboration, but I have an inherent, firmly entrenched distrust of the WMF. This clearly shows in some of my articles in The Signpost from 4 years ago, and although my perspective has not changed, in an effort to garner their support for the volunteers, my future articles, while not full of praise, will be far more friendly towards them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/Next_FC#Featured_pictures

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments4 people in discussion

So, I have one third of the featured pictures this month. As such, I don't think I should choose what the lead and footer images should be. So, selecting ones of appropriate aspect ratio, and using letters for ones that have slight issues, here's the options. Vote for your favourites (as many as you want), top two will be lead and footer images. Though note that, if the top two are really similar, I'll do first and third or suchlike, so don't worry if you like, say, the Château de Saint-Ulrich and Marburger Schloss; just vote for both.

Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 03:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

If I had to pick my top three, I'd go... HMS Malabar, Marburger Schloos, and NGCs 2014/2020 in no specific order. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Indicated my top three with tick marks, is that OK? ☆ Bri (talk) 05:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Aye, it works. I'll total results just before this issue goes out to give people a chance to vote. You can vote for more than three if you like. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 15:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
2, 6, 7, 8 for me. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 06:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Well, as it stands, looking like A and my choice of a like 8-way tie Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 20:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Oh, no, wait. Celestine Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 20:30, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Special edition

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Copying a message to J:

I have an idea for this issue to be a special edition, titled “We Are Not A Statistic”. An overall trend I see with the reporting in this one is that the community is the movement’s greatest asset; throughout the voting process drama, the ITM stories, and so much more, it’s clear that the community is at the heart of it all. The front page could have a graphic designed with this phrase, with “WE” capitalized and filled in with pictures of contributors. I think this could work! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 06:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I like it! Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 15:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Is this what you're looking for? Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 
Smallbones

Bringing this up again...

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

What do you think of the way I did From the archives? Any ways to improve layout and readability? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 15:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden love it. 🥒 EpicPickle (they/them | talk) 18:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Me too. The callback to Scientific American is spot on. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

WPWP contest kerfuffle

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Might be worth keeping an eye on:

Part of the complaint seems to be that the WMF is giving a site-banned editor grant money. Andreas JN466 17:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Now continuing here: Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/Archive 5#Should the WMF have rules or policies for when banned users apply for or are part of the team that administers grants?
This is mostly about an editor who was site-banned in the Wikicology ArbCom case for a wide range of reasons mostly to do with dishonesty. Among other things, he misrepresented or invented sources, created a total of 14 (!) autobiographies on-wiki, and falsely claimed in his RfA to be a university lecturer (he subsequently apologised). He currently claims to be a nominee for the World Economic Forum's Young Global Leaders (a claim I've been unable to verify online) and wears, or has worn, many other Wikimedia hats. He managed the 2021 Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos contest; if I read the paperwork at m:Grants:Project/Wikipedia_Pages_Wanting_Photos_International_Team/2021_coordination/Final right, the WMF paid him $7,200 for that. He is involved as an advisor in this year's contest. @Bluerasberry: Can you make sense of this? Would value your opinion. Andreas JN466 21:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
These are just opinions based on incomplete information. My view may be misinformed! Jayen here is pinging me because I generally review grants and comment on funding for The Signpost, and not because I know this project. I am giving these comments as ethical suggestions to guide Signpost journalism.
  • Recommend de-emphasis on individual editors or the specific project grant in any stories on this topic
    • No criticism of small players No one involved in this has received enough money to merit being called out for anything except praise. We have different journalistic responses for big money, which we freely criticize for any reason, versus small money, which we should praise by default almost no matter what.
    • Any money to community members in underserved regions is well spent We are talking about less than $10,000 going to someone in Africa in the context of Africa meriting tens of millions of dollars as a region, but only receiving hundreds of thousands at most. The bigger problems are that almost no one in Africa makes valid applications for grants, and that it is essential that we as a movement start converting money to activity there. From the proposal at a glance, it seems apparent to me that even if somehow there were typical social barriers to funding this award, it has already resulted in better outcomes than what we normally get for this amount of money in the region. This award is already a better-than-average success story.
    • Our alternative is high cost foreign consultants If we sent and when we send Wikimedia Foundation staffers to Africa to do similar outreach, it would cost and does cost 10x as much to accomplish 1/10 as much. Those staffers would transgress rules more than the people on this project. Even with significant project problems, I favor funding local people for projects.
    • Grant application looks good What I look for in grants is 1) adequate proposal and 2) potential to do project reporting and 3) sufficient collaboration. Those things seem in place here.
  • Recommend focus on bigger, scalable social issues in journalism on this topic
    • disparities in sharing money Regional, global disparities in Wikimedia Movement funding allocations
    • essential digital tools for community organizing are lacking For a digitally native community project, it is problematic that Wikimedia Foundation staff award grants without publishing their awareness and acknowledgement that they give funds to teams with members whom the Wikimedia community has judged to merit blocks
    • WMF staff and community have conflicting values When there is a conflict like this one, Wikimedia Foundation staff are paid to defend their positions, while the Wikimedia community can only advocate for itself using volunteer labor and by violating the taboo of challenging Wikimedia Foundation staff decisions. At a glance, I do not think this project did harm, but I do think it merited a brief Wikimedia community review for the blocked user, and that has a volunteer labor cost which is at odds with the Wikimedia Foundation funding staff on the other side of the issue.
Bluerasberry (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Bluerasberry I really appreciate the time and thought you put into this. Much to digest here.
I am in two or three minds about all of this ... on the one hand, I really admire the man's drive and smarts. On the other, the track record of dishonesty is troubling; he may well leverage his demonstrable standing with Wikimedia in other ways.
At any rate, I agree with your recommendations as far as covering this here is concerned: not now, not with a focus on him. Best, Andreas JN466 09:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

News from Wiki Education

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There's a good story from Wiki Ed at https://wikiedu.org/blog/2022/08/25/18-years-a-wikipedian-what-it-means-to-me/ If nobody objects I'll add it in late tonight. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

WE Are Not A Statistic

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I've mocked up how the special issue this month could be displayed here! It's slightly broken on non-New Vector skins, but, uh, I guess we'll figure it out as we go! "WE" is capitalized and uses a picture of Wikimania 2019 to represent the broad range of Wikimedia contributors. The font used is Montserrat, the sans-serif font adopted by the Wikimedia movement.

"WE" also works great at making the point that while the Wikimedia Endowment is important for ensuring the servers stay online, the people (WE) are the Movement's greatest asset.

Here's some steps for implementation of this after publication:

  • Fix the image for skins
  • Add a note for attribution (CC BY SA 4.0)
  • Change "Issue" to "Special Issue"

Cheers! Please let me know your feedback. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 23:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

OK, I'm confused what this is all about, i.e. what special content do we have to go along with the label "Special issue"? If we don't have any special content, I don't think we can use the "Special" label. It would just be an empty ptomise - ruining our credibility. Maybe my 2nd point is minor, but what statistic or statistics are you complaining about? You say "WE are not a statistic" it looks like you're complaining about something - maybe about some statistic? All in all it looks much too vague. Can you be more specific about what you want to do beyond a slogan and a pretty graphic? Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm going to chip in and say labeling this a special issue is very misleading, since ... it's not a special issue. It's not even a thematic issue. The "pun" is OK, but the topic feels more appropriate for an editorial/op-ed/opinion piece than theming the issue after it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Mhm. Striking. 🥒 EpicPickle (they/them | talk) 01:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Copyedits

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I'm happy to copyedit anything marked as ready, but I'll need someone to copyedit Featured content, From the archives, and Humour. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 21:24, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: Could you check the highlight at From the archives? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
@Bri: Got it! Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 10:26, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

JPxG: craven loser who takes too long to set up Internet, or beleaguered hero who takes too long to set up Internet?

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Well, I am still using my phone to get online, and the cell reception still sucks up here, and I still don't have a decent place to set up my computer, so it's anyone's guess whether I will be contributing jack shit to this month's issue in terms of editing or writing. My hunch is "yes", although I expect I will still be busy basically all of tomorrow and most of Sunday. jp×g 08:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

By the way, not that we didn't all know this, but editing Wikipedia on a phone is awful, and the power-user sections are the worst of all: I can't even see the freaking deadline template right now. We (by which I probably mean I) ought to figure out some way to make the deadline template render on mobile. jp×g 08:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
@JPxG: Have you scrolled all the way down to the bottom and tapped "Desktop"? That shows desktop view on a mobile. Andreas JN466 08:58, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
That's what I do and I edit on iPad and Android phone extensively. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:30, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Okay, well, it's set up now. Boy, that was a pain! So much of a pain that I do not know if I'll be awake and ready to publish in eight hours. We may need another gesture of cowardice yet. jp×g 13:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Content guidance

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Okay, what is "On the Bright Side"? It's not detailed here. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 10:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

My understanding is that it's a feel good story. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Sounds almost Pythonesque but such stories do come over well amongst all the doom-and-gloom that otherwise gets written. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden: It's an older Signpost feature that was started by Pine. I used to colloborate with them on it. My understanding is that it has recently been revitalized by other editors. The basic concept is a summary of positive things that have been going on in the community lately but also life in general. Clovermoss (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The deadline has been changed, right?

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments5 people in discussion

@EpicPupper and JPxG: just double checking since EP changed it 2 days ago on the template (top of this page) but JPxG didn't seem to catch that. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:30, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

We agreed to the new date @Smallbones off wiki, yes :) 🥒 EpicPickle (they/them | talk) 18:26, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Why do we have two different deadlines in Template:Signpost/Deadline? On draft pages it says we are publishing 28 August. Here on this page it says 31 August. It is the 31st, right? Andreas JN466 20:01, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, this confusion is due to an artificial limitation of the template that should be fixed, see Template_talk:Signpost/Deadline#.22always_update_both.22. Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
The fix is to, as previously mentionned, update both lines. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:54, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Titles and blurbs

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I've taken the liberty of trying to get the remaining articles as close to publication as possible. This included writing titles and blurbs for "In the media" and the Traffic Report. I don't mean to step on anyone's toes. If it's your article, change them as you see fit.

This also means I'm done copyediting, at least until someone writes a "From the editors" or something. Which means anything left (my articles and the two I did titles for and fixed up) still need a copyeditor, and it's not going to be me this time, because I can't edit my own work. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 05:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Won't be me either, I'm swamped with life at the moment. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
When writing titles, please bear in mind that an ideal title will also work for a general audience in, say, Reddit, Hacker News, or other social media. There are some Signpost articles that will always be inside baseball and of zero interest to anyone who is not a Wikipedian, but things like ITM, some op-eds (like the one titled "Those thieving image farms" that we had in May), the Ukraine reports and so on can have crossover appeal, and we should try and maximise that appeal by having titles that work in those social media contexts. Many sites don't allow you to change the headline when you submit, or they add it automatically. --Andreas JN466 16:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Fair. Though, honestly, if we're going to maximise that, our titles should probably be "Featured Content: Title" or "Gallery: Title". Or at least have a little programming to set that as the title as shown to such contexts. (I think we could do that by manually setting the 1= at the top of each. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 17:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Well, it looks like the only page still needing copyediting is Featured Content, which is honestly a little annoying as it's been done and marked ready for copyediting the entire month, before any other article. (Not, like, annoyed at anyone in specific, More of an eyeroll kind of thing.) Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 08:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Nice work. Now done. I ran a spell-check in Word over the whole thing (little point in manually re-proofreading several thousand words of FA article leads) and proofread the intro and the image captions. Andreas JN466 11:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

On Featured content

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I'm starting to think that, with the number of them, FAs and FLs have too long of blurbs. Too late for this month, but how long do you think that a summary should be, ideally, noting there's usually around 30-50 of them per issue? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 15:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

It's tempting to think that we should not worry about article length since there is almost no technical limit. But if we want folks to actual read the majority of an article then we should try to understand what our readers are looking for. In part this depends on the "usual length" of our articles, but that has great limitations since almost any rule would have to have many exceptions. Most of all readers probably want a summary of the story, not a PhD thesis. Some folks are willing to spend 10-15 minutes on an article - but that's high for most newspapers. Nobody wants to spend an hour on an article. Some articles have distinct sections (e.g. ITM, NaN, FC) so readers can skip around and the articles can be longer. In general I think ITM tends to be just a bit long, NaN could often be longer. How about "one topic" articles e.g. opinion pieces, special reports. I'd tell people in the past to submit 600-1500 words. 600 words can at least introduce a not-too-complicated topic, but I'd often tell them after submission "great but the article would be better with a couple paragraphs on xxx". 1500 words is going to test the patence of many readers (but they can skim if they really want) I'd often tell folks who submitted these aericles, "Please cut down the sections on x, y, and z. It will make the article more readable. Special reports should have a great deal of detail, so might be longer than 1500 words. The 1st time I realized that we need some length limits was an interview I did with Katherine Maher. Between my long questions and her super-long answers to 12 questions, it was over 5,000 words. Clearly way too much. (read it if you don't understand).
So FC is one of those articles that you can skip around the many sections, but I'd recommend no more than 2,500 words. Try it next month and see if you like the result! The long and the short of it is that you should cut the entire text by two-thirds! (make the text one-third of the current size.) Try it, both you and your readers may like it better. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Here's some resources from The Guardian and How Long Does It Take to Read 1,000 Words?? Answer it depends of course, but for an average adult 3.3 minutes. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I think there's an implicit assumption here that you want every reader to read every bit of the content. What if, instead, it was over-provisioned so that people could pick and choose what interests them, and read that segment? Skimming preceding a deep dive, in other words. I think especially with the rich media content (images mostly) to guide attention, this is something worth considering. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
    There are, as I see it, several issues with FC: First of all, if people are interested, the links are right there so, in theory, we don't need much text, Secondly, and in contrast, FAs and,worse, FLs are often written in such a way that a clear statement of what they are and why they're important can be very difficult to extract. I'm not an expert on every subject, and trying to give a fair summary of, say, 1973 Billboard charts or the career of an Indonesian actress is genuinely hard. Thirdly, specially for FLs, they can be quite formulaic in structure (Every Billboard chart FL uses roughly the same opening, likewise World Heritage sites by countries, etc) Fourthly, I feel a duty to the writers of these articles to try to get people to read them, which means I want to make them sound interesting, which takes space. Fifthly, I do consider some articles not as interesting as others. My goal when writing FC is to make sure no-one knows which ones, and giving everything space enough to breathe helps with that.
    I'm considering trying for a DYK -style definition and interesting fact, but worry that might trivialise, say, Assyrian genocide.
    And, of course, more I cut down the bigger the job gets. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 17:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

A longer explanation

Sometimes a fairly short answer to a question doesn't quite make it. @Adam Cuerden and Bri:, I'm sorry if my answer above was too short and brusque. To really explain my take on "how long a Signpost article should be?" requires me to explain my vision for The Signpost as it has evolved and how different articles fit into that. One reason to hold back on that is that @Epic Pupper and JPxG: should be allowed to have their own vision of this and to make their own mistakes (guys, feel free to tell me to go to hell). I came into the EiC position knowing pretty much what I wanted. 15-20 articles each month in a professional journalism style, focusing on news (n&N and ITM), opinion and some long-form or magazine style reports and analysis (e,g, special reports). This would be complemented by "specialist topics" such as traffic report, tech reports, humour, Recent research. The first group should be of general interest and draw in the largest group of readers, who would be exposed to the specialist topics. Or maybe the specialist topics would collectively bring in more readers and expose them to what I considered to be the core topics. The problem was how to get there from where we were. I was terribly afraid that potential authors were passing us by because they might think we were a dying publication. Nobody wants to publish in a dying publication. So I concentrated writing the best articles I could in the core topics, and letting the specialized topics take care of themselves. It didn't really work trying to write all the "important" stuff by myself and I probably drove some good reporters away trying to do it. One lesson from all of this, to me, is trying to be happy and relaxed with what you can actually achieve. Well, I switched strategies to spending a lot of time asking people to contribute articles on topics that they know about. That worked a bit better but I was still trying to do too much, too much writing in particular, And the whole time the writers of the specialized topics continued to contribute to The Signpost. Thank you all. With little input from me you all did a great job while I floundered about at times. I've got no right, especially now, to tell you how and how much and what to write about. But since you asked ... I do think Adam is trying to do too much with the FC column.

The resources I gave above say that the "standard article" in good newspapers was 800 words. I remember some of that. It's amazing what you can pack into 800 words, especially when you are forced to prioritize. But different types of articles have different needs and limits. I've seen something recently about certain types of NY Times articles averaging 2000 words. We have a few list style articles, e.g. ITM which could easily go over that. They should be designed to be easily browsed or skimmed. But Adam asked about an 8,000 word article (with lots of photos too). That will take the average reader almost 30 minutes to read completely. So my advice is to simplify and shorten. Figure out some format that you can write in a reasonable time. If it's got to be just a title with link and one sentence for each FA and FL so be it. That's better than you not being able to write it, or your readers not being able to read it. Relax, enjoy the writing, and when in doubt make it shorter. Hope this helps. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@Smallbones: How does my work on the Next FC look so far? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 18:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

In the media - Paid editing scandal over paid advocacy scandal?

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Supposedly someone at a UK Parliament IP has been scrubbing a MP's bio for their involvement in a paid advocacy scandal that resulted in another MP's resignation. Daily Mirror is listed as questionable at WP:RSPS so I suggest we wait until next month for this one and see if more develops. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

    • @Bri: You know the old story about the retired fire horse answering the bell. Consider my bell rung. I'd like to try to write this up and put it right after the financial fraud section in ITM. I like writing on deadline, but feel free to help. The Chancellor position (finance minister) is #2 in the UK gov't. There's another source The Spectator which is much better than The Mirror. There's been 47 edits so far today, but only 1 from a Parliament IP (a real Dusenberg though), some contentious editing after. I can't tell the players without a scorecard. Tomorrow I'd love to see a section starting "Yesterday, an anonymous editor using a UK Parliament IP address, ..."
I better answer some questions in the section above first, though. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
The Spectator report (well done for finding) definitely puts it over the threshold. Andreas JN466 22:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
I had an EC with @Bri: and reverted his copy edit ("Conservative{ to "conservative") which is generally not a good idea! My reasoning for "Conservative" is that The Spectator has been the mouthpiece of the Conservative party since 1828. It's not their viewpoint as much as an age encrusted semi-official affiliation. Boris Johnson edited it for 5 years. Well feel free to replace "C" with "c* if I'm wrong. Bri is a better copy editor than I am. I've thought about adding 2 more pieces to the puzzle 1) about the material deleted, which is surprisingly complicated (e.g. UK "Paid Advocacy" vs, WP "Paid Advocacy") and maybe even 2) a tongue lashing for Parliament as a whole. It's getting too long, better to leave it out. Now I'll just wait and see if any other news on this comes out. Thanks Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Well done for describing the timeline in detail. Almost certainly a Joe Job. Andreas JN466 15:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I'd be skeptical of any explanation at this point, though "Joe job" is certainly up there. It sorta reminds me of the Whopper mini-scandal, which I believe might have involved some subject-media cooperation. But how would we prove it? In any case, I'm done with the story for now. I don't think there will be any follow-up in the UK press today, but I might check back in a few hours. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
The "TLDR News UK" Twitter account does follow the @parliamentedits Twitterbot, which tweets all Wikipedia edits made from the Houses of Parliament (by the way, the other three edits yesterday were about footballers; these and the Kwarteng edit were the first Parliament edits in a week). So it's conceivable they might have seen the tweet and taken it from there. Anyway, I agree we can't prove it.
One thing's for sure though: things have reached a point where, given access to the Houses of Parliament IP address, anyone could make any politician look bad by deleting a random bit of unflattering material from their bio, especially if they pick the right moment to do it. The resulting news story writes itself. Andreas JN466 19:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

WMF effort on Facebook

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

[3] Quite nicely done; I incorporated a couple of items (WLM, Scots WP "writin drive") in N&N's Brief notes. I like the links to podcasts and videos – no time to check any of them out now, but a nice idea. --Andreas JN466 07:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Ten hours to go

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion

If all has gone well, I have succeeded in setting myself up with a stable Internet connection. We will see how it fares tomorrow morning -- I'll be here to run the issue. There might not be time for illustrations. Anyway, I am going to bed, and I'll be here to publish. jp×g 13:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I grabbed an Essay because there's no reason not to have one. It's one that'll stir debate, at the least, without being too inflammatory. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 18:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Update: as I suspected may be the case, the Internet connection is absolute crap during the daytime. I guess I will go walk around carrying the router and see if I can get it to come in better (I have no idea what happens if you run the publishing script with an intermittent connection, but my guess is that it is "bad" and "breaks everything"). jp×g 19:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
    Good luck, mate! Andreas JN466 19:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Archive_27&oldid=1184171925"