![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | → | Archive 35 |
@wikisignpost has a pinned tweet from 2016. Surely this can be unpinned. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 06:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Anyway, on that note, maybe we should have a different cover image. Here is a table of my analysis.
Type of org | Header image | |
---|---|---|
https://twitter.com/nytimes | Newspaper of record | Logotype |
https://twitter.com/nytimes | Newspaper of record | Minimal drawing of a famous sculpture outside the NYSE, drawn in the WSJ's signature in-house style |
https://twitter.com/derspiegel | Newspaper of record | A logotype and tagline "journalism for the future" in German |
https://twitter.com/lemondefr | Newspaper of record | Photo of an artist drawing a picture of some person (I don't know who they are because I'm not French) |
https://twitter.com/NRO | Fancy-ass magazine | Logotype |
https://twitter.com/TheAtlantic | Fancy-ass magazine | Logotype |
https://twitter.com/NewYorker | Fancy-ass magazine | Logotype |
https://twitter.com/Harpers | Fancy-ass magazine | Logotype |
https://twitter.com/freep | Local news | Really nice photo of the Detroit skyline |
https://twitter.com/chicagotribune | Local news | Really nice photo of the Chicago skyline |
https://twitter.com/sacbee_news | Local news | Really nice aerial photo of Sacramento |
https://twitter.com/sfchronicle | Local news | Remarkably shitty photo of the Golden Gate Bridge |
https://twitter.com/CNN | Cable news | Advertisement shilling some program on their network |
https://twitter.com/voxdotcom | Moderately online, digital-first | Very cool-looking art depicting the subject matter of the publication (drawn in their distinct visual style using their signature colors) |
https://twitter.com/dailydot | Extremely online, digital-first | Advertisement shilling some series on their site (or a podcast or something, idk) |
https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedNews | Extremely online, digital-first | Advertisement shilling a... series of BuzzFeed News branded stationery items (we all know times have been tough over there) |
As far as I can tell, the thing every fancy-ass paper does is they use a fancy-ass version of their logotype for the header image. Local news uses a photo of the city's skyline. Some publications which already have a well established signature in-house design style use high quality art drawn in that style. This gives us the option of "establish a signature in-house design style and become high-quality artists", "take a long-exposure nighttime photo of the Wikipedia skyline", or "our logotype". jp× g 07:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
The publishing script didn't mess up too bad, I don't think -- the only thing that didn't go through was trying to add the "next" links in articles from last month. Although the prep for this issue did take about an hour longer than it had to, because my Internet is not very good. Oh well. I managed to get images put together for everything, which I will put on the main page. Someone else can dick around here and archive the rest of the threads from this month (just do it manually, though -- we still haven't cleaned up the mess from the last couple months of OneClickArchiver). jp× g 00:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Andreas, are you going to do the mailing list post(s) again this month? (FWIW, I continue to think it would be best to use a/the "official" Signpost email address for this. But I'm not sure if EpicPupper or anyone else has sorted out the access issue yet.)
I forgot to mention last time that we have a nice pre-generated output for these, ready for copying and pasting.
Regards, HaeB ( talk) 01:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Click here to win a FREE iPod!
Click here to see who's been postin' about the issue. jp× g 07:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
If this is true, it would seem that a BADSITE has broken a BIGSTORY. What could this mean? jp× g 08:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Most of the duscussiob is here. I've only spent an hour or so, looking thru this but it looks quite overblown. A WMF employee in quality assurance made some test changes to article short descriptions (not seen by readers?) and reverted them in a couple of minutes. It's not paid editing per policy, the discussion started with a block, the block to me looks like it could have been avoided just by asking the editor what he was doing. There are a lot of folks describing the block and the extensive discussion as a "collective climbing of the Reichstag". It would take a lot of work to check out all of this, but right now it just looks overblown. Smallbones( smalltalk) 17:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
May be best to check the section on Trump in the 5 years ago section. I don't think it's controversial to quote our own coverage, but I still remember Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel_and_others, where we lost an EiC over an April Fools' joke about Trump and Wales entering the Ameri an election. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 19:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
If someone's up to helping, there's 50 articles/lists to summarise, and I've done about two-thirds. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 13:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
This: Decentralized Fundraising, Centralized Distribution report was just announced on the mailing list and would make a great "Special report" for the next issue. I've asked User:Nicola_Zeuner_(WMDE) for permission to reproduce the content of the Meta page in the Signpost. -- Andreas JN 466 12:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
I can't say what a terrible idea I think this is - both the recommendations in the PDF from the German chapter (which represents only people living in the country, not all German speakers) and the idea that we should put the recommendation forward as something reasonable for Wikipedians to discuss. In the last couple of issues The Signpost has had 3 articles or major article sections editorializing against fundraising by the WMF. Are we all really comfortable engaging in a campaign against WMF fundraising?
The German country chapter goes well beyond this. It is recommending (despite a proforma denial that they are making recommendations) that the whole structure of the Wikipedia movement be changed. As I read the recommendation, it would result in the WMF becoming a mere secretariat answering to a council of country chapters, which would almost surely be controlled by the few country chapters that can raise a surplus of cash from within their borders (including using online banners). It looks to me something like a proposed takeover of the WMF by at most 6 country chapters. I doubt that most of these country chapters are actually interested in doing that, and that complete chaos would ensue.
If the EiCs are interested in publishing something from the German chapter, I recommend that the EiCs ask the German Chapter to rewrite their Signpost article to concentrate on their actual recommendation. Right now there are only a couple hundred words on the actual recommendation. I'd also like to respond in a pro-con type article. I can give them a good draft to consider a week before publication. I wouldn't need to see their Signpost draft since I have the recommendation pdf. Smallbones( smalltalk) 16:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
@ EpicPupper and JPxG: Do I need to keep mentioning this here? It's kind of a thing I do as part of my workflow, so I have time to get in and revise, so it's going to be every month. This month, it's the CommonsComix, From the Archives and - most likely before the end of the month - Featured Content that are marked as postponed that are me getting ahead on next month, and just need kept for next month's publication.
Rather proud of the one for CommonsComix.
Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 19:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
I guess we might have an article about how people edited about the Queen's death and about her successor? A lot of debates at Talk:Charles III right now (including about the page's title and the infobox picture). wizzito | say hello! 21:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
I've never heard this term on-wiki. Has anybody else? Now it's a lead term at ITM. ☆ Bri ( talk) 16:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
A French report says traffic on Wikipedia, across all language versions, more than doubled as a result of the Queen's death, citing a tweet by Dario Taraborelli. -- Andreas JN 466 18:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
The Nieman Lab article (ITM) contains a little gem: Anton Protsiuk, programs coordinator at Wikimedia Ukraine, said that the Russian authorities have been fairly unsuccessful in promoting their point of view on Wikipedia, and that Russian-language Wikipedia has been largely neutral in terms of describing the war. Surely there is a certain lack of self-awareness here? Needless to say, that is the one bit OpIndia seizes upon in their copycat piece (which we'd have to have specifically whitelisted for the page, if we want to link to it in ITM). Thoughts?
Also note that the piece was only reproduced on Nieman Lab; it was first published here: https://restofworld.org/2022/russias-6-month-war-on-wikipedia/ so we should give the original URL as well. -- Andreas JN 466 18:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Really like this one. I'd say let's reach out to Barnards.tar.gz and we have a rather intriguing essay for the next issue. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 18:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Well, this is funny. -- Andreas JN 466 23:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't aspire to be an “overview.” I don't know why people keep saying this. It aspires to be the only place people get their information about anything, and it's been very successful at being that." –– FormalDude (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @ Adam Cuerden: This *may* be key to the ITM section. Can we trace where that attribution came from? If it is from the original uploader then we're finished. If we can't do that somebody might say we're trying to out somebody - and that we might even be helping a Joe jobber. I have to remove your additions until I can verify the attribution. Smallbones( smalltalk) 04:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
There's also https://mobile.twitter.com/jj_mccullough/status/1210625226184089600 Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 11:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
WereSpielChequers asked me to drop a note here regarding this, as there was some talk about being concerned that discussing me in conjunction with this in the Signpost might be seen as doxxing me. I just wanted to say that I have no problem being discussed here. I've not watched the video, and don't intend to (I have better things to do with my time than watch someone moan about this project); consequently, I don't know exactly what it says about me, beyond what I've heard reported elsewhere. But I can't imagine that there's anything to be discussed that I wouldn't want aired publicly. The only aspect of my life I tend to play close to the vest (outside of personal discussion among friends) is my politics, and that's largely due to considerations of my job more than anything else. I hope that covers the concern - if not, please let me know what else you might need from me. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 20:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
[J.J. McCullough] seems to be trying to replace Larry Sanger as Wikipedians' most disliked commentator with a 22-minute YouTube video titled "Why I hate Wikipedia (and you should too!)
I was amused to see that J. J. seemed to criticize the golf entry as an example of one of those collections of rambling, disorganized wiki-content. I re-wrote much of the article in 2009 when I was 15. Schierbecker ( talk) 05:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Michael was not particularly active on the English Wikipedia, but has taken many photos which illustrate our articles. Thought it might be nice to include some this month in some fashion. I've gone through his Commons Featured Pictures, and here are some which are in use on enwp:
See also this WMF blog post about him from 2013 and notice of his passing on Commons. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps to save for end of the year issue like last year's Arbcom in 2021? User:Maxim/ArbCom and desysops hasn't had any new entries in 2022, a first since it was started in 2010. ☆ Bri ( talk) 16:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
NPR aired a story about folks editing Queen Elizabeth's Wikipedia article after her death. The link is here but the story hasn't been posted yet as they usually post full segments after NPR's program has aired, so it'll probably be up tomorrow. Liz Read! Talk! 00:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
We should collectively decide how to approach this RfA. It might end up being decided via 'crat chat. Some comments have come up about the candidate's participation at a Wikipedia criticism site. Is that worth discussing in our pages? The RfA will close about 10 days before our writing deadline, so maybe we just wait and see what happens for now. ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
[T]he current "all or nothing" is a symptom of increased standards and "perfect" candidates rather than a suggestion that this problem is not currently an issue at RfA.It was kind of my take too, we've had an unusual run of near unanimous or actually unanimous RfAs, which is not normal looking back. ☆ Bri ( talk) 02:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
LTA, NPOV, COI, UPEit might be more readable for the less versed in our Wiki-arcana. ☆ Bri ( talk) 18:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Just had a quick scan of the 'crat chat and ... wow. 7–4 split by the 'crats, resulting in promotion.
Extended content
|
---|
Consensus
No consensus
|
I don't think I have ever seen anything like that discussion. Do the bureaucrats agree on what the discretionary range is? One of them said we have no consensus to promote but ... we should promote
(emphasis in the original). I'm just ... wow. ☆
Bri (
talk)
00:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
That isn't how I read the cratchat - for starters the 7/4 figure you quote was before Nihonjoe and I made it 9/4. Cecropia, Dweller and Xaosflux then all indicated that though they didn't see consensus to promote in the RFA they agreed that the crat chat should be closed that way. So if you want the raw numbers 9 crats read the RFA as concensus to promote and 5 didn't, four recused or abstained and three didn't participate, including two who haven't edited in several months. 9 to 5 is not a close result, especially with 3 of those 5 agreeing that the cratchat should close as a success. There was discussion in 2019 about moving the cratchats to a consensus model. That discussion was prompted by some narrow majorities. People interested in pursuing such a change may wish to revisit Wikipedia_talk:Bureaucrat_discussion#Improving bureaucrat discussions. But it would have the effect of at least partially reversing the community decision to change the discretionary zone from 70-75% to 65-75%. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
the RfA did not have consensus, [but] this CratChat clearly doesI think it’s reasonable for a seasoned 'Pedian to say “huh?" and I can’t even imagine the mind of someone new to all this who expects a plain yes-or-no to the question "was there consensus to make this individual an admin or not?" ☆ Bri ( talk) 02:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Member states of the World Sports Alliance appears to be a hoax/scam article running since April 29, 2009 (and still going) making it the 21st longest running hoax. There's quite a few complications, so I'm just writing this to set it down in writing the first time and get some feedback.
Asa Saint Claire was sentenced last week to 42 months in federal prison plus 3 years supervision for scamming $600,000+ from investors [4] which mirrors the conviction report [5], which call it his organization.
There are no real sources in the article. Footnotes are mostly explanations. Sources are more like "See also". There was also an article Word Sports Alliance [6] which was quickly deleted the first time on March 16 2009, and twice later (2013, 2017) via speedy deletions (2009, 2017) and a prod (2013). User talk:World sports alliance made 2 edited and was blocked for spamming, and edits disappeared the same day [7]
It's doubtful that the cryptocurrency scam was the purpose back in 2009 (Bitcoin only really got started about 2010). Part of me says "AGF" thinking that he couldn't have started this as a scam/hoax that far back - maybe it was just "wishful thinking" on his part. But when somebody gets convicted and thrown in a federal prison, it's hard to assume good faith. There is an existing website for the "organization" (did it ever have any real documented existence?) at [8] which seems to be a sporys/charity site (with no links to anything credible) but some links get info cryptoscam territory [9]. Ultimately it's impossible for me to say that the organization even exists. other than their own say-so and the US Courts which only associate it with Saint Claire.
So do we have a hoax, a Wiki scam, or a criminal act? Or all 3? Any suggestions on how to clarify this? Smallbones( smalltalk) 00:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
We are definitely going to submit the promised article in time for your formatting for the upcoming issue. The best column for it would be "In Focus', could you reserve that slot for it please? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 12:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm a little behind this month, and could use some help with the Featured Lists as I've not been feeling that well Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 16:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
@ JPxG and EpicPupper: Just wanted to confirm that we are going with the September 30 date that Headbomb had put in provisionally [10]. (Generally speaking I think we should stick with the last Sunday of the month as our established custom. But this month, next week Friday works for me personally too.) Regards, HaeB ( talk) 02:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Shani and Mike. [11] -- Andreas JN 466 07:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
On the 19th, POTD was Queen Elizabeth. TFA was Elizabeth II, and, much to both I (POTD co-ordinator) and Wehwalt (TFA co-ordinator)'s surprise, DYK was an Elizabeth II special.
I knew TFA might go Elizabeth II when I started the process, but didn't know for sure until a lot of work had been done. I think Wehwalt learned when I told him. We both learned about DYK on the day, as far as I'm aware.
This has started one of those Talk:Main Page threads that go on at... great length. This one happened one section under the discussion of whether we should rush procedure to allow an Elizabeth II POTD, which mentioned the TFA.
I don't want to deny people's feelings on the matter. If they feel it was too much attention to Elizabeth II, that's fair. One person suggested the POTD discussion should have also been linked from the Village Pump. Which is probably the most actionable thing in that whole discussion, and fair.
At the same time, it's one of those discussions that get quite nasty. While I get that people may have been caught unawares, there was literally no opposition until the day of, every discussion up to then was enthusiastically in favour, so acting as if the people organising the Main Page should have known better, or as if no attempt was made to tell them is a bit counterfactual. It's also the case that themed main pages, outside of the occasional holidays, come about maybe every few years. A two-week turnover time from death to funeral date was about the minimum such things could possibly have been done in - and, well, in the absence of the extreme pageantry (and accompanying shutdown of the country) found in a state funeral, there's not much point. Point being: The circumstances that allowed it to happen at all are unique enough that I'm not sure there's any lessons to learn that will ever apply again.
There might be a story here, but I probably shouldn't be the one to write it. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 19:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Also, probably should note I'm at 595 featured pictures at the moment - really, a bit higher, as I include only ones I had substantial input into restoring and preparing, not ones that I just nominated or don't feel I did enough (I also have halves in the count) - There's currently two up at WP:FPC (with four votes each, one short of quorum), and a couple more I'm holding off on nominating until the ones in the queue are passing. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 19:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Maybe worth including in the list:
XOR'easter ( talk) 21:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Also, OpIndia has opinions on this: [12]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 18:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
In Focus has now been fully populated and is ready for CE (shouldn't need much), and E-in-C's approval. (FYI MB & Novem Linguae) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
@ Bri: Need your advice please. When you and I were running The Signpost a few years ago, I seem to recall some complaints that articles were not sourced. On the other hand, our predecessors sometimes stripped sources out and admittedly, traditional newspaper articles are not cluttered with refs and footnotes. The NPP team's article is extensively referenced in order to avoid suggestions that the content is made up or, the usual complaint that it is taken out if context. If you have a moment, please let me know what the current Signpost policy is on displaying sources. We have no objections to leaving them out and the article would look nicer. If readers require them, they can always be cited in answers to post-publication comments. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 21:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I happened to note today that Katherine now serves on the US Department of State’s Foreign Affairs Policy Board. (I've mentioned this in passing in ITM.) -- Andreas JN 466 14:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello! I'm a Developer Advocate with the Technical Engagement team and would like to announce the call for Coolest Tool Award nominations similar to the entry we have here(under | Brief Notes) for previous editions. I made a request on the talkpage | here 2 days ago, but I'm not sure if that's all I need to do. Can we have the above announcement made as part of this coming publication? SSapaty (WMF) ( talk) 12:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Do we want to tweak the publishing time? It's currently set to 2000 UTC = 1:00 PM my time, US West Coast / late afternoon East Coast on a work day for most people. ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
“ | The Melon Music Award for Song of the Year is an award presented by Kakao M at the annual Melon Music Awards, using data from Melon's streaming service to present awards to artists who have had exceptional performance during the year. Since 2009, the Song of the Year category has comprised one of the ceremony's daesang (grand prize) awards, alongside Album of the Year, Artist of the Year, and later Record of the Year (the latter was presented for the first time during the 2018 ceremony). | ” |
The deletion report reads a little different than usual. There's a note on the article list page stating it could be an Opinion, which seems more appropriate to me. I'm going to boldly do this in just a few minutes if somebody doesn't pipe up to the contrary. ☆ Bri ( talk) 20:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
If there really are 4 hours to go before publishing deadline, then I may be able to finish up the writing part of In the Media. For now, I'll concentrate on the major stories, but can get to the brief within 2 hours. I'll likely be able to get to the obit as well - though I hate to rush an obit.
I did check most of the articles last night (bad habit, I know) and, except for one, all look ok or better *CE needed of course* The exception is the Special report. As written, I don't think it meets our minimum standards for articles; certainly not for a Special report.
Real life has intruded, and I'll likely be off-Wiki for the next 3 months, or at least off-Signpost. Nothing serious, but some things just take time to do. @ Bri, WereSpielChequers, JPxG, Jayen466, and EpicPupper:
Smallbones( smalltalk) 19:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
@ EpicPupper and JPxG: Let me know if there's anything I can help with. I'll be back to check in 2-3 hours. I decided that I can do the obit next month. Smallbones( smalltalk) 22:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I really dropped the ball on this one, but perhaps the final hour can be our finest hour. LFG, ladies and gents. jp× g 23:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | → | Archive 35 |
@wikisignpost has a pinned tweet from 2016. Surely this can be unpinned. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 06:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Anyway, on that note, maybe we should have a different cover image. Here is a table of my analysis.
Type of org | Header image | |
---|---|---|
https://twitter.com/nytimes | Newspaper of record | Logotype |
https://twitter.com/nytimes | Newspaper of record | Minimal drawing of a famous sculpture outside the NYSE, drawn in the WSJ's signature in-house style |
https://twitter.com/derspiegel | Newspaper of record | A logotype and tagline "journalism for the future" in German |
https://twitter.com/lemondefr | Newspaper of record | Photo of an artist drawing a picture of some person (I don't know who they are because I'm not French) |
https://twitter.com/NRO | Fancy-ass magazine | Logotype |
https://twitter.com/TheAtlantic | Fancy-ass magazine | Logotype |
https://twitter.com/NewYorker | Fancy-ass magazine | Logotype |
https://twitter.com/Harpers | Fancy-ass magazine | Logotype |
https://twitter.com/freep | Local news | Really nice photo of the Detroit skyline |
https://twitter.com/chicagotribune | Local news | Really nice photo of the Chicago skyline |
https://twitter.com/sacbee_news | Local news | Really nice aerial photo of Sacramento |
https://twitter.com/sfchronicle | Local news | Remarkably shitty photo of the Golden Gate Bridge |
https://twitter.com/CNN | Cable news | Advertisement shilling some program on their network |
https://twitter.com/voxdotcom | Moderately online, digital-first | Very cool-looking art depicting the subject matter of the publication (drawn in their distinct visual style using their signature colors) |
https://twitter.com/dailydot | Extremely online, digital-first | Advertisement shilling some series on their site (or a podcast or something, idk) |
https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedNews | Extremely online, digital-first | Advertisement shilling a... series of BuzzFeed News branded stationery items (we all know times have been tough over there) |
As far as I can tell, the thing every fancy-ass paper does is they use a fancy-ass version of their logotype for the header image. Local news uses a photo of the city's skyline. Some publications which already have a well established signature in-house design style use high quality art drawn in that style. This gives us the option of "establish a signature in-house design style and become high-quality artists", "take a long-exposure nighttime photo of the Wikipedia skyline", or "our logotype". jp× g 07:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
The publishing script didn't mess up too bad, I don't think -- the only thing that didn't go through was trying to add the "next" links in articles from last month. Although the prep for this issue did take about an hour longer than it had to, because my Internet is not very good. Oh well. I managed to get images put together for everything, which I will put on the main page. Someone else can dick around here and archive the rest of the threads from this month (just do it manually, though -- we still haven't cleaned up the mess from the last couple months of OneClickArchiver). jp× g 00:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Andreas, are you going to do the mailing list post(s) again this month? (FWIW, I continue to think it would be best to use a/the "official" Signpost email address for this. But I'm not sure if EpicPupper or anyone else has sorted out the access issue yet.)
I forgot to mention last time that we have a nice pre-generated output for these, ready for copying and pasting.
Regards, HaeB ( talk) 01:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Click here to win a FREE iPod!
Click here to see who's been postin' about the issue. jp× g 07:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
If this is true, it would seem that a BADSITE has broken a BIGSTORY. What could this mean? jp× g 08:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Most of the duscussiob is here. I've only spent an hour or so, looking thru this but it looks quite overblown. A WMF employee in quality assurance made some test changes to article short descriptions (not seen by readers?) and reverted them in a couple of minutes. It's not paid editing per policy, the discussion started with a block, the block to me looks like it could have been avoided just by asking the editor what he was doing. There are a lot of folks describing the block and the extensive discussion as a "collective climbing of the Reichstag". It would take a lot of work to check out all of this, but right now it just looks overblown. Smallbones( smalltalk) 17:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
May be best to check the section on Trump in the 5 years ago section. I don't think it's controversial to quote our own coverage, but I still remember Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel_and_others, where we lost an EiC over an April Fools' joke about Trump and Wales entering the Ameri an election. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 19:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
If someone's up to helping, there's 50 articles/lists to summarise, and I've done about two-thirds. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 13:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
This: Decentralized Fundraising, Centralized Distribution report was just announced on the mailing list and would make a great "Special report" for the next issue. I've asked User:Nicola_Zeuner_(WMDE) for permission to reproduce the content of the Meta page in the Signpost. -- Andreas JN 466 12:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
I can't say what a terrible idea I think this is - both the recommendations in the PDF from the German chapter (which represents only people living in the country, not all German speakers) and the idea that we should put the recommendation forward as something reasonable for Wikipedians to discuss. In the last couple of issues The Signpost has had 3 articles or major article sections editorializing against fundraising by the WMF. Are we all really comfortable engaging in a campaign against WMF fundraising?
The German country chapter goes well beyond this. It is recommending (despite a proforma denial that they are making recommendations) that the whole structure of the Wikipedia movement be changed. As I read the recommendation, it would result in the WMF becoming a mere secretariat answering to a council of country chapters, which would almost surely be controlled by the few country chapters that can raise a surplus of cash from within their borders (including using online banners). It looks to me something like a proposed takeover of the WMF by at most 6 country chapters. I doubt that most of these country chapters are actually interested in doing that, and that complete chaos would ensue.
If the EiCs are interested in publishing something from the German chapter, I recommend that the EiCs ask the German Chapter to rewrite their Signpost article to concentrate on their actual recommendation. Right now there are only a couple hundred words on the actual recommendation. I'd also like to respond in a pro-con type article. I can give them a good draft to consider a week before publication. I wouldn't need to see their Signpost draft since I have the recommendation pdf. Smallbones( smalltalk) 16:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
@ EpicPupper and JPxG: Do I need to keep mentioning this here? It's kind of a thing I do as part of my workflow, so I have time to get in and revise, so it's going to be every month. This month, it's the CommonsComix, From the Archives and - most likely before the end of the month - Featured Content that are marked as postponed that are me getting ahead on next month, and just need kept for next month's publication.
Rather proud of the one for CommonsComix.
Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 19:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
I guess we might have an article about how people edited about the Queen's death and about her successor? A lot of debates at Talk:Charles III right now (including about the page's title and the infobox picture). wizzito | say hello! 21:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
I've never heard this term on-wiki. Has anybody else? Now it's a lead term at ITM. ☆ Bri ( talk) 16:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
A French report says traffic on Wikipedia, across all language versions, more than doubled as a result of the Queen's death, citing a tweet by Dario Taraborelli. -- Andreas JN 466 18:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
The Nieman Lab article (ITM) contains a little gem: Anton Protsiuk, programs coordinator at Wikimedia Ukraine, said that the Russian authorities have been fairly unsuccessful in promoting their point of view on Wikipedia, and that Russian-language Wikipedia has been largely neutral in terms of describing the war. Surely there is a certain lack of self-awareness here? Needless to say, that is the one bit OpIndia seizes upon in their copycat piece (which we'd have to have specifically whitelisted for the page, if we want to link to it in ITM). Thoughts?
Also note that the piece was only reproduced on Nieman Lab; it was first published here: https://restofworld.org/2022/russias-6-month-war-on-wikipedia/ so we should give the original URL as well. -- Andreas JN 466 18:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Really like this one. I'd say let's reach out to Barnards.tar.gz and we have a rather intriguing essay for the next issue. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 18:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Well, this is funny. -- Andreas JN 466 23:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't aspire to be an “overview.” I don't know why people keep saying this. It aspires to be the only place people get their information about anything, and it's been very successful at being that." –– FormalDude (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @ Adam Cuerden: This *may* be key to the ITM section. Can we trace where that attribution came from? If it is from the original uploader then we're finished. If we can't do that somebody might say we're trying to out somebody - and that we might even be helping a Joe jobber. I have to remove your additions until I can verify the attribution. Smallbones( smalltalk) 04:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
There's also https://mobile.twitter.com/jj_mccullough/status/1210625226184089600 Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 11:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
WereSpielChequers asked me to drop a note here regarding this, as there was some talk about being concerned that discussing me in conjunction with this in the Signpost might be seen as doxxing me. I just wanted to say that I have no problem being discussed here. I've not watched the video, and don't intend to (I have better things to do with my time than watch someone moan about this project); consequently, I don't know exactly what it says about me, beyond what I've heard reported elsewhere. But I can't imagine that there's anything to be discussed that I wouldn't want aired publicly. The only aspect of my life I tend to play close to the vest (outside of personal discussion among friends) is my politics, and that's largely due to considerations of my job more than anything else. I hope that covers the concern - if not, please let me know what else you might need from me. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 20:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
[J.J. McCullough] seems to be trying to replace Larry Sanger as Wikipedians' most disliked commentator with a 22-minute YouTube video titled "Why I hate Wikipedia (and you should too!)
I was amused to see that J. J. seemed to criticize the golf entry as an example of one of those collections of rambling, disorganized wiki-content. I re-wrote much of the article in 2009 when I was 15. Schierbecker ( talk) 05:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Michael was not particularly active on the English Wikipedia, but has taken many photos which illustrate our articles. Thought it might be nice to include some this month in some fashion. I've gone through his Commons Featured Pictures, and here are some which are in use on enwp:
See also this WMF blog post about him from 2013 and notice of his passing on Commons. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps to save for end of the year issue like last year's Arbcom in 2021? User:Maxim/ArbCom and desysops hasn't had any new entries in 2022, a first since it was started in 2010. ☆ Bri ( talk) 16:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
NPR aired a story about folks editing Queen Elizabeth's Wikipedia article after her death. The link is here but the story hasn't been posted yet as they usually post full segments after NPR's program has aired, so it'll probably be up tomorrow. Liz Read! Talk! 00:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
We should collectively decide how to approach this RfA. It might end up being decided via 'crat chat. Some comments have come up about the candidate's participation at a Wikipedia criticism site. Is that worth discussing in our pages? The RfA will close about 10 days before our writing deadline, so maybe we just wait and see what happens for now. ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
[T]he current "all or nothing" is a symptom of increased standards and "perfect" candidates rather than a suggestion that this problem is not currently an issue at RfA.It was kind of my take too, we've had an unusual run of near unanimous or actually unanimous RfAs, which is not normal looking back. ☆ Bri ( talk) 02:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
LTA, NPOV, COI, UPEit might be more readable for the less versed in our Wiki-arcana. ☆ Bri ( talk) 18:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Just had a quick scan of the 'crat chat and ... wow. 7–4 split by the 'crats, resulting in promotion.
Extended content
|
---|
Consensus
No consensus
|
I don't think I have ever seen anything like that discussion. Do the bureaucrats agree on what the discretionary range is? One of them said we have no consensus to promote but ... we should promote
(emphasis in the original). I'm just ... wow. ☆
Bri (
talk)
00:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
That isn't how I read the cratchat - for starters the 7/4 figure you quote was before Nihonjoe and I made it 9/4. Cecropia, Dweller and Xaosflux then all indicated that though they didn't see consensus to promote in the RFA they agreed that the crat chat should be closed that way. So if you want the raw numbers 9 crats read the RFA as concensus to promote and 5 didn't, four recused or abstained and three didn't participate, including two who haven't edited in several months. 9 to 5 is not a close result, especially with 3 of those 5 agreeing that the cratchat should close as a success. There was discussion in 2019 about moving the cratchats to a consensus model. That discussion was prompted by some narrow majorities. People interested in pursuing such a change may wish to revisit Wikipedia_talk:Bureaucrat_discussion#Improving bureaucrat discussions. But it would have the effect of at least partially reversing the community decision to change the discretionary zone from 70-75% to 65-75%. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
the RfA did not have consensus, [but] this CratChat clearly doesI think it’s reasonable for a seasoned 'Pedian to say “huh?" and I can’t even imagine the mind of someone new to all this who expects a plain yes-or-no to the question "was there consensus to make this individual an admin or not?" ☆ Bri ( talk) 02:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Member states of the World Sports Alliance appears to be a hoax/scam article running since April 29, 2009 (and still going) making it the 21st longest running hoax. There's quite a few complications, so I'm just writing this to set it down in writing the first time and get some feedback.
Asa Saint Claire was sentenced last week to 42 months in federal prison plus 3 years supervision for scamming $600,000+ from investors [4] which mirrors the conviction report [5], which call it his organization.
There are no real sources in the article. Footnotes are mostly explanations. Sources are more like "See also". There was also an article Word Sports Alliance [6] which was quickly deleted the first time on March 16 2009, and twice later (2013, 2017) via speedy deletions (2009, 2017) and a prod (2013). User talk:World sports alliance made 2 edited and was blocked for spamming, and edits disappeared the same day [7]
It's doubtful that the cryptocurrency scam was the purpose back in 2009 (Bitcoin only really got started about 2010). Part of me says "AGF" thinking that he couldn't have started this as a scam/hoax that far back - maybe it was just "wishful thinking" on his part. But when somebody gets convicted and thrown in a federal prison, it's hard to assume good faith. There is an existing website for the "organization" (did it ever have any real documented existence?) at [8] which seems to be a sporys/charity site (with no links to anything credible) but some links get info cryptoscam territory [9]. Ultimately it's impossible for me to say that the organization even exists. other than their own say-so and the US Courts which only associate it with Saint Claire.
So do we have a hoax, a Wiki scam, or a criminal act? Or all 3? Any suggestions on how to clarify this? Smallbones( smalltalk) 00:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
We are definitely going to submit the promised article in time for your formatting for the upcoming issue. The best column for it would be "In Focus', could you reserve that slot for it please? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 12:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm a little behind this month, and could use some help with the Featured Lists as I've not been feeling that well Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 16:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
@ JPxG and EpicPupper: Just wanted to confirm that we are going with the September 30 date that Headbomb had put in provisionally [10]. (Generally speaking I think we should stick with the last Sunday of the month as our established custom. But this month, next week Friday works for me personally too.) Regards, HaeB ( talk) 02:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Shani and Mike. [11] -- Andreas JN 466 07:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
On the 19th, POTD was Queen Elizabeth. TFA was Elizabeth II, and, much to both I (POTD co-ordinator) and Wehwalt (TFA co-ordinator)'s surprise, DYK was an Elizabeth II special.
I knew TFA might go Elizabeth II when I started the process, but didn't know for sure until a lot of work had been done. I think Wehwalt learned when I told him. We both learned about DYK on the day, as far as I'm aware.
This has started one of those Talk:Main Page threads that go on at... great length. This one happened one section under the discussion of whether we should rush procedure to allow an Elizabeth II POTD, which mentioned the TFA.
I don't want to deny people's feelings on the matter. If they feel it was too much attention to Elizabeth II, that's fair. One person suggested the POTD discussion should have also been linked from the Village Pump. Which is probably the most actionable thing in that whole discussion, and fair.
At the same time, it's one of those discussions that get quite nasty. While I get that people may have been caught unawares, there was literally no opposition until the day of, every discussion up to then was enthusiastically in favour, so acting as if the people organising the Main Page should have known better, or as if no attempt was made to tell them is a bit counterfactual. It's also the case that themed main pages, outside of the occasional holidays, come about maybe every few years. A two-week turnover time from death to funeral date was about the minimum such things could possibly have been done in - and, well, in the absence of the extreme pageantry (and accompanying shutdown of the country) found in a state funeral, there's not much point. Point being: The circumstances that allowed it to happen at all are unique enough that I'm not sure there's any lessons to learn that will ever apply again.
There might be a story here, but I probably shouldn't be the one to write it. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 19:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Also, probably should note I'm at 595 featured pictures at the moment - really, a bit higher, as I include only ones I had substantial input into restoring and preparing, not ones that I just nominated or don't feel I did enough (I also have halves in the count) - There's currently two up at WP:FPC (with four votes each, one short of quorum), and a couple more I'm holding off on nominating until the ones in the queue are passing. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 19:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Maybe worth including in the list:
XOR'easter ( talk) 21:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Also, OpIndia has opinions on this: [12]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 18:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
In Focus has now been fully populated and is ready for CE (shouldn't need much), and E-in-C's approval. (FYI MB & Novem Linguae) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
@ Bri: Need your advice please. When you and I were running The Signpost a few years ago, I seem to recall some complaints that articles were not sourced. On the other hand, our predecessors sometimes stripped sources out and admittedly, traditional newspaper articles are not cluttered with refs and footnotes. The NPP team's article is extensively referenced in order to avoid suggestions that the content is made up or, the usual complaint that it is taken out if context. If you have a moment, please let me know what the current Signpost policy is on displaying sources. We have no objections to leaving them out and the article would look nicer. If readers require them, they can always be cited in answers to post-publication comments. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 21:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I happened to note today that Katherine now serves on the US Department of State’s Foreign Affairs Policy Board. (I've mentioned this in passing in ITM.) -- Andreas JN 466 14:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello! I'm a Developer Advocate with the Technical Engagement team and would like to announce the call for Coolest Tool Award nominations similar to the entry we have here(under | Brief Notes) for previous editions. I made a request on the talkpage | here 2 days ago, but I'm not sure if that's all I need to do. Can we have the above announcement made as part of this coming publication? SSapaty (WMF) ( talk) 12:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Do we want to tweak the publishing time? It's currently set to 2000 UTC = 1:00 PM my time, US West Coast / late afternoon East Coast on a work day for most people. ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
“ | The Melon Music Award for Song of the Year is an award presented by Kakao M at the annual Melon Music Awards, using data from Melon's streaming service to present awards to artists who have had exceptional performance during the year. Since 2009, the Song of the Year category has comprised one of the ceremony's daesang (grand prize) awards, alongside Album of the Year, Artist of the Year, and later Record of the Year (the latter was presented for the first time during the 2018 ceremony). | ” |
The deletion report reads a little different than usual. There's a note on the article list page stating it could be an Opinion, which seems more appropriate to me. I'm going to boldly do this in just a few minutes if somebody doesn't pipe up to the contrary. ☆ Bri ( talk) 20:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
If there really are 4 hours to go before publishing deadline, then I may be able to finish up the writing part of In the Media. For now, I'll concentrate on the major stories, but can get to the brief within 2 hours. I'll likely be able to get to the obit as well - though I hate to rush an obit.
I did check most of the articles last night (bad habit, I know) and, except for one, all look ok or better *CE needed of course* The exception is the Special report. As written, I don't think it meets our minimum standards for articles; certainly not for a Special report.
Real life has intruded, and I'll likely be off-Wiki for the next 3 months, or at least off-Signpost. Nothing serious, but some things just take time to do. @ Bri, WereSpielChequers, JPxG, Jayen466, and EpicPupper:
Smallbones( smalltalk) 19:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
@ EpicPupper and JPxG: Let me know if there's anything I can help with. I'll be back to check in 2-3 hours. I decided that I can do the obit next month. Smallbones( smalltalk) 22:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I really dropped the ball on this one, but perhaps the final hour can be our finest hour. LFG, ladies and gents. jp× g 23:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)