Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom

Next month - September

I won't be E-in-C any more, but I will be proposing a special report on NPP/NPR, how ACPERM has affected it, the new features in the New Pages Feed, the problems of finding enough active reviewers and getting the API up dated. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I may or may not be submitting this. It depends how I feel. And at the moment, I don't feel much like doing anything more for Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

It appears somebody set up us the writing deadline as September 28, which sounds good to me. There are a few regular articles that stand out:

• News and Notes: No permanent writer; this seems to be another time when we need all hands on deck as this is arguably the Signpost’s flagship column.
• Featured Content: Bri has been less active lately (see recent discussions). Eddie891 contributed to last issue's article.
• Arbitration Report: Bri — see above.

I might be able to pitch in on FC and AR if needed. If anyone has any updates, please add them below; it is greatly appreciated. In this time of transition the Signpost needs all the help it can get. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 23:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

9 days to the writing deadline. Are we publishing this month?  pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 14:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• pythoncoder: It doesn't seem that there's enough interest to have a publishable issue. We'll see. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Not again!  pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 15:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@Bri and Evad37: I'm standing by. It was my understanding this production had no shortage of article contributors. I would tend to want to push out a thin volume than nothing at all. Please let me know. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree that publishing something is better than nothing. Will reply further later today. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Blog is back

The blog licencing issue has been resolved, so we are once more able to republish posts. I would suggest the National Museum of Brazil preservation drive, unless something more interesting comes along. - Evad37 [talk] 02:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 12:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
• I'm fine with that article, too, and I'm glad that the licensing issue has been resolved, Evad37. I did notice what appears to be a typo in the article that is also extant in the blog, though. Should it be silently corrected, corrected with an invisible comment added about it, or kept verbatim with a {{sic}} wrapping the word? If corrected, should we note the minor change at the bottom? Given your experience with all this, your input is appreciated. I'm fine with any of the options. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 14:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  Addendum: I also noticed what appears to be a missing word; the same situation applies. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 14:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

European Union Article 13

Is anybody here feeling up to writing a special report on Article 13 and its impact on Wikipedia/Wikimedia? We started something back in the June issue In the media. Now that it's passed, probably a good opportunity to go into detail. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I included a quickie on this as a lead story in the upcoming News and notes feature. If anybody wants to contribute, we could use better laying out of the context, upcoming legislative/regulatory process, and (predicted) outcomes for Wikipedia and other online entities. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Issue status

Gathering input from contributors for issue 10. I'd like to keep it a September issue. I think we would prefer to include Tech Report, In the Media and Discussion Report, which have all been started. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

We can also include the "Blog", "Traffic report", "Humour", and "Essay" features, Bri, which are more or less ready for publication (pending review). Additionally, "Arbitration report" and "Gallery" can be included, though I have yet to touch them for the same reason that I haven't touched the ones you mentioned: |Ready-for-copyedit= is not set to yes, so it is unclear whether I should. I have no clue whether "Recent research" will be included this issue, but if any research is added to the page, we can include that as well.

Overall, assuming most of the latter are included, this may turn out to be a standard issue—at least in terms of features—with only "From the editor" and "Op-ed" missing for obvious reasons. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 19:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

"Recent research" is now publishable too if need be (I have left "Copyedit-done" unchecked so far, also because I understand that this step can happen in the time between the writing deadline and the publication deadline - but it would not be a dealbreaker here). Regarding "no clue", I had actually left the usual newsroom note last week; but always feel free to follow up in case something is unclear. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 23:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I apologize, Tbayer (WMF), I entirely forgot about that message. I simply checked the page and didn't bother to re-read the notes. You did nothing wrong here and I have no complaints or suggestions. It was just an embarrassing lapse on my part, which I will blame stress and sleep. Thanks for re-clueing me. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 00:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

That's good to know other sections on their way, but I was too terse ... I meant I was following up specifically with the eds for Tech Report, In the Media and Discussion Report because it's unclear if they will be finished in time for issue. Anyway, glad the usual suspects are on board! I'll have a little more time to pitch in Saturday AM (Pacific time). ☆ Bri (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for misunderstanding. In any case, today will almost certainly be the last day I will be available for this month's publication. If any further copy-editing is needed by the time you are available Saturday, I will probably not be here to help. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 02:25, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Calling @Megalibrarygirl, Barbara (WVS), and Bluerasberry: ... any other contributors, please copyedit the sections that are ready. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to mention: I'm still available to copy-edit as well, Bri. Technically this is still the last day for me, since I haven't ended it yet. I decided that I might as well stick around for however long it takes help finish whatever else is needed to be done (or at least try), since caffeine is abundant and sleep is more a postpublication activity, anyway. I've just waiting for the green light on the remaining articles to avoid being an edit conflict nuisance. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 18:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

As an update, Bri, I have now finished a full review of every feature for this month at least once, with the exception of the "From the archives" feature. I may reread them all a few more times, but the bulk of my editing appears to be done. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 21:32, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Nøkkenbuer and everyone else, thanks so much for your help on the issue. @Chris troutman: This looks like it's on a glidepath for publication Sunday mid-day or so (Pacific time) ... is this compatible with your schedule? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Trying my best to contribute. I have taken on a real-life-tech job and I am also working overtime. Glad to help but can't do much more. I will try and put in more effort for next month. You guys are great! Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 23:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Issue is shaping up well. We still need a couple of things copyedited, and From the archives appears to be incomplete. I really want to get this out with a September date, which means starting publication in the next ~6 hours. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Usually, "From the archives" is the easiest and first feature to be ready for publication, since it's just a copy-and-paste republication of a prior article with a couple sentences of preface. This month, however, it seems something different is being done. I am supportive of that and I am very interested about the result. However, as reluctant as I am to say it, we can postpone the current "From the archives" feature until next month and replace the current one with another quick copypaste, like was done last month with the "Gallery" feature. Doing so would allow more time to perfect the current article while also ensuring there is something complete to publish.

So long as the piece will definitely be done before publication deadline (which is about eight hours away), this suggestion is unnecessary. If not, though, then perhaps we should shift to postponing and replacing it. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@Bri: Standing by. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

We may just have to go to press without the FtA feature and save it for an upcoming issue. Haven't heard anything new from Barbara (WVS), assume she is tied up elsewhere. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I think that's it. @Chris troutman:, please light the Roman candle and hold it in your hand (publish issue 10) ☆ Bri (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Recent research

Jtmorgan, while verifying and reviewing the research in the "Recent research" feature, I noticed that "Stigmergic Coordination in Wikipedia" (PDF) was an article presented at OpenSym (and the article following the one you reviewed), which did seem to demonstrate some stigmergic behavior among Wikipedia editors. I am confident you are probably already aware of this, but is there any reason why this wasn't mentioned? Is it being saved for a future issue? If there was no reason for this omission, I can code it in as a brief mention in your review. Otherwise, this article might be worth mention in a future issue. Courtesy ping for Tbayer, as well. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 06:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

After some thought, and given how it will not be done any justice with just a brief mention, it is probably best to save this paper for another time if it is included at all. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 20:02, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Probably just as well that we don't have two items about stigmergic behavior in one issue. People would think we're on some kind of stealth vocabulary trip :) ☆ Bri (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

There is value in covering several related papers together in one issue (I just did so with five biography-related ones), but it's not obligatory ;)

Besides, in this case the two papers seem kind of complementary - the one Jtmorgan reviewed studies editor collaboration via talk pages, whereas the OpemSym paper studies cases of editor collaboration where talk pages are not used. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 04:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

If you want to include it, Tbayer (WMF) and everyone else, I'm fine with doing so. I can code it right now, too. (I discovered I have some more time today.) Alternatively, it can be published next month as a followup with a mention of coverage the prior month. I think it would best fit this month, but I understand the time constraints. If necessary, I can also write the section myself, assuming I have the time. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 12:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Here is a suggested summary section for everyone to consider, especially Bri and Tbayer (WMF):

On the matter of stigmergy, another paper presented at OpenSym 2018 titled "Stigmergic Coordination in Wikipedia" investigated evidence for just that. From the abstract: "Using a novel approach to identifying edits to the same part of a Wikipedia article, we show that a majority of edits to two example articles are not associated with discussion on the article Talk page, suggesting the possibility of stigmergic coordination. However, discussion does seem to be related to article quality, suggesting the limits to this approach to coordination."

Although the researchers only analyzed two articles, namely Abraham Lincoln and Business from the English Wikipedia, they concluded that "the data presented in this paper suggest that a substantial fraction of the edits made on Wikipedia are coordinated without explicit discussion on the Talk pages", which they hypothesize as representative of stigmergic coordination. In fact, it appears that the majority of edits analyzed demonstrated stigmergic behavior; although this may be obvious for minor edits and fixing vandalism, the stigmergy was apparent even in substantial edits. Moreover, due to the "overly strict operationalization" they used in gathering and analyzing the data, these analyses my be underestimating the reality of stigmergic editing in Wikipedia.

If this is acceptable and you recommend inclusion, I or another can insert it right below Jtmorgan's review as a tier-three addendum to it. I have no interest in being attributed, but unfortunately I suspect that will be necessary to avoid implying that it is part of Jtmorgan's review. Regardless, it is up to you. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 19:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Please include. I'll be requesting publication to start as soon as this is done. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I have added the section, whose title is simply the title of the paper, along with self-attribution. To conform to Headbomb's last-minute changes to the references, I have modified the reference code, as well. It's too late to discuss those changes and although I prefer the version prior to the changes, this is largely a difference in our respective citation styles and publication takes priority. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 19:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Headbomb, are you willing to elaborate on your rationale for your changes to the citations in "Recent research"? I ask because the prior versions were largely consistent with every "Recent research" feature since I began editing them, starting in June 2018's issue, due to this being how I fill out citations; the usage of {{open access}}, {{free access}}, and {{closed access}} predates my involvement. I prefer more detailed citations (and thus prefer mine), but if I better understand why you made these changes, then perhaps I will change how I edit the "Recent research" feature, as well. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 19:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Mostly, I got rid of identifiers that didn't pertain to the article itself, leaving those for Wikidata, made proper use of {{cite arxiv}} over {{cite journal}} when appropriated, got rid of redundancy of conference (it's obvious that the Proceedings of the 11th Foobar Conference was for the 11th Foobar Conference), and if you have |doi-access=free/|url-access=subscription, then it marks those specific link as free/closed access since appending {{free access}}/{{closed access}} is ambiguous about which links those cover. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, Headbomb. As you probably noticed, I tend to fill citation templates more extensively, which some have described as superfluous and redundant even if technically correct data entry. Given the edits you made, do you recommend against filling out parameters in citations unless the data are pertinent according to certain criteria? How many degrees of separation from X is do you think disqualifies a particular datum from inclusion? What is that X? For example, why did you decide to exclude |publisher=journal's publisher from the citations?

As for the access templates, I inferred that their inclusion was to indicate the access status when not immediately obvious, and to disambiguate free-access articles from open-access ones—the latter of which, to my understanding, is not possible with CS1 parameters, since |*-access=open is not valid. I was primarily following what appeared to have been implicit convention prior to my July-issue participation, however, so my rationale for using it may not reflect the prior intent. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 20:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC); edited at 20:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Basically, no style guide out there recommended/required including publishers for journals (unlike books, which is recommended/required to include the publisher). That information is fine in Wikidata, but it is very idiosyncratic to include that information in a journal citation. And you don't want |doi-access=open, you want |doi-access=free. See Help:Citation Style 1#Registration or subscription required for more details. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

It does not surprise me that external style guides generally do not, but Wikipedia's own style guide is rather "idiosyncratic"—or, at least, idiosyncretic—and so am I. I am not aware of any policy, guideline, or even essay that advises against (or elaborates on) including certain information in citations, either, especially not in a way that differentiates between citation types. The closest I find is brief help page commentary about certain data not being required or necessary, or being superfluous when well-known, all of which seems either permissive or post-hoc to me.

Consequently, I have been effectively treating the CS1 help page and template documentation as a de facto extension of the Manual of Style, at least until something like Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Citations is created; and have been following simple guidelines of my own, such as "fill the citation as extensively as you can per the guidelines to provide the most informative citation". I take it you advise against that. Is there any reason why beyond style guide conventions? This is increasingly becoming a more general discussion, so feel free to move this to either of our user talk pages if you want.

On access levels, I understand the parameter constraints and have used all the |*-access= parameters before multiple times. My point was, specifically, that open is not a valid parameter value for any of them, so consequently there is no way to differentiate between gratis (green padlock) and libre (orange padlock) access. Presently, CS1 templates only provide a generalized not-closed-access option; the only way to indicate whether a citation is sourcing a free-of-charge copy like author's copies (gratis) or a free-licensed (libre) work is through the external padlock template.

I ask these questions not to dispute the changes (your changes will be published), but to better understand your perspective as one of the editors most experienced and familiar with these matters. I have been largely formatting citations the way I have as a result of my own unchecked interpretations of the guidelines and documentation pages; thus, checking these interpretations with experts who seem to edit contrary to them may help me improve my editing both here and more generally. I would rather not be leaving citations in a very idiosyncratic (and idiosyncretic) style around the project that other editors will just reformat for that reason. In the mainspace, my citations have almost always stuck and almost always remained unchanged, but that may not say much. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 21:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Returned

Well, I have returned. What can I do around here? I'd volunteer to be editor-in-chief but I have zero idea what that entails. Jerod Lycett (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Info on EIC responsibilities and other job options can be found here: wp:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Coordination. Welcome back! — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 20:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Traffic Report

Alright I've got it just about done. Since this is my first time doing this column, can someone check my work? The main things I want feedback on:

• Did I do the title and blurb right? Are they up to standard?
• I removed numbers from the introductions and tables that referenced entries #11-#25 which obviously aren't included in this version. Should I be doing that? Did I do it cleanly enough? I didn't want to outright censor anything.
• What should I be doing for the pictures? Should I continue using the graphs (I assume they're graphs, I'd have to set aside time on a computer that doesn't have images blocked to be sure) or search Wikimedia for images that match the general theme?

Obviously I'd greatly appreciate any other feedback as well. Thanks! ♥Acorimori♦ 20:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

The most recent TR took out the graphs. (see WP:WPS) Other than that it looks fine to me but since I'm not the EiC I'm probably not the most discerning eye.  pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 12:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not a member of the Signpost team and have only copy-edited it for the last few or so issues, but it all seems fine to me. During my copy-edit review of the article (feel free to check the changes to see if they are acceptable), I did not come across any major problems, especially nothing that was significantly different from prior traffic reports. The closest to that would be the extra vertical bar in the first table causing formatting issues, which I removed. I do not recall the bar graphs being included in the prior reports I have edited, but I have no issue with their inclusion.

Overall, consider my feedback positive and without complaint. Thank you for contributing to The Signpost, especially this month. Now, let's just hope there is enough to publish. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 18:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC); edited to update diff at 18:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Kudpung email

Apologies in advance for the wall of text.

I received an email from the ex-editor-in-chief of this publication, Kudpung. Because I received it as an email rather than a talk page post, I will not copy-paste it or provide a summary of the full contents, but some of its contents are of immediate relevance to the Signpost. Specifically, Kudpung considers the best course of action to "postpone it indefinitely", saying it should be either be published at a high quality or not at all, at the risk of damage to its reputation. He also took issue with the amount of "filler" the publication has.

In the short term I think we should go ahead with publication as this was sort of an 11th-hour thing and the work's already been put in. In the longer term, I think we should give this stuff some thought. Closing down the Signpost may be a bit extreme, but the comments on "filler" sections bring up a good point. Maybe it's for the best that the From the Archives section was delayed this issue. I keep coming back to this post by Bri which looked at page views, and it did show that what readers care about the most are sections like NaN, ItM, AR, DR, and TeR. (That said, the Humor section is still my favorite.)

At the end of the day, the EnWP community continues to look to us for news, and we would be doing a disservice to just stop only because of 1 email (even if the email is from the most recent EiC). I am amazed that we are still pulling this together and would like to congratulate everyone on another issue (almost) in the books, but I will definitely think about this more in the coming days. I'd like to hear all of your thoughts as well if you have any. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 21:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to have this conversation also. Quality is definitely a concern, but we are also based on timely content, so I think an arbitrarily long interval between issues would make a lot of early work throw-away which just becomes frustrating for the contributors. Based on my research as noted, and on community feedback, I think the News and notes section is the most important to get right and not to be afraid to have somewhat of a strong editorial feel about. Dry recitations of anything, but especially technical updates, do not make for engaging content for readers. Nor do they excite current or future contributors. My final input for now is we need to do something to engage and excite people who contribute to the issue. My own contributions will be severely curtailed due to real-world stuff; I do wish I could do more, but I could barely make it here over the weekend to help get this issue out. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Real world obligations should always come first.  pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 21:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)