Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎From the archives: RSS feed description can be set to something different
No edit summary
Line 142: Line 142:
*'''Author''': {{u|Kudpung}}
*'''Author''': {{u|Kudpung}}
*'''Discussion''':<br/>This piece is the message from the editor [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 04:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
*'''Discussion''':<br/>This piece is the message from the editor [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 04:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

====The relevance of legal certainty to the English Wikipedia====
The German philosopher of law [[Gustav Radbruch]] is widely credited with popularising and emphasising the concept of « [[legal certainty]] » (from the German « Rechtssicherheit »). This concept means that everyone who is subject to a certain legal code must be able to know which actions of his are legal (under that code) and which are not. In my opinion, on our encyclopedia, this concept is grossly violated, and I hereby intend to show some of the problems that I percieve to occur, and to offer some ideas on how to solve them.

Quite regularly, an administrator of this encyclopedia may encounter a user that he finds, for whatever reason, unsympathetic. We all know that some people we just can’t stand, be they politicians, lawyers, civil servants, chief executives or teachers, just to name a few. Now in the real world, this does not really have any consequences, because we, in many cases possibly quite fortunately, do not have the power to inflict any serious damage to these people. But in the online world, where whole human beings, valuable, special and equipped with their own unique emotional worlds, are disguised as mere non-impressive text-strings with an underscore, this situation changes dramatically. Here, an administrative clique that does not have any substantial legal training in any of its facets (neutrality, the suppresion of personal preference, the evaluation of evidence, the reading skills required to understand complex legal codes) or any substantial emotional fortification, decides on practically everything, in particular on user bans, the final version of articles and many more things. Isn’t it strange, one asks, that admins basically never get blocked? Is this kind of immunity really implied by the rules of Wikipedia? Why, further, may administrators institute arbitrary blocks against people they themselves have a problem with? Have we not created a clique of overly powerful, nonconstructive superusers who, by aggresively having their way, shew away large chunks of the Wikipedia community who, in real life, expect from their fellow humans a just and fair treatment and therefore are unable to deal with the realities of day-to-day Wikipedia work?

I have compiled a list of suggestions that may improve the situation as described.

* It is crucial that administrators be elected only for a certain term duration. There is a reason why this is done in real politics.
* Users that have been blocked should, by and large, be able to participate in the elections of the administrators, so that administrators cannot simply block users whom they worry might vote against their nomination.
* One could think about making user groups, so that for each user group, there is one responsible admin. These usergroups would be formed randomly and have a fixed size (eg. 50 users), and only the users in this group vote for the admin responsible for them.
* There should be no immunity for admins. Admins should be held to the same standards as any other user. In particular, it must be prevented that administrators form « alliances » that serve the purpose of bullying down a percieved outgroup while at the same time ignoring any misbehaviour that occur in their ranks.
* There should be a committee that reviews admin misbehaviour. Whatever is in place ‒ it’s not working. It is a statistical impossibility that admins are just so much nicer than the average person that they never get blocked. This committee should have the power to reverse malicious admin decisions, as well as de-admin administrators that have misbehaved. There are several such committees, but in my opinion, they do not operate effectively, since they don’t monitor the admins, but rather only act on request. They may be unknown to many users.
* Administrators should, under all circumstances, be made to follow the guidelines precisely, word for word, so that certainty of law becomes available.
* The value of free speech, which is a cornerstone of the ethics behind the Wikipedia project, should be upheld in the strongest possible fashion.

{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Status|Unreviewed}}
*'''Submission''': right above
*'''Submission type''': Opinion
*'''Author''': An anonymous mathematician
*'''Discussion''':<br/>This piece is about how I believe that the administration of this free encyclopedia is flawed, and how it may be fixed. [[Special:Contributions/212.201.74.190|212.201.74.190]] ([[User talk:212.201.74.190|talk]]) 19:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:15, 20 May 2018

The Signpost
← Newsroom
View Latest Issue
Submissions desk

Submissions desk

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Navigation

Submissions archives
Settings:
Sections are archived by ClueBot III when marked with {{completed}} or {{close}})


Please propose Signpost stories you want to write (or have already begun writing). Submitted stories are published subject to the approval of the editor-in-chief. We value the involvement of Wikipedians, and appreciate your submissions. If you have ideas or questions that don't fit neatly into this framework, don't hesitate to address us on our user talk pages, by email, or as a last resort, on the general Signpost talk page.

The Signpost's content guidelines may be useful to aspiring writers; take note, especially, of the statement of purpose section. We encourage you to contact us early in the process of developing a story. Different writers have varying levels of interest in editorial input, and we pride ourselves on finding the right balance with each writer; but in most cases, a brief discussion early on can help all parties shape our expectations, and can help produce a strong finished piece. We aim to support Wikimedians wishing to share news with their peers, and look forward to working with you.

Create news proposal  

News stories present facts and analysis. We intend "news" in a broad sense (as distinct from opinion pieces); submissions may be for any of the Signpost's regular sections, as well as "special reports". These can cover a diverse range of topics, such as project history or statistical reports, and may have an investigative or evaluative focus. Simple narratives of interesting events, whether online or in person, that offer our readers an informative or entertaining glimpse into the Wikipedia or Wikimedia world, are also welcome.

Create opinion proposal

Position pieces, calls to arms, perspectives from other projects, debates and essays addressing important issues facing the English Wikipedia and the broader Wikimedia community. Have a project that you'd like to highlight? An issue that you'd like to bring to light? An essay you'd like to publish? Bring it to us and let us help you make it known. Book reviews are also welcome, for new books that explore topics of relevance to the Wikipedia community.
Suggestions and tips
If you don't want to write a story yourself, you can just give the Signpost a suggestion or tip (but publication will be subject to staffing constraints, in addition to suitability).
Make a suggestion   Email a private tip

Guidelines

Please comment on submissions below: share ideas about how to improve pieces that catch your interest, make suggestions as to whether a given piece is ready for publication, or pitch ideas for future pieces. Note that news submissions should be kept relatively neutral. We ask that comments be kept constructive; if you are unclear on any of the process or have questions related thereto, feel free to use the talkpage. Generally speaking special reports are less factional than op-eds are, so are not subject to quite as much approval.

The criteria for publishing opinion pieces are quality of argument, originality, and relevance to the community, as judged by the Signpost. Similar to newspaper op-eds, opinion pieces should be accompanied by an extended byline (suggestion: one to three sentences), that briefly introduces the author and indicates why his or her opinion about the topic might interest the reader. The purpose of publishing opinion pieces is to provoke thought and discussion in a productive rather than antagonistic fashion, and so submissions should be well-researched and not factually misleading or unnecessarily inflammatory. A related set of submissions that address the same issue but from editors' different perspectives are especially encouraged.

Unlike the weekly news reporting focus of the standard Signpost articles, and the investigative and evaluative focus of its special reports, opinion pieces are primarily editorial in tone. As the Signpost does not have a house point-of-view or political agenda, it does not endorse the perspectives of opinion pieces, which express only the views of their authors.

A book review typically presents both commentary and a summary of the book's content, in a crisp, direct, engaging writing style (see the box below for further information).

Book review guidelines
  • Readership. Reviews should be written with The Signpost audience in mind—Wikipedians and others with an active interest in Wikipedia and similar projects—but should be accessible to general readers as well. For books not directly related to Wikipedia, show how the subject is relevant to Signpost readers by drawing connections between the topic and the perspectives of its author, on the one hand, and the concerns of Wikipedians, on the other.
  • Writing style. This is a matter for individual writers. Naturally, our readers enjoy a crisp, direct, engaging style. A good review typically presents both commentary and a summary of the book's content, and does not necessarily give equal attention to all parts of the book. Most reviews clarify the reviewer's attitude to the book at or soon after the start. Readers like either tension or enthusiasm, as long as there is enough formality in the review to build its authority.
  • Genre. A book review is a different genre from a Wikipedia article, and indeed from the rest of The Signpost. There is less emphasis on citations (usually there are no page references), and as an opinion piece it is less bound to the project's policies on neutrality, verification and original research. Nevertheless, please remember that the review will be very public, and should be in good faith even when manifestly critical of the subject.
  • Word length. Reviewers should use their writer's judgment. While there is no set length, between 600 and 1200 words is a rule of thumb. A review much shorter than 600 words risks not seriously engaging with the book beyond a mere summary; a text much longer than 1200 words may not hold readers' attention to the end.
  • Opening format. "Book review" is already included in the template, so it is best to avoid the words "Book review" or "Review of" in your own title. Beneath this, please include the publisher's name (short or long version), the number of pages, the ISBN number, and the month of publication (e.g., "Chicago University Press, 203 pp., ISBN 944-0-7558-9809-7, May 2010").
  • Images. Book-cover images are almost always copyrighted, and because The Signpost is in WP space, fair use media are not permitted. The judicious use of free media is encouraged.
Formatting

To easily set up a new page with Signpost formatting, create the page with {{subst:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Story-preload}} as the only content in the edit window, and save the page. For more advanced formatting, see the style guide and style cheatsheet.

Alternatively, you can just focus on the writing, and Signpost editors can help with formatting later.

Previous publications

A selection of previous publications follows:

Special reports
Opinion pieces
It's your Signpost. You can help us.
Book reviews


Current submissions

Integrating my many lives on Wikipedia

Status:
V ?
Scheduled
Very interesting piece! It could use some more development (though if a story is finished, there's no point in padding it) and structure (for example, titles inbetween paragraphs make parsing the text much easier). Maybe also go back to the title somehow at the end? I also assigned the piece a preliminary blurb, though please feel free to change that. Marking this piece "In Development"! Zarasophos (talk) 06:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I took initiative to create the asked-for sections and copyedit. Someone can mark this ready for publication, or not. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much! I’ve been busy teaching today. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Transferred to Next Issue section for publication. Hurricanehink, if you want to do any more changes, it would be cool if you could do them directly there. I'll mark the piece Scheduled here. Zarasophos (talk) 06:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It was mostly a stream-of-consciousness writing, but I don't think there's anything else to add. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPP & AfC - a Marriage or an Engagement?

Status:
V ?
Unreviewed

I don't think the Editor in Chief needs to submit their pieces for approval :P Zarasophos (talk) 05:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The transcluded template lets the publisher and other newsroom helpers know what is on the ToC for publication. It should help to avoid double submission on the same topic, which happened in the April issue. I'm more than confident with my prose, but I also make errors - particularly typos which always demand a good proofread, but generally not a Copyedit; and sometimes the Signpost format is a challenge. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is this piece ready for copyediting? Zarasophos (talk) 08:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. It will be expanded. There may be further developments before publication date. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the archives

Status:
V ?
Scheduled

We now have two copies of this; the other is at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/From the archives. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Qwerty6811 has reviewed the other entry, which is in the table below. I think we should track there and delete this dup tracker. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I won't make a fuss about this article, but wasn't I the firt to propose it as a new Sipnpost item? I seem to recall it was my idea and my choice. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They are both a copy of the same archived article that you selected. Bookkeeping error. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also I copied the byline so it says "By Kudpung"; now I think they are truly identical. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of marking the version of the article in the Next issue page Done. What should we do about drafts that have been transferred to Next Issue? Delete them? I'm not really comfortable with editing user pages... Zarasophos (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We may want to rethink the blurb, otherwise (per this) the item will appear in RSS as The Signpost scoops The Signpost: The history of The Signpost. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bri: The RSS feed description can be set to something different by filling in the |1= parameter of {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/RSS description}}; the script only fills in {title}: {description} if the template is left blank. - Evad37 [talk] 08:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the editor

Status:
V ?
Scheduled

The relevance of legal certainty to the English Wikipedia

The German philosopher of law Gustav Radbruch is widely credited with popularising and emphasising the concept of « legal certainty » (from the German « Rechtssicherheit »). This concept means that everyone who is subject to a certain legal code must be able to know which actions of his are legal (under that code) and which are not. In my opinion, on our encyclopedia, this concept is grossly violated, and I hereby intend to show some of the problems that I percieve to occur, and to offer some ideas on how to solve them.

Quite regularly, an administrator of this encyclopedia may encounter a user that he finds, for whatever reason, unsympathetic. We all know that some people we just can’t stand, be they politicians, lawyers, civil servants, chief executives or teachers, just to name a few. Now in the real world, this does not really have any consequences, because we, in many cases possibly quite fortunately, do not have the power to inflict any serious damage to these people. But in the online world, where whole human beings, valuable, special and equipped with their own unique emotional worlds, are disguised as mere non-impressive text-strings with an underscore, this situation changes dramatically. Here, an administrative clique that does not have any substantial legal training in any of its facets (neutrality, the suppresion of personal preference, the evaluation of evidence, the reading skills required to understand complex legal codes) or any substantial emotional fortification, decides on practically everything, in particular on user bans, the final version of articles and many more things. Isn’t it strange, one asks, that admins basically never get blocked? Is this kind of immunity really implied by the rules of Wikipedia? Why, further, may administrators institute arbitrary blocks against people they themselves have a problem with? Have we not created a clique of overly powerful, nonconstructive superusers who, by aggresively having their way, shew away large chunks of the Wikipedia community who, in real life, expect from their fellow humans a just and fair treatment and therefore are unable to deal with the realities of day-to-day Wikipedia work?

I have compiled a list of suggestions that may improve the situation as described.

  • It is crucial that administrators be elected only for a certain term duration. There is a reason why this is done in real politics.
  • Users that have been blocked should, by and large, be able to participate in the elections of the administrators, so that administrators cannot simply block users whom they worry might vote against their nomination.
  • One could think about making user groups, so that for each user group, there is one responsible admin. These usergroups would be formed randomly and have a fixed size (eg. 50 users), and only the users in this group vote for the admin responsible for them.
  • There should be no immunity for admins. Admins should be held to the same standards as any other user. In particular, it must be prevented that administrators form « alliances » that serve the purpose of bullying down a percieved outgroup while at the same time ignoring any misbehaviour that occur in their ranks.
  • There should be a committee that reviews admin misbehaviour. Whatever is in place ‒ it’s not working. It is a statistical impossibility that admins are just so much nicer than the average person that they never get blocked. This committee should have the power to reverse malicious admin decisions, as well as de-admin administrators that have misbehaved. There are several such committees, but in my opinion, they do not operate effectively, since they don’t monitor the admins, but rather only act on request. They may be unknown to many users.
  • Administrators should, under all circumstances, be made to follow the guidelines precisely, word for word, so that certainty of law becomes available.
  • The value of free speech, which is a cornerstone of the ethics behind the Wikipedia project, should be upheld in the strongest possible fashion.
Status:
V ?
Unreviewed
  • Submission: right above
  • Submission type: Opinion
  • Author: An anonymous mathematician
  • Discussion:
    This piece is about how I believe that the administration of this free encyclopedia is flawed, and how it may be fixed. 212.201.74.190 (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions&oldid=842176683"