Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Newsroom discussions prior to May 2018 are archived at WT:POST.

Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Pageviews

By issue

  • February issue totals thru March 1, 2020, 2,134; March 3, 7,668; March 7, 13,254; March 14, 19,892; March 21, 32,508; March 28, 44,988.
  • March issue totals thru March 31, 6,203; April 4, 26,276; April 11 42,591; April 18 50,059; April 25 57,878.
  • April 26 issue totals 1 day - 2,119; 4d - 9,066; 1 week 10,657, 2W - 12,467 ;[1], [2]
  • May 31 issue - 1st day 2,219, 4th day 8,154, 1st week 10,282, 2nd week 12,473, 3rd week 13963, 4 weeks 15,181 *[3], [4]
  • June 28 issue 7,485 1st week, 9,907 2nd week, 11,174 3rd week, 12,847 4th week, 13,950 5th week 10 6 .
  • August 2 issue [5] [6] 1st day 1981, 4th day (cumulative) 7,004; 1st week, 8,393, 2nd week 10,665, 3rd week 12,320, 4th week 14,099
  • August 30 issue [7], [8] 1st day 2,128, 4th day 7,029, 1st week 8,512, 2nd week 9.903, third week 11,189.
  • September 27 issue [9] 3rd day 3,693; 1st week 5,652; 2nd week 7,287; 3rd week 8,519; 4th week 9,500
  • @Adam Cuerden: - please let me know if you still want to do a gallery article. If you need any help submitting it, just go to the Newsroom, click on gallery, and you should be able to take it from there. Or just ping me! publication is on October 25th.
  • I've got about 3 more articles coming. There are already 2 related to Wikipedia @ 20. Copyeditors should feel free to start copyediting "Interview" and "In focus"
  • In "In the media" I think there are almost enough interesting articles. Feel free to add a few more (the good ones always show up on deadline). Writing up what's there would also help.
  • Please let me know what else is coming in.

We could have a very nice issue this month. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

If a full op-ed on the topic we talked about isn't feasible, do you think I could make it a shorter item, maybe a subsection in the discussion report? ☆ Bri (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Sounds ok to me. Did you see Chris's note below? Are you ready to publish again this week? Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

A question of taste?

I just wrote this up for ITM and then wondered whether anybody might be offended by the last 2 sentences. Any feedback appreciated. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

No longer have opportunity to publish

To editor Smallbones: My real life schedule may be changing and I do not think I can continue to publish, going forward. I would recommend you find a new publisher. I would be glad to help that new individual to the degree needed. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

To editor Chris troutman: Thanks for letting us know. I've always wondered how (or why) you could continue to do this very necessary work, with no obvious reward. Some folks are just nice people, I guess. For this week, I hope we can get Bri to do it, perhaps with some help on sending out the notifications from any admin who happens to pass by. If that's not possible, we'll try plan B or plan C. Thank you very much for your help.
Sincerely,
Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@Bri, HaeB, Nosebagbear, Newslinger, and Eddie891: I'm just trying to see what options are available. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I can publish again next Sunday. Same caveat wrt Facebook and Twitter. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks @Bri:. I'll have to learn how to publish as well. That said, after finishing the editing, I'm somewhat mentally distracted or just worn out, so that's not a real solution, but a last resort for publishing. I do know that Bri sometimes has time schedule conflicts, so he's not the full solution. Which means that we still need somebody - preferably an admin(?) - to publish on a regular basis, and probably another person as backup as well. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I can act as a backup, though I'm not the person you want committing to function as the main handler-- I might be out of town next weekend, for instance. Always happy to help where I can. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
​I can also be a backup for future issues, although I would not be able to help with the social media posts. It would be great if the social media could be automated. — Newslinger talk 06:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

To editor Eddie891: Thanks. Smallbones(smalltalk) 11:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion report

E-in-C should decide whether this comment is permissible in-column. It's a little bit of my feeling about the matter. Would be fine to move it to the discussion post publication. I don't feel like I have provided enough material for a full op-ed column. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Kudpung's talkpage

I know we don’t usually comment on user talkpages in this section other than the founder’s, but User talk:Kudpung has racked up 60+ kB in a couple days and it’s got some provocative points about the state of Wikipedia affairs from many sides including sitting Arbcom members. Worth including? ☆ Bri (talk) 04:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I haven't looked at that page, but just as a general statement, we should probably ask a user for input or at least give them a heads-up before putting a bullseye on their talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Followup: I read the initial comment by Kudpung and decided that there was a bit too much animosity for my taste to continue reading. That may be my loss, but today is not the day for me to put that drama in my head any more than I already have.
SO, before we consider quoting from or commenting on that discussion in a widely-read place like The Signpost, we need to ask ourselves "would doing so help build a better encyclopedia." My hunch is "no" but as I said, I didn't read the whole thing, there may be some essential information in there which should be widely published for the good of the project. Someone mentally prepared to sift through drama should read through it and evaluate it.
We also have to think about the side-effects: If discussion that conversation sours a lot of people to The Signpost, then the all of the good, useful things we publish next month won't be as widely read. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the opinions on what modes of thought may be guiding the current arbitration committee, I don't see it as news but I suppose possibly an op-ed. (Personally, I wouldn't recommend it: I think people are finding good things in decisions they agree with and bad things with decisions they don't, so I think an op-ed that tries to tie everything back to specific guiding motivations will unduly increase animosity, but I can understand that others might have different recommendations.) Note I have commented in the discussion, specifically on the point of how the community is responsible for setting and enforcing policies and procedures that it deems desirable. isaacl (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Somebody had pointed me to that page and I found it horrifying and informative at the same time. Lots of "highly placed" people talking about how little influence they had? Is that how others read it? That's why I think it is horrifying - if these folks don't know how Wikipedia is governed, why should any of us have any confidence in the governing process? So I think it raises all sorts of questions. It would be hard to write it up well, but we could drop lots of names! Somebody - maybe somebody who is participating in the discussion already - should write it up. If they are careful (and follow WP rules!) I'd give it better than a 50/50 chance of getting published. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't read it that way, but of course my contributions reflect that. I don't see evidence that the participants don't know how Wikipedia is governed, or that they feel they lack influence. What I see is editors wishing that the collective governance structure we have would produce results they agree with. isaacl (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Smallbones, I don't think Kudpung actually cares two hoots about anyone quoting from his talk page, but the talk on that page is really not important enough for a Signpost that has become so desperate for content of late to make an article out of it. That said, it's not so much Isaacl's ... editors wishing that the collective governance structure we have would produce results they agree with, but more of some editors with a lot of good and/or bad experience voicing opinions that much needed change will, true to Wikipedia tradition, almost certainly never happen in their lifetimes. And there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that Kudpung can or wants to do about it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

BHG RfA

Any thoughts on how we ought to cover Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BrownHairedGirl 2? Personally, I'd find it helpful to have some additional contextual background, for those of us who largely missed the portal wars or don't know what Worm is referring to by the fiasco that made ArbCom feel pressured to go hard on BHG. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Specifically, should we mention the Arbcom decision Amendment request required to allow discussion of the very issue that led to de-sysopping? And how the request itself led to an immediate Kafkaesque catch-22 for the candidate? Bri.public (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Let's wait to see how this pans out. If the RFA is started in the next few days, it will probably be over with by the end of the month. Whether it is news, and what "news" there is, will depend largely on how the community reacts to it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Chiming in again, I do not think it is within The Signpost 's moral purview as an organ of news to report on anything in a way that would almost certainly further damage an editor's fair chance of being deservedly reinstated to an office that was so rudely removed by an organ of authority that among a large number of serious thinkers has gained a reputation for despotism. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

All hands on deck! (postponed)

We're scheduled to publish Sunday afternoon, and there is a lot of stories yet to come in, mine included. There's a "new" story, about masking IP addresses that concerns me a great deal. The WMF is saying that the masking "proposal" will go through, if not right away. There actually is no real proposal with any amount of detail yet. Given the "choices" I see this as between a) accepting whatever the WMF wants (because of legal requirements!) or b) banning IP edits on individual project (1 at a time). Either case is a huge story, perhaps the story of the year.

I'm seriously considering delaying publication for a week (to Nov 1). Please let me know below what you think. And please start submitting articles and copyediting in any case! @Bri, HaeB, Eddie891, Sdkb, and Adam Cuerden:

Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I think the E-in-C is correct in identifying the IP masking story as of huge interest to the community as it will affect our anonymous editing profoundly and could have unintended consequences in enabling logged-out editing for nefarious purposes (I'm thinking of block evasion specifically). With our staff limitations, I don't think we can cover it adequately in two-three days; I just added a placeholder to News and notes about 24 hours ago. To sum up, I agree with postponing so we can get at least a better idea of how fast moving this issue is, and tailor our treatment of it accordingly. - Bri.public (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps keep the current publication schedule and put out a special edition in a week or two for the IP masking topic? isaacl (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Personally, I think delaying would be a good choice. A special edition sounds like a lot of work... Eddie891 Talk Work 18:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm leaning toward delaying by a week. Unless there are other opinions added, I'll decide in about 7 hours. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't have a strong objection to a delay; I just think having a regular cadence is better for maintaining momentum, both with the writers and readers. "Special edition" just means publishing an extra edition with probably just one story. It's more work than usual but I don't think it's a lot of work compared with actually writing the story. isaacl (talk) 23:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
The publication script takes a lot of the pain out of the task. The work involved in doing this, t least for my part, should not be a dominant factor in the decision whether or not to go the route of a special edition. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't think people will be up in arms if it is published on or about October 31. Nov. 1 is "on or about." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, agreed. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

November 1 it is, then Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The countdown clock seems to malfunction if the two dates are in different months, so I fictitiously moved the publishing deadline forward to 31 October. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
@Bri: I suspect it has to do with this part of Template:Signpost/Deadline/core {{{next-month}}}|{{#expr:{{{next-day}}}-1}} (and the correstponding {{#expr:{{{previous-day}}}-1}} ) - that's basically passing November 0 as the date when the deadline is November 1st. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 18:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
@Bri:Should be fixed now. I used the #time function, a little excessively, but it'll keep it from breaking at odd times this way, e.g. January 1st, and it pre-emptively fixes any issues with the previous issue date breaking next month.. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 19:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
I'd love a week, honestly. Imsomnia is great for image restoration, terrible for writing. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 07:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden: you've got a week from today to get it in, plus 1.5 days for copyediting and tweaks. Smallbones(smalltalk) 11:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Look and feel makeover

Did The Signpost already cover the look and feel makeover that will be the default on all wikis by the end of 2021? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Featured content

If someone wants to get lists, I can do Articles and pictures. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 23:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Adam Cuerden, Thanks for volunteering! I can do lists. I have a script that generates and fills in the '''[[ARTICLE]]''' <small>''[[Wikipedia:Featured article nominations/ARTICLE/archive1|nominated]] by [[User:Example|Example]])''</small> line if you want to avoid doing it manually... Eddie891 Talk Work 23:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
If you would. Would simplify things. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 12:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Short form to refer to specific Wikis

There's an N and n section on the Portuguese Wikipedia/ Do we have an official style for the short form? pt:Wiki? ptWiki? PTwiki? Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Just wondering: since we don't have the physical layout constraints of traditional printed media, do we need to use a short form? isaacl (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Pretty much the same reasons we use WMF instead of Wikimedia Foundation. It's easier for the reader, it's widely used and understood. I was hoping that there was somebody who had set the style for it somewhere. Looking back in the archives there are example of using the basic form here going back to at least 2007, but in all shapes and sizes:enwiki, En.wiki, en:Wiki En wiki (with different capitalizations as well). I've used enwiki before, so I'll just keep on using it until somebody tells me to stop. ptwiki just looked strange to me though (there are 2 examples in the archive). Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Personally, unless it's being used multiple times in a short span, I don't feel WMF is easier for the reader (most people read groups of words at a time). It benefits the writer a lot more. Regarding <language code>wiki, it's jargon. It's not a big deal for most people who will be able to infer what is meant by context, but it does add a small shibboleth that is somewhat superfluous. I appreciate that some insider jargon can help bind a community together, though of course it has to be balanced against accessibility concerns for everyone including the uninitiated. isaacl (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

News and notes

Tatarstan government edits

The ru.wikinews story is interesting but also concerning. The interviewee is a person who has been hired by Tatarstan to write about the state republic. One of their replies about copyright starts with this: "Авторские права заканчиваются в момент размещения." – "copyright ends at the time of posting [to the wiki]". Which is incorrect; as I hope we all know, but explained at Wikipedia:Copyrights, the author retains copyright but licenses it under CC-BY-SA. The concern is with an agent who misunderstands Wikipedia fundamentals; does this extend to issues of neutrality? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm very concerned about the whole situation. But there is lots of info to go on. Farhad has promised to get back to me. There's the interview and the original news stories on wikinews RU. I personally doubt that ... I'll wait until tomorrow to write it up. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

For the bug report section - musical scores temporarily disabled

I don't know anything more than what's in phab:T257066. The description there says "Due to an ongoing security issue, Score/Lilypond have been disabled on Wikimedia wikis for the time being. / This task serves as the public tracking for this issue". There are mentions on WP:VPT under WP:VPT#"Musical scores are temporarily disabled" appearing on music pages and WP:VPT#Musical scores are not displayed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

In focus

@Smallbones: I adjusted the blurb you had created [10]. No hard feelings if you switch it back. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Copyediting help, publication

Calling all copyeditors! We've got enough articles up that I think we need to start copy editing. Any help appreciated. Almost all the rest should be up tomorrow. Publication should be about 3pm NY time of Sunday. @Bri and HaeB: HaeB you'll have Recent research in an hour before as usual? Bri, you'll be ready to publish? Just checking. BTW, Daylight Savings changes early Sunday morning so we should have an "extra" hour. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll be ready to publish on Sunday. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
@Smallbones: It’s Sunday, we scheduled publication for a little more than six hours from now. Lots of sections still need copyedit. And, are you doing a “From the editor”? ☆ Bri (talk) 13:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
@Bri and HaeB: The time looks right. I'd love it if somebody helped with the copyediting - especially those which I've written. No more articles or new material please! Except for Recent research and something that relates to me personally. I'll insert the following unless I get negative feedback here. If somebody else wants to write it up or say that it shouldn't be included, I'll stay entirely out of it.
Did we reschedule to publish at noon Pacific time/3 Eastern? I forget if it was noon here, or noon there. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
        • We publish at noon Pacific time/3 Eastern - I can be ready in about 2 hours from now, though some more copyediting by others would help. @HaeB: IIRC will be ready by 2 Eastern and it just takes me a bit after that to finalize. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

(in In the media, 2nd item under "In brief")

@Smallbones and Bri: Yes, I'm working to have RR publishable in less than 3 hours from now. I also just added an item to ITM and made some (non-exhaustive) copyedits and fixes to the rest, please take a look.
Bri: In N&N, I had included the current logos for MediaWiki and Gerrit on purpose, to provide a "now vs. the future" comparison. Is there no way to make this work in the layout? [11] [12]
Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Do with it what you wish. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Op-ed title

@Johan (WMF): for your op-ed, I suggest considering a title that gives more emphasis to anti-vandalism, as I think this would better fit the message you are trying to convey. Perhaps something like "Building the future of anti-vandalism with masked IPs". isaacl (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

isaacl: "Anti-vandalism with masked IPs: the steps forward"? Something like that, maybe? Or your suggested title, I can live with that too. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Sure, that title sounds good. (For some reason I keep wanting to say "the next steps forward", though arguably it's redundant.) isaacl (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
isaacl: The next steps forward works, too, if you think it's a better title. I don't have a strong opinion on the inclusion of "next" or not. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
@Johan (WMF) and Isaacl: OK, Isaacl has changed it. "Anti-vandalism with masked IPs: the steps forward" That works for me, but it's important to realize that there is an implied promise there and Wikipedians are likely to demand that you uphold that promise. Are you ready for that? Smallbones(smalltalk)
Smallbones: Just so we are sure we're on the same page, what would you say is the implied promise? /Johan (WMF) (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
@Johan (WMF): The implied promise is that you and the WMF will be taking steps forward regarding Anti-vandalism tools. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Smallbones: Yes, that's what I want people to hear, actually. There are things I can't promise: that we will be able to reach all our goals, that all communities will consider themselves better off at the end of the project than when we started. But that we will take steps – work on the checkuser tools, easier information about what an IP means, do technical development to make sure this burden doesn't just land on checkusers and stewards and so on – is one of the things I want people to take away from this. One of the main problems for us, working on this, is that people hear "IP masking" and see us where we are today, with IPs masked as the only difference. No one working on this project at the Foundation considers that a viable option, given how much it would disrupt our anti-vandalism efforts. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 21:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
One of our major goals here is to have people come tell us their major worries, so they can guide us going forward. There would be no point in that if we didn't plan on doing anything with that information. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
The promise is already there in the op-ed, and is the main message being delivered, which is why I suggested that the title should better reflect this. isaacl (talk) 04:17, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I almost fell for a fake news website

While copyediting this month's In the news I was about to add a link to Law Enforcement Today, when I realized it redirects to List of fake news websites. Watch out, folks. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Bri, if I missed anything along that line please send me an email - I don't always pick up sly hints very well! Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Back in 30 minutes

Graph of pageviews for en:Maria Bakalova

Stuff happens, not serious. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Can you consider if this graph belongs anywhere in the issue? I can save it for personal comments on Traffic Report. This happens to be a redirect I created on 21 October that became an article and attained 1M pageviews within ~72 hours. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Getting ready to publish

Main page of The Signpost

Here's a mockup of the front page for everyone's review. Ignore the false date and issue number. Issue date should be OK now. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Looks good. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

ONE HOUR TO GO Copyedit still needed on News and notes, In the media, and Recent research. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Smallbones and Bri: RR should be good to go now (if we get past the edit conflicts and still have a few minutes, I might add images of Ortega and Newton as illustration so it's not text-only). Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Go ahead, I'll stand down on copyediting. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
I'll wait 5 minutes. Note to Bri - I don't know if this changes anything re:the mock up and final issue, but I Changed the headline on News & notes, and have tried to put the internal links for Wikipedia at 20 in the following format

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-11-01/Book review

Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:17, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Done. By the way, some "next issue" links between sections will still need to be updated post-publication. Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll definitely check after publication. Give me 5 minutes for a formal approval of all the other articles. @Bri: Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Archive_12&oldid=1133281781"