Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 20

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

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

Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25

Published

Not done: mailing list, Twitter, and Facebook. Hopefully all is well. Hanging around, let me know asap as usual if this is not the case. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 20:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I checked 4 stories and both Tables of contents. Looks ok. Are you getting the mailing list? 20:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Smallbones I don't have access to any of the above. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
The script should have sent the message(s) to subscribers. Do you have mass message sender privs on meta? ☆ Bri (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
(EC) Ok, the talk page notices have gone out - that's what I was looking for. Everything looks fine. But nobody has solved the Crossword yet. Huge thanks @Eddie891:. 20:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Oh I meant to the e-mailing list that may or may not exist Eddie891 Talk Work 20:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to everybody, especially Eddie891, Bri Ganesha. I'm happy with it. We'll see what the readers think. Happy Halloween. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The Nathaniel White opinion piece was up on Hacker News over the weekend; the article here got 50,000 views. It should get more readers this week: it's up on Slashdot, and Elon Musk has just commented on it on Twitter. Best, --Andreas JN466 08:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
@Jayen466: Don't exaggerate, it was only 48,951 page views (Sat+Sunday)! OK congratulations. What have you got for us in December? Desmond has already been claimed. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Reader feedback

View reader feedback on issue 9 (October)

All: You can use the button above to monitor feedback on the October 31 issue. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Crossword hints

Nobody has asked for a crossword hint yet, I'm kind of surprised. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, it’s early days yet! Ganesha811 (talk) 00:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment format

Readers are currently instructed to leave comments formatted as signed bullet points. Unfortunately, the absence of section headers means that mobile users clicking on Talk to go to the talk page see nothing but a terse message saying "There are no discussions on this page", regardless of how many bullet points there are on the page. Thoughts? --Andreas JN466 19:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Would it help mobile users if we added a section header to start? Multiple section headers (with blank sections)? Or Ask people *not* to use bullet points? Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
A header like the one I placed on Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2021-10-31/Opinion would solve the problem. Most users will see the comments anyway, as they're transcluded to the bottom of the article itself, but it is very odd to go to the talk page on a mobile device and be told that there's nothing there. Best, --Andreas JN466 23:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

No arbitration report for a while

The last arbitration report was 2019-02-28. About the same time I was preparing it, the arbitration committee published "Alex Shih: Statement from the Arbitration Committee". I don't think this has ever been discussed in The Signpost. Seems even more relevant now since the Icewhiz RfA. Should we publish a followup on this? The problem is this: I'm not that interested in starting up this column again myself. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I did mention that the Icewhiz issue could be the basis for a much longer article about corrupt admins (and also even rather strange RfA closures), but my suggestion fell on stony ground. I think it's because a) not many people have the institutional memory and know where to look, and b) most people are scared nowadays of writing about anything for The Signpost that might be borderline controversial.
This leaves another ominous thought: do the only people who are prepared to run these days have a hidden agenda? (no bad faith intended). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Just as a side note, there were reports published in 2020 and as recently as this March. Nonetheless, it's still a good idea to see if anyone is interested in writing a new report. isaacl (talk) 07:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Duh,I missed that – but the publishing script didn’t link to "next" (I even contributed to the March report). ☆ Bri (talk) 14:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Fixed up some "next" links; the last arbitration report with original Signpost content was 2020-12-28, written by me, and just minor new content in 2021-03-28 issue. Anyway I still wonder if we should revisit the whole topic of arb/admin integrity. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

(EC) @Bri: if you want to write something up about historical arb/admin misbehavior, please do. For example User:Wifione would be pretty easy to do, and nobody could possibly object to it. I'm sure there are at least 5 other examples. It would be quite timely and meaningful. Now, if you want to write about a current arb/admin, you better have all the facts nailed down 110%, or I (and likely you) could easily get banned. Yeah I do think these folks do watch each other's backs - and they sometimes have better information than we do. Pick your fights very carefully.

My general feeling about News and notes, Discussion report, Arb report, and Special report is:

  • Often just about everything we absolutely need to have can go in News and notes
  • Anything really big can go in Special report.
  • Other stuff beyond what fits in N&n can often go in Discussion report - and it looks like we've got D report covered these days,
  • Arb report can be separated out when we've got the rest filled.
  • Of course it would be nice to have beat reporters for everything other than Special report. That way, even when there isn't enough news in that area to publish the column that month, we'll know for sure that we didn't miss anything.
  • I'll suggest that we write N&n pretty much the same way we do In the media. Lots of people drop off a story as the month progresses. Even if the story doesn't really work out, we can see what we have to work with. BTW, we're going to have to start eliminating some "In briefs" in Itm. It's been too long the last couple of months.

Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Didn't see this conversation, but I wrote one for 2021 anyway (which seems to be queued up for the next issue). Looks like there were a few in 2020 -- but if that goes over well, and it's really the case that there hasn't been a good report since 2018, I wouldn't object to writing up one for 2019 and 2020 next month. jp×g 22:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Unethical to provide paywall bypass?

Hi! One of our upcoming In the News items, this article in Outside magazine, requires a subscription. I happen to know that you can bypass their paywall by using outline.com. Would it be unethical to say so, or provide a link to the "outlined" article? Ganesha811 (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: We do not provide paywall bypass, but we can provide dual links to a main site and an archival copy. Outline.com may be an archiving service. If in doubt, link to Internet Archive's wayback machine, which is a backup resource for many other Wikipedia articles and which we already use.
Our intent is not to bypass anything, but rather to credit copyright holders, point to their content, and also make Wikipedia's fact checking process reliable and functional. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to be a bit strict here, though there are some workarounds that are ok with me.

  • 1st we should always put "(paywall)" on paywalled stories, though I'm likely the worst offender - when the paywall doesn't affect me, I often forget
  • You can always get an Associated Press story straight from AP even if there are paywalls on all the newspaper copies you've been able to find.
  • Some stories are syndicated - printed a day or two after the original story in a non-paywalled newspaper. I think the Boston Globe is a subsidiary of the NY Times, so gets a lot of these.
  • Sometimes the link from Google News works even if you know the newspaper is paywalled. I've never been able to figure this out.
  • Sometimes particular types of stories. e.g. COVID or elections, aren't paywalled in paywalled papers.
  • If you can only can get 2 free stories a month from a paper, I don't really consider that a paywall.
  • If it is paywalled but the story is important enough - just go ahead and print your story. Readers can trust you or google for a substitute on the same topic.

Note that readers will sometimes give a workaround in the comments. I don't think I have to read every comment and check out the workaround to see if it's legit. I don't even know that we're allowed to remove such a comment under WP rules.

Does that help?

Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Two discussion reports

I've covered the discussion report on the RfA reform for the past two months. I think it's important enough to merit coverage again, though I think that we also should probably cover other discussions as well. I'm wondering if we could make a "Special Report" on RfA reform which would be separate from the discussion report. I'd be happy to write it, and I'd also be happy to write a discussion report on something else of note. This way, we'd be able to cover more discussions, which I think would be of better service to our readers. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Smallbones and Bri: what are your thoughts? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Why don't you try to put 2 discussions in one article with 2 separate sections. I think the admin discussions are important enough to have one big final article all about them when they are all finished. In the meantime, perhaps you can write short updates. Another topic would be nice - I'd really question whether the admin discussions are so important that they preclude mention of all other discussions for 3-6 months (or however long they go)
As far as a Special report goes, it would have to be about more than just the discussions. Perhaps you could summarize the discussions, *and* interview people who hold the "3 most important distinct views". I'd think the best time for that would be just before the "final step." Your summaries done before that will be very helpful at that time. Smallbones(smalltalk) 12:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
That makes sense. Given the current timeline, the RfA reform !voting will end on 11/30, which is two days after our next draft is going to be published. If we're going to do it just before the final step, would you want it for this issue, Smallbones? Or, would you rather a special report happen after the admins go through and make closing summaries for the various proposals? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Assault weapon?

@JeffUK: you removed "crossed state lines with an assault rifle, later asserting that he did so to protect a car dealership and act as a medic." as a BLP violation. I'm not an expert on gun types. Do you think "crossed a state line with an assault weapon, later asserting that he did so to protect a car dealership and act as a medic." would be correct?

@Igordebraga: or any Signposters with knowledge of gun terminology should also chip in. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Assault weapon (or rifle) is basically defined two different ways by aficionados and military people in one camp, and anti gun pro gun control people and some lawmakers in another camp e.g. as expressed in the 1994 U.S. ban. The first group generally would prefer to exclude semiautomatic weapons from the definition, relegating it to fully automatic and according to some only including rifles that fire intermediate power cartridges, notably making the inclusion of pistol cartridge "assault weapons" under in the 1994 law self contradictory. There's not much profit in discussing who is right. The term "AR-15 style rifle" is probably close to NPOV. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Just to be super pedantic, and outing myself to some point as a "2a f[r]iend" or whatever, but we are a publication where this might come up and our readers do catch mistakes: a) AR-15 style rifles do not encompass AK style rifles, of which there are probably millions in the US, nor other common types including about a million semiauto Chinese SKS rifles imported just in 1993[1]; b) rifles and carbines are technically separate categories but a few people would probably make a point of calling us out in grouping them together, and perhaps more private owners actually have M4 carbine length/gas system at this time; c) the lines are hopelessly blurry when it comes to some modern stuff like the P90 SMG/five-seven pistol which fire the same cartridge, maybe it's an assault rifle, maybe a pistol, maybe something entirely different. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Followup: I just looked at the diff and the issue might be "crossed state lines", not the weapon terminology. I believe the buyer of the weapon, a third party, kept it in the state where it was purchased and the defendant retrieved it there, then went to the scene of the shootings, in the same state. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Exactly that, he didn't cross state lines with the rifle, certainly not prior to the shooting, no source says he did after either. I wasn't too worried about 'assault rifle' the 2a people might but the rifle is not a living person :) .. relevant articles seem to have settled on 'AR-15 style rifle' . JeffUK (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
OK, I've rewritten the paragraph as " Last year, police in Kenosha, Wisconsin, shot and injured Jacob Blake. Protests and/or riots occurred for several days after that. A 17-year-old, Kyle Rittenhouse, took an AR-15 style rifle to the protests/riots and shot three protesters, killing two. A trial, which will determine whether those two killings were in self defense, was currently underway." which includes "AR-15 style rifle" but removes "crossing state lines". Does this work for everybody? Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Sure but looking at it, you left out some of the charges. He was in legal jeopardy for all three shootings, including attempted homicide, and other "endangerment". ☆ Bri (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
OK, you're the expert, you rewrite it! I'll plead total ignorance of guns. Smallbones(smalltalk) 05:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Six days to publication

  • Publication should be at the same time as usual on Sunday. The Thanksgiving holiday might cause a few blips for folks. To minimize these blips, I'll suggest getting copy in as early as possible, e.g. Wednesday! and starting copy editing asap, even if the article doesn't say "Ready for copy editing!
  • There are 4 articles very far along already. CE'ing there will be fine to start now
    • WikiCup report - looks good, the main remaining issue is that the column name, headline, and blurb all look the same. Somebody with more imagination than me should have a go (but don't change the column name)
    • Traffic report is ready except for CE as far as I'm concerned. The BLP question(s) look minor now - see above - and I'll check them again just to be sure. I've done my relaxed walk through there (to see the big picture), but CE is really not done yet.
    • Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/News from Diff might need links and formatting, but CE should be easy
    • Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/WikiProject report needs a blurb. Very good as usual. CE should be easy.

:others: I expect soon:

I'm confident In the media has enough to write about this month - feel free to contribute, but I'd like to handle the Desmond story myself, and there's an Australian "mystery" story that I just don't get - so probably just leave that out.

Is the discussion report going to be ready? Sorry @Mikehawk10: that I haven't answered all your questions again this month.

@HaeB: - this is your usual gentle reminder!

So that leaves News and notes as the big hole to be filled. Jump right in please. The arbcom election (voting starts tomorrow!) will need to have something, but there's not a lot we can do. Naming the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Candidates is obvious, but putting a single sentence on each of the 11 candidates wouldn't do much and is not worth the effort or space. Making endorsements is essentially barred. Perhaps something like "commonly asked questions" without the candidates answers(!) might work. That leaves an explanation of who can vote, a link to the voting page, and perhaps a count of votes cast (note vote counts!)(thru Saturday night).

Other N&n topics,

So we're at about the same place as usual! Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Smallbones. Discussion report will be ready; I can get a draft up over the next 24 hours or so. I had been waiting on a response before I started writing in-depth, though I can certainly get on it. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
With regards to the Arbitration Committee Elections, would that fall under the arbitration report? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
@Mikehawk10: Thanks on the discussion report. I suppose we could put the arbcom elecion in the arbcom report. Maybe that would give us a bit more room. But we can't do a group endorsement - according to the rules for election recommendations. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
@Smallbones: sorry for the delay in getting on this; I've been spending too much time and space contentious AfD. I plan to work on it in my current editing session. Also, I am now Mhawk10 (the usurper), just as a heads up. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I plan to share the answers to last month's crossword in a Humor column, and if I have time, I'll make a second crossword, but beyond that I will not have time to do much at all. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
@Ganesha811: sounds ok Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
@Smallbones: I'm a bit late - but following the issues with large files, I wanted to write a tech report about how the upload process works and where it breaks down. Would that be OK? Legoktm (talk) 10:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
@Legoktm: go for it! If it has to wait until December - so be it. Please just make sure it has some general interest, rather than only appealing to people interested in 100 MB files. But looking at your January article - it looks like you know how to do that. Thanks.
Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
@Smallbones: A draft is up - let me know what you think. Maybe @TheDJ would be willing to review it too... Legoktm (talk) 10:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I've added a small bit to the history, but overall this is about as accessible and well written as a topic like this can be i think. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

specific articles (Publication *Today*)

Obit

User talk:Twofingered Typist#Obituary Cabayi (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

An hour to publication!

@HaeB, Bri, Eddie891, and DannyS712: I'm still looking for someone to publish this! There's still some copyediting to be done, final approvals etc. ?i may drop 2 otherwise good sections in In thr media. HaeB - how long untill you are ready? Anybody have a suggestion on another publisher?

Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I’m out of town this weekend and have no access to a laptop, unfortunately. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:05, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Addendum: I went through "in the media". jp×g 22:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Ready to publish, publisher needed

Well this looks like a fantastic issue. Only one problem: I reallyt messed up the Thanksgiving schedule and there is nobody to run the publishing script. @Bri, DannyS712, and Headbomb: if any of you are ready, willing, and able - feel free to publish ASAP. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:08, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Why am I pinged? You made it abundantly clear you didn't want help running the Signpost. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Sorry that you are still offended. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Typical non-apology apology from the Signpost staff. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Jeez Louise. @Smallbones: Is the whole thing ready to go, and we just need someone to install some JavaScript and hit a button? jp×g 22:50, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh, it seems I need to be a page mover and mass message sender (or admin) in order to use the script. If nobody else is available, and it's an absolute emergency, I suppose I could go to WP:PERM and ask (although I was not planning on filing an RfA today). jp×g 22:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
If you feel confident feel free to try. But I wouldn't expect to get the permissions in a flash. I'm thinking - if worse comes to worst - somebody will come along tomorrow mornibg and do it. I'm bot a techie - so I've never done it. Maybe {{ping}Legoktm}} has an idea? Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:50, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
JPxG, I've given you 1 day of Page Mover & Mass Message. I'm off to bed now. Good luck. Cabayi (talk) 23:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
go for it! If you run into a problem, well - I'll check in in 15 minutes or email me. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
I have my massmessage rights back. In the future, please let me know a few days in advance if you need me to press the button. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Ditto. I could have made arrangements to be around, but wasn't ready and was caught in the car with no laptop today. Good work to all in getting this out-- Eddie891 Talk Work 01:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Archive_20&oldid=1146406861"