Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions/Archive 3

Opinion: Firearms
completed


 * Submission: User:Dlthewave/Signpost Opinion Firearms
 * Submission type: Opinion
 * Author: +
 * Discussion: This op-ed describes a long-term pattern of disruption at Wikiproject Firearms, where editors coordinated to keep information about mass shootings out of firearms articles for over 10 years. –dlthewave ☎ 16:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * As an editor who was involved with at least some of these events I think this is a very one sided OpEd article. Claiming there has been a "long-term pattern of disruption" is a bit like asking the left if the right has a long term pattern of resisting laws the left thinks are good.  The external articles it cites are basically three sources parroting the same story.  That story is easily shown to be poorly researched and quick to jump to conclusions.  The OpEd here can be boiled down to a disagreement regarding what is DUE and UNDUE that has yet to be cleanly resolved.  Perhaps it is a good topic but I would suggest a joint authorship debate article rather than one that accuses editors the author has disagreed with of disruption.  I will close by saying I do believe Dlthewave is a good faith editor but I think this is a poor summary of a long term debate related to the topic.  Springee (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ...And this is why it’s an opinion piece and not a news article. If you want to write a rebuttal and submit that, you can of course submit it. I make no guarantees about it being put on the same page as the above submission. (COI: I have participated in discussions on this topic.) —   python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 03:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * This is a perfect example of Advocacy. 	I only want to help Wikipedia! What I am writing is true! The public needs to know this! Articles on X should be written or edited by believers in X and not Y.--RAF910 (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: RAF910 is one of the editors who was involved in these events –dlthewave ☎ 13:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, and Dlthewave has portrayed himself as the epic hero fighting the forces of darkness.--RAF910 (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Coming from a country which has the strictest gun laws in the world and where most people of my generation have never seen a real gun close up unless they have been in the army (even the police don't wear them), and where gun crimes are very low compared to the US; and with the US having what I understand to be the most liberal laws on gun ownership, I am not qualified to comment on this draft other than my gut feeling tells me that it is more advocacy than opinion and probably will not attract many readers who will stick through the article to the end. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: The Verge recently ran an article about WP:GUNS a while back that was in ITM: https://web.archive.org/web/20180306185345/https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/6/17086794/ar-15-wikipedia-gun-control-parkland-mass-shooting There was also this in 2014: https://aoav.org.uk/2014/wikipedia-neutrality-guns/ —  python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 22:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The AOAV article appears to be something published by an anti-gun group. I'm not sure they are likely going to be an unbiased source of information.


 * I previously addressed the flaws with the Verge article on a user talk page (User talk:Valjean/Archive 22 search for the paragraph starting, "So I have a bit of time and thought I would share my take"). The OpEd author read and appears to have agreed with my criticisms of the Verge and Verge parrot articles.


 * The shortish version is this was simple a confused mess regarding where information should actually go, not a conspiracy. In 2005 the "AR-15" article was created and it talked about the Armalite AR-15 and it's derivative rifles.  "AR-15" is actually a trademark of Colt and at some point the article became "Colt AR-15" and editors wanted to limit the scope of content to only that which specifically involved "Colt" rifles, not AR-15 clones.  At the time AR-15 -> Colt AR-15 the Armalite specific material was spun off into its own page.  Generic discussions of AR-15 clones appear to have been moved to the already existing Modern Sporting Rifle page.  At the time the MSR page would include AR-15's as well as semi-auto rifles that aren't based on the original AR pattern, for example some versions of the Mini-14.  When the AR-15 page was split into the brand specific Colt and Armalite pages it appears no one created a generic location for "AR-15" searches.  Thus editors who searched for "AR-15" found the Colt AR-15 page (as mentioned in the OpEd).


 * Not unreasonably, involved editors said the page should only cover material involving "Colt" manufactured rifles. Consider that "Coke" is often used as a generic name for cola drinks (get something out of the "Coke machine").  It certainly wouldn't be OK to include a generic discussion of say removing "cola" from schools on the "Coke-a-cola" page.  A similar situation had developed with editors trying to add "AR-15" material that didn't specifically involve a Colt product to the "Colt AR-15" page.  My first involvement with the area was in these discussions.  Editors suggested this could be addressed by creating a generic "AR-15 clone" page.  Being as this is Wikipedia, pages only get created if someone actually takes the effort to make it happen.  Editors who wanted to avoid the constant fights trying to keep generic AR-15 crimes out of the Colt article could have created a generic page sooner.  Editors who wanted a place to put such information into an AR-15 page also could have created the page.  In, I think 2017, someone did take initiative and, incorrectly, redefined the scope of the MSR page.  Rather than saying AR-15's are a type of MSR, they changed the definition to MSR=AR-15 (Colt and clones).  This still wasn't a complete fix.  Editors such as the OpEd's author were rightly confused when a search for a generic AR-15 article went to the Colt AR-15 page which lacked any of the generic topics they felt should be included.  It didn't help that some felt the "generic" page had an obscure, euphemistic name.  So after debate in March 2018 the MSR page was changed to the generic AR-15 page and gained a section talking about crimes and mass shooting. It should be noted that as a result there is no page for the broader topic that used to be called MSR.


 * What should be the take away from this?
 * 1. If you are constantly seeing editors pushing back and saying that content doesn't go here perhaps the correct solution is figure out where it does go. While the current solution didn't come about easily it was actually both "sides" working together that made it happen.
 * 2. Sometimes it isn't a conspiracy... unless you consider a bunch of editors waiting for someone else to fix the problem a form of conspiring. This is where the Verge article got it so wrong.  They assumed the reason for any content rejection must be due to coordinated censorship.  They didn't consider that sometimes insertions are just low quality or the information really doesn't fit in that article.


 * Final note, the OpEd suggests that a change in Project Firearms guidelines opened the door to fix these issues after a "landmark" RfC but also suggest that editors are still defying the outcome of that RfC by mentioning the Smith & Wesson M&P15 article. In fact many were critical of the landmark RfC due to the muddled and confusing nature of the questions being asked.  In the end the changes to the guideline were slight and really just removed a single sentence (rightfully in my opinion) that had been part of the article for less than a year.  The outcome was actually in line with some of the previous discussions of the subject.  The OpEd mention of the M&P-15 page was given as sort of a "more work ahead".  In 2017 a RfC resulted in a consensus to exclude some crime coverage into the article.  A little over a year later, an editor attempted to insert nearly identical information.  Editors in favor of insertion argued that the landmark RfC negated the previous RfC citing that some editors (but not the closing editor) had cited the project guidelines.  This was covered by the OpEd which also lamented that the material is, to this day, not in the article.  It failed to mention why.  A new RfC again found a consensus against inclusion.  I hope this sheds at least some light on the issues with this OpEd article. Springee (talk) 03:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I’m not making any judgments about the quality or neutrality of the above articles, just letting people know they exist. —  python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 13:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment The latest Signpost has come and gone without any real comment or evaluation from the editors. If there are any improvements or changes that I need to make, please let me know. –dlthewave ☎ 23:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think a single page covering both views would be the best way forward. Would you be interested in writing a second/response piece, along the lines of your comments above from 03:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)?  your current submission seems too long for such a format: see User:Evad37/Signpost draft/Community view, where I tried drafting it up using Springee's response as "filler" for the second piece. Can you try shortening it? Or maybe you want to keep a full copy in your userspace, and present a summary for the Signpost? (Note that this would all still be subject to EIC approval) - Evad37 &#91;talk] 02:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Take a minute to think about what you’re doing. You’re seriously saying The Signpost has TOO MUCH content?! —  python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 13:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My point, which perhaps I didn't communicate clearly, is that the balance feels a bit off in the combined draft I linked. And that perhaps something a bit shorter might be keep readers more engaged, especially since we would be asking them to read two opinion pieces. Maybe my feeling re the balance isn't shared by anyone else, or maybe it would be better to expand the second piece instead, but these are my thoughts at the moment. We can see what other Signpost editors and the EIC think.

- Evad37 &#91;talk] 14:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Aaaah, I see now. —  python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 14:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I don't think a proper refutation of this OpEd would be in any way brief. This is one of those examples where it's easy to make accusations and show superficial evidence that suggests truth.  To refute that "truth" would requires actually looking at the claims in detail.  Alternatively it would require some sort of high level overview of the situation where instead of refuting the claims you paint an alternate view of the big picture.  To be honest, I don't really want to put my limited editing time (actually composing vs just replying to talk page comments) into this discussion.  Most of what I wrote above was a repeat of something I said to an editor earlier regarding the lazy Verge article.  I really didn't get into the laundry list of issues with the OpEd at large.  Perhaps an alternative to having just one editor reply would be to find the editors quoted either in the OpEd or in the "whitewashing" evidence page.  Since those editors are being drawn into this discussion, perhaps without their knowledge, it would be best to give them a voice.  Springee (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I share Springee's concern that a combined page would not have enough room to cover both perspectives adequately. I don't really see the need for my opinion piece to present all viewpoints, but interested editors are certainly welcome to submit their opinions for publication if they are interested. I would support having both pieces in the same issue as long as it does not significantly delay publication; Springee mentioned his intent to draft a rebuttal back in February, so he's had plenty of time to work on it if he's interested.
 * Springee's response concerns more recent (circa 2017-18) events that do involve a certain amount of confusion and differing views over terminology and where certain content should be included. My main focus, however, was meant to be the well-documented history of editors enforcing a project advice page as "policy", even after they were warned not to. I only gave a few examples here but I do maintain a separate, extensive list of occurrences. I just don't see a defensible opposing viewpoint to that, since it so clearly went against our policies and guidelines. –dlthewave ☎ 14:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * After reading Evad37's explanation, I would be comfortable with a combined page that includes a summary of each opinion with links to the full-length pieces. This seems like a good way to present both viewpoints without having to trim anything. –dlthewave ☎ 16:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would like to use my blurb, the paragraph starting "From 2007 through 2018...", as the basis for my summary. Perhaps it can be expanded a bit. Would Signpost folks be willing to proofread and edit (or provide editing suggestions) for the full-length piece as well? –dlthewave ☎ 22:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Question: Since Springee doesn't seem interested in writing an opposing view ( please correct me if I'm wrong here), who is going to either write it or solicit opinions from others? I'm not sure how the three opinions in the Stickland affair op-ed were brought together, but it seems like a similar situation. –dlthewave ☎ 16:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , as a new copyeditor, my opinion probably doesn't mean as much as say.. 's or 's but I will give my thoughts here nonetheless. Unlike Evad, I think that this article does not present a balance problem whatsoever. Op-Ed's by their very nature are supposed to be divisive. We don't need to balance it out for the sake of making everyone happy. As long as a piece is not downright offensive (*looks behind shoulder*), then we should be good to publish it after it's been fact-checked. That being said, I do feel the piece is a bit long winded. Here are my thoughts:
 * Your thesis is unclear. When you write this sort of thing, you have to be clear what you are proposing. For me, this op-ed is much more powerful when it is discussing, "We need to improve our coverage of firearms on Wikipedia, and this thing that this wikiproject does is inhibiting discussion."
 * I'd cut the entire "Lessons learned" section of the thing. It is a classic case of lazy writing. If the points here were not sprinkled in throughout the essay, then you need to do another rewrite.
 * The most powerful section in your piece is the one labeled "My experience." No editor can ever take that away from you.
 * Remove the first instance of a quotebox. It's redundant and does not serve the points you subsequently make where the other one will not do.
 * Get rid of I will cover one article in detail here; I also maintain an exhaustive list of these discussions. The page you linked to is in Deletion review. It also makes you seem a bit WP:POLEMIC to the casual reader.
 * Talk in general terms in "Enforcing the advice page as policy" (which you should rename to: "Enforcing advice as policy"). Remove all references to Ruger Mini-14 as it just hurts your arguement.
 * There's actually a lot more, but I don't want to overload you. Let's start there.
 * Thank you for this submission. Kindest Regards, &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 03:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll work on trimming the length and clarifying the thesis. My intent was to use the pattern I observed at the Firearms project as an example of a problem that can happen to any walled-garden topic, and suggest ways that the community can better respond to situations like it.
 * The "exhaustive list" link was meant to provide evidence that it was happening at multiple articles and project pages without having to list every example within my article. Is there a better way to demonstrate this to the reader, or should I just mention that it was "widespread" and let them to take my word for it?
 * What is it about the Mini-14 that hurts my argument? I could replace it with another example fairly easily.


 * I appreciate the feedback and please feel free to suggest any other improvements that you have in mind. –dlthewave ☎ 15:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you as well for the submission!
 * That's certainly a noble intent! I'd still remove the lesson's learned thing for the same reason, but that's just me. That criticism isn't a deal breaker by any means.
 * Let people take your word for it. Detractors are going to accuse you of being wrong about it anyways, so there's no point going down that rabbit hole.
 * If the Mini-14 is a rare example of a weapon which meets the "legislative change" requirement, then there is no reason we need to hear about it. It gives undue weight to the one exception you are saying there was to the rule. Let your opponents make the arguement that the Mini-14 was able to clear the threshold without controversy.
 * Also, by first quotebox, I meant the February 2018 version of the policy and not the thing you got rid of.
 * The last most major thing I would do broadly is make this two parts: how things worked before the RfC (including your own experiences) and the effects of the RfC. That means: One intro, two main body paragraphs, and a conclusion. That would make your arguement airtight.
 * I can't thank you enough, so thank you! &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I started a new draft here. The section headers are just temporary, to help with the layout. I'd like to include some variation of the "lessons learned" section in the conclusion as a sort of path forward. Let me know what you think. –dlthewave ☎ 21:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , oh. my. gosh! I love this!! Once you get that conclusion, this is just a few tweaks away from being publishing-ready!!! :D (btw, ping me for a quicker response) &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 04:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There are writing issues. Sorry if I jumped in at the wrong time. Thank you, CluelessEditoroverhere (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I added a conclusion which is basically a copy of Lessons Learned. Let me know what you think. Is there anything I can do to improve the style or keep it focused on the thesis?, specific feedback would be much appreciated. –dlthewave ☎ 20:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * c/e suggestions added. Tell me what you think. CluelessEditoroverhere (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was working in my sandbox and forgot to update the submission page. Can you take another look? –dlthewave ☎ 20:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

It taken me a long tome to get through the submission and all the comments, but I've come to a couple of conclusions Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , thank you for the ping. I thinkin my limited experience this is ready to publish., what say you? &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 05:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The quote box ("But on Wikipedia, as in the real world,...") appears twice. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The Verge article is flawed per my comments above. I would suggest this OpEd should be the opinion of the submitter, not the opinions of an non-wiki reporter who clearly didn't bother to look into the facts before reporting.  Also, the "changes to project guidelines" quote box is misleading.  The only sentence that actually didn't conform with policy was the declaratory part about "see also".  That was part of the text for less than a year.   The rest of the policy was in compliance with policy.  The big change was, to borrow a firearms term, a flash in the pan.  So when one compares the early 2017 to late 2018 version we see just one relatively redundant sentence and "must" change to "should".  However,  "must" is correct since WEIGHT applies .  It's also misleading to suggest that various examples of exclusion were ultimately decided based on consensus skewed by an assumption that the project page dictated the outcome.  Even with the original version of this OpEd that wasn't illustrated in any example.  First, as we saw at the Ford F-650 criminal use RfC often inclusion/exclusion fits into a gray area of WP:WEIGHT and editor consensus dictates outcome.  Also we have the example of the M&P15 criminal use RfC.  Prior to the "turning point" RfC consensus said exclude.  The "turning point" RfC was used as an excuse to ignore the prior RfC consensus and try to push the material back into the article.  A new RfC reaffirmed the old one.  In short, just because someone doesn't like the outcome of a prior consensus doesn't mean there was a conspiracy to achieve it.  Dlthewave admirably cutting the length and made the article less accusatory but I think the premise and conclusions are just as flawed as before.  Springee (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Evad37's comments are right on target - this would be a wonderful "Pro & Con" type article if both Dlthewave and Springee step forward to complete the piece. Dl's submission could also work alone, but "Pro & Con" would be better.
 * Dl's submission
 * is too long and will wear out the reader all by itself. My wordcount gives over 2900 words (but includes 5 boxes).  Without the boxes, could you get it down to 1000? If Springee wants to submit his part (which I greatly encourage) he should keep it the same length.
 * it starts out a bit slow. You've got to convince the readers in the 1st paragraph or so that this is worth reading, about something that will effect their life - or at least their editing. I don't quite know what you are trying to do in the "blurb", but the final editor (that's me) will probably just delete that and write the blurb himself, per the usual practice.
 * I like the lessons learned - it's really just a conclusion. Cutting its length in half will make it twice as good.
 * We can link to your full version (which we won't edit), but 90% of the readers will just read the Signpost version
 * Springee - you've got your work cut out for you. Dlthewave's submission is quite persuasive. I think I'll give you the the advantage of having the last word on the page. What Evad37 demoed from you would need some work. Some of it comes across as "there were technical reasons why we couldn't include the material." That won't convince most readers. Please just give the best arguments for leaving the material out.
 * Please do let me know if you want to make a submission.
 * It's a bit confusing because Evad37 drafted a version that includes both perspectives, while I've still been working on the original submission in my userspace. In any case the current version is trimmed down to about 1300 words and can be found here. I think this addresses most of your concerns, and I can make the conclusion less wordy as well. Do you think it looks better with or without section headings? –dlthewave ☎ 21:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd love to see both perspectives on one page. If Springee doesn't want to submit though, there's nothing we can do, so the length issue is not as crucial. Still, I think the conclusion should be shorter, and I'd like to see a lede that will draw readers in.  As it stands now, I think you'll lose 5-10% of readers who might think "why do I want to read about the history of an edit war." It's not, of course, but some readers might think it after reading the 1st 2 paragraphs.  Make it compelling! I hadn't seen the turtle metaphor before and it confused me at first - is there a simpler way to say it?  The section headers are ok, but we reserve the right to change them.  Thanks for the extra work. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 22:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So I guess I'm will have to put together something. What is the time and is there a period where Dlthewave's text will be complete?  The first question since I will be OOO the first week of April and I don't have loads of time before then.  The second question because I need to know what I'm actually replying to if I'm to offer a counter post.  Springee (talk) 01:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that our schedules don't seem to mesh. I'm committed to publishing this on March 31. If you can get a good draft in by March 26, we'll almost surely publish it along with Dlthewave's text. Dlthewave's text won't be increased in size, the arguments will stay the same, so you can be assured that your arguments will be relevant.
 * The reason I don't want to wait until the end of April to publish it is that writers get fatigued by waiting, editors get stale dealing with the same topic, and we need a good article like this for the upcoming issue.
 * If you can't get a good draft by then, I'll suggest preparing a rebuttal for the comment below the article, or submitting a rebuttal for the April issue. Sorry this didn't work out. Sincerely,

Smallbones( smalltalk ) 21:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

break

 * Request: I would like the quotes from The Verge and the other two articles which just reference The Verge to be removed from the discussion.  The Verge article was misleading and frankly a bit dishonest on the part of the author (I say this as an editor contacted prior to publication).  I've repeatedly pointed how how the Verge completely screws up the events it claims to report and I feel that inclusion would just require me to post a comment after the actual OpEd+official rebuttal to address those articles.  I would rather we keep this about what editors here are writing.  I think this is also a reasonable request as the OpEd no longer references the external articles.  If Dlthewave would like to include them in the comment section that would be fine, I would reply to them in the comments.  It will keep the discussion of Dlthewave's content cleaner.  Springee (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * , I've created a draft but I want to get some feedback before calling it complete. The draft is here User:Springee/sandbox.  I also would like to repeat my request that the quote boxes to the external articles not be included with the published OpEd.  Above I explained why The Verge got it wrong but it simply takes too much text to explain that.  Note that the other two articles simply report what the Verge claims.  It creates a false sense of authority to quote all three as if they were three independent sources.  More so since Dlthewave acknowledged the issues here, "By the way, thank you Springee for explaining a few of these differences to me. It looks to me like the Verge misunderstood the facts, which must have been incredibly frustrating for the involved editors."   Springee (talk) 14:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * My views on The Verge have changed over the past year. After taking a closer look at the Colt AR-15/MSR/SIG MCX situation, I now feel that their article reflects my opinion. In any case, the quote I used applies to the overall trend and is not specific to the AR-15. you are welcome to present your perspective but I'm not going to remove the quote for the sake of lessening your workload. –dlthewave ☎ 15:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of work load since I have already written the text you agreed with. It'a a matter of respecting the 1000 word limit.  You are effectively making an argument without adding text.  My reply to the text would be to quote my original discussion and your reply.  Springee (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * All of this is exactly why I stepped away from editing firearms articles. dlthewave and a few others constantly badgered editors with the same argument over and over in multiple locations, forcing the same ground to be hashed and rehashed ad nauseum. The fact that this is an encyclopedia, where accuracy (such as the AR15 and the MCX being entirely different firearms) should be valued, not a social justice platform where agendas should be furthered (well some people may search for XYZ), seems lost in this whole debate. dlthewave takes something like the list of official users, completely ignores the discussion about why they are included, and just says "it doesn't make sense". Just because an editor is incapable or unwilling to understand technical differences or accept a reason doesn't make him correct. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I rewrote the intro, but I'd like to keep the conclusion as is if you're comfortable with that. Let me know what you think. –dlthewave ☎ 18:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 's part looks almost ready to go, either alone or as part one of a "pro & con". Let's just say accept for now I'll likely remove the Newsweek and Haaretz (sp?) boxes and move the Verge box to near the top. It seems that both authors want to included very similar boxes about the changes in the essay - is there any way we can agree on one box with this material and include it in between the 2 parts.
 * Your work at User:Springee/sandbox is ok so far, but does need work. Will it be ready by Thursday?  The section on weight and reciprocity is unclear at the beginning.  Please rewrite "If a RS about A mentions B does that mean the Wikipedia article about B has weight to include A? Does WEIGHT for B with respect to A mean A has weight with respect to B? WEIGHT instructs that we should treat aspects of a topic in proportion, "to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." Is the subject A or B or both?" It's much too technical, and wording like RS, A, B WEIGHT, "with respect to", will lose many readers. Your suggestion on the essay box would be appreciated. I'll give you the same advice I gave Dlthewave - start the article trying to draw in the reader and let him/her know why he should read it. An article that looks like it is about an edit war will drive many readers away.  Some of it is about the technicalities of our rules, which could be as boring as an ArbCom evidence page if you don't ask yourself "what is the big picture?". Smallbones( smalltalk ) 21:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the feedback. I will see what I can get done.  I'll see what I can do about making the reciprocity part more readable, less analytic.  Once you get used to working with that kind of language its not always easy to switch it off!  Odd that you would mention edit war as to be honest it's not far from that.  At its core WEIGHT doesn't provide clear guidance on this sort of content.  We have a spectrum of firearms editors.  Some feel the information about crimes is really the only material of significance and they would be happy to remove the rest of the article.  At the other end you have editors who feel a firearms article should be similar to that of any other product (car, radio etc).  You say who made it, when it was made, how it operates etc.  Just as most specific automobile articles don't dive into the social and environmental impact of cars in general these editors feel a specific firearm article generally shouldn't either.  Of course we also have editors along the spectrum.  Given the political nature of the topic POV push (pull in the case of removal?) is certainly an issue (guilty examples on both sides).
 * Anyway, I would be open to help with the reciprocity question. It's a critical one since it gets to the heart of the issue.  Both ends of the spectrum can make a case that they are following weight.  One end says a RS mentioned both the gun and the crime thus we have weight to support inclusion of the gun in the article about the crime and the crime in the article about the gun.  But in almost all cases the RS is about the crime, rarely does an article about the gun discuss the crimes.  I included a RfC regrading discussion of vehciles in high profile crimes because it parallel's the gun example (RS about the crime mention the vehicle but not the other way around).  That RfC overwhelmingly vetoed that idea when asked about crimes and cars.  Again, I'm more than open to a less mathematical/logic oriented way to introduce the concept.
 * As for the change in essay boxes, I copied Dlthewave's specifically as a compare and contrast. Dlthewave suggested that some great change had occurred and they rightly note the loss of an imperative sentence from the text.  However, the readers should know that the imperative had only been in the text for a short time.  The bulk of the text is virtually unchanged.  That kind of get to one of the two cores of the argument.  1.  We are dealing with a content dispute due to the political nature of the topic combined with the ambiguity of WEIGHT in this case.  Two, the "landmark" RfC was at best a clarification that will have little impact and at worst was a lost chance to deal with the core problem, the ambiguity of WEIGHT.  Springee (talk) 04:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * One more thing, Dlthewave's update does contain something that I would object to.  is a statement that shouldn't be accepted without some type of evidence.  Basically if just one article was found to contain criminal use information then the statement is false.  Stating that some editors objected to such information and that it was frequently resulted in content disputes/removals would be true.  Springee (talk) 04:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I changed it to "many of our articles". –dlthewave ☎ 16:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

, I've posted an update to my sandbox. Springee (talk) 04:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I quickly reviewed the changes and it looks better. I'll do some copy editing today and also may suggest changes.  Can you check these and get the final draft on Friday?  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 13:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I just made a small edit noting that the disputed information does exist in Wikipedia but not always in a particular article.  Springee (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't describe my position as "pro criminal use inclusion". It was meant to be an exposé, so something like "Criminal use was inappropriately excluded from firearms articles" or "Editors wrongly treated a project page as policy". –dlthewave ☎ 04:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would agree. I think Dlthewave and I would probably both agree that there are examples where criminal use shouldn't be included as well as examples where I know we have both agree criminal use should be included (the AR-15 style rifle page for example). Springee (talk) 10:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Smallbones, So long as The Verge text box is included I would like to include the reply text either as a box or in line. Quoting the article is an appeal to authority.  The flaws in that authority should be included. Springee (talk) 10:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * , I think Dlthewave's versions is better. "Pro:Criminal use was inappropriately excluded from firearms articles", "Con:Criminal use was not inappropriately excluded (from firearms articles)" or shorten one or both by removing "from firearms articles". Springee (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That does sound better. Please review my copyediting, it's extensive and there will be more.  I think I'll end up removing the "essay said this, then said that" boxes and links  from both Pro and Con and put one box (probably Dlthewave's) at the top in my to-be-written intro. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 13:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , OK, if you keep only one I think we need to make it clear that the version Dlthewave selected was not the long term stable version of the text. Perhaps adding a note that the removed sentence was only part of the text for less than one year?  Springee (talk) 13:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would like to remind you of my earlier statement, "My views on The Verge have changed over the past year. After taking a closer look at the Colt AR-15/MSR/SIG MCX situation, I now feel that their article reflects my opinion." I will make this known in the Comments if you choose to include it against the advice of Smallbones and myself. –dlthewave ☎ 11:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , I've asked that we keep the article to our own words. I'm ok with removing all mention of the article (both text boxes) since it's not a core to either argument. Based on your recent edits in your sandbox it's not clear if you are still including the parrot articles but I've assumed no.  However, if you insist on including it then I will include a reply, a link to my description of its errors your validation of my analysis. If you include the parrots then I will also comment.  I'd rather we keep this just to our own words. Springee (talk) 11:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My sandbox edits concerned the full-length essay which I'm maintaining in my userspace, not the shorter Signpost version. I'm comfortable using news sources to support my thesis and you are welcome to do the same. –dlthewave ☎ 12:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , Smallbones doesn't wish me to use the text box and I don't see an easy way, within the word limit, to dispute the claims of the Verge article. However, since you don't want to remove the text from the article, in a comment I will note that you agreed with my analysis, that you have since reversed your views but offered details as to why.  It is probably worth comparing the Verge's ignorant outside view with that of the news sources that attacked Wikipedia for failing to have a Donna Strickland article. Wikipedia Signpost/2018-10-28/Op-ed  Springee (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I moved my original full-length submission to User:Dlthewave/Firearms essay. Could you include a link to it? –dlthewave ☎ 11:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I really like your intro, it does a good job of "hooking" the reader. My only concern is that "Should criminal use be included in firearms articles?" doesn't summarize my opinion very well. Could you change it to something like "Did WikiProject Firearms inappropriately control article content?" –dlthewave ☎ 22:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * copyediting and integrating these 2 articles onto one page is taking a lot longer than I thought. Changing the titles would have to be for both titles.  Do you see the change in the text box "diff", I'm trying to change it again to a different start date. Comments welcome Give me an hour to make my last changes then I'll ask for a fresh copyeditor for basic word-level copyediting. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 23:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

, I don't think your Pro/Con summary edit is quite correct.Signpost/Next issue/Op-Ed&diff=next&oldid=890091151 I think both editors agree there are cases where it is and is not appropriate to include criminal information in an article about a gun or gun manufacture. The debate is if such material was inappropriately held out of articles. BTW, hats off to you and Smallbones. Clearly a lot of effort going into this and it's paying dividends. Springee (talk) 01:13, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I just put Smallbones' tentative summary in the draft/blurb template, so things are a bit more structured. I haven't even read the piece, I'm just prettifying it. Smallbones should have the final review on the blurb. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Dlthewave, User:Springee, I have copy edited both your sections. I have made some comments and requests for clarifications where I couldn't understand (easily, or at all) the substance of your thoughts, or what RFCs your were referring to. Please review and update. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Dlthewave, User:Springee, thanks for the clarifications. Copy-editing is done, only thing needed now is for User:Smallbones to finalize the title/blurb/intro and give his final thumbs up. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:42, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the outstanding copyediting and formatting. I'm still too close to this, so I'll start with a fresh mind on the final steps Sunday morning. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 04:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The Epistolary Of Arthur 37

 * Submission: User:Rosguill/The Epistolary Of Arthur 37
 * Submission type: Humor
 * Author:
 * Discussion: This piece is a humorous work, written in epistolary form. It tells the tale of poor Arthur37, working in the mines of the New Pages Feed. signed,Rosguill talk 05:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , I honestly would prefer this than the current draft (no offense there). I just think this is so much more wholesome. &#8213; Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖  23:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Taking a look. I am very optimistic. Best Regards,   Barbara    ✐  ✉  22:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks great except that about every 2 inches you say that it can't be modified. Everything (with some exceptions) has to be free/no copyrights. I think it is very funny, but I think everything is funny. So first of all the content has to be cut and pasted into a Signpost draft page. So that is the first problem. Don't worry. Most articles are not heavily edited but when they are, things get pretty exciting. So let me wait until the newsroom/drafts opens up for us to work on next month's issue (probably tomorrow). I will need to move your content into a humour article draft space. I'll be in touch. Best Regards,   Barbara    ✐  ✉  22:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The archive marks were added for comedic effect, to give the impression of the article being made up of old letters. If that's inappropriate then it can be removed. signed,Rosguill talk 23:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You can use divbox instead, it's got a few brown/yellow options - Evad37 &#91;talk] 23:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * How about including some newspaper clippings that Brunhilde has collected in the right-hand column, so that there's some pictures to make it more interesting? E.g. File:Newly-discovered mines in the Rocky Mountains - library of congress.jpg, File:Mine No 6 Va explosion.png, File:Mine No 8 Va explosion.png – with appropriately humorous captions, of course. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 00:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅, although I didn't find a good use for the first suggested image. signed,Rosguill talk 20:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Looked great! As I go over it again, I might put something below this. Thanks, CluelessEditoroverhere (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've formatted it with Signpost templates, and I think it's looking pretty good too. I wonder if it might be better with a short introduction? e.g. perhaps something along the lines of  - Evad37 &#91;talk] 23:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm rapidly getting into the habit of agreeing with Evad37. Some minor things: the "Mussolini era" is out of place chronologically, perhaps substitute "Garibaldi era" instead. "Italianophobia" should probably be "Italophobia" but both are poorly covered in dictionaries. I'd be interested in seeing one more epistle, perhaps short and subtly foreshadowing the ultimate tragedy. We need to figure out how to format the images better. Perhaps you could briefly thank Brunhilde for sending them to you, so the reader has an idea where they came from. Due to last month's reaction to the humour column, I appreciate more folks checking this out for any possible offense that somebody might take.
 * I'll also try my hand at the intro Evad37 suggested, but the ultimate wording should be yours.

"Signpost exclusive: The National Archives is expected to announce an astounding discovery of a cache of 19th century e-mails stored on an early model CD which was previously thought to be unreadable. A sample of the e-mails from a pioneer Wikipedia editor, Arthur37, who is believed to be Wikipedia founder Wimbo Jales follows." Smallbones( smalltalk ) 19:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , All good suggestions, I'll work on integrating them. signed,Rosguill talk 19:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty of using Letterhead start in Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Humour to make them look more like letters. Also I would suggest having a ficticious country for the national archives. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , I like the letterhead. I dunno about the fictitious country part, I'm not sure it adds anything and it could confuse people–I think leaving it underspecified is best. signed,Rosguill talk 17:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

completed

The Wikipedia SourceWatch

 * Submission: User:Headbomb/Sourcewatch
 * Submission type: Special column at Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In focus ?
 * Author:
 * Discussion: After nearly a year of development involving multiple people, The Wikipedia Crapwatch, a compilation of unreliable publications cited by Wikipedia, is finally ready to go live. In the piece, I detail how it came about, how it works, and how to make use of The Crapwatch. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Going to ping User:Ronhjones, User:Tokenzero, User:Galobtter, and User:JLaTondre, since they were all involved at some level. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that this should probably be made a part of the Wikipedia Signpost/Series/Open access series, since a lot of it is related to open access. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * could this be approved? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I just answered on Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom. I'll go with the majority on this, since it is just a question of taste. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 01:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * updated the name to SourceWatch. Hopefully that resolves your objections. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * so can I move this to Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Special report now? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's approved but I'm not sure if its a "Special report", let me look under the names of the column for the best solution & I'll get back. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If not a "special report", then an "In focus" piece seems the best bet. Not really sure what the distinction is, but it seems similar to Wikipedia Signpost/2016-02-10/In focus. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

completed

NZ Mosque shootings
completed
 * Submission: GLAM/New Zealand Wikipedian at Large/Signpost article on mosque shootings
 * Submission type: News
 * Author: and
 * Discussion: An examination of the Wikipedia response to the Christchurch mosque attacks and the call for images to be donated to Commons. Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 02:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

February issue aftermath

 * Submission: User:MJL/sandbox3
 * Column: From the Editors
 * Author: and
 * Discussion:, I may have sort started running with your bulleted list and begun drafting the "From the Editors" section. I would like your thoughts on what I have so far. Also, I don't think we should mention 's potential topic ban. That just seems like a whole new can of worms. Kindest Regards, &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 02:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay. That sounds fine. I was just brainstorming. Unless I contribute other stuff, no need to credit me on this piece. —  python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 03:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Kinda felt weird because I don't think I am as qualified to write this tbh. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 03:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You're not, . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well then who that is qualified and willing should write it? I don't see anyone else stepping up... —  python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 22:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * pythoncoder should be fine to write this! MPS1992 (talk) 05:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

close
 * Please, no. 2 MfDs, an ANI thread and an ArbCom request are sufficient. The two at the helm of affairs have (likely) left and I don't foresee any good that the publication will cause other than more polarization and more drama. I look forward to a fresh journey of the magazine, without any connect to the isolated incidences of the past few months. &#x222F; WBG converse 08:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , It would be highly irregular for a newspaper to not directly respond to this type of controversy. I just based what I wrote after the things came up with. However, I will note that we never formally retracted the piece, and this is a good time to elaborate on our relationship with the wikimedia community directly. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Some people had brought the idea up so I put down some bullet points. I understand the argument that it would be more irresponsible to not cover this, but I also shudder at the thought about the many kilobytes of comments that this would cause. I have no doubt that some (not all) of the commenters would just be looking for any fault they could find and publishing such an article could end up bringing up the drama again. This is the part where I'd defer to the editor-in-chief, but we don't have one. —   python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 22:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should grant the chattering classes a heckler's veto. We are allowed to publish pieces without having approval from anyone and must re-ify that fact. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 23:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , logic would dictate that either the Editors (you) and the would be the ones to make these sorts of decisions for the moment . However, I am not opposed to making this a group decision (as in the editorial board- this would actually be my preference). Side note: I have yet to actually finish the most important part of the article. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 00:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This sort of decision isn't really within the remit of "Editor Emeritus" – if only one or two people are to make this decision, I think it should be as (acting or actual) Editor(s)-in-chief. A group decision is a possibility, if we can get consensus on what we actually want to say. As for drama goes, some amount is likely to occur no matter what we do – any coverage is likely going to reignite debate and controversy, and a lack of coverage is going to piss off the people expecting some sort of acknowledgment or apology. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 01:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , oh... huh. Question: in the immediate period before you became Editor-in-Chief, had there been any examples of an alternative decision making approach being used? I don't see why we give so much responsibility to a position that we chronically cannot fill. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 03:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * During that period of 2017, various people volunteered on an ad hoc basis to effectively do (parts of) the EIC job without claiming any title. You read the discussions in Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Archive 10 if you're interested, particularly and  - Evad37 &#91;talk] 10:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Whether we held some vague notion of responsibility or not - or had responsibility disingenuously thrust upon us by liars and detractors, some of us have finally taken the decision to retire from The Signpost never to return - or are about to. None of these retirements are an admission of wrong-doing or under a cloud, but the bad blood, personal attacks, and persistent harassment are untenable. Nobody helping to run the magazine should be expected to go through this. I appreciate everything that a tiny handful of users have done for The Signpost over the last 11 months and if some people believe it's worth saving, I can't argue against it. That said, IMO this recent scandal, having spilled over multiple talk pages, ANI, MfD, and Arbcom, has already had sufficient exposure, and yet another article about it all in The Signpost will not change or improve anything. It would simply rub more salt into people's wounds, polarise more people, destroy what's left of a collaborative environment, and allow even more polemic, vituperation, attacks, and trolling in the comments section from people who have already had far more than enough to say. That would hardly be a fresh start. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Daty Wikidata Editor: alpha release

 * Submission: Village pump (miscellaneous)
 * Column: News
 * Author:
 * Discussion:

Hi everyone,

I have released the alpha version of a Wikidata editor called Daty, which of course I think would be of great benefit to Wiki* communities among others; the project development has been supported by Wikimedia CH, too, so I thought it would be appropriate to have its release inserted in the news.

I have already made a release post on your Village Pump and on IRC, where an user suggested me to write a short article on the Signpost for maximum visibility. Ogoorcs (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * you were a bit late for the January issue, which we are busy finalizing. This will be reviewed for February's issue. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the quick reply! If everything goes well, next month this could be about the beta release announcement. Ogoorcs (talk) 04:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, and in the meantime I'd suggest writing a standalone page vice referring to the village pump discussion. You can also decide how you want to "pitch" it to the readership. Informative only? Call to action? Background on what's missing with existing Wikidata interface(s)? ☆ Bri (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

close

Factfulness book

 * Submission: wikilink to your submission (or red link to where you intend to write it)
 * Column: News
 * Author:
 * Discussion:I'm reading Hans Rosling's 2018 book, Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World--and Why Things Are Better Than You Think. It says a few things that Signpost readers might find of interest: 1) Hans Rosling loved Wikipedia, and uses it a few times in his footnotes. 2) Rosling looked into using Wikipedia as a database of terrorism deaths and found it significantly underreported terrorism in non-Western countries. This isn't really "News", so I'm wondering what you think of having a new regular section about how Wikipedia is used and perceived, called "Wikipedia in the World" or "What Wikipedia Readers Say" or something like that. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 17:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for submitting to The Signpost! I can’t seem to find your submission in your contributions, so could you please provide a link to your submission? (Unless you haven’t started it, then obviously you can’t link to it.)
 * As for where it would go, it would probably be under a header of “Book Review” because The Signpost has run book reviews in the past. We have an In the Media section, but it’s typically devoted to news on the topic of coverage of Wikipedia in off-wiki sources, rather than reviews or other opinion pieces. There was no In the Media section this month because there wasn’t enough material that people found for it. If you want to write for that, you’re welcome to; it currently does not have a permanent writer. If you don’t want to, though, that’s okay too.
 * I’ll take a look at your review once you finish it. And if you want to get more involved with The Signpost, head over to the newsroom. —  python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 23:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There's some guidance for book reviews (and opinion pieces more generally) at Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions/editintro (opinion) (it used to also exist elsewhere, but I can't seem to find it – might have been left out from one of our reorganisations) - Evad37 &#91;talk] 02:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Yup, I haven't drafted anything yet. I'll draft something and bring it back here for discussion. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 05:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

close

The gap gap

 * Submission: User:GreenMeansGo/sandbox
 * Column: Op ed I suppose?
 * Author:
 * Discussion: This piece is about what we know we don't know about editor demographics, what we haven't measured in the past, and hopefully, what we should be measuring in the future.  G M G  talk  23:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I like this! &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 06:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks okay to publish to me. Would publish under "Op-ed". Is this finished? —  python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 15:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's fairly well finished aside from perhaps a few additional tweaks. I've been working on it on and off for about a month now.  G M G  talk  15:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , the Wired piece states Antarctica had still more Wikipedia articles written about it than almost every country in Africa. It compares Antarctica with any random country in Africa. You write Antarctica has about as many articles written about it as all of Africa wherein you compare the two continents. All that being said, I have significant doubts about whether WMF is at all a competent organisation to design surveys, at the first place.......   &#x222F; WBG converse 08:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah. Good catch. ✅  G M G  talk  11:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not totally sure why this is still marked in progress. I'm fine with it. I was never planning on making major revisions once I submitted it.  G M G  talk  22:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I was not sure on your intentions. I've moved it to the next issue Opinion column, without the "new new " section on top. If you really want that you'll have to work it in. It could use a good copyediting. Please check my headline switch (it seemed a bit mysterious) and try to write a blurb. Smallbones( smalltalk )

close

Do Wikipedia editors need to be stoics?

 * Submission: Do Wikipedia editors need to be stoics?
 * Column: Gallery
 * Author:
 * Discussion: This piece is a gallery submission that tries to briefly highlight the question "Do Wikipedia editors need to be stoics?"... DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is very interesting, very creative work. Thanks for submitting this. I'm not sure if it fits in with our usual gallery format, but I'd like to explore what people think of making the gallery format into a "photo essay" (or "image essay" in this case) instead of a simple collection of related pix. I'm not sure I'd call this humorous, but it certainly is ironic at points. There is one mention of somebody beheaded by ISIS - can I call this "gallery humor? It would not work this month with the New Zealand massacre and our serious humor problem.  Perhaps with other comments you might figure out changes that can be made and how far we can go down this path.  But for the upcoming issue, no. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 02:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment and taking the time to go through this carefully. I think the "unreviewed" tag can be changed to "rejected" for now. I have no issues with that. I also can't find the time to improve this submission and fix the issues raised, so all the more reason to reject it. Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 09:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've set the status to "Declined". Thanks for trying DiplomatTesterMan, and sorry it didn't work out. Please have another go at writing a submission when you have some time, creative proposals are always welcome. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 02:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this could be reworked as a humour column for the next issue (not this one, but the one after). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

close

Essay: The one question

 * Submission: WP:1Q
 * Column: Essay
 * Author:
 * Discussion: This is a short essay I wrote in February 2019, partly because I kept running into "This is an essay, not a guideline" / "This is a guideline, not policy" / "Policies are not rule!" meta-arguments, where people seemed more interest in having an outcome based on the categorization of our alphabet soup, rather than actually debating the merits of the arguments represented by the alphabet soup. I think this would make a good submission for a republished essay, maybe with a bit of commentary on why this essay is relevant (as well as its shortcomings). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Too short, too new. I'll suggest that this space should be reserved for well-read, often-quoted essays generally nominated by someone other than the author. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 02:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

close

Getting serious about writing

 * Submission: User:Headbomb/New at the Signpost
 * Column: Special report (possibly From the editors)
 * Author:
 * Discussion: This piece is about the significant improvements that occurred at the Signpost to make getting involved easier than ever. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

close

2019 Wikimedia Summit gathers movement affiliate representatives to discuss movement strategy

 * Submission: User:Airplaneman/Wikimedia Summit 2019 Signpost draft
 * Column: TDB
 * Author:
 * Discussion: This provides an overview of Wikimedia Summit 2019, which I attended. It's my first Signpost submission, and I'm looking for whatever advice you may have. Some of my concerns include overlinking and overall style. Let me know what you think. Previous conversation regarding this piece is on my talk page. Airplaneman   ✈  00:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

close

On notability

 * Submission: User:Teratix/On notability
 * Column: Probably op-ed news
 * Author:
 * Discussion: Greetings to everyone at The Signpost from an avid reader but a first-time writer. My recent first wikibirthday coincided with the controversial deletion of the article on Clarice Phelps, and it made me wonder about Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Panned in the press and restrictive of articles on subjects underrepresented in media coverage, they have been the target of much criticism over the years. This piece will examine their history, weigh their benefit to the project and discuss any changes that may be necessary.


 * Currently, I have only written the introduction (I hope that's OK), but will continue to expand. Honest and constructive feedback is invaluable; please inform me of any problems, even if it is "editor is too new" :) – Teratix ₵ 14:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Get to work and get a full draft! It looks fine so far, but we really can't tell until a draft is finished. It's a huge topic for Wikipedia, but maybe you can cut it down to size.  What I'll be looking for is the "argument" - what are the assumptions, can a reader follow the logical steps in your thinking, does the conclusion follow?  But it's not just a matter of Logic 101, does it grab people?  So send a finished draft! Smallbones( smalltalk ) 04:44, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * apologies for the late reply. Real life being what it is I haven't had much time to contribute to Wikipedia recently beyond simple activities. Obviously, I haven't expanded on my initial draft yet, but I haven't stopped thinking about the piece. I've come to the conclusion my opinions aren't sufficiently interesting for a full article (essentially reflecting the status quo), so I intend to make it more of a project history piece. In the coming weeks I anticipate my time available to contribute will diminish, so I doubt this will be finished for at least a month. However, I may be able to write up a reasonable draft on the weekend. – Teratix ₵ 09:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - looking forward to seeing more. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 13:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

close

Affiliate selected board seats election results

 * Submission: User:Bluerasberry/2019_ASBS_results
 * Column: special report
 * Author:
 * Discussion: This piece is a report about the results of the 2019 affiliate selected board seats election. Can someone place this? There is already a special report for June. Should this be a second, or go elsewhere?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  23:11, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Special report is fine. A few questions: - you were a facilitator?  that should be mentioned. Could you emphasize board seats election more? This is real important but seems to get lost in the details.  What will you do if the results aren't ready by deadline?  "The most important election on the internet" caught my eye. What other elections are there? Who gets second place? Was there some controversy with the change from chapters to chapters + user groups?  Chapters' votes really got deleted diluted. And user groups are all over the map, e.g. the Women's user group represents in some way 50% of the world's population, but some others seem very small, specialized groups. Why was that particular voting method used?  Well, lots of questions, but yes the results do need to be published. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 03:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks all good questions. I will work this some more to clarify these things. Thanks for putting this in queue for publication in the next issue. I am a facilitator and I will get review from the other facilitators too.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  10:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. The author should acknowledge that they are an election official (facilitator, I think is the title?). Or we could add this as Signpost's non-author introduction in the piece. I'm boldly changing status to approved by E-in-C per Special:Diff/903788670 ☆ Bri (talk) 16:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll boldly agree with . Please keep on doing whatever you'd like (except final approval for publication).  I'm available now and will be working through the night if possible.  I'm not worried about conflicting edits or anything like that. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 21:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

close

More "Reflections" op-eds regarding "What's Making You Happy This Month?"

 * Submission: Example of a weekly issue that I would bundle into a monthly collection for The Signpost: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-June/092630.html
 * Column: Opinion
 * Author:
 * Discussion: You may recall the "Reflections" piece that I wrote with the title "Wikipedia, history, and the 100th anniversary of Armistice Day". I have resumed my writing of weekly "What's Making You Happy This Week?" emails on Wikimedia-l and Wikitech-l, and I could bundle them into collections that can be included in the Signpost for a monthly "What's Making You Happy This Month?" version that appears under the "Reflections" category. What do you think?  Pine  (✉)  02:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This would be more accessible than the email list, it is already an idea which has encouraged people to submit content, and people seem to like it. Migrating or cross-posting this content to The Signpost seems like a nice idea.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  10:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I started the draft for this month. What do you think? -- Pine  (✉)  04:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * So far, so good. I wonder if it would be best to keep the chronological order except have the most recent events first. Or perhaps try to integrate all the pieces into one big column without the dates being the dominant format. BTW I wonder the same things about the Traffic report. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 14:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I prefer chronological order in the same order that the Traffic report uses. Using chronological order allows me to keep the translations for each week as the headers, and I think that the translations may be interesting for readers. One issue that I haven't settled on is how I'm going to use images, and my guess is that I will vary that from week to week and/or from month to month. The amount of content that I write each week is variable, and some content is better suited to images than others. Another issue that I am keeping in mind is that I was surprised by the amount of time that I took to convert one week's worth of content from email format to an on-wiki format; I don't want to spend that much time every week doing the conversions, so that may affect what I do in future weeks. I'm not anticipating any major negative feedback but I may make adjustments based on both feedback and the amount of time that I'm willing to spend on this. Thanks for being willing to publish this. I think that most Signpost readers will like it, or at least accept it. -- Pine  (✉)  19:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. BTW, I often comment just to see whether contributors, in general, have thought about things. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

close

Wiki Video

 * The rationale for video based summaries of Wikipedia articles

Thanks for pitching this.

I would contribute to copyediting this and it looks like content compatible with The Signpost.

What do you say, chief?  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  21:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I haven't gotten back on this. I like the whole idea but have only skimmed it. I'm worried that we won't have enough room, or editorial time, to include it this month. (I think 20 articles per issue should be a max number). It may sound silly, but could Ian do a short video of the article he's writing? Next month seems more likely than this month. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 21:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure next month is fine aswell. No hurry. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No rush at all. Do you want a summary of the article video?  The dengue article is linked.  Ian Furst (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

close

WikiJournals: A sister project proposal

 * Submission: User:Evolution and evolvability/Signpost draft
 * Column: TDB
 * Author:, Kelee Pacion, Ian Alexander, Andrew Leung
 * Discussion: This article is about 1) an introduction to what the WikiJournals have been doing so far and 2) the proposal on Meta for a new sister project to house them. Any opinions ideas and edits welcome. In particular is anything unclear to a wikipedian reader? Any ideas on the title and blurb? (initial suggestion post). T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 00:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Make that "tentatively accepted", a lot of articles are arriving right now and I'm not sure about the space for this issue or column name it will go under. It *might* need to be delayed until next month.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 14:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. Obviously, I think the timing would be more relevant this month, but I totally understand if you need to bump it back. T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 01:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

close

Tips and Tricks: Citation bot
close
 * Submission: Wikipedia Signpost/2022-08-01/Tips and tricks
 * Column: Tips and tricks (a new type of regular column)
 * Author:
 * Discussion: This piece is about how to make the best use of Citation bot to save you some headaches. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Historical revisionism at Croatian Wikipedia
close

This is an op-ed of sorts, based on my open letter to Jimbo Wales in September 2018. It describes the rather dismal media image of Croatian Wikipedia, as well as the actual substance behind that image. There is a number of examples of content and admin conduct, showcasing ideological bias and WWII historical revisionism. GregorB (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Submission: User:GregorB/Signpost
 * Column: TBD
 * Author:
 * Discussion:

Wikipedia still has Cancer
close


 * Submission: User:Guy Macon/Wikipedia has Cancer
 * Column: Opinion
 * Author:
 * Discussion: Currently at WP:CANCER. This op-ed (in a form edited by the Signpost team of the time) was already published in February of 2017, so you might want to reject it because of that, but it has been updated quite a bit, and although I agreed to the edits at the time I was never quite happy with the Signpost insisting that I remove links showing that I wasn't just making stuff up. Perhaps "Wikipedia still has Cancer" or "Wikipedia has Cancer Revisited" would be a good title for the latest version. Perhaps we could get another writer to do an intro or appendix? And I certainly would welcome putting out a prepublication invitation somewhere in signpost space for people to pick it apart and point out any errors or bad assumptions before going live with it. Guy Macon (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure with the new format whether others can make suggestions, but I'd like to make a few on this editorial. This article has not convinced me that Wikimedia is suffering from runaway spending (or in other words, "has cancer").
 * One learns in Macroeconomics 101 that an organization that collects the same amount in consecutive years actually loses money. So WMF must collect more money each year
 * You suggest that WMF has too many employees. You should provide a breakdown of all the employees of WMF and their functions.  Of course, for any organization, the biggest cost is labor which typically costs about 66% of expenditures. I do not expect any of WMF's employees to be "working for charity" and some of the positions have to be competitive with the market.
 * As I heard in a session at Wikimania 2017, WMF occasionally is involved in legal action on an annual basis. Legal action is definitely not inexpensive, so you'd have to figure this into your chart.
 * WMF funds its chapters, groups, etc. all over the world. Where are those expenditures in your chart?
 * I forget the formula or ratio, but any organization has to have a certain amount of money "in the bank" for contingencies and liability.
 * When you can factor all these items (I'm sure I'm forgetting a few) into your chart and analyses, I'll take your claim of cancer a bit more seriously. - kosboot (talk) 00:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, it is an op-ed, so I don't expect everyone to agree. I do have a question for you though.
 * * Assume that over a certain amount of time the actual work an organization does roughly triples. Let's call it a 5X increase to be generous. They needed lawyers at the start and they need lawyers at the end. They have a need for chapters at the start and a roughly equal need (maybe 3X more) for chapters at the end. They had more than enough money in the bank to do the actual work for at least ten years at the beginning and at the end. The only real change is roughly three times more readers and thus roughly three times more load on the servers
 * * Assume that over this same period of time, donations and spending go up by a factor of, say, 500, and the number of employees and contractors goes up by a factor of 100.
 * So they are spending 500 dollars for every dollar they used to spend, and they have 100 employees for every employee they used to have, all to accomplish 3 to 5 times as much work. And that 100 will soon reach 1000 at the current accelerating rate of increase.
 * Please explain why it is that you don't seem to have a problem with this. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Also, is there any possibility that you being a member of Wikimedia New York City and thus having a clear COI regarding WMF spending on things like Wikimedia New York City has caused you to have a bias -- conscious or unconscious -- in this area? I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm a member of Wikimedia NYC, and as far as I can see, I'd say WMF is pretty cautious with their granting. Until you can prove with actual numbers, all you've got are suppositions. I want facts and numbers - that is going to convince me, not rumors, framed questions, and suppositions. To get you started:  https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/2018-annual-report/financials-leadership/  and https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=11212 - kosboot (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Clearly the 34 citations at WP:CANCER are not good enough for you. Please explain exactly what "facts and numbers" you would like me to research and add to my citations. Do you dispute any part of my claim that "The modern Wikipedia hosts 11–12 times as many pages as it did in 2005, but the WMF is spending 33 times as much on hosting, has about 300 times as many employees, and is spending 1,250 times as much overall"? Can you point to any evidence showing that Wikipedia was a hellhole in 2005 and that the 2005 WMF was unable to do the basic work of running an encyclopedia? You are claiming that having 300 times as many employees and spending 1,250 times as much money was a needed increase. Evidence, please. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * See Straw man. I never mentioned increases. I was solely concerned with WMF's current finances and how they are apportioned. - kosboot (talk) 03:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If that is what you are talking about, you clearly did not read or did not understand my essay, and I have nothing more to say to you. I have been extremely carteful to only talk about increases in spending, staying far away from any question of what they are spending the money on. This will be my last response to you. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Guy - I hope you understand that you're being quite aggressive with Kosboot here. There's no need for that. I also think you're being quite aggressive with the Wikipedia/cancer meme. It's already been published twice in The Signpost. The answer in the comments the 1st time it was published Wikipedia Signpost/2017-02-27/Op-ed should be enough for most people. See also https://qz.com/978416/reddit-is-going-nuts-over-a-post-named-wikipedia-has-cancer/ We'll be doing a set of articles on WMF finances, hopefully for the end of September issue. You're invited to give some input into the interview questions for the finance department, but I have no intention of publishing "cancer" for the 3rd time. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 03:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Australian gag order concerning George Pell
close


 * Submission: User:Hawkeye7/Sandbox7
 * Column: op-ed
 * Author:
 * Discussion: This piece is about a gag order concerning Cardinal George Pell.
 * This is great. I'm sure we'll publish it in some form. 1st I should say that I hadn't followed any details of the case (too many things like this in the US and other places). As with anything of this nature we should be very careful making sure the facts check out. I have no doubt that has double-checked all the facts, but a triple-check is still needed.
 * My first reaction is that the lede has nothing to do with Wikipedia - what is the connection? Well, it's in the 2nd paragraph, and maybe that's good enough. But perhaps we could move it up to the 2nd sentence (which is already a bit of a run-on and could be broken up).
 * It wasn't clear to me that the injunction has been removed. So it stated creeping up on me "Hawkeye could get himself in trouble here" and then "The Signpost could get itself in trouble here." Fortunately the injunction has been removed and it likely should be clear higher up in the Op-Ed.
 * One or two paragraphs might be added showing specifically how Wikipedia's article looked then and now.
 * This is probably a step too far, but we definitely *could* liven up the lede quite a bit. We could pretend for a short while that the injunction was still in effect and how we'd have to cover the story then.  Similar to what other news sources had to do.  Perhaps "A well-known powerful Australian cardinal was convicted of sex-abuse against minors(?), but Wikipedia was not allowed to cover it fully because of an Australian court injunction. Fortunately, the injunction was removed and The Signpost can report that Cardinal Pell ..."  Maybe we could even try for the world's stupidest headline, e.g. "Something about sex-abuse, and an Australian cardinal that we couldn't have reported". It might just be stupid enough to attract readers and get a point across. That would be up to Hawkeye, of course.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 14:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I fully expected that you would want it in the Signpost's style. So edit away! (But you'll be hard pressed to find dumber headlines than the ones already out there eg. "Cardinal Sins: All Pell Breaks Loose".) The timing of the submission was because Pell's appeal was rejected by the Victorian Supreme Court last week, so he was all over the news again, both at home and abroad. If you look at the page readership (see below), the key events (conviction in December, revelation in February, appeal in August) show up very clearly. You can also see that while it it is argued that gag orders are ineffective in the internet age, it was effective in keeping the news away from a majority of people in Australia.   Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok,, sounds good to me. But do keep an eye on it, I wouldn't want to do anything too stupid! Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Submission: Signpost Statistics 2019 (follow-up report to Signpost Statistics 2018)
 * Column: Special Report
 * Author:


 * Discussion: Last year I had done a report on SP STATS 18'... after a reminder by Smallbones recently, I would like to take this up again. If anyone has suggestions related to what sort of stats they would like to see, anything particular then do let me know (only basic stuff plz). DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 12:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have started the report. Should be ready in a few days (for the Jan issue). DTM (talk) 07:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I just want to provide an update.
 * 155 article pageviews list = done ✅ (Signpost Statistics 2019 list)
 * Total article pageviews = done ✅
 * Category-wise pageviews = done ✅
 * User-wise contributions = done ✅
 * Comments related stats = done ✅
 * Other conclusions and comparisons with 2018 = ✅
 * Quotes = done from my side
 * Accordingly, I will NOT be able to have this ready for the Jan issue. For sure the next one in Feb. DTM (talk) 13:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, the stats so far are quite interesting. My fault on the timing - I should have let you know much sooner. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes there are some clear differences between 2018 and 2019 even with this minimal data set. No issues with the timing, I have also been fairly lazy as far as this goes, what's the word, procrastination.DTM (talk) 11:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I had to add, when I wrote the 2018 article, I had made up my mind then itself to do 2019s, I had even told myself to keep updating the stats every month so it wouldn't pile up, oh well... DTM (talk) 09:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to say the article is taking shape, just have to add quotes and a few more details as time allows. DTM (talk) 12:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Please could you fill the quotebox left empty for you in the article Signpost Statistics 2019. Regards. DTM (talk) 06:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * DTM, I tried several times and have been unable to fill in that box. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * does anyone else come in mind? If not, then of course it can be edited out. DTM (talk) 10:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is that having a real discussion about the top articles necessitates going into why two of the top four were deleted, and whether it was justified, and whether it means we have a viable publication and a viable relationship with our audience. This is probably not what wants to do with the column. IMO the best discussion and potential interlocutors can be found in the deletion debate(s) itself, possibly at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour. But again, this is a very large and squirmy can of worms. If we really wanted to go forward with this, selected quotes from that discussion (not even from our own staff) could make a fascinating read. - Bri.public (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I will keep this suggestion in mind for the next stat report. Thanks! DTM (talk) 10:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I would request you to check your two quotes too. Thanks. DTM (talk) 11:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)