Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-06-29/Discussion report

Nice to see something I started get a mention here, but it seems that the author of this article (and User:Kudpung) are missing a major point by assuming this doesn't concern EN WP much. Cost is a very minor issue, infusion of volunteers would be nice if hardly game changing, but a significant part of the discussion concerns ideas such as a possible merge of the simple content to EN WP, possibly through establishing of a new namespace and a new tab next to the read one. This is something EN WP should be more interested in (through of course nothing would change without a separate, dedicated RfC on EN WP). Also, the report misses explaining why I proposed to close SWP (i.e. the argument that it is not reaching the vast majority of its audience, who are unaware of this niche, hidden project; hence the argument for merge, so that the content can be more easily accessed by those who need it - the young, ESLs, special needs, etc.). I know that journalists are good at missing the forest for a tree, but this is a wiki, I am available for comment too :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , as part of our  'Discussion report' column, the mention  of the discussion  was purposely brief. Although  the entire RfC was carefully viewed and nothing was missed, it  was not  intended to  make a full  feature of it at this time, and this newspaper did not wish to risk making what could be a biased opinion that  might  influence the process. Depending on the outcome, The Signpost may make a more in-depth report in next month's issue. You  would be most welcome to contribute. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Good to see that someone had a good reason for this. The reason I didn't cover it is a mix of procrastination and slacking off. —  python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 11:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)