Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-10-01/From the editor


 * If this is 'the new normal' then I'm very disappointed with this month's thin publication which seems to be all at sea with no one at the helm. Wikipedia may be 'the encyclopedia anyone can edit', but The Signpost is not an encyclopedia and needs to be of even better quality than the web site (or more accurately: knowledge base) whose official organ it is, or has become, and not adopt the petty (and sometimes not so nickel-and-dime) controversies so typical of talk pages.
 * Creating content for a magazine however, is a challenge of a very different nature. In my humble opinion, Wikipedia would be better off without The Signpost in its latest offering, than it becoming basically a technology and research newsletter copied from somewhere else, no compelling reading, and just tidbits of scandal à la Bild and The Sun making broadsides at creative and/or prolific individual volunteers for want of more important content; and long lists for fillers, of links to internal US politics  of which the media is already saturated and of little or no interest  to the rest of the English speaking world. Trump is international news but his judges are not. 'News and Notes' which seems to have become a 'red top' commentary, should not be a forum for veiled attacks at volunteers either (whether I am involved or not as a former Signpost editor, and there's plenty I could be saying and naming about some of its former editors).
 * Criticism, especially objective, of named people is fine when aimed at those who enjoy gross salaries without the approval of a community which ultimately creates the content that provides their employment, but even the most unruly of prolific volunteer content contributors, admins, and former arbitrators are generally doing something constructive with their work. I never stooped to slighting any Wikipedia volunteers through The Signpost's columns or its comment sections.
 * The Signpost needs a regular dedicated editorial team, and someone who, without great debate, can be entrusted to make final decisions as to appropriateness, language, and format - even if they are not held responsible for creating a lot of the content - but it looks as if there is as much interest there as becoming an admin, a bureaucrat, or a regular New Page Patroller, without being a hat collector. My style of journalism may have been controversial in the eyes of some, but it  got The Signpost back on its feet and  increased its circulation, and whether the readers liked it or not, it still required a lot of time as any former Editors-in-Chief can evince. Thanks to everyone for trying with this month's issue, but no, just no - it's the buzzer from me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I would say less content is vastly better than actively bad content. Fish +Karate 09:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll second that. Natureium (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll add a third to that. Sadads (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Fourthed. Thank you Bri and all!  – SJ +  05:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Different people want different things from the Signpost. I want something that's true to its name and original function - a concise newsletter that lets me stay up to date with what's going on around the project, not a verbose magazine full of opinions and essay-writing competitions. So I'm glad to see a commitment to regularity over size. Personally I still think this issue is on the bloated side, with multiple opinion pieces/essays. One per issue would suffice, together with regular news briefings (emphasis on brief) on arbcom/tech/discussions/wikimedia/media/popularity. WaggersTALK  07:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I am actually rather surprised to see this because I have been seriously considering whether to suggest that The Signpost drastically increase its opinion content and editorialization while abandoning pretenses of "neutrality" and "objectivity". This would be an attempt at reviving The Signpost and changing its direction toward a more proactive role in being the voice of the Wikipedia community than its current one of being a reactive reporter and republisher of mere news. Whenever more opinionated content has been published, it has generated more reader discussion, increased viewership, and has frequently been well-received. The Signpost is the only on-Wiki publication to provide such a space for editors; for anyone interested in such content, they would otherwise have to resort to off-Wiki blogs and message boards like Wikipediocracy. Is that really preferable? —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 13:47, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm also surprised,, because WADR, you are contradicting yourself. You demand a newsletter that entertains your specific requirement, while the last few issues actually went further: they provided not only the dry reports you prefer, but also provided content that other readers want, combining the bland with vivid exposés, bold opinion, entertainment, and some much needed comic relief; and this latter is sorely need in the face of some humourless users' favourite pastime: criticizing things they can't/won't do better themselves, or get involved, and just jeer from the sidelines. Yes, different people want different things. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've "demanded" nothing at all, merely stated a personal preference. Is that no longer allowed? <b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  20:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I congratulate our volunteer editors and writers for producing this new edition of the Signpost. It will be read and enjoyed by hundreds, maybe thousands of people.  Don't let the naysayers get you down. Please, just keep going.  Wikipedia needs glue like this to keep the community together. 213.205.251.57 (talk) 11:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree wholeheartedly that "...less content is vastly better than actively bad content." Not big on criticizing the volunteer work of others, especially when I am not in a position to help them out. Keep on trucking! Not Wilkins (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2018 (UTC)NotWilkins
 * Good an interesting comments but there will always be issues that are better than others. I am an Signpost editor, a regular writer and hardly ever offended. I am going to keep writing Humour articles no matter how much criticism comes my way. Perhaps I don't see how profound it can be since I write for the fun of it. The Signpost may not win a Pulitzer Prize but I sure enjoy writing. Best Regards to all those who have taken the time to leave a comment here. Barbara ✐ ✉  17:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support I have enjoyed Signpost in all of its variations. I read selectively, so whatever you do, I can appreciate. I have much regard for the many volunteers who have rotated through putting it together.Bellagio99 (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, kudos to those who got the issue out of the door again. I would rather see something than nothing, and monthly still seems like a good frequency to aim for. Out of interest, where are the attacks on named individuals mentioned above? I've read through the various pages and haven't spotted them yet... Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Congrats on the new issue of the Signpost! I was looking forward to read it! Best wishes from Brazil :) User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 01:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. (Admission: I suggested monthly format, with anything that is ready awhile back).  On a broader note, any person/group claiming the mantle of "official voice of Wikipedia" would seem to be setting themselves up for failure. (Have you met our cacophony?) Newsletter is a fine aim, though.  Sure, throw in some opinion pieces from time to time, if the opinion writer is 1) willing to work with the others 'in the office', and 2) deal with response to opinion (over which they will have no control). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for getting another issue off the presses. As others have said, a monthly roundup of events is better than nothing and hopefully people who want to contribute features or opinions will be welcomed as and when. If I had one criticism, it would be that we probably need a run-down of who blocked whom and what drama ensued. Also, I missed the featured content section; I always enjoyed seeing the wonderful variety of projects people have worked so hard on and it is after all the raison d'etre of Wikipedia. I'd love to see it back in future issues, even if just in the form of a bulletted list and a very brief description. <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 10:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Seconding: Commitment to regularity over content is welcome. And I love featured content reviews, more than most other entries (even at the expense of them!) -- a welcome reminder.  – SJ +  05:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * perhaps you meant to say "we probably don't need a run-down of who blocked whom"? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Given initial comments above, I thought the rest of this Signpost issue would be a mess somehow, but I don't find that when I begin to browse. I don't see this issue overblown with opinions;  I would welcome a lot more publications of essays in fact.  I really like the Recent research section in this issue.  I'm not sure how new a feature is the Discussion report, but I like that, for highlighting recent interesting goings-on.  I note this issue is missing a "most-viewed articles" analysis, but I don't mind, I always found that to be an interesting but weird commentary about how strange is our society, and not really about what is going on with Wikipedia.  (I agree with HJ Mitchell that celebrating new featured content is a central, good function, very much about what is going on.)  Has there ever been a crossword puzzle feature before?  I object, strenuously, to its previous absence!  (I also object to this one's wp:IAR perspective, about the "rotational (also known as 'radial') symmetry" requirement, oh well.)  Hmm, instead of complaining more about this issue, I'm going to go off and try to solve the puzzle, and read more.... :) --Doncram (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

→ From the acting Editor-in-Chief: Thanks to everyone who has commented on issue 10. Your thoughts are noticed and your encouragement is appreciated. The readers are why we do this. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Having regular updates is more important than padding out content. The Signpost editors and writers are still volunteers, just like the rest of us. They provide a valuable service to the community and I'm happy that it exists. Aervanath (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)