Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 30

Mailing list, Twitter
I did the mailing list post this morning, as well as Hacker News for NaN, but we haven't tweeted the new issue yet. --Andreas JN 466 23:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, Twitter/FB is still on my to-do list for today. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:45, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Done now. Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/From the archives
So... I'm trying not to be a jerk to JPxG for making errors just after getting work thrust on him, and, as such, I've made this up. If anyone wants to copyedit it, I do feel better once things are ready to go.

I'll try to get Featured content at least as far as last time. Looking at early featured content is great for showing how little you can get away with doing. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 06:32, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You gleaned some important historical moments for this one... I have added a note about the outcome of that paid illustrations project, so that our readers are not left wondering what became of it. (Feel free to update the byline or not.)
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Thank you, HaeB! That is.... much, much worse than I ever expected, if I'm honest. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 06:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Good catch indeed. Andreas JN 466 18:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The woodcut illustration of trepanation was used in last month's Signpost. Disregard, it was removed prior to publication. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Toaster
I mentioned this to Marco Silva a while back and he's done a half-hour BBC World Service report on it (due out Nov. 20). There may be a BBC write-up coming in due course as well. --Andreas JN 466 14:26, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the write-up, and it's an absolute beauty: --Andreas  JN 466 17:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The radio report linked above is live as well now. --Andreas JN 466 21:16, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Essay for this month
If someone's available to copyedit this, I'd appreciate it: I'm going to be very busy near the end of this month, so if there's concerns, I'd really, really rather deal with them now, because I'm going to be caught up in other stuff later. Ideally, I'd like to have my articles checked over (and, ideally, approved for publication) by JPxG, but I get he's busy himself. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 19:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I can copyedit it. Probably towards end of the day today while I'm streaming NASA. Don't forget to watch the moon launch! ☆ Bri (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Cleanup on aisle 10
I just noticed a bot removed an image we used for an issue in the 2020 archives. A new image should be selected. Does someone want to take this on? ☆ Bri (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @Bri I've replaced it! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 05:33, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks EP! ☆ Bri (talk) 06:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikimedia Summit
The timing of this was unfortunate; while the Summit took place three weeks ago, the Summit Report was only published on Commons on Sep. 29, too late for inclusion in this issue. (Another version of the Report is also on Meta, marked as still in progress.) But we should cover this in the next issue.

I think I am correct in saying that a lot of the videos from the Summit are only available on the event platform, access to which is restricted to event participants. (Has this always been the case?) This is actually what reminded me of the user group idea: if the Signpost had had someone there attending (even if just online), we could have reported on it.

The Summit was a hybrid event, just like the recent Wikimania. About 150 people attended in person, in Berlin, and a similar number online. It seems to have gone rather better than the recent Wikimania, which was a hybrid event as well. The Summit also had stronger WMF attendance than Wikimania. My impression is that WMF is far more interested in talking to affiliates than in talking to the community.

The Summit report on Meta has a "budget" rubric which has not been filled in. Flying over 100 people to Berlin must have cost a fair bit of money. I'd like to know how much that was. Andreas JN 466 20:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Note m:Talk:Wikimedia_Summit_2022. The budget report is due to be published at the end of November, along with a summary of participant feedback on how successful the hybrid format was this time round (it does seem to have worked rather better this time). Of course, this means we'll be again in a situation where the publication of these reports will come at around the same time as our publication date. We'll have to see how it goes. Andreas JN 466 15:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Good to know. It will probably be a crunch -- but then again, when is it ever not? jp×g 13:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

EiC continuity norms
The Signpost's editor-in-chief role is (unusually for wikis) a serious bottleneck, whose breaking can affect the work of a lot of people and endanger the continuation of the entire publication. To be clear, despite the above we are fortunately not in that situation currently, thank to JPxG still being around. But we have once been a few years ago, when publication ceased for several months and this little newsletter had its closest near-death experience since its launch nearly two decades ago.

So it's worth thinking about bus factor and succession planning, and establishing some norms for ensuring continuity. That might involve explicitly documenting some things that the Signpost team collectively regards as moral obligations involved with the EiC role (while of course recognizing that we are all volunteers and that no one can or should be obliged to spend substantial amounts of work time on Signpost matters at any point, and that there can be unforeseen life situations where even these minimum obligations are impossible to fulfill).

Some ideas on what these norms might involve:

1. Giving notice before going on a longer wikibreak, or when leaving the EiC post entirely 2. Being responsive to questions about information that's essential for others on the team to continue work on the Signpost and is only available to the EiC(s), within a reasonable timeframe 3. Replacement after prolonged inactivity: After, say, six weeks of unresponsiveness to Signpost-related questions and lack of any Signpost-related public activity, it should be the expectation that the Signpost team will look to appoint a new editor-in-chief. 4. Sharing credentials: Making sure that access to any Signpost-related accounts or services (e.g. the official Twitter account and Facebook page) is shared so that it won't be lost
 * (As a positive example, the latter was something our previous editor-in-chief did admirably well.)
 * (Arguably, the thread above about the mysterious user group application already falls in that category.)
 * (I think this is worth spelling out, especially based on the aforementioned incident some years ago, where people kept asking politely over several months, but hesitated to call for someone to step in and take over publication of the next issue, out of respect for the inactive EiC. Being able to refer to such an existing norm helps with that - "Nothing about you personally, this is just our established process...". Also, a specific time frame can be a very helpful motivator in case of procrastination, which according to the maintainers guide mentioned below is a frequent and serious psychological issue in such high-profile volunteer leadership roles.)
 * (As mentioned in the thread above, that may currently be an issue with e.g. signpost.news web domain. And in any case it has been a significant problem in the past already. Examples include the Signpost's long-established GMail address, where people on the current Signpost team kept asking around for over a year if anyone still had access and some declared it lost already. Fortunately it turned out that one former EiC had retained the credentials to ensure continuity. Earlier, another EiC had created various with third-party domains and contact addresses for the Signpost that apparently only he had access to. - I spent some time earlier this year starting some documentation on who has access to what.)

Curious what other folks think, especially (but not only) my fellow EiC emeriti. I'll aim to update the existing EiC role description here with the outcome of this discussion.

Lastly, I want to share a link to a guide about maintainers in open source projects (by User:Sumanah, who some might recall from her previous work in the MediaWiki developer community). That's a volunteer community leadership role with lots of parallels to our EiC role (e.g. when it comes to approving contributions to the project), and I think the guide is very helpful for understanding some general issues that come with such roles:

https://docs.oscollective.org/guides/handling-burnout-and-career-planning

Some excerpts:

It then sketches various "Example better endings or departures" and offer other advice (including some frank talk about "Perfectionism, procrastination, and burnout"). Not all of it is directly applicable to our situation, but I think it is worth reading. HaeB (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for setting this all out. We are actually in a pretty good position as far as succession and continuity right now  is the current EiC and we have 4 former EiCs working on the Signpost now: HaeB myself . I suggest we use this strength for the short-term and design something similar for the long term.
 * Short-term, Bri and myself and perhaps HaeB and/or Andreas form an ad hoc committee to help JPxG as needed and take charge of making sure that somebody is nominated to fill the 2nd EiC position, with final approval by majority vote of all folks who have had a byline in the last 2 years. Of course JPxG or anybody else can nominate a candidate. The ad hoc committee's job is just to make sure that a nomination is made with all deliberate speed, and if worse comes to worst (bus factor), to appoint one or more of their members as interim EiCs.
 * Long-term: have a "personnel committee" (likely some different members) that will decide if 1 or both EiCs is missing in action, resigned, or perhaps should be recalled by an RfC of contributor. Perhaps also recruit writers and editors in conjunction with the EiCs. And take charge when an EiC nomination is needed, fill in as interim EiCs as needed. But always aim for 2 (or even 3 EiCs) for smooth succession. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 05:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * One consideration regarding multiple editors-in-chief is that overlapping responsibilities is a prime source for communication shortfalls and lack of clarity on intended direction. If this approach is continued, it would be helpful for the editors-in-chief to agree on how duties will be split and how disagreements will be resolved. isaacl (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I checked the history of EiCs on our "About" page to see how well "Co-EiCs vs. Sole EiCs" worked out. It's complicated, so this is a simplification, but I think we can learn something from it. Over almost 18 years, we've had 18 EiCs of either type: 7 sole EiCs, and 11 people who spent at least a bit of time as co-EiCs (let's say 5 pairs). Among the sole EiCs, there were only 3 who stayed for more than 2 years (averaging about 3 years) so they (we) account for about half the time covered by The Signpost. The 5 pairs of co-EiCs and the 4 other sole EiCs account for 8 years of EiC work, so averaging a bit less than 1 year each. None of these lasted more than 2 years tenure. I'll double check but I didn't see any real difference in tenure between the 5 pairs and the 4 shorter term sole EiCs. I tentatively conclude that:
 * Any time we get a new EiC of either type, there's a good chance that we'll need to replace them within a year.
 * Sole EiCs on average stay longer, but that's because of less than half of them.
 * My personal experience is that the position is too much work for one person over any length of time. There is a lot of pressure (perhaps self imposed) and there is some abuse from some readers, and it's every month with only occasional breaks (thanks Bri!). Every month starts with a blank screen. There were a couple of times in my first year when I thought briefly about quitting - but you know me - I'm just a stubborn SOB. Besides, there's no time for quitting, the next edition will be coming out too soon! After the first year, I'd learned the ropes and I remember the second year as being my best. But real life intervenes, as it does, and the 3rd year dragged on and was not up to standards. I think that will happen to anybody.
 * So I think having some backup ready is the way to go. The precise form should be up to the EiCs. It might be in the form of:
 * Switching alternate issues, or even having 3 co-EiCs. Each editing just 4 issues a year. That would be a breeze!
 * or sharing most of every issue but alternating who has the final say that month, and sometimes getting full-month breaks.
 * or having trainee/designated successor EiCs and working into it gradually
 * or whatever they can come up with.
 * There are communication issues between co-EiCs, but there are also communication issues with a sole EiC and the staff. So I lean to some sort of multiply EiC system, or at least having a designated backup. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 04:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I think load-sharing and continuity are great. As long as the co-editors know who's doing what, and communicate clearly with each other and others, more power to them. isaacl (talk) 03:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I was one of those sole EiCs. My experience was that the demands of the role varied greatly depending on the strength of the team around me. With a good team, things ran smoothly; we divided the writing of news and notes among us, and people could step up when one person went on vacation. This functioned relatively well from 2012 to early/mid 2014, when a team member departed and I started writing news and notes alone each week (in addition to all the regular editorial tasks). The resulting demands on my time led to breakdowns in real-life relationships, and once I started grad school later that year, an inability to take on any Signpost work beyond publishing duties. So to sum: a sole EiC is fine&mdash;and might even be desirable so the institution speaks with one voice&mdash;so long as they have a strong editorial team. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey Ed, nice to see you here. Looking back, I am struck by how we used to publish weekly issues back then. Of course these were much smaller (example: Wikipedia_Signpost/Archives/2015-12-02), but the longest break you got from Signpost duties was like three or four days, whereas nowadays it's possible to take several weeks off. But on the plus side, getting one issue out involved far less work then in terms of editing and writing.
 * More importantly perhaps, weekly publishing enabled us to respond in a timely manner to events. During the James Heilman/Knowledge Engine board crisis (see side bar below), the Signpost's weekly coverage actually impacted developments in a way that a monthly publication could not have done.
 * "In the media" write-ups too were more timely: it's nicer to comment on something published this week than on something that appeared a month ago, and it's nicer for readers, too.
 * Publishing always was a nightmare because the publishing bot kept breaking down – I think I only ever did it once or twice, manually, with Ed holding my hand. At some point we had a publication manager who wrangled the beast, which helped. During my time as co-EiC we moved to (roughly! ... it varied ...) fortnightly Signposts. I dropped out when a family member fell ill. I no longer had the capacity. --Andreas JN 466 00:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I was only E-in-C for a short while, so there's not really a lot I can say, but I'll ramble on regardless: I fortunately have a background in pre-Internet employee-owned media and journalism back in the 80s and I knew what I was taking on and I had the time, but I did not enter the office with any designs on staying here for a couple of years. My only intention was to keep The Signpost going until someone more permanent volunteered. I stepped into a breach and just got on with it. Without it wouldn't have been possible, but with the help of the 'publishing manager' mashing the buttons once a month  we managed to get a healthy, fat, magazine-style issue out every month and on time.
 * Being E-in-C is no big deal, and I don't understand the need for all the bureaucracy that's being discussed nowadays- voting, committees, etc., etc., for something which although hard work for a team of two, is too much for a project that has dropped to an average of just 350 see below page hits - it won't encourage more contributions or increase circulation. As far as collaborative volunteer work is concerned, some really big operations that are essential to the maintenance of en.Wiki have even less organisation, and in recent times have had to contend with short-lived coordships and long periods completely devoid of any form of management/leadership. OK, they were in a mess but there are hopes on the horizon now that this might change.
 * This phenomenon of lethargy from a potential pool of contributors is therefore nothing unique to The Signpost.  The only thing that makes the newspaper different is that it attempts to meet a monthly deadline, but even I and Bri, and later  and Bri demonstrated that it can be possible. Let's not forget however, once an issue had been published, there was no leaving everything until the last minute for the next one. The work continued without a break. The bottom line however is the growing and very noticeable disinterest in submissions from people who are not  regular 'editorial team'.  Plenty of us have been in the E-in-C chair; it's a task one takes on, and bleating about it if one finds the workload overwhelming will not bring results any more than forming committees would.
 * I've been a bit involved in The Signpost recently because I helped put together a big article for the September issue, but I've always kept a casual eye on what goes on here in the newsroom. I might be willing to help out with copy-editing in the future, but now where all the articles are prepared offline and only pasted in at the 11th hour, there's not much people like me can do, or even offer to take on some of the new columns I created 5 years ago (or brought back from the dead). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * News & Notes 997
 * In focus 1108
 * In the media 1047
 * Special report 377
 * Discussion report 651
 * Interview 878
 * Opinion 732
 * Serendipity 5955 (something wrong here)
 * Recent research 770
 * Traffic report 571
 * Featured content 370
 * Gallery 217
 * CommonsComix 296
 * From the archive 351

Same period 2018: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * From the editor 1706
 * Interview 963
 * News and notes 2582
 * In the media 992
 * Discussion report 961
 * Featured content 845
 * Special report 1067
 * Traffic report 935
 * Technology report 835
 * Gallery 728
 * Recent research 1011
 * Humour 1249
 * Essay 1035
 * From the archives 772
 * Thanks for the figures. (And nice piece about Go Fish Digital there.) Worth pondering. Note however that there is nothing "wrong" with Serendipity; I submitted it at Hacker News. I also submitted Recent research though that got fewer views – but then you wouldn't expect something more academic to get that many views. It still found a few interested readers. I didn't submit anything else this month, because Hacker News requires you to use the original headline, and none of the other headlines seemed like they would work for a general audience.
 * I do think we can get a bigger audience if we write articles and headlines in a way that makes as much sense to the general public as it does to insiders. Vysotsky's article this month is a good example. It starts: "I like to add photographs to Wikipedia articles. The addition of a visual aspect improves the quality of an article, and gives a better view on a subject." That immediately tells the reader what the article is about, and it makes sense to everyone, whether they are an active Wikipedian or just a Wikipedia user.
 * Having said that, while a non-Wikipedian audience is useful to have for many reasons, building that up is no substitute for losses in our core audience. Cheers, --Andreas JN 466 14:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , as usual, you make us aware of points that I and perhaps many of us hadn't considered. Some of the major features of The Signpost could certainly do with being brought to the attention of the wider press. WRT  Go Fish, this is but one instance of the many mistakes made by the WMF - almost every monthly issue could carry a report on the community's concerns about  the Foundation's methods of managing things. The Signpost  therefore naturally comes across as sometimes critical of the WMF, but at the end of the day most of what gets written is in support of the volunteers and their thankless dedication.
 * My valedictory got a high score, I don't know why (in fact I ended up doing a few more months), but I did try to make that column a regular and interesting feature throughout most of 2018. There's a lot some of us 'emeriti' could do to beef out some of the thinner reportages and bits-and-pieces columns such as N&N and ITM but we are probably wary of treading on the authors' toes - I seem to perceive  a new air of protectionism pervading The Signpost  these days.
 * Even little embellishments like bylines with a bit about the author are a thing of the past. Maybe I'll add some tidbits to future articles - at the risk of getting my fingers burned - but the E-in-C can always revert, unless of course the new trend has its way and everything will be the decision of layers of an elected editorial board and its committees for what is, in effect, a rather small project. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)


 * An EIC trainee sounds like a great idea. I'd be willing to do that. –– FormalDude  (talk)  01:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's awesome - JPxG, are you up for taking on an intern, maybe to tag along in next month's publication process? Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This sounds good. jp×g 13:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks everyone for weighing in! We veered a bit into other important aspects beyond the narrow topic of continuity in a given EiC setting, but these are all important too. (Maybe one day someone will find the time to summarize all this emeriti wisdom into a concise document that can serve as a reference for future EiC and those who consider volunteering for the role.) Adding a few points:
 * I think Smallbones' remarks about the importance of sharing workloads make great sense. This can take many forms, e.g. regulars weighing in on tricky content decisions in the run-up to publication so as to facilitate the EiC's final call about these, or other support that helps avoid them being left holding the bag come publication time.
 * Regarding the proposal of forming committees to e.g. select a second EiC right now, and to generally maintain a group of people from which to appoint interim EiCs: I'm not opposed, but do worry that we're generally not very good at maintaining such formal structures and procedures (voting...) over a prolonged period of time. (See e.g. the past inconsistencies of the list on the About page - by the way, despite having updated that page various times myself recently, I had forgotten that I am apparently part of something called "EDITORIAL BOARD". Also, I'm curious about the "Technology manager" and "Affiliations Committee liaison" roles listed there - does anyone know what they refer to?) Lastly, I think we should leave it up to JPxG right now to state whether he would prefer to be joined by a second EiC.
 * Either way, I have updated the EiC role description with the above continuity points, slightly modified - in particular I have left out the concrete six weeks limit from the unresponsiveness item, in case we still want to have this decided by the "personnel committee" that Smallbones proposed. Again, these points are mostly backstops for situations that we should (and mostly do) avoid in the first place, but which unfortunately have happened already in the past and are quite likely to occur again in the more distant future, even if we're in a better place right now.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I think that dividing the workload is a good idea, and dividing it intelligently is a good idea. I think we need to create a situation in which we're doing more communication than giving occasional updates on a couple talk pages and disjointed email threads. I am given to understand that boomers are averse to Discord, millennials are averse to email, and zoomers are averse to IRC -- so there are some challenges to be surmounted -- but I think if we work together we can figure something out. jp×g 13:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * One thought I have: We kind of have a habit of adding to In the media right up to the deadline, as well as certain other sections. A lot of these aren't time sensitive, but take substantial effort to write up.
 * It strikes me that end of prep and publication could be spaced out more. Five days to review everything for publication is probably easier than a big rush of a day.
 * Secondly, there's no real reason not to have the occasional special edition with a single timely report. We could put it on the Signpost's main page above that month's, and otherwise publish normally. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 04:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Communication
I don't want to be too prickly here, but it's really hard to get a response to anything of late. I get there's not much more to say to my rant above than "Sorry", but it's still have been nice.

I'm very likely to hit 600 FPs this month, but no-one responded when I mentioned that. A gallery got published because my request askimg for it to be held back was missed. And I made about three or four posts warning I was having trouble with FC and literally only got helped less than 24 hours before publication. think don't make a big deal out of my health issues, but when they trigger it's be helpful to know I can get help instead of feeling like I'm talking to a wall.

The J.J. McCullough situation can probably be chalked up as comedy of errors - Smallbones definitely did communicate with me. It's just that no-one else got their message so the point of Smallbones' actions were ruined. (Smallbones was worried about whether we should link McCullough's account, which, even if it's public record, is reasonable. But apparently no-one else got the memo and, um....

That kind of thing is unavoidable. But failure to read talk page messages is more of an issue

I mean, I get people are busy, but if we're looking at how to move forwards, communication really needs to improve. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs 06:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Two issues: the present one you raise, and how to prevent these regular emergencies in the long run. The only way to scale is with support from paid staff administration. Wiki volunteers love creating and managing content, but we do not have enough volunteers to do administration. The bottleneck here is administration. Eventually we need staff.
 * I do not think it is feasible to reorganize the existing volunteer labor pool to get more efficiency, scheduling, and administration than already exists. Volunteer labor is invaluable and irreplaceable; there are some tasks which can be divested as routine paid tasks. A solution to this and current issues is someone staging journalist decisions like this one, confirming the review with bureaucratic documentation, then getting sign-off from the editor.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  16:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I've spoken to the stuff here elsewhere on this page, but I also think that what's been said here is true: a lack of man-hours (and woman-hours) is hard to make up for. While I think we can work more efficiently, it's a difficult process and I expect there to be some growing pains, so I apologize in retrospect for this and in advance for future mistakes. jp×g 13:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Archiving issue 10
This used to say "Everything above this line gets archived"
 * Some stuff should stay, like discussions that aren't about the current issue. I think we may need to revise the way we structure the talk pages here, because every month it gets to be very confusing (but for now I think we can just go through manually and keep the stuff that's persistently relevant). jp×g 04:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've manually archived everything that was clearly just relevant to issue 10. Oh, I also reset the Newsroom article roster and (should this be the publication manager's todo?) and reset countdown to the last Sunday in November (should this be the EiC's todo?). ☆ Bri (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Reader feedback, October
All: You can monitor reader feedback by pressing the button or this link for the button-phobic. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

CommonsComix
Did this get spiked? I'm sure I prepared one for this issue. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 15:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It appears that it was overlooked because it was never listed with other subpages at Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, so, basically, the September publication has another error - it was prepped in September and listed as "Hold for October" Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 17:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * There was discussion here to the effect that all of the items for this issue had been copyedited, which I verified from the listings at the newsroom, so I wasn't sure what to make of it when the CommonsComix popped up (with an indication that it hadn't been copyedited) while running the publishing script -- I decided to err on the side of caution and leave it for next month since the issue was already a couple hours beyond the original planned time. jp×g 18:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Really, this does kind of need to stop happening. If it's ready, it's spiked, if it's literally has threads and comments saying it's unfinished, it gets published. It literally only has one sentence to check. I don't think that would hold publication back much. How about you copyedit it right now with the five seconds that'll take so this doesn't happen next month?
 * Seriously, this shouldn't be happening to the same contributor multipke, multiple times. If it happens again this month, I quit. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 21:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, it wasn't there because it was deleted from the list as part of a failed reset on the fucking 27th of October, days before publication. Seriously, JPxG, I don't think you're a bad person, but I don't think you're doing a very good job at the moment. Two absolute fuckups at publication really can't continue. I'm not after your head or anything, but this can't happen again. It really can't.
 * Also, you seem to have real issues with simple apologies. Something happens that screws up something contributors work on, and you seem unable to just say "sorry" for it. It makes it feel like you don't care. You're the editor. In the end, you kind of have to be the person responsible for looking after contributors. Especially when they're harmed - having your work thrown out is basically wasting and devaluing your time and effort - by the Signpost messing up Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 22:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Uh, that "failed reset" wasn't the issue and your 15pt link to this diff is extremely misleading - I had fixed that failed subst: minutes later in the subsequent edit. Rather, that problem was that:
 * The instructions for the "Article status" table in the Newsroom state:
 * This resets the table to the list of regular sections in Template:Signpost assignments, which does not include CommonsComix at this point. If it is a recurring section at this point that is anticipated to run every month without explicitly adding it to the list in the newsroom, we should add it to that template.
 * Since it had been forgotten to reset the table after the last publication (it was still containing various comments about the September issue), when I came there on October 27 to add my customary note about "Recent research" I had to do that myself (and was honestly not overjoyed about that).
 * As mentioned in the edit summary, I did my due diligence to reinstate all changes that had been made since the publication of the previous issue, namely FormalDude's edit. What I did not do is to go through all sections to check if maybe someone unaware of - or ignoring - the resetting instructions (or who hadn't realized that the reset had not yet happened and the list was still from September) had started a section anew that's not among the regular ones defined in the template. I'm sorry that this happened with your section, I know it must feel very frustrating (especially after the hickup with another contribution of yours last month), but again, this would not have happened if we either had the resetting automated (as I suggested) or if everyone had been following the instructions.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I get that, but two days before publication there's really no chance to fix such things. It ate multiple articles, not just mine. If it doesn't happening at publication, a lot more care is needed, because what could possibly have been done before then that would have kept them on the page after, short of resetting it? Waiting until October published would have at least kept from hiding things at the last possible moment - which is far more important than a reset by then. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 23:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The October CommonsComix was prepared back in September. It was moved to the CommonsComix slot on 1 October, after which I should have been able to forget about it. If you don't do anything for four weeks after the last publication, at the three days before publication stage, you really need to do it perfectly, because that's not fixable if you don't. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 00:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, this issue I did two of the published articles, and should have had three. Last issue I had four (and should have had three). Issue before that, I had five articles. Before that, four and a half (I chose the From the archives, but only wrote a brief introduction).
 * I've been putting ridiculous amounts of work into the Signpost, and I'm really, really questioning why at this point. I've been trying my absolute best to make the Signpost as good as possible, putting in huge amounts of work, but any time I need something, from getting an article copyedited to just not deleting it from the list, or, perhaps, celebrating my 600th featured picture like I was told the Signpost was really interested in doing up until it actually came time to raise a finger to get it put together, there's been a massive wall to talk to.
 * I'm shouting because it's the only damn way anyone bothers listening to me. It's clear no-one cares in the slightest. I just wanted an acknowledgement the Signpost would try to do better, that it understood what went wrong, and felt a little basic compassion about having rather badly messed up, first off, publishing a Gallery I was spending huge amounts of time desperately trying to get images for, but couldn't spend time on because I was absolutely overwhelmed with the largest featured content in years. I had really high hopes for it, but you can't really fix things after publication.
 * I got promised months ago that when I hit 600 featured pictures the Signpost definitely wanted an interview. I've been working hard to reach that as quickly as possible, and the moment I get close, no-one cares.
 * I spent hours making a comic, and then it got unpublished because copyediting a single sentence would have delayed publication too much.
 * You've basically managed to kill all excitement and enjoyment I had in writing for the Signpost, and don't care.  Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 00:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, I had to reset the table in some way just to be able to add my customary note about RR. I understand why you are frustrated, but my only fault in this was not having spent even more time than I already did to go out of my way to fix problems created by other people, and/or - more charitably - general shortcomings in the process (no-one having implemented the reset instruction after the previous issue's publication, people assuming that the leftover table from last month automatically implies that the same sections are planned for this month, etc).
 * It ate multiple articles, not just mine. - which? Looking at the "article status" table just before my edit (assuming no draft has been outright deleted since then), these were the only blue links apart from CommonsComix (and the empty placeholder Next CommonsComix):
 * Next from the archives - placeholder, marked as "postponed" in the newsroom list
 * On the bright side - Lorem ipsum placeholder plus one short paragraph, last edit October 1
 * Obituary - discussed below, last edit was from September 19
 * What's more, it seems to me that Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/CommonsComix is not especially timely content and can still very well be run in next month's issue (your passive-aggressive remark here notwithstanding).
 * Altogether, your claim that The Signpost lost multiple articles because of my "incompetence and unfriendliness" seems very dubious.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The incompetent and unfriendly judgement isn't on you. This is part of a long string of issues that add up to a much bigger issue, to whit:
 * A gallery being published that I was trying to use to gain images, had marked on the newsroom page to be held back, had mentioned on this talk page I'd like it held back, and had obvious unfinished bits.
 * Begging for help repeatedly when I was struggling with featured content, only to be ignored..
 * EpicPupper being driven off.
 * The CommonsComix issue, which consists of:
 * Your deletion of the entry
 * JPxG spotting it existed, but seeing it was marked as needing copyedit, and not caring enough, apparently, to even look at it before deciding to rush ahead. It literally only has one sentence of text, so any investigation would have seen that copyediting was trivial. Honestly, there is way too much haste in publication, which is probably the source of the issues. The best thing moving forwards is to slow the publication process down a lot.
 * And, in a mixture of this and other issues: Why is it that I can make things a month and a half in advance, and still have to sit around on publication day to review copyedits because they're never copyedited until the last minute?
 * All I really wanted was an apology so I could at least accept that the work I do was still valued by the Signpost even if there were some issues. It's weird I still don't have one. It's probably too late at this point for it to be meaningful
 * It feels like I'm talking to a brick wall when I post on here.
 * I don't think anyone is malicious, but it's still eating up all my enthusiasm for this, and there's basically nothing positive about the experience at the moment.
 * Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 05:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


 * You are not the only person who is not getting enough attention: there are a couple emails I still need to reply to, submissions that haven't been responded to, and two obituaries that didn't get run for reasons I am unclear on. Indeed, I have not been able to write any articles myself: there is a several-month backlog on both the arbitration report and deletion report. If what you want is for me to commit to responding to every post on every talk page myself, I don't think this is going to happen. I don't know what to tell you: we don't have a lot of editors, and stuff is going to slip through the cracks sometimes.
 * As for the specific issue of the CommonsComix: I am not really sure what to say here. Last month, I ran an article that wasn't marked as ready for publication (writing a couple sentences of introduction), which was a mistake, and I apologized for this mistake. This was part of the reasoning for why I said that this month I was only going to commit to publishing articles that were completed by the deadline. (The majestic equality of the law here applies to me too: that's why we didn't have an arbitration report or a deletion report for October). I did my best for the things that were visible, and did not have time to copyedit additional things that popped up when I was dry-running the publication script (which typically pops up with several random pages in the directory when you run it, canceled articles from months ago, Lorem ipsum drafts, et cetera). The issue was already being run hours after the deadline. The fact that the CommonsComix somehow wasn't included on the newsroom page is, well -- obviously something went wrong. What am I going to do about it? Stuff like this is why I said I was going to be doing a thorough review of the templates and transclusions in our workflow.
 * I do not think it's productive to point fingers about who reverted which edit on the main newsroom page and removed the entry for the article. Will this fix the problem? Like, in total seriousness: if we all sat down and yelled at each other and figured out that me or you or HaeB or Bri or had been the one person responsible for messing up the page, what are we going to do with this information? Dock their pay? Come on, man. What happened here is that the documentation is confusing, and the process is complicated, which meant that multiple people (who are quite intelligent) failed to notice the problem until the issue had already run. Feeling bad about it and being called incompetent does not cause the problem to be solved. Solving the problem causes the problem to be solved. This is my job, so I will do it: but I cannot do it until I do my other jobs, which include writing out multiple-paragraph responses to confusing arguments over drama from 2012, which I don't think is a good use of time. jp×g 13:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not that it's any one person. It's that it's a consistent thing of late, and I'm spending whole days out of the month working on this. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs 18:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what the problem is. I ran The Signpost for a lot of 2018 with help from and we managed to get fat issues out, on time every month. I've offered to help with copy-editing but there have been no takers. Perhaps they're all too proud. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

On my 600th FP
Well, luckily, it didn't happen in October because FPC hit one of its slowdowns. But... it would be nice if we could get that interview prepped, because I'm at 598 and have a 11-item backlog. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 18:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Never. Mind. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs 05:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

no obituary?
Disappointed to see this was archived and didn't make it in, after one of his relatives shared some words. Does Signpost prefer not to do obituaries, or prefer not to receive suggestions (i.e. submit an obituary, don't suggest an obituary)? &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 22:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I think it's just a mess right now. It looks like it's the same reason CommonsComix didn't get published: Because of a very very stupid attempt to reset the page for the new month three days before publication that deleted every article from the list that wasn't part of the standard list. Complete incompetence of management. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 22:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Submitting it would have been the better route. Right now we don't have enough volunteers to handle every suggestion. –– FormalDude  (talk)  23:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I actually began the draft; I thought it was dropped on purpose because of inability to do the subject justice. Remember, there was a discussion posted at the time of publication of issue 10 Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 29. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

More on Disinformation
H/T to WO: https://theintercept.com/2022/10/31/social-media-disinformation-dhs/

Published just after our issue went out.

THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY is quietly broadening its efforts to curb speech it considers dangerous, an investigation by The Intercept has found. Years of internal DHS memos, emails, and documents — obtained via leaks and an ongoing lawsuit, as well as public documents — illustrate an expansive effort by the agency to influence tech platforms. ... Prior to the 2020 election, tech companies including Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Discord, Wikipedia, Microsoft, LinkedIn, and Verizon Media met on a monthly basis with the FBI, CISA, and other government representatives. According to NBC News, the meetings were part of an initiative, still ongoing, between the private sector and government to discuss how firms would handle misinformation during the election.

You may remember that we had a reference to the WMF's "Disinformation" campaign related to the election on a Signpost talk page the other day. --Andreas JN 466 00:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


 * This was the discussion in question: Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-08-31/In_the_media Andreas JN 466 00:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Not to dismiss concerns about the US government's ill-fated Disinformation Governance Board, but what's the actual news in that article regarding Wikipedia? The Foundation reported two years ago already that specific members of [its then newly founded Disinformation] task force are regularly meeting with representatives from major technology companies and U.S. government agencies to share insights and discuss ways they are addressing potential disinformation issues in relation to the election. As they should, IMO - in fact it may very well be that Wikipedia is falling behind social media sites like Facebook and Twitter when it comes to countering state-funded disinformation campaigns because we (admins, checkusers, or other volunteer editors monitoring affected articles) benefit less from the information that law enforcement might be able to provide (say, very speculatively, that a particular IP range is currently being used for a campaign by the Internet Research Agency) than the moderators of those commercial platforms. A more pertinent question might be whether that much-ballyhooed task force and other initiatives announced in that 2020 post are still active, see also this month's Recent research. Lastly, the WMF has of course long maintained contact with the FBI and other law enforcement agencies in other contexts already, which is kind of inevitable for a large user-generated content website.
 * Now, if there really was an effort by the DHS to influence the content of Wikipedia according to political preferences, that would be a different matter, but the Intercept article doesn't say that. It looks like they published these leaked documents online? In that case it might be worth going through them and searching for "wiki"...
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW, last I heard about T&S Disinformation efforts was about half a year ago, and the word then was their main job was "fighting ISIS".
 * In retrospect, people should have guessed that "government agencies" included the DHS but it wasn't made explicit. Anyway, I missed the news about the Disinformation Governance Board at the time; and so I was left wondering why the WMF was suddenly putting out job ads for "disinformation" hires (with a focus on Russian, Farsi and Arabic language skills). Andreas JN 466 16:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Welp, the ever snarky but reliable Techdirt (not known as a defender of censorship) has a detailed fisking:
 * Including gems like this (which kind of devalues my suggestion above):
 * Also:
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Also:
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I have been hearing a lot about this from a few of my buddies, who have been giving me interesting takes. Basically, I think the executive summary is that the Intercept article tells us a bunch of stuff we already know about, and the TechDirt article also tells us a bunch of stuff we already know about.  In general, I try to restrain myself from going on AP2 rants, but suffice it to say that my level of trust in claims made by the Department of Homeland Security has never been particularly high, so I am not inclined to a charitable interpretation of vague ominous platitudes from them about "helping manage the threat and dangers". That said, it is also true that there is nothing in the Intercept article that shows they are directly demanding websites to alter content. Indeed, that weird WMF election-disinformation report from 2020 doesn't say anything about directly altering content either. I don't think that we are really getting any new information from the Intercept article that we didn't already know about. Basically, a bunch of people are sitting around a conference table talking about strategizing for innovative, diversified synergy -- #wow #whoa #bigiftrue.
 * While ProPublica is typically a very high-quality source of detailed investigation, I am not really sure what to make of their article on this. Basically, they are just quoting a bunch of DHS employees on the subject of "whether DHS employees are important and competent". To great fanfare, their answer is "yes" -- #wow #whoa #bigiftrue. jp×g 15:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There is more discussion of this at Village_pump_(WMF) Andreas JN 466 15:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia Signpost draft articles
In light of the above clusterfuck, I am going through this category. My thinking is that this contains all draft articles, and I know there are templates that make it possible to transclude a category's article listing into a page: therefore, if we did something like that, we could make a section on the newsroom index that shows every draft and not just the ones for which sections are transcluded manually. Anyway, going into the category, I had expected to find a few forgotten old drafts, but instead, I see a total mess: we have 104 pages in here, going back to 2011. I am still going through it to figure out the deal, but any thoughts are welcome on what should be done. jp×g 13:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

My thinking here is that a solution would be pretty simple. Signpost draft already takes a "status" parameter (accepted, declined, published or rejected): right now, the parameter doesn't seem to impact what category the page is put in. It is hard for me to tell what is going on: it seems like every page with that template is added to the Signpost drafts category, while some of them are added to Category:Next Signpost issue, but not many (this category currently contains nothing but the draft template). Anyway, one possible solution is to put a switch into the template to categorize articles by status (and then go through these 104 to make sure they all have status parameters). After doing this, we should have a manageable and current category of all the articles that are currently being worked on. jp×g 17:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that the category for the next Signpost issue says "This category is to be placed on an article, so that KharBot can add it to the next issue of The Signpost". User:KharBot has not edited since 2016. Huh? jp×g 17:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Another note is that there is something resembling a list of current articles in Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue. I don't know how I feel about this: it seems kind of half-assed, because there's no way for us to implement categorization by status. There could be a link to this from the Newsroom, but I don't think it is a great permanent solution. jp×g 18:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait, you don't know how to do categorisation by status? Hold on. It's dead easy if you know the trick. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 21:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ASignpost_draft&type=revision&diff=1120601155&oldid=1120432276 There. Change the category names to whatever you want. D'ye want any other statuses? It currently sorts them as either Category:Wikipedia Signpost articles not yet ready for copyediting, Category:Wikipedia Signpost articles ready for copyediting, or Category:Wikipedia Signpost articles that have been copyedited. I've filtered the first of those categories to only include - well, it's technical how I did it, but basically it checks for "Next issue" in the page name. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 21:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments page for issues
I took a stab at an automated thing that can show all the comment sections for the issue on one page (automatically drawing the articles and titles and etc from Module:Signpost. Most of it works, but I cannot figure out how to get the transclusions to render properly. I remember you had some proof-of-concept deal worked up for this: how about that? 17:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Update: I got it to work. Check it out: Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2022-10-31. It looks kind of lousy right now because I am just using the default Collapse top, but this can be changed. Basically, this should work automatically, and I will make a template that can just be dropped into issue talk pages and work without further modification. My thinking is that it could go in a few different places. The one that seems most logical to me is the talk page for the single-page edition: all those links are red. There isn't really anything to conflict with: Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/ has just three pages, all of which seem to be accidental creations. jp×g 18:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Update: I have one for the current issue at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2022-10-31 and one for the previous issue at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2022-09-30 (with comment page sizes in the headers of the collapse templates). Again, this looks pretty lousy, but I think it can be improved on fairly easily.
 * Thanks JPxG, I love having all the comments available on one page. The similar concept we tested was this from the June issue. –– FormalDude  (talk)  00:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Review of book related to wiki
FT Review on Writing the Revolution: Wikipedia and the Survival of Facts in the Digital Age. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 20:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The book is by Heather Ford. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Heather let me have an advance copy and I am planning to write a review for the next issue. Andreas JN 466 23:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you create "Book review" as a new type of article in the Newsroom? I guess it could also go in "Special report" but "Book review" would look nicer. Andreas JN 466 08:30, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

The book review is at Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Book review but it still needs copyediting. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

New article
We'll have to put my adminship article on hold for another month. I need to do a write up on the results of the NPP open letter campaig. There was finally a meeting with the WMF last week. I'm not sure if Bluerasberry wanted to write something on that too. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Page status categories
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ASignpost_draft&type=revision&diff=1120601155&oldid=1120432276 There. Change the category names to whatever you want. D'ye want any other statuses? It currently sorts them as either Category:Wikipedia Signpost articles not yet ready for copyediting, Category:Wikipedia Signpost articles ready for copyediting, or Category:Wikipedia Signpost articles that have been copyedited. I've filtered the first of those categories to only include - well, it's technical how I did it, but basically it checks for "Next issue" in the page name. (More specifically, "Next issue" in the page name between the first and second "/"s). I'm presuming that anything marked ready for copyedit or as copyedited is important enough to list wherever its page is.

Once the categories exist, the actual pages from them MUST contain the following: Possibly empty category (they WILL be deleted if you don't) and a categorisation into, I dunno, probably Category:Wikipedia Signpost draft articles Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 21:45, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hell yeah. I am at the store right now but when I get home I will take a good look... jp×g 22:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So, does that work? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 07:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this works pretty well. I have been offline the last couple of days, so I kind of lost my train of thought, but this will be something to work off. Off the top of my head I think there will be four fundamental categories: "ready to go", "ready for copyedit", "in progress", and "inactive" (for the few hundred or so random drafts sitting around in userspace, etc from the last couple decades). I can start implementing this now with what we've got (and am prepared to throw together some stupid little script if mass category purges are needed). jp×g 04:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm currently filtering out a lot of the "inactive" from the in progress category by limiting it only to those from the current directory structure. I can remove that filtering, if you like.
 * I'm presuming that copyedited and copyedited + editor approval should probably be in the same category for now. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 05:51, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have messed around with it a little: the full scheme is in a table in the documentation for Signpost draft. I moved the logic down into its own section, and added a couple more categories... I think this will work pretty well. Now the only thing left to do is go through and specify the  parameter in those old-ass drafts, which shouldn't take long with an AWB run over the table above. jp×g 04:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Mailing list threads: grants budgets, financial statements
There are two ongoing mailing list threads about financials: More questions than answers to date. Could you keep an eye? Any thoughts? Best, --Andreas JN 466 14:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Grants budgets (started by Effeietsanders)
 * WMF financial statements for 2021-2022 published (started by myself)

Potential essay
I've reached out to an editor on Meta who has an essay I think would be suitable for The Signpost. More later. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think my article needs to be under essay if you need the slot. Just move it to Special Report or something. (Just please don't lose it) Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 18:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * They agreed to share On Privacy in Wikipedia in the age of AI and I asked them to start the button using our submission process just for crystal clear attribution. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, I’m not necessarily attached to "Essay" as a title for the item. It might be more of an Op-ed actually. Maybe we should make up a new name for technical hacks with sociological implications? I dunno. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

The contributor has created a draft Signpost article for us which I've moved to WP:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Opinion. I suggest running this in the November issue as "Opinion". Any other thoughts? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Featured content.
I'm going to try and do a draft of this today. It's probably going to be a bit simplified again - I don't want to complain too much, but September's really was awful, and it'll be a bit to get enthusiasm back after that.

Also, in all honestly, there's a mass deletion of an entire institution's uploads at Commons that's probably going to eat up a lot of my time. commons:Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests is pretty shocking - the MRC NIMR shut down in 2015, but before then, in 2013, released a lot of photos to an edit-a-thon. And Commons has spent all the time since then systematically deleting everything. Probably article worthy for December, if it's not sorted by then. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 06:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, it's up at Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Featured content. I've done all the documentation, at least. I feel a little bad, but given I write the "From the archives" of late, and the 2007 Featured contents look like this, well, it could be worse, right? It's not... great, but it's publishable. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 07:40, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * ...And then I did it. I gave myself five seconds per article to figure out what I'd say about it. It seemed to work. I mean, there's a massive copout at the bottom of the featured lists, but I think it's justified... Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 09:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Adam, that's a good strategy, last month I tried to do something like that but .... some of them were just too interesting. The wiki-rabbit-hole phenomenon is hard to resist. Anyway, it's good to see you contributing. Cheers ☆ Bri (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedian on front page
According to this, a Wikipedian other than Jimbo Wales has just been features on the enwp Main Page for the first time. I should not take this any farther because of a potential COI; perhaps someone else will evaluate it for News and notes. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Fundraising banner RfC
There is an ongoing Village Pump RfC on the wording of the Wikimedia fundraising banners that are due to appear on Wikipedia in a couple of weeks' time: Andreas JN 466 19:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Village_pump_(proposals)
 * And relatedly, this submission. The Land (talk) 10:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Here is my feedback:
 * The first four questions are strong ones. The last two strike me as rather softball – I'm pretty sure we'll hear that of course the WMF follows professional codes of practice and that decentralisation will "soon come" (just like the 501(c)(3) for the Endowment was promised years ago and still is stuck in the planning stages).
 * As for donations to non-Wikimedia organisations, I would ask: How can you justify giving preferential treatment to US organisations in the Knowledge Equity Fund while collecting money in India and South Africa, telling people there you need their money to keep Wikipedia online? (So far, more than half the money from this fund has gone to US organisations, and nothing to South Africa or South Asia.)
 * And there was the issue that all of this was done in secret, without recourse to participatory grantmaking structures. It was as if these executives treated WMF funds as their private philanthropic piggy bank ... which does not inspire trust.
 * There is also the issue of $8.723 million of funds going to Tides Advocacy in the year Amanda Keton moved from Tides to the WMF. You know the saying about avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. I would be interested in knowing whether this is a decision anyone regrets. Also, where can we see what exactly happened with the additional 4.223 million Tides Advocacy were given, in addition to the funding for the Knowledge Equity Fund? This money was supposed to fund annual plan grants for affiliates. Where can we see who got what from Tides Advocacy, and when? Regards, Andreas JN 466 15:16, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

The RfC has now been closed by an admin. The summary states there was a broad, near-unanimous consensus that these fundraising banners should not run on the English Wikipedia in their current form:

This was a request for comment (RfC) on whether the fundraising banners planned to be shown on the English Wikipedia in December 2022 were appropriate, and if not what changes needed to be made. Based on the samples provided by the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), there was a broad, near-unanimous consensus that these fundraising banners should not run on the English Wikipedia in their current form.

Nearly all participants agreed that the banner texts are at least partly untruthful, and that soliciting money by misleading readers is an unethical and inappropriate use of this project. Specifically, participants clearly identified that banners that state or imply any of the following are not considered appropriate on the English Wikipedia:


 * Wikipedia's existence is under threat or dependent on donations
 * Donated funds are used primarily to support Wikipedia and/or its volunteer editors
 * Readers should feel obliged to donate regardless of their means ("guilt tripping")

A significant minority of participants objected to running banner campaigns at all. In my view beyond the scope of this RfC – arguably out of the scope of local discussions on this project entirely. Similarly, there was substantial discussion of the WMF's fundraising model and financing in general which, as several participants noted, is probably better taken up in other venues (e.g. Meta). In any case, no consensus was reached on these issues.

Few participants explicitly supported the banners. Many of those that did acknowledged the problems summarised above, but concluded that the banners were acceptable because they were effective (at raising money), comparable to similar campaigns by other organisations, and/or are an improvement over the WMF's compaigns in previous years. A number of members of WMF staff and the WMF Board of Trustees were amongst the most vocal in support of the banners. It is worth noting that, though their participation is welcome as anyone else's, it also carries no more weight than anyone else's. Their comments (understandably) tended to focus on the potential ramifications that changes to fundraising on the English Wikipedia, which constitutes a significant portion of the Foundation's income, could have on the rest of the movement. Like critical comments from opposers on movement finances in general, I considered this discussion largely irrelevent in assessing consensus on the questions posed by this RfC. To the extent that they engaged with the specific objections summarised above, a number of supporters, including several Board members, acknowledged that there were problems with the fundraising text that the WMF has placed on the English Wikipedia, though they disagreed on whether this is a fit topic for discussion on this project.

There was also significant discussion of how this consensus should be enforced, if the WMF chooses not to modify the banners before running them. This is a fraught topic given that our policies state that authorised acts of the WMF Board take precedence over consensus on this project, but that attempts to actually apply this principle have historically proved controversial. No consensus was reached on this issue, which is also strictly speaking outside the scope of this RfC. But taking off my closer's hat for a moment, I would like stress that this needn't come up – the preferred outcome for almost all participants, I believe, is that the English Wikipedia community and relevent WMF staff can come to an agreement on the content of fundraising banners.

Where should we write this up, and who will do it?

This is still a developing story, of course; for example, the WMF said they would show the community some revised banners today. --Andreas JN 466 13:50, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I suppose a question is: Is this a main story, is it part of another section, and, with two days to publication, do we have time to do an in depth story well? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 15:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @Adam: Note that there is now also a statement by Maryana Iskander: Village_pump_(miscellaneous). Andreas JN 466 00:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Adam Cuerden: Maryana says in her statement, Donated funds are used primarily to support Wikipedia. There has long been confusion about how much exactly is spent on what ...
 * I have asked Maryana for a comment on this quote, both on her talk page and underneath her statement: The vast majority of Wikimedia’s value to ordinary people – the website we know and use – costs the firm about 30 percent of their $112.5 million operating budget ($33.75 million) to maintain according to Lisa Seitz Gruwell, Chief Advancement Officer at Wikimedia.. This is from an article published on the website of the Institute for New Economic Thinking last year, authored by an INSEAD fellow.
 * If she replies before publication, her answer might be worth including. Andreas JN 466 11:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * At some point, we have to accept that there's going to be a followup. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 19:13, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Aye. Andreas JN 466 22:41, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Another Wikipedia killer
"Galactica", which is claimed to be able to write Wikipedia articles with sources from scratch. This seems like a continuation of the previous Facebook enterprises (none of which seemed particularly lethal). This one is going viral though, so it would probably be useful for us to cover it. jp×g 08:15, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "Killer AI" would make a good blurb somewhere in the issue. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I started a section at In the media for this. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Try this! https://galactica.org/?max_new_tokens=400&prompt=Wiki+article+on+Wikipedia+Signpost please save a screenshot if possible; now offline
 * Smallbones( smalltalk ) 04:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What a complete and utter load of garbage. This thing has some way to go before it could be even remotely useful ... Andreas JN 466 11:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Can anyone fact check that we have never published via PDF? I know PDF generation by the user from the single-page edition is possible, and I even created some PDFs for proofing while I was doing publication manager stuff. Related discussion: Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 1 where a PDF proof from the publishing script in dry-run mode was on my wish-list, but I don't think it was ever executed. As far as I can remember Signpost has never been delivered as PDF. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The Signpost was delivered in WP:Book format back when we had those. It compiled all articles into a single PDF. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Atm I'm just getting black. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We can fall back on if it stays that way. (Someone had more foresight than we did.) --Andreas  JN 466 19:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well they do say "not verified" and "Models are prone to hallucinate text." Kind of poetic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Married to Wendy Hacker? ☆ Bri (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

MIT Technology Review was not impressed. Theysay that Galactica spun Wiki articles about bears in space and other "statistical nonsense at scale", a quote from Grady Booch, and refers the reader to a cognitive scientist's review titled "A Few Words About Bullshit". ☆ Bri (talk) 05:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I worked some of that in. How's it look? I also spun off the Facebook moderator bit, as the Galactica coverage was getting a bit long to have a rapid gear change in the last moment. Think the connection's clear even if there's a section header between them now. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 08:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I like the result. A little snippet of the wiki article "History of bears in space" could possibly be gleaned from this ycombinator post. The actual content is, of course, purged from our collective memory by Meta. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Another possible source. Something about automatic bullshit generation (quoting University of Washington prof Carl Bergstrom). ☆ Bri (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.cnet.com/science/meta-trained-an-ai-on-48-million-science-papers-it-was-shut-down-after-two-days/


 * Worked in a few bits of the CNET article, and what I think is a funny joke. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 05:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Looking good
I want to say that the ITM looks really good this month, here's permission for contributors to give yourself a pat on the back (myself included? ha ha). ☆ Bri (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

WT.Social
Do we have anything about the FT using Jimbo's WT Social as an example of a small social media platform benefiting from Twitter's chaos? (see piece here). Even so, there is also evidence that some are experimenting with alternatives. Usage of far smaller rivals such as Mastodon and Tumblr has rocketed, as some Twitter users encourage their followers to abandon the site to test out rivals. Other entrepreneurs have sought to capitalise on the perceived disenchantment. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales is developing WT. Social, which is described as a “non-toxic social network”. [...] — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 08:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Odd comment. WT.Social has been going (and struggling) for years. But I note that you can now log into WT.Social with your Twitter ID, and Jimmy Wales seems to be trying to leverage the Twitter situation as a recruiting tool.
 * See e.g. article in the South China Morning Post ('WikiTribune Social, or WT.Social, has had a “strong rise in users leaving Twitter due to Elon Musk’s new ownership and policies”, founder Jimmy Wales said by email.')
 * Or SlashGear: "Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales is Working on a Twitter Rival" ... "Jimmy Wales has proposed plans for a rival to the Elon's bird site" This is practically lying to readers, making it sound like a new site.
 * Meh. Andreas JN 466 13:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Suggestions page
There's a few suggestions for the upcoming issue on the Suggestions subpage, see Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions and below.
 * JamieF is proposing an article about the View it! tool and says they'd be happy to write/help write the article.
 * Project Osprey is suggesting we cover a new opinion piece published this month on how Wikipedia’s Citations Are Influencing Scholars and Publishers (sounds like something for ITM)
 * Gråbergs Gråa Sång says Reliable_sources/Noticeboard is worth covering somewhere.
 * Novem Linguae points to the Village pump (proposals) for News and Notes. This had best be covered by someone else than me who isn't actively involved on that page. Any volunteers? --Andreas JN 466 10:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Now at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_389. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If it gets included then you should credit Smokefoot as they found the article. --Project Osprey (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I invited JamieF to start a writeup for either November or December. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note User:Dušan_Kreheľ/Signpost_draft:New_pageview_dump_export_format_(concept) is done. --Andreas JN 466 23:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Would someone be able to review Dušan_Kreheľ's article and move into a "next issue" slot if appropriate? I'm afraid I'm not competent to review the content. Andreas JN 466 01:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * algorithmic compression! It's good, but I think we need a summary. I understand it and can write one. It might need held for December, though, if I can't write a simplified summary in time. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 04:53, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've made a brief summary version to go before it. He writes a great technical article, but it needed an executive summary for dumb executives. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 15:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Harrison in Slate
https://slate.com/technology/2022/11/dhsleaks-wikipedia-no-collusion.html I've put it in ITM as top section. Just links so far. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 19:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I've dropped it down slightly - feels like Galactica's our big story - and summarised it a bit. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 20:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So I'm not geting any DHS money? Bummer. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/News from the WMF
Little bit bare minimum, but we're so close to publication that's fine, I think.

I am not very good at retiring from The Signpost, like I supposedly did at the end of last month. I have sole credit on four articles this month: Help me look a bit more like I retired by taking joint credit in this article by expanding my framework. Then I'll only be credited in, well, six, but sole credited in just three. Does this paragraph need one of those "humour" tags? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 18:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Copyediting notes
I've gone through and copyedited everything I can, I think the following articles are highly unlikely to change, so can be looked over and approved any time JPxG is ready:

After copyediting everything I hadn't written (I'm so good at retiring...) I asked Headbomb to check my edit to one confusing sentence, so Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/Tips_and_tricks is only mostly ready. It's ready, as far as I'm concerned. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/CommonsComix
 * Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Essay
 * Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Featured content
 * Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/From the archives
 * Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Legal certainty
 * Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Opinion
 * Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Book review
 * Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Obituary - I found an unpublished WMF interview with Michael Gäbler. Why not?
 * Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/Tips_and_tricks
 * Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Pageview compression
 * Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/News and notes - Thanks, Bri!
 * Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In the media - Thanks, EpicPupper!
 * Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Traffic report - Still like the "Princess Di's nominative determinism" joke, but it's apparently edited out. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 18:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/Op-Ed

Kinda ready to go?
 * Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Recent research - I've copyedited the one section that was done; suspect more's forthcoming. Check with HaeB if at all possible before publication.

 Need copyediting, and I can't: 
 * Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In the media: I worked extensively on this, and with all the towers of edits I made to the Galactica section - people kept pointing out sources and I was the one who largely worked them in - I think someone else would be best copyediting it.
 * Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/News and notes- Probably publishable as-is, but giving a chance for another lookover.

 Needs copyediting, also could be expanded if someone's interested :
 * Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/News from the WMF - This is the report on the RFC on the Fundraiser banners. It's publishable (IMO), but if someone wants to expand it, feel free. Combined with News and Notes. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 16:39, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Articles that are started, kinda:
 * Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/On the bright side Since it's only one entry, I merged this into News and notes.
 * Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Recent research - I think HaeB tends to do this very last minute. No content at time of writing. (Moved to "Kinda ready")

Theoretical articles
 * JPxG often does a "From the team". That'll need copyedited quickly if so, unless he's fine with it being uncopyedited, in which case, hey, he's the EiC.

Looking to be a pretty big issue, so might be worth clearing off things as much as possible so there's no publication rush.

Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 20:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I've fixed the link to the closer for news from the WMF. I feel that the current contents of the column don't really fit into the section; we usually do news from the WMF for republished Diff posts, or some other submission from WMF staffers. This, however, is a community-run RfC closed by a community member. Perhaps it could be changed to discussion report if the other November discussions (looks like a pretty light month) were added, or simply "fundraising" if not. Cheers, 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 00:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, how about we have news from the WMF, and then news for the WMF? jp×g 01:06, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I find that hilarious. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 01:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We could also simply swap the section on Fundraising plans and budgets from News and Notes and the RFC report from News from the WMF. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 05:39, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As a heads up, in the end, it merged into "News and Notes" Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 02:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Note that I am out of town currently -- while I was hoping I would be able to wrangle together a posting machine and do some writing/editing on the go, the solution I came up with does not seem to have worked out very well in practice. I think I will be back tomorrow or the day after. In the meantime, I am extremely happy that everyone has been doing stuff :) jp×g 01:06, 25 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Okay, I am back, time to roll. jp×g 20:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've copyedited the Recent Research as it is now, just needs some cleanup to publish. Hopefully I'll have a chance for a second go later tonight, and there will be a bit more written. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 21:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, well, well... looks like my Geniouse idea of rejiggering the draft template categories has paid off. There are two drafts for this month that slipped through the above list.
 * User:FacetsOfNonStickPans/Signpost draft: a summary of Signpost statistics from 2020, which I am on the fence about. If we run it this issue, this will mean we are free to write one about 2021 in the next issue and 2022 in January. However, I dunno: maybe it would be best to combine all three. Much to think about. Anyway, I will prep it for this issue.
 * Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Signpost Interview 2022: It seems extremely important to run this one now and not later. This is an interview with Lisa Seitz-Gruwell from the WMF about the elephant in the room, i.e. the fundraiser shitstorm: I will get this one ready as well. jp×g 21:26, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Writing deadline soon
Just six hours to go for new content. If you were saving something, now is the time! ☆ Bri (talk) 17:11, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Think it's down to Recent Research finishing up, then just copyediting In the Media, and maybe a quick From the Team Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 18:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

30 minutes then it's pencils down. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC) Okay, there should be no new content (though I see Recent research is being built out now). I suggest since so many of us who usually copyedit are contributors to In the media, perhaps the E-in-C can take that. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


 * If someone can do Galactica, I can copyedit the rest of In the media Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 01:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Unused News from the WMF tagged for G6 deletion. If there are any page movers who can move it to userspace before publication to avoid confusion, that would be much appreciated. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 05:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ITM copyedit done. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 05:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Given I wrote it and I moved it, probably doesn't matter. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 05:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Nonissue, admin already performed the G6 deletion for us. ☆ Bri (talk) 06:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Looks like things are well in hand. I'm going for a ride on this road (it's actually better than it looks in the picture) before a possible snowstorm hits Seattle. Likely will still be out on the road at publication time. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Back at the keyboard; I hope everything is OK, expected to see the new issue up. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Style
🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 05:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What variety of English should The Signpost follow? British or American? How about for submitted Op-Eds that already use a particular version?
 * I propose that unless
 * we find a specific, linkable source, or
 * we receive direct statement on this page, or
 * the they template is used,
 * The Signpost defaults to they pronouns for referring to people.
 * I wonder if a TemplateStyles stylesheet could be applied to the Signpost draft template, removing the need for using custom templates for images or quotes.


 * I'd really rather not cause a British/American divide by forcing one group to work with the other's English variety. I'd say consistency within articles is ample. But if we have to choose, let's go with the style preferred by the person who has either A. the most article credits for the month, B. The person who submitted the first article for the month, or C. the person with the most featured pictures. And conveniently, they all work out to the same person.
 * As for "they unless stated otherwise", how are we marking that we checked? Because, for example, I did ask MaranoFan for his pronouns on his talk page before mentioning him in the lead of the Featured Content, but it's not obvious how I'd mark that. Intent's good, but the practice might not be. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 06:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please don't default to "they" for individuals. It causes confusion in some cases, e.g. when you changed Stephen Harrison from a he to a they in ITM. In a sentence that refers to him and the Department of Homeland Security - "they" will be taken by most people to refer to the "plural" group DHS. This Stephen is definitely "he". Folks who want to use non-standard pronouns usually let this be known. If there is a question about "Leslie" or "Stephane" (or all people only identified by a user name - even User:Trumpgirl) then "they" is fine. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 18:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I respect these thoughts and apologize for the confusion. Perhaps my proposal about pronouns should be changed to something along the lines of "use they when referring to on-wiki users". Cheers, 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 20:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That presumes settings are set, though. they also defaults to "they". Which means, if we do due diligence, we'd then be harassing every non-binary user that uses "they" pronouns, as we wouldn't be able to tell the difference between them and someone who didn't set it in their preferences. It's tricky, though, because we do want to respect pronouns. I usually give a glance at their user page to see if there's an identifier, but I also use gendered names as a guide, which isn't perfect. Is there any manual of style things for (reasonably progressive) media companies we can look at to see if there's any useful advice in them? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 20:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Although many (most?) users use the preference setting that underlies they and other similiar templates to specify how they want others to refer to them, note that the intent of the preference is strictly for how you want the MediaWiki software to refer to editors. (As I understand it, although in English the messages can often be re-written to be gender-neutral, for some languages the concept of gender is deeply rooted in their grammar, thus the reason for the preference. Note because it is a grammatical choice, there is no "they" option in the preference: just masculine, feminine, and unspecified.) Some editors (well, I know of one) don't want to be referred to as "they" and have never set the preference, so the template will return "they", counter to their personal desires. Thus in cases where the pronoun choice may be contentious, it would be good to get the viewpoint of the subject. isaacl (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The Harrison "they" change was irritating to read, so earlier today I tried to find Harrison's pronouns listed at an official profile somewhere, but was unable. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Affilitation
I wrote some personal musings on article quality for the upcoming issue of The Signpost. This is completely unrelated to my dayjob for the Wikimedia Foundation, who a) don't touch content and b) don't have opinions on the topic at hand. Would it still be preferred that my affiliation is indicated somehow, with an explanation that this is something I do in my spare time just so no one assumes it's related to any Foundation initiatives? I don't see how it would help, but I also don't want people to think I'm trying to hide something. /Julle (talk) 15:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd love to see an article in The Signpost on article quality. I did some checking on this when we got to the 5 millionth article and half the articles were stubs. Half of those I'd call "sub-stubs" as indicated by ORES (chance of being a stub > 70%), no refs or something equally obvious. Recently I took a quick tour and it looked much better, but still about half stubs (the standards must be a bit higher now.) Yes, I believe you should declare you work for WMF just to avoid confusion about what hat you're wearing as a contributor. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 18:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * } Ok, I'm getting up to speed. JPXG should decide most of this - but I see an excellent article, already copy edited, which is hidden on the Newsroom page (at the bottom of the page under a box). I'll move it up the page to make sure JPxG sees it and write a standard editor's intro right under the byline. Somerhing like:
 * Julle began editing the Swedish Wikipedia in 2004. He's authored a book Swedish title (Wikipedia from the Inside), published in 2014(?) and currently works for the WMF as chief goat rustler(?). The opinions expressed are his own.
 * Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok I placed the above editor's intro right after the byline, replacing a few things. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:39, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! /Julle (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Last-minute additions
Does anyone object to some last-minute additions, mostly in the form of brief items? I'd hate to see all our wonderful suggestions go to waste, especially as some of them are time-sensitive. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 20:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh, by all means do it. I don't think Recent Research is going to be finished on time, and I, for one, would rather wait on it a day than cause a disjoint with the publication it copies. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 20:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Really appreciate these concerns, but RR is good to go now, see Newsroom page (as it - almost - always has been by the publication deadline during the last 11+ years, I might want to add). Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Nicely done! Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 00:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Last-minute "what"s
What is going on in Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/Concept? This is marked as ready for final approval, but would require significant copyediting, and quite possibly a rewrite. There are lots of lines that do not make sense: "For the mass pageviews statistics are the statistic pageviews number values are storing in format the one long word with with individual time segments"? My guess is that there are translation issues. I can't figure out what is being said here, and I don't think I have time to completely rewrite the article prior to publication, so I am going to leave this for next month. Pinging its authors:. jp×g 23:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I might not have copyedited as much as I should have due to the time pressures. Part of a long list of things dropped on me in the last couple days before publication, so I mainly focused on creating a brief summary. It'll be ready for December, just hold it. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 00:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @JPxG: Here sentences, I changed the beginning of the paragraph. If something is still strange, get in touch.
 * I wrote the article for more technical purposes rather than people-popular. If it should be written more simply (only people-popular), I would have to write it again. If that's what you want, just say so. It's not a problem for me. Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 11:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't think it's a problem as long as we have a simplified summary, which I added. I just failed at copyediting. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 18:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Any news?
Anything we can do?

Smallbones( smalltalk ) 11:42, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, drop a piano on my head! I should have started working on this stuff two days ago. Luckily I planned ahead for my lack of planning ahead, so everything should turn out fine. jp×g 12:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, my long national nightmare is over, it is 7 in the morning and I am going the hell to bed. Someone has to go make the posts on Facetwit and Booker. jp×g 15:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What he means is, yes it was just published. I love the new titles especially "The Six Million FP Man" and "The Most Beautiful Story on the Internet". ☆ Bri (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the translation of these cryptic Watergate allusions and allegories about falling pianos ;) Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure why Smallbones had pinged me here, but in any case the Twitter and Facebook posts are done now. Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Update on user group application
I received the following email from a member of the Affiliations Comittee:

I am hopeful that we will receive a decision by Sunday! Best wishes, 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 17:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Great, I am interested!  Bluerasberry   (talk)  18:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I emailed again yesterday asking for an update. Here are two additional emails I received:

🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 19:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC)