Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:{{u|Bri}}: Looks like I can only get in contact with you. Is Evad the only one who can publish? It's great that he edits ''The Signpost'', but this is getting a bit out of hand. ] <small><sup>'' ]</sup> <sub>]</sub>'' </small> 20:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
:{{u|Bri}}: Looks like I can only get in contact with you. Is Evad the only one who can publish? It's great that he edits ''The Signpost'', but this is getting a bit out of hand. ] <small><sup>'' ]</sup> <sub>]</sub>'' </small> 20:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
::As far as I know, yes. I'll contact someone offline who used to work on ''Signpost'' and see if he has any ideas. ☆ ] (]) 21:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
::As far as I know, yes. I'll contact someone offline who used to work on ''Signpost'' and see if he has any ideas. ☆ ] (]) 21:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
:::Hi guys, sorry, I haven't been well lately and haven't been spending much time online. If either of you want to be a backup publisher (or co-editor-in-chief or whatever), you just need to get a few user rights here and on Meta, and then I can set you up with the publishing script.<br> As for this issue, it looks like there's just a few things to fix up for In the media, and Traffic report; but News and notes is quite far away from being ready, so should probably be postponed to the next issue. - <u>''']''37'''''</u> <span style="font-size:95%;">[]]</span> 03:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
The Signpost is usually published on a monthly publication schedule. Signpost contributors can contact the editor-in-chief for updates on the publication date below. Once all tasks are complete, the publication manager will complete the publication process.
Current discussion
Ideas for Signpost features can be pitched and discussed by any interested parties here. Items should be listed directly at the submissions desk; they will automatically be transcluded below (a purge may be required).
From the submissions desk
The following proposals have been transcluded from the submissions desk.
"WP:OP-ED" redirects here. For the guideline on not editorializing in article content, see MOS:OP-ED. For the policy on op-eds and original research, see WP:NOROPED. For the guideline on citing op-eds as sources, see WP:NEWSOPED.
← NewsroomWP:POST/SUBMITSubmission Desk
Settings:
Sections are archived by ClueBot III when marked with {{completed}} or {{close}})
Submission desk
Please propose Signpost stories you want to write (or have already begun writing). Submitted stories are published subject to the approval of the Editor-in-Chief, JPxG. We value the involvement of Wikipedians, and appreciate your submissions. If you have ideas or questions that don't fit neatly into this framework, don't hesitate to address us on our user talk pages, by email, or as a last resort, on the general Signpost talk page.
The Signpost's content guidelines may be useful to aspiring writers. We encourage you to contact us early in the process of developing a story. Different writers have varying levels of interest in editorial input, and we pride ourselves on finding the right balance with each writer; but in most cases, a brief discussion early on can help all parties shape our expectations, and can help produce a strong finished piece. We aim to support Wikimedians wishing to share news with their peers, and look forward to working with you.
On the perils of believing everything you read online. This is partially inspired by the Stephen ColbertWikiality bit and also a short story by B. J. Novak. Written with quite a bit of assistance from ChatGPT.
Humour is hard! This is a much better first try than the large majority that I've seen. Different people have different senses of humour than others, so I'll encourage others to join in and give their opinions, but I'll suggest that it should be rejected and you should be encouraged to try again. Some aspects of my opinion. Wikiality is a 20 year old concept - I doubt that even Colbert thinks it is relevant now. Also using the real name Jimmy Wales is problematic, using a different name - even if everybody will recognize it as J.W. avoids most of these problems. The problems? Jimmy would never do and think what you have him doing and thinking. He might rightly be offended. Colbert wouldn't have as many problems - he's an entertainer and people realize that what he does on the screen isn't the real him. But he should actually say something funny! Also using ChatGBT, IMHO, should be avoided. But that's just quibbling - pick a different topic and send us your next try. Sincerely, Smallbones(smalltalk)20:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Discussion: This piece is about the Wednesday Index, which has used PAC’s Wikidata tool to measure the gender diversity in the biographies linked from a set of 26 English Misplaced Pages pages — from ‘Reality’ to ‘Universe’, ‘Science’ to ‘Justice’ —for the past two years to get a sense for both the extent of citation bias on Misplaced Pages and how quickly it changes. In addition to data visualizations and discussion, the piece links to related research and the two previous posts about the Index. After I published this piece on Medium, I was referred to the Signpost, as it has a large audience in the Misplaced Pages community. I read the submission guidelines and understand that you prefer to work with writers earlier in the writing process, but I wanted to touch base to see if there was a place for the work in your publication. OpenSexism (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Discussion: I'm, uh not an WP Signpost writer nor editor, but I'm interested to make an Misplaced Pages crossword, which will have relevant information from the articles I have come across. This will also have Misplaced Pages terms, obviously, and words that are related to intresting information.Spongebob796 (talk) 02:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Discussion: I'm playing with the idea of putting together a WikiProject report with a slight spin on the usual format. Instead of interviewing participants from a single project, I'd like to get a representative each from some of the most successful WikiProjects (I'm thinking WP:WOMRED, WP:MILHIST, WP:MED – suggestions welcome) to discuss how you grow and maintain activity in a project over the long term.
I've nothing concrete yet. Before starting anything, I wanted to check whether that format deviation would be okay, and make sure I'm not stepping on any toes – I'm not sure if there's a designated subeditor for the WikiProject reports column? – Joe (talk) 09:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
@Joe Roe: Go for it! While we tend to follow precedent here, we also follow WP:Bold a bit more that other areas in Misplaced Pages. One Signpost article isn't going to break anything. Smallbones(smalltalk)18:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Among all of these, d:Wikidata:WikiProject Video games is the only one to have major participation and organization in Wikidata. Medicine, LGBT+, and math get a lot of data administrative questions without major content creation, and for military and women in red it is the reverse with a lot of Wikidata content creation but less administrative development. Bluerasberry (talk)16:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Highlights from the fiscal year 2023-2024 Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Endowment audit reports
Discussion: This piece will present comprehensive highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Endowment audit reports for fiscal year 2023-2024 to give insight into how funds were raised and used during this timeframe. ELappen (WMF) (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
It looks like this is basically identical to this recent Diff post, something that should be disclosed both as part of a submission and in the version published here. Basically every publication that solicits submissions will want to know whether they are getting original content or a syndication of something previously published elsewhere. I would think that most communications professionals know this, but perhaps it is worth clarifying it in this page's header (which currently already strongly hints that republication of finished pieces from elsewhere is not the norm, e.g. We encourage you to contact us early in the process of developing a story etc).
I'm still curious how the "News from the WMF" slot transformed from something for which the Signpost's editorial team would independently select a post from the WMF's Diff blog for republication to something that the WMF apparently sees as their prerogative to fill proactively. Having said that, the current submission does cover an important topic, and given that the Signpost's independent coverage of these audit reports by User:Jayen466 has often been highly negative, I totally understand the desire to get ahead of it this time.
Thank you for the ping, HaeB. I don't think I have any concerns at the moment: we finally have public, audited accounts for the Endowment, and all the fundraising banners I have read this year seemed on the right side of the red line. (The emails are still a bit pushy, but then that is a slightly different audience.) So as things stand right now, I don't see a reason for writing a critical piece. The 990 forms next May might be more deserving of a standalone piece by the Signpost team. Regards, AndreasJN46618:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Are Misplaced Pages articles representative of Western or world knowledge?
Discussion: An essay on how to measure imbalances between mentions of people from Europe and North America and people from the rest of the world in Misplaced Pages articles. PAC2 (talk) 04:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Discussion: This is my first opinion here on The SignPost, I wrote this to express my feelings how they are recognizable now, this includes on being number 1 most popular Misplaced Pages article in Filipino musicians in 2024. I added who they are, how they formed, the rising of girl group, controversy and my final thoughts or my "real" commentary. RoyiswariiiTalk!05:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Next issue
Writing: 25 January (-2546 days ago; -28288%)
Publishing: 26 January (-2545 days ago; -25450%)
Discussion here is archived after the publication of each issue
And we're published. Thanks everyone! Proposed next issue date: 26 January 2018 (try to have content written a day or two beforehand). Let's see if we can make it happen. - Evad3716:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
@Evad37: Honestly I'm not sure we will have it finalized a day or two beforehand, but there should be something publishable available by Friday evening UTC. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Evad37: I'm incredibly pressed for time right now, but I'll see if I can have a publishable In The Media done by Thursday end. Barbara (WVS), Montanabw, Bri: If you have time, Featured content and various special publications need copyediting. Bluerasberry If you could help (again) with In The Media, I'd be greatly indebted. Serendipodous: When I e-mailed you, you said you might consider writing. Now is your time to see if you can maybe whip something up in any of the undone sections (particularly a traffic report). Bri, are there any Arbitration reports that need work? Let's see if we can get an issue together. Sorry for the mass pinging, but I don't know who would like to be pinged. If anyone does not want to be pinged, let me know. Eddie891Work02:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
@Bri: By the way, instead of the tool, you can also try using copy+paste and VisualEditor, which should preserve links and most of the other formatting. (Edit or create your sandbox page, switch to VE using the pencil icon, and paste in content from the blog.) Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
If the import tool can be revived, it would be a Good Thing. After the cut-paste workaround, there was a lot of manual cleanup required to restore lost external links. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
RfA desert
For News and Notes, this year looks more like 2016 than 2017 according to Misplaced Pages:RFA by month. If we have another year of <20 successful RfAs, things will not look good. Net attrition looks like it's 10 to 20 a year, commentary to Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2017-06-23/News and notes by Widefox says 50. I'm reaching out for more info on this for a possible report.
Another thought: in the great 2011 RfA Reform debate, it was noted "August 2011 saw only one promotion, a monthly low that has only been reached one other time in RfA history". So, a phenomenon that was alarming or even worth reconsidering the whole RfA process then, isn't getting any attention at all now.
Bri: Looks like I can only get in contact with you. Is Evad the only one who can publish? It's great that he edits The Signpost, but this is getting a bit out of hand. Eddie891Work20:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
As far as I know, yes. I'll contact someone offline who used to work on Signpost and see if he has any ideas. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi guys, sorry, I haven't been well lately and haven't been spending much time online. If either of you want to be a backup publisher (or co-editor-in-chief or whatever), you just need to get a few user rights here and on Meta, and then I can set you up with the publishing script. As for this issue, it looks like there's just a few things to fix up for In the media, and Traffic report; but News and notes is quite far away from being ready, so should probably be postponed to the next issue. - Evad3703:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
As usual, we are preparing this regular survey on recent academic research about Misplaced Pages, doubling as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter (now entering its eighth volume). Help is welcome to review and/or summarize the many interesting items listed here, as are suggestions of other new research papers that haven't been covered yet. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 06:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
@Eddie891: Re , thanks for clearing that up (and thank to Barbara for her contributions)!
However, we still need to update the inline attributions further down as well ("Reviewed by Eddie891" / "Summarized by Eddie891") - were both pieces done by Barbara? From your earlier edits etc.) this was not clear.
Barbara: As mentioned on the Etherpad, it may be easiest if you add your contribution directly to the draft wiki page next time. Thanks again for the writeup! BTW I have added a mention of the dataset provided by the talk page researchers.
Thank you for responding to the write up I did on some research. As you can tell, I don't know 'where' to 'put' the summary after I review the research article. I think I put it on Tbayer's talk page, but since I didn't hear anything after I did that, I assumed I botched up the whole process and probably should not get involved in this section of the Signpost. I thought this would be a good fit for me since I read journal articles until my eyes cross. So are you telling me to do the write-up and post it directly onto the Signpost draft page? That would be a lot easier for me to understand. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)✐ ✉ 18:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Status:
Done Bri
For more on Signpost administration see