Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nick (talk | contribs) at 07:14, 20 April 2023 (→Badness: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Navigation

Newsroom formatting reorganization

I have updated the templates at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom to automatically use labeled section transclusion. Thus, if we want to discuss this issue's "From the editor" or "Serendipity" (or whatever), we can just create a section on this talk page and it will show up there as well as here. I think this will resolve the previously mentioned issue of the newsroom needing to constantly be reset and updated (as well as make it easier to participate in discussions on articles prior to running them). jp×g 02:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tackling this longstanding problem. How do you suggest to deal with recurring sections, where we may often end up having two threads with the same name on this talk page until automatic archiving kicks in? (One could manually mark them for archiving right after publication, but that's kind of the same as having to reset the newsroom page.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG: OK, I see your idea appears to be to rename all the corresponding section headings on this talk page after publication [1]. This works, but it is still something that needs to be done manually every time. In fact has already been omitted for the current issue (meaning that the Newsroom page shows outdated content, with all the potential for serious misunderstandings of the kind we encountered a couple of months ago). What's the longterm plan here? Are you going to automate this step as part of the publishing script, or at least add it to the documentation (in the newsroom page and here)? Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that we still don't have a solution here that is sustainable (in the sense that it doesn't involve a manual step that's frequently forgotten, for either 1) resetting the newsroom page per the earlier instructions, or 2) renaming all the sections headings for just published stories on this talk page, in JPxG's labeled section tranclusion approach).
If anyone else has ideas, that would be great. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, to keep the archives happy: Adam has since reset the newsroom page using the previously used template, i.e. we're back to the system used before. I think that's a reasonable outcome given that nobody has been able to fix the aforementioned issues with the labeled section transclusion idea. However, let's keep in mind that we've had issues with the template system too - in particular, one should not assume that draft sections which end up not making it into the current issue will automatically carry forward to the next issue. Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most funded countries - US, then Nigeria

tldr - WMF's funding of Nigeria probably is a major new influence on the English-speaking Wikimedia community, and Signpost should be open to Nigerian contributors

This is not urgent but I wanted to flag something not generally known - the country with the most funded Wikimedia Foundation projects is the United States. The next most funded country is Nigeria. This could be of interest to The Signpost as English is the only official language in that country, with Languages of Nigeria saying that there are 60 million English speakers and another 100 million speaking Nigerian Pidgin. Right now The Signpost does not have contributors from Nigeria, but as a sizeable amount of all Wikimedia Movement funds are going to this English speaking community, The Signpost as an English Wikipedia and English-language publication probably should have some coverage of that region.

I think these September 2022 reports are the first documentation that the WMF has made of this.

The reports include all grants to the Wikimedia community, not just for Nigeria. The amount of money to Nigeria is a surprise to me as someone who follows the in person conferences because at the last one, Wikimania 2019 in Sweden, Nigeria was not a strong presence, whereas now I expect there will be a showing of outcomes at Wikimania 2023 in Singapore. It probably also will be the case that the WMF sustains or grows this level of funding to Nigeria, so this region may be a big part of the future of English Wikipedia. In general the Wikimedia Foundation has not attracted community discussion of its grant reports as evidenced by talk page activity and incoming links. I do not have an explanation for the low discussion as other initiatives which direct smaller amounts of money, like the meta:Community Wishlist Survey 2023, get participation from about 1000 editors.

I came to know about these reports when someone asked me to review Nigerian grant proposals, when otherwise I have not had much contact with Wikimedia community organizers from that region.

I feel that The Signpost is already a friendly enough space but I wanted to raise the funding trend here as a prelude to asking Nigerian grant recipients to feel welcome to report outcomes and submit journalism here. I plan to be at Wikimania 2023 in Singapore in August and I will try to recruit Signpost contributors there. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry I wanted to belatedly acknowledge this post. I meant to reply at the time and forgot. I agree that having more info in the Signpost about what's happening in Nigeria or Africa generally would be a good thing. Having one or two Signpost contributors from that part of the world would certainly help and make us a bit more cosmopolitan. Andreas JN466 08:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I am looking for support. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a great idea. Up till now I don't think anyone has mentioned recruiting for The Signpost at any WMF sponsored event. I support growing a team of qualified contributors by all means possible. Having people from Nigeria has a plus – we would expand our points of view in ways we probably don't appreciate yet. And talk about underrpresenation? Nigeria has more English speakers than the UK (by a factor of two!). ☆ Bri (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recent research (issue 6)

As usual, we are preparing this regular survey on recent academic research about Wikipedia, doubling as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter (now in its twelfth year). Help is welcome to review or summarize the many interesting items listed here (also for future issues), as are suggestions of other new research papers that haven't been covered yet. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG and Bri: This should be publishable now, although more copyediting couldn't hurt. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sound logo winner

Verge

Wikimedia News

Smallbones(smalltalk) 12:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I should have put this in News and notes (I just did), but I won't have time to write it up. I should have a disinfo report this week though. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also IP masking will be coming soon. See m:IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation This is quite serious IMHO. When it was first brought up by WMF, there were assurances that the en community and other wikis could ban IP editing and the Portuguese WP did, there was a study made on that ban, and I believe it was overwhelmingly positive. There were also several (5ish?) requests from other Wikipedias to do the same. My feeling was that the WMF were slow-walking these requests, wanting to study them individually before doing ... something. Certainly in terms of paid editing and other disruptive editing, it looks like this could be a disaster. Somebody should propose that we start a test IP editing ban at the same time that the IP masking takes affect. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We mentioned the upcoming IP masking in News and notes about 4 issues back, IIRC. I'll try to find a link. I agree it's a big deal and doesn't seem to be well understood. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently it was longer ago than I recalled. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-11-01/News and notes#Mandatory IP masking was a pretty thorough description, with a brief followup 2022-03-27 and a brief mention 2022-08-01. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, my memory is not completely shot. It came up again at the In the media talkpage in January. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

State of the (non) issue

It's about 25 hours until publication is scheduled and the only article that seems to be close to being ready is Bri's Arb report. It's short but publishable. Otherwise, News and notes, and In the media seem to be less than half-ready. I've got a Disinfo report that I should be able to get into publishable shape in about 5 hours, but I'm thinking it could be a much better article if I just took a new look at it and changed it around in several time-consuming ways. @JPxG, Bri, HaeB, Adam Cuerden, and Jayen466:

I'll check back here in an hour or two, but it doesn't look reasonable to expect an issue in the next few days. Let's re-schedule the submission deadline until next Friday/Saturday.

Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to work hard to get From the Archives and FC done within a day or two. Given it's a bit of a time issue, I think we need to publish as near April Fools as possible. Otherwise, why did we bother? Celebrating April Fools' weeks later feels... pointless. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 18:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we bother setting a deadline if nobody follows it? If JPxG sets a deadline that I can meet, I'll try to meet it, but I don't see the point in publishing a 4-5 story issue. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Smallbones: I think we do, we just... really play it close to the date. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 22:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favor of sticking to a consistent schedule and against drawing out publication; a Signpost issue with 5 good stories is entirely fine. I agree that publication delays due to EiC availability might have become a bit of an issue in recent months, and it also would have been great if JPxG had not been absent from the two most recent conversations about scheduling above (#Publishing_schedule_for_next_few_issues, #Are_we_really_going_to_publish_this_weekend?). But on an optimistic note, he has been active on-wiki in other areas just yesterday, and also, we do have working backup solutions in place as the publication of the March 9 issue demonstrated.
I think that N&N and ITM have enough content to be published already after a bit of polishing (and removing placeholders if necessary); I also augmented the former a bit myself. And as always I'm committed to having RR in a publishable shape by the publication deadline as well. Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam Cuerden: are you referring to UTC? (sounds good to me personally in any case, but obviously it will be up to JPxG or Bri or whoever is going to publish)
Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HaeB: Honestly, it's done now. I'll start copyediting the rest of the issue. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 20:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I just marked ITM ready for copyedit. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've overcome my grouchiness (apologies to Adam and all) and almost have a disinfo article ready to post. I'll post what's done so far and anybody should feel free to copyedit that part. The conclusion+ should be ready in about an hour. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: is systemic banks in the title intentional? Or should it be systemically important banks? ☆ Bri (talk) 22:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. I added an image, hope it's not too frivolous. If so, we can try again. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bri: It's done as far as I can tell. "Systemic" is a systemic mistake among some people. I was thinking there could be a good headline in here somewhere but have failed. Go ahead and change it. But if you can make it funny, that would be better! Pic is ok, but is a bit silly. Your choice. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Current status

Approved
From the editor
Copyedited
Arbitration report, Featured content, News and notes, In the media, From the archives, Recent research, Disinformation report
Ready for copyedit
Other
JPxG is planning a From the Editor. @HaeB:: Is this the week for Recent Research, or will that be later this month?

Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 21:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nudge regarding RR - yes, as mentioned above and on the Newsroom page, I'm getting it ready for this issue right now (running a bit later than I had expected earlier), hopefully around the same time as Smallbones finishing the Disinformation report.
JPxG is planning a From the Editor - interesting (and thanks Adam for letting us know), but, JPxG, this should really be recorded like any other planned section at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom. (Admittedly, as detailed above, this is all currently a bit of a mess following the recent newsroom formatting reorganization.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aye. I think we should probably spend a little time reorganising our reset template - it's missing some occasional features like "Cobwebs", and I wouldn't mind having "Next featured content" and "Next from the archives" as standard parts. Also, didn't we alphabetise things at some point and then... unalphabetise or something? Anyway, @HaeB:, sorry about missing the section about RR. I was kind of rushing my contributions a bit this time due to, well, a week without internet but with... well, a lot of upsetting things. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 22:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Last minute check

@JPxG: was all of this intended? I am fine if you didn’t like the image but you also removed some other copyedits and your own webkit-transform goodness. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed not, good catch. jp×g 07:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Something went wrong": SPS.js giving up the ghost?

I don't know what the deal is. I am trying to publish, and the script is crapping out with a cryptic message saying only that "Something went wrong". My guess is that there might be something wrong with the formatting of some articles in this issue: the script has worked fine for about a year and a half, and I've never gotten this error before. This is going to be a huge pain to debug.

Anyway, I am giving up for tonight, and will be back online tomorrow morning. In the meantime, if anyone wants to figure it out themselves, everything is ready for publication, except for pressing the button. If you do so, please be sure to use my version of SPS.js (at User:JPxG/SPS.js); I have a bugfix in it (removing a duplicate div tag that some people on Meta were saying broke their talk pages on the MMS distribution list). This might be in Evad37's version as well. Who knows. Anyway, I am tired so I am going to go to bed.

On a related note, I think we may be nearing the time when SPS.js succumbs to the accumulated weight of changes and fixes, and needs to be refactored or rewritten. That'll be fun! jp×g 11:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the error looks like. I didn't see anything in the console that would indicate a more detailed message. There may be a verbose-logging option I can enable in the script to figure out what is going on. Otherwise, it might take a while to drill down. jp×g 11:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We could go manual if necessary. I used to do it that way every time before using the script, and a copy of the procedure is saved in my user space. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have a limited time window to do this on 3 April so we don't have to update a bunch of in-article links. I'm going to go ahead and do the manual steps, unless someone shouts "stop" in the next hour, say by 1630 UTC. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This probably goes without saying: please don't run the publishing script once I start, or we will have a trainwreck. Starting in 1 minute. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I would say go ahead - good luck!
Regarding documentation, we actually still have the one at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Resources#Manual_process - perhaps you could compare that with your notes and update if necessary, once you have a moment after publication.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is done except for the mail list, social media announcements, and global delivery (on meta).

There was one oddity, an extra blank line at the top of From the archives draft. Just in case that had something to do with the script error, I'm mentioning it here. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, fixing up main page now. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Really done now, I think. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Bri. Andreas JN466 17:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Poggers. I will try to pick apart why the script didn't work... jp×g 19:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's the tilt code? Some pages have it over the header, so... If that's it, it doesn't matter too much, as we're not going to be repeating it. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 19:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Global delivery not done

The pre-generated code that was offered for global mass message delivery on the manual publishing process page looked weird to me, so I skipped that step. It was referencing {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost}} which only exists on enwp, I think. Maybe I overreacted? Something still needs to be sent out for the people on m:Global message delivery/Targets/Signpost. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: Good call - it was broken in this recent Linter cleanup edit which I have just reverted. Looks OK to me now. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HaeB, thanks for undoing my edit. One in every few thousand Linter errors that I fix goes a bit sideways, and this one was the lucky one. I have added more <noinclude /> tags to try to preserve the output of the page while fixing the Linter errors. Can you and Bri please check to see if the output looks right to you? Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to follow up on this. I finally did global delivery on 7 April. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Single-page edition cleanup?

The single page edition seems to have a problem with the rotation joke. Maybe applying cumulative rotation. Can somebody see if we can reset that for the Disinfo report which is at the end of the issue? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably a missing >/div> at the bottom of one of the pages, or one has it in the noincludes. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 18:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since it seems many articles are rotated, not sure what you would like to have fixed? isaacl (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've spent enough time trying to reverse engineer which articles are supposed to be rotated and which ones are not... I'll leave it up to the pranksters to sort it out. isaacl (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've got it, I think. There was an unclosed Div. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 19:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've reset the Newsroom

Template:Signpost_assignments is the template for that. I've alphabetised it, but I think the code for the talk pages wasn't duplicated there. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 19:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Series tagging

I have forgotten, or maybe I never knew, how to tag articles to include in the paid editing series. Maybe that should be added to /Technical? ☆ Bri (talk) 20:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Needs the paidadvocacy tag adding via the "Manage tags" tab. I've just done it and also done it for the February Disinformation piece so it now shows up in the series. --Andreas JN466 21:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a user script to facilitate adding tags. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Index for details. isaacl (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feeder Readback

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2023-04-03 - I didn't make it, but don't think it was linked here yet. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 05:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, temporarily put the next issue date for the 16th. Don't think that making it the 23rd would be that bad, though. Otherwise we'll (theoreticaly) have three this month. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 05:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Headlines

I was just thinking of posting Smallbones' Disinformation piece to Hacker News, but neither the original draft headline nor the final published headline would work there. :/ (Hacker News demands that the published headline is used.)

If we have articles that would be of interest to a wider public, could we please use headline wordings that are sufficiently informative to attract outside readers? The articles could get a lot more readers that way. --Andreas JN466 10:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who gave it the title "Sus socks support suits, seems systemic". It was in response to a specific request by the author to generate something funnier than "Do systemic banks sock?", at least that's how I understood the request. We should consider what title guidance is best for internal or external audiences. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The alliterations are funny and work well for the captive Wikipedia audience. But if we want to have external readers, then just something very factual would probably be best: "How many major banks break Wikipedia's rules on paid editing?" Headlines like that should work for both audiences. Andreas JN466 20:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jayen466: Would it help if you just gave the Hacker News the full headline: "Disinformation Report: Sus socks support suits, seems systemic"? It always felt to me like the article type was meant to be part of the headline. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 00:25, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tried it; it got a single upvote. Of course, there is no guarantee it would have gotten more with a different headline – apart from anything else, there is always a big element of luck involved. --Andreas JN466 14:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that informative headlines are generally better, also for a Wikipedian audience. Keep in mind that many of our readers are subscribed via the talk page notices and click through to specific stories from there. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for Issue 8 humour column

Wikipedia:Law of hats by User:Widefox. It doesn't look controversial at all, putting it here for consideration by the editorial team. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite niche, but hopefully not ambiguous. I only expect dab editors to really feel the vibe of it, making it very niche. Widefox; talk 21:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rumor - WMF layoff of 10% of staff?

Rumor, no evidence, not sure how to check. DO NOT TAKE THIS AS FACT, I am just talking through an observation. I wish we had a clear line of communication with the WMF to verify such things but here we are, a volunteer news organization with no stable communication channels with the WMF. My option is to post here for thoughts from others.

I think the WMF is in the process of laying off staff. There is a global log of user accounts on meta. In this flood of data users can search for WMF accounts however they manage data themselves. Sorry, I know of no way to link to what I did to examine the data. I see about 40 accounts locked since the start of 2023. When accounts are locked then that means people left WMF. This could be for any reason. I suspect that my count of locked accounts is low and that more people left recently, just because I only examined part of the data.

Wikidata Wikimedia Foundation (Q180) reports employees (P1128) to number 450 as of October 2021. If I undercounted, then perhaps about 10% of staff left recently.

Possible follow ups:

  • Ask someone at WMF for comment as to whether layoffs are happening
  • Contact anyone laid off for comment
  • Ask WMF if there is a new priority for the money

If this is a signal of a significant restructuring or new organizational direction then I think it is in Wikimedia community interest to be aware. Senior people that I see gone are

Bluerasberry (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the account belonging to the Director of Global Data & Insights is also locked. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I blogged about this a little earlier before seeing this post. But in short, it's a 5% layoff. Definitely disappointed the WMF didn't proactively announce this. Legoktm (talk) 02:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Add the Director of Product Management. I confirmed via their LinkedIn page. And there's a job posting. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They definitely are laying people off. Across most departments. (edit: Like Lego, I also heard 5% personnel) First started hearing about it a week or so ago. Earlier departures are likely more related to cutbacks on contract work and the likes + the standard departures. Like Lego, I've been amazed and disappointed that they haven't shared anything about this. I mean we were all gonna find out anyway eventually.... —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi All, a few points here that I wanted to share.
  • As noted already in this thread, people leave the Foundation regularly for a range of reasons (including the names you have identified above). The Foundation provides flexibility for departing staff to communicate their news however they see appropriate, so we won’t be able to provide specific details about individuals now or in the future.
  • That being said, Foundation leadership has been consistently communicating since the English Wikipedia RfC on fundraising banners that our growth will not be able to continue at the same rate into the future as it has in the past (Meta Wiki link and coverage in signpost).
The RfC raised a much wider range of issues than just fundraising banners. While anticipated revenue shortfalls made this a difficult period for the Foundation, I believe we tried to hear these broader concerns, many of which are shared across communities beyond English Wikipedia.
One concern was about the very rapid budget growth of the Foundation, which has stabilized in the last year. Given the revenue gap from this year's English campaign, we are reviewing and lowering our expenditure for the current year. And I anticipate we will have a reduced budget and certainly slower growth next year. We will have more information by April on future financial projections.
I communicated previously that I have started frank conversations with the Board of Trustees and Foundation staff about what roles the Foundation should grow (like support for technology) and what activities we should hand over to others or stop altogether. Looking ahead, the size of our budget should be driven by what the Foundation should be doing and can actually do well. The 2030 movement strategy provided guidance (and motivated much of our historic growth), but was short on specifics. I await the Movement Charter to provide further clarity, but believe the Foundation may need to make some decisions sooner.
  • As has been shared with staff over the past few months, the Foundation has made expense reductions for next year’s budget that prioritize non-staffing costs but have also included looking at vacant/unfilled roles and about a 5% reduction in occupied roles. More details about these changes will be forthcoming on-wiki in the Foundation’s draft Annual Plan.
  • We plan to release the Wikimedia Foundation's annual plan for feedback from the movement in the next couple of weeks (as mentioned in this update on VPM back in January.
  • You can see some of the early work here on Meta Wiki.
  • I have started a Signpost piece proposal here. This piece will summarise the priorities for the next year including the staffing, budget and other changes and importantly will link through to the many ways people can share their inputs, thoughts, priorities and feedback. MPaul (WMF) (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so I think we have a story here. I started a section in news and notes. Anyone can contribute. Before going too much further I think that someone from Signpost should write to the WMF for comment. Perhaps to the communication director User:AAlikhan (WMF) , who can refer as needed?
I volunteer to write but @JPxG: can you approve me contacting the WMF? Here is the email I would send. Anyone edit this, or if you like, volunteer in my place to be contact.

Hello,

I am writing as a journalist for The Signpost. We have heard that the Wikimedia Foundation is laying off staff and I am writing for comment. We publish in about a week. Here are specific questions:

  1. Are layoffs happening? If so, how many staff?
  2. Was there prior notice to which we can refer in our article?
  3. Why are the layoffs happening?
  4. Can you point to any particular documentation which describes the strategic direction of the WMF, of which these layoffs are a part?
  5. What steps does the WMF take to ensure that laid-off WMF staff close out any collaborations they had with the Wikimedia community, to minimize impact to volunteers?

Feel free to be brief. From a Wikimedia community perspective, answering with links to documentation is ideal, but answer as you like.

Edit conflict, already have staff comment here. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The most recently reported number of WMF staff I'm aware of was "around 700". [2] So 5% would be about 35 people. To put this into perspective, the WMF reported in spring 2022 that it had hired 240 people in the first three quarters of the 2021–2022 financial year. [3] Andreas JN466 09:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to those 2021-2022 slides, hiring 240 people only resulted in a netto 114 (maybe 120, the numbers were not final yet) person headcount increase over that time period. This is because not all hires are permanent and there is turnover. Even if its only 5%.... With a 10% annual attrition rate (quote from the slides), most likely a hiring freeze for at least part of the year and less contracted out work, I suspect the de-facto effect will be more significant than saying "firing 35 people is only 1/8th of what they hired a year ago"........ You cannot take a percentage from one point in time and illustrate it with completely different numbers and dimensions. That's not how percentages work. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:17, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDJ: Sure. There is always churn, and some of the new hires will always be to replace people who have left. There appear to have been 142 people who left in the first three quarters of 2021–22, judging by this slide (240 people were hired, but "known headcount" only increased by 98, from 472 to 570).
But by November 2022 Lisa Seitz-Gruwell was saying that "around 700 people work at the Wikimedia Foundation". That is an increase of another 130 or so over the end of March 2022 figure.
Altogether then you have an increase of around 230 staff and contractors over the past 21 months, followed now by a decrease of around 35. As far as I can see, that still leaves a net increase of about 200 since July 2021.
Incidentally, the 2021-2022 3Q tuning sessions that these slides are from were the last ones that were made available. The WMF has stopped publishing them. Andreas JN466 13:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Due diligence / fact check for News and notes

Please fact check me on the News and notes headline piece. I removed the word "layoffs" since who knows, there could have been a bunch of voluntary separations slash golden parachutes going on. It's important to justify the 5% figure, which as noted above will be true if ~35 people were separated. This Quarry query that I created gives that datum, with the methodology explained in News and notes, and finds 52 locked accounts which is actually over 7% of 700. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since I mentioned it in the article, for fact checking, here are the locked Director accounts:
I'll be checking in to see if there are any comments here before publication deadline. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Bri, just noting my comment here about people leaving for all sorts of reasons and this submission (thank you for your help there already!) that notes how the foundation is approaching expense reductions. The second part of the proposed series will include links to more granular information about the work and plans of the Foundation next year including more detailed budgets. MPaul (WMF) (talk) 10:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether I'm a reliable source for the Signpost, but in any case, since January 1 staff departures are mix of people leaving on their own and for cause in addition to the 5% layoffs. And, the 5% layoff figure is basically confirmed now, so I think it's worth calling out explicitly. I would not necessarily call any of the departures "voluntary" without knowing specifics, I wouldn't be surprised if some people saw the writing on the wall and simply left ahead of time.
Most (all?) full-time staff are given official WMF accounts on Meta-Wiki, but many contractors may not get them (and definitely contractors were let go during the period in question). Those accounts are locked as part of offboarding, but there can be some delay in that happening and some times it's instantaneous. The distinction between "staff" and "contractors" is very fuzzy, many people we all consider to be staff may technically (for legal reasons) be contractors.
I think looking at headcount over the past 2 years is a slightly biased picture, because it doesn't account for the WMF hiring freeze that was in place for most of 2020, and then you'll see a spike in 2021 once the freeze was lifted. Legoktm (talk) 04:58, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Legoktm You mention the fuzzy distinction between staff and contractors. One thing I've long been interested in ascertaining is how many contractors and overseas staff – if any – are included in the Form 990 salary costs (e.g. the $67,857,675 figure in Line 15 on page 1 of the 2020 Form 990), in addition to the "Total number of people employed in the calendar year" (the 320 people indicated in Line 5 on the same page). The WMF has steadfastly refused to answer that one ... If you have an idea or ever manage to find out, do please let me know. Andreas JN466 11:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've accidentally caused trouble at nl-wiki!

Might be a Signpost story here, might not. On 4 April, there was a train crash in the Netherlands. It seemed pretty serious, so I started the 2023 Voorschoten train crash article. A while later, after searching nl-wiki and finding nothing, I asked at the nl-Wiki Help Desk whether or not there was an article to interlink to. There wasn't, but one was quickly created (nl:Treinongeval Voorschoten 2023). It was quickly nominated for deletion as WP:NOTNEWS. A large amount of discussion has followed on nl-Wiki. At this moment in time, my humble opinion is that the article will be kept. Whether or not nl-Wiki re-evaluates its approach to having articles about current events remains to be seen. As for the article on the train crash, there are now also versions on the French, German and Russian language Wikipedias.

P.S. Is there a Dutch version of The Signpost? Could be a story for both if there is! Mjroots (talk) 07:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Answering my own question, there is. Mjroots (talk) 07:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjroots: Can you give us a link? I'm not aware of a nl.wiki newsletter. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bri: Here it is. Mjroots (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That said, maybe not. Mjroots (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about Nieuwsbrief Wikimedia Nederland (archive)? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That could be it. Mjroots (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Authors' submissions pending review

There are two items at WP:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions waiting for approval. I think we should go with them, and have provided tentative column names for both. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I need to ask – what's the process for approving submissions from non-regular Signpost staff (like these)? Can I just do it myself? Do we need a vote, or at least a couple of people looking it over? Does every submission need the E-in-C's personal approval? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say just add them; that's been the traditional way. If there's a problem, someone will say. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 20:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, moved in the special report to WP:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Special report. The original author asked me to add myself to the byline due to the proportion of text that is attributed to my editing. I think the other one needs more work before being an Op-ed. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

News and notes, 16 April

Spicy RfA

Spicy's RfA was self-nominated on April Fools' Day. Not sure if this is worth mentioning. Both facts drew at least some commentary but it is an unopposed RfA at this time, so maybe not worth reporting on. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paper on gender and race bias

HaeB, pretty sure you will have spotted this already, but just in case:

--Andreas JN466 19:48, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but thanks for the heads-up, as always. Generally it's safe to assume that it's on the radar if we already featured it on the @WikiResearch Twitter feed (as in this case). Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HaeB, in case you haven't seen these on-wiki discussions: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_250#Getting_NPOV_right and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#“Too_Soon”_to_count?_How_gender_and_race_cloud_notability_considerations_on_Wikipedia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obituary for user:DGG, David Goodman

User:DGG was a prolific Wikipedia editor and as active as a person can be for in-person Wikimedia outreach. I am coordinating the development of an obituary for him with Wikimedia New York City. I am sharing this text here for anyone to develop while I also adapt this as a submission to The Signpost. Thanks to anyone who has content to add, or who can make editorial improvements. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bluerasberry. Sad news. I was really fond of David and had a lot of respect for what he did here. Andreas JN466 18:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any objections to publishing this in The Signpost? I think the community as a whole would want to know and mourn. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 19:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adam Cuerden Sorry for unclear communication. Yes, I posted this at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions. For due process and to help the editor, if you can support the inclusion of this obituary, please indicate this on the submissions page. I would like to migrate all of this into the next issue of The Signpost. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the procedure for supporting by a regular Signpost editor nowadays is just... moving it into the queue for publishing. Do you want the Signpost to publish a copy of it, or to have the Signpost's copy be the main copy? E.g. should it still exist at the original link? Either way is fine, just better to check before pagemoves begin. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 20:29, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move the original link, please. I know that I am an editor here but David is also a personal friend, and I am a member of Wikimedia New York City. I felt like I should use the formal submission process because this is not only my own journalism; this is also personal from me. But yes - my intent is that if this is accepted, then the original should be a publication in The Signpost which I do not intend to mirror elsewhere. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aye. Just the formal process is... honestly, just a matter of someone reviewing it, pretty much. I've brought it over and set up the templates, I think alright. . Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 01:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerasberry I am unfamiliar with Signpost process, but found my way here from David's Talk. He is a damn legend. Please count this as a support of the submission, he absolutely deserves the honor and recognition, although we both know he'd demur. I wish we'd found time to get together one last time. Star Mississippi 01:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi: To be explicit, it's now moved into the publication queue. I suspect next publication will be the 23rd, to avoid three April Signposts, but I could be wrong. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 03:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely heartbreaking news. Fucking terrible. I really looked up to David. I like the obituary and hope the family is doing ok. If there's any way I can send them my respects while not disturbing their grieving process I'd like to know. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 05:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a section of the Obituary dedicated to personal reminiscenses. That may not be the worst way. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 18:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Adam Cuerden. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 10:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, I did not want this news to happen, ever. DGG was a titan amongst us. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New WMF draft annual planning documentation: Product & Tech department OKRs

FYI, Signpost readers might benefit from a short notification in the next edition of some newly published WMF annual planning documentation. I'm putting a note here for the editors' consideration.

[context: Back in February was the the first steps in this year's WMFs Annual Planning process - documenting its Product & Technology departments' draft work portfolios, nominally called "buckets". (associated diff blogpost) ]

Part 2 of that documentation is now available, covering the departments' proposed Objectives and Key Results (OKRs). This draft documentation is published in the spirit of trying to get something public, and published, even though it is not finished yet so that there is time to seek and incorporate feedback. The full WMF annual plan draft is coming soon and there will be several (real-time and on-wiki) ways to comment there too. Comments at the associated subheading on the talkpage are welcome. LWyatt (WMF) (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noting @LWyatt (WMF) & I are collaborating to include this update within the planned piece for the Signpost in the News from WMF section. MPaul (WMF) (talk) 10:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The draft is in Signpost space now, and I've marked it ready for copyediting. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A quick note to say I just made two minor edits to the article to link to the annual plan draft, since it's now available (there's no more need for a sign-up list to be notified when it's out). I'm not totally sure what the common practice is for updating Signpost drafts when their publication date slips, so I wanted to drop a note here to let you know. Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

India fundraising

Just pointing out that the thread Upcoming WMF fundraising campaign in India was started by WMF staff at Village Pump. Do we want to add something to News and notes about this? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But please keep it neutral. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done ☆ Bri (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble finding Mastodon feed for The Signpost

Trying to find the appropriate Mastodon feed for The Signpost, I remember seeing something about it in the publishing instructions. No luck so far. Not a good sign if a motivated insider can't do it. p.s. I use DuckDuckGo. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: https://wikis.world/@WikiSignpost Legoktm (talk) 04:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I know now, I sneaked a peek at the manual publishing instructions. I guess it wasn't clear, I was saying it's not easy for a "normal" person. It isn't even listed in the Wikipedia article Wikipedia Signpost. DuckDuckGo's information card gives the Twitter and Facebook links only (barf). ☆ Bri (talk) 04:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. It definitely knows about some other accounts though. Will see if there's anything on our end we can do... Legoktm (talk) 05:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief, I didn't even know meta:wikis.world was a thing (until now). Should everybody know about this? ☆ Bri (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is already listed at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe#Social_media, alongside the Twitter and Facebook feeds. But yes, it might be possible to highlight all three of them more prominently, for example on the "About" page. Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pencils down soon...

There are 2.5 hours left until writing deadline for the issue. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The From the Archives is going to be late, but should slip in before publication. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 19:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to deal with losing my wallet, my credit cards and my ID, cleaning my laptop's motherboard and drying out the screen. Apparently my power supply has now given up the ghost as well. I am learning a lot about this new city -- tomorrow I will find out how much it costs around here to get a few amps of nineteen DC volts put through a standard polarity barrel connector on a Sunday. Woe unto me for not bringing a bench power supply and a soldering iron! But perhaps I can borrow these as well. Who knows. I will -- in the morning. jp×g 08:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

^^^ This is the last thing posted by JPxG on-wiki and I haven't heard back from an email ping. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have a Plan B, e.g. who can publish tonight? I'll step out on a limb and say that @JPxG: would want us to publish. Smallbones(smalltalk) 12:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've got a good reason now to revise my opinion acticle. In fact I'd prefer it to be withdrawn than publish it now. @JPxG and Bri: How's 9pm EDT sound? Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bri and Smallbones: In case you haven't seen it, Bradv posted a response to Jimbo's allegation here. Andreas JN466 15:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
9 Eastern/6 Pacific Time/2300 UTC is OK by me, and I can push the buttons. Still nothing on email so I think it's safe to conclude JPxG is out of the picture until they get some new computing equipment. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I actually did manage to get hold of a 19.5V nominal PSU, an appropriately sized barrel plug, and a soldering iron, meaning that I am good to roam as soon as I get back today in a couple hours, although of course I am fine with someone else running the final checks and getting it out should this prove unwieldly. jp×g 17:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, I will stand down. Don't inhale too many of those solder fumes. Pb is not your friend. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: As above in this section - there's movement in my opinion and there should be in the Opinion piece as well. Please do not print it as is. 5 hours until completion of the draft (maybe even less!) Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Column status

Opinion

I've just started writing an *opinion piece* with the working title of "Jimbo takes a hit". I'm pretty sure that I can finish it in 2 hours. If you decide you don't want it before then, please let me know. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A good draft for Opinion will be up in about 10 minutes. All be changing, checking, and polishing though. Ping me in 30-40 minutes if you are ready to copy edit it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Smallbones: Ready now. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had a tough week at work but ITM and N&N are now in reasonable shape and ready for a copyedit. --Andreas JN466 19:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bri: and all - Opinion could use a good copy edit, but is otherwise ready. Back in 5 minutes. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration report

Arbitration report is ready. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic report

Unless you want to take a second look, Traffic Report is ready. (already missed last edition, better leave the pending one for this week to the next) igordebraga ≠ 23:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From the archives

@Adam Cuerden: is From the archives ready for copyedit? ☆ Bri (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I can probably finish it tomorrow, but it's my partner's birthday. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 02:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bri: I'll do the rest in a part 3. I did a significant chunk for this issue. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 20:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Irish judges' use of Wikipedia

@HaeB: Irish judge Richard Humphreys claims to have debunked the study, authors disagree. [4][5][6] Will go and add a very brief write-up to ITM. --Andreas JN466 19:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Mr Justice Cian Ferriter added: “The findings of the detailed study led by Judge Humphreys confirm empirically what any High Court judge, or barrister or solicitor practising in the High Court, would readily have explained if asked: that case law cited in Irish court judgments comes from parties’ written or oral submissions and not from Wikipedia.”' I think Adam and I specifically mentioned that in our ITM after the original paper came out. Of course it does not mean that the "parties' written or oral submissions are not from Wikipedia." Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about Op-ed for next issue

I'm thinking about an Op-ed reacting to the RfC that was just closed. I haven't decided on a tone yet. If anybody wants to collaborate, please send me an email. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bri, which RFC? — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 16:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The one posted on WT:Wikipedia Signpost. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot about that. Email sent. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 09:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

State of the issue

Copyedited
Arbitration report, Featured content, From the archives, Humour, In the media, News and notes Obituary, Op-Ed, Opinion, Traffic report
Need copyediting
News from the WMF, Special report,

Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 22:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done with Opinion (might put in a link or two). I'd emailed Bradv for comment on Friday(?) and twice today and just now he's writing stuff about the article on his talk page. @JPxG: be just a bit careful. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion

I suggest moving the coverage of the events to the News and Notes column, and focusing on the content in the current "What next?" section. I feel this will tighten up the throughline and get to the takeaway from the opinion piece. It will also better separate factual reporting from commentary. isaacl (talk) 01:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, of course. I've always said that a good opinion piece needs to have more facts than an average news story. Nobody can reasonably challenge the facts I've presented (perhaps I should add more links), anybody can disagree with my opinion, my interpretation of the facts. But they'd benefit if they had some facts that agree with their interpretation. The title is "What Jimbo did and what it means" before the "and" facts, after it , opinion. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done for the night. @JPxG and Bri: It's always better when the EiC publishes, of course, but per above, I'd be willing to approve all the articles tomorrow night if nobody else wants to, and even finish most of the copyediting during the day. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally, it's up to you, and I'm not saying to remove all facts. Personally, I think the narrative meanders a bit, thus making it harder for readers to get a sense of where it's going, and being prepared for commentary when it comes. isaacl (talk) 03:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Beeblebrox: Sorry, what is your complaint? Are you saying that the opinion piece is Whitewashing (censorship)? What is the problem, and to whose benefit? I am not following. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some rich person tries to buy a Wikipedia article, thinks they are buying corrupt admins, yells at Jimmy Wales when it doesn't go the way he thought his money would make it go, Mr. Wales makes an extremely inflammatory accusation based on that, and the Signpost is here to tell us "this is your fault, community". C'mon. We can disagree, but I think enough of you to be sure you understand my point. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite see the problem with Smallbones' piece. It's clearly marked "Opinion". In addition, there is "just the facts" coverage in the News and notes draft already, and in the arbitration report draft as well.
Personally I am in favour of publishing the issue. Pieces written for a particular date are always a bit like fish; they don't improve with hanging around. Andreas JN466 22:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From a journalistic perspective I agree, always strike while the iron is hot. An opinion piece can contain terrible opinions that make little to no sense to anyone familiar with the facts, that is how opinions work. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Badness

I think that publication should be delayed by a bit, as some problems have arisen with this issue, and currently I need to file a police report and then attempt to board a plane with no photo ID. I will deal with what's going on here as soon as it is possible for me to do so. jp×g 07:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about we aim for next sunday, the 23rd? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 07:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered just abandoning the Shitepost and not bothering at all ? Nick (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam Cuerden: No objections to delay.
@Nick: You seem to be insulting The Signpost, or otherwise, I am not sure what you are communicating. Can you restate what you came here to say? Bluerasberry (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bluerasberry, are you really that naïve? This is incredibly lame. El_C 01:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can only conclude that Mr. Blue is doing this on purpose, although I am not sure why. For some reason I assumed he would feel exactly the opposite way regarding someone in power picking on someone who was not prepared to defend themselves from baseless, ludicrous, accusations. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerasberry, if you really don't know what's going on, see my talk page. – bradv 02:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You want the signpost to close, you should ask at wider forum than this page which is dedicated to the production of it. Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost at least. Or is the idea here to just gang up on the people who edit it until they're forced out? ––FormalDude (talk) 02:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Brad is the victim here. You working towards victimizing him a second time with this sort of gaslighting is discreditable. El_C 02:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, I can handle it. I just want the article about this to state, above the fold, that the allegations were completely false. That seems to be a tough ask, as this is apparently just Smallbones' "opinion". I also expressed that I do not believe Jimbo's actions were due to malice, but incompetence/ignorance, which was shortened to "not malice". If this is what passes for journalism in this newsletter then I can see why it's getting this sort of reaction. It will be interesting to see what happens when it publishes. – bradv 03:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Working towards victimizing him a second time? Wow. I don't like the article either, but maybe stop taking it out on others for no reason? ––FormalDude (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know you can take it, Brad, but it's still fuckin' infuriating. What happened to reporting the facts, even and especially when it merits speaking truth to power? Opinion? More like an agenda. FormalDude, when you respond to Brad like you did above, yes, your apologia is discreditable. I stand by that. El_C 03:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was not directed at Brad, he was the only one who assumed good faith of Bluerasberry's comment. It was directed at Nick, you, and Beeblebrox. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerasberry: You're astute, I'll give you that much. Bradv is the latest in a fairly long line of Jimmy Wales's victims on this project and across the wider Wikimedia sphere of his influence. I've considered the man to have been a major liability for the project for the bulk of the time I've been editing, he should have had his residual powers removed many years ago during one of those unpleasant episodes where he reverted other administrative decisions on the basis that he knew best (narrator - he didn't know best). This needs to be clearly elucidated to the community, so they're made very clearly aware that Brad is a victim and Jimmy, through what I and many others have clearly considered to be incompetence and ignorance, was the abuser in this situation. If the Signpost cannot manage that in a fair, impartial and balanced manner, then there will clearly need to be a reappraisal made at community level as to what we do and where we go with the Signpost. I would suggest the way to demonstrate to the wider community that such a reappraisal may not be necessary is if there's a clear apology made to Brad by the Signpost editorial team, and equally as importantly, by preparing a suitably balanced article that makes it abundantly clear that Brad is the victim here. I would also suggest, given the importance of the topic (joe jobbing and paid editorials services) that providing further content on this within the Signpost would be wise, so we can try as best we can to make sure no other editors suffer in the way Brad has. Nick (talk) 07:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom&oldid=1150802473"