Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-09-19/From the editor

Discuss this story

Jarry, thanks for your work. Good luck with your studies.

I do want to express my concern about running editorials. I think the Signpost is strongest when reporting all sides of a story while remaining neutral. At its heart, the Signpost should be a community newspaper, and I think editorials, which explore only one view of a situation, don't jibe with that. While it was well-written, I don't feel Beeblebrox's recent op-ed was appropriate for the Signpost, because at its heart, it was one person's opinion on a controversial topic.

I don't subscribe to the belief that the Signpost's role should be to entertain other than to provide well-written articles. Perhaps the best way to do that is to go back to writing more articles about controversial topics, in the vein of the great Michael Snow articles of days past. My favorite article I ever wrote was this one, which covered a very touchy subject. But there are many more examples of good, short-to-medium length content that might make the Signpost more relevant.

I know how difficult it is to get writers of longer content; this was something I struggled with for my entire tenure (and was one of the factors that led to my retirement). But I think it really does improve the content dramatically. Ral315 (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jarry, for performing the editorial work that you've done. I really enjoy the Signpost's "In the news" section, and read every one. And I really appreciate the people who produce the Signpost because, as a Wikipedian, I know the value and scarcity of good volunteer editing. So thanks very much. — ¾-10 02:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raul, firstly, I should point out that Op-Eds are not editorials. Secondly, I feel your second paragraph conflicts with your first, although you may not see it that way. Your "favorite article" is exactly the sort of thing that the new Opinion desk would cover. The new desk allows, just as you did there, for more controversial subjects to be covered in an isolated setting where they do not conflict with the objectivity of the rest of the newsletter. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 19:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all you've done, Jarry, and thanks for introducing more focus on op-eds. Much more entertaining than the usual ArbCom report! /ƒETCH COMMS / 21:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to see an attempt to re-invigorate opinion pieces in The Signpost. I disagree with Ral315 about the Beeblebrox piece; it was a really valuable perspective to have, and not something that could be easily replicated outside of an opinion piece. What it did was shed light not just on the history of one particular debate, but also on what it's like to try to spearhead an important community debate toward a final decision. It was clearly marked as what it was, and readers are savvy about these things. As long as The Signpost isn't trying to use the approval or rejection of opinion pieces to push the agendas of the editors, I look forward to more pieces like that.--ragesoss (talk) 14:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]