Hello. First of all, thank you for continuing to write the Signpost. I do hope the paper will continue on. Regarding content, I think you should report on everything worth reporting on, if you can, and not shy away from controversy. Benjamin (talk) 13:46, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've always enjoyed what Signpost reports on. Signpost is a mortar for community and that would involve reporting on the community. -- GreenC16:18, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As we are - I would say the level of detail we've had in the past is about right. So Wikimedia and Chapter trustees who are in the media for Wiki-related issues should be considered. As have certain other individual cases covered in-Wiki. However, you've not just grabbed entertaining ANI cases, because there was nothing particularly important on it.
I agree with Nosebagbear that the question should be an annual one to help maintain a relevant consesus. I think most of the coverage of individuals should focous on either those who have a large scale impact on the community because of their actions or because they have a high statuas or are in the public eye—The Editor's Apprentice (Talk•Edits) 06:18, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Negative coverage of individual editors—typically those subject to sanctions or censure—should be avoided where possible, and where necessary should be kept fastidiously neutral. That's partly for DENY reasons; but mainly because public pillory is not constructive, conducive to a collaborative and collegial editing environment, is purely punitive rather than preventative, and is a barrier to return to editing (whether that's expiry of a time-limited block, through the standard offer, or modification of a ArbCom or community t- or i-ban). Neutral coverage of major controversies on the project, including ArbCom cases, significant AN/ANI discussions, or something happening in the context of an RfC or village pump discussion is fine, provided the overall process is what is reported on, and whatever it was is of general community interest. But using the Signpost to take jabs at individual editors (no matter how well deserved those jabs are), putting the spotlight on an editor that has already been made subject to the community's reprobation, or gravedancing on a sanctioned editor are all unbecoming, not constructive, and, often, actively detrimental to the project long term.The Signpost's collective judgement on this kind of thing has, by my reckoning, been generally good so far; but has in individual instances skirted close to and over the line. Thus this message: I would like to see The Signpost be more conscious of this issue, and to at least somewhat raise the bar they hold themselves to. Traditional non-tabloid journalistic standards exist for good reason, and no Wikipedia editor is a public person (with certain very narrow exceptions such as Jimbo). Putting the spotlight on any one of us had better be for good reason and with an abundance of caution regarding the framing and consequences."Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a harder battle." —Ian Maclaren (probably) --Xover (talk) 09:17, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Xover, thank you for your comments. They express my thoughts entirely, and I don't think The Signpost has overstepped the line this year. Of greater concern are the reader comments, which although sometimes inappropriate or a swipe at one of the magazine's editors, when we made a suggestion to be selective over what comments we publish as all newspapers do with their readers' letters, we were accused of censorship. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:38, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kudpung: In the current format, I think the comment section is effectively a free for all. Bad behaviour there should be addressed as it should elsewhere on the project. However, a more "edited" format like "Letters to the editor" might have some merit; and it might even be a good idea to relegate open comments to the talk page in favour of some kind of "Letters to the editor"-type scheme (Select comments added as addenda to the article? Select comments collected in a separate "Letters to the editor" column in the next issue?). However, in general I haven't seen much of the problem you describe in the comments (I've probably not paid enough attention), so I can't claim sufficient basis to opine on the right course to take there. --Xover (talk) 14:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If this month's issue is any clue, I think the answer is that as long as the "perpetrators" of dubious article-stuffing can be linked to Donald Trump, it's OK. On the other hand, requests for the Signpost to investigate the link between the Clinton Foundation & the WMF (the most recent being last month) during the 2016 elections have been ignored for over a year and half. When will you be interviewing WMF contractor Craig Minassian about their role in the two organizations? The stalwart resistance to the idea of countenancing such a story is perplexing or revealing, depending on your point of view. ~ 🐝 ~ SashiRolls t · c12:26, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What you are forgetting, SashiRolls, is that apart from the regular routine columns, special reports and investigative journalism are not made by the editorial staff - they don't have time. They are made by contributors like you.... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:38, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely. To complain of lack of coverage in this community-produced work is to fundamentally misunderstand the process by which it comes to be. There is no Signpost cabal; contrariwise, there's two editors-in-chief begging for content collaborators :) ☆ Bri (talk) 17:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first I've heard of that since May, 2017. I'm glad to hear of this change of editorial position! For the record, then, you both authorize me to contact the WMF & Minassian Media on behalf of the Signpost for the purpose of an article? ~ 🐝 ~ SashiRolls t · c17:40, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I only discovered The Signpost a few issues ago. It has become my habit to at least start and usually finish every article. Which would suggest that you are meeting at least my information desires. In terms of the questions you pose, I would like you to report as fully and impartially as possible on Wikipedia's "controversies, conflicts, scandals, and other news involving specific members of the community". You ask "At what point does ... community news become gossip?" I would actively like to see gossip in The Signpost. As a newer editor I feel that it helps to orient me, and give me a feel for the form, and the accepted/expected behaviour of Wikipedia. As well as suggesting that I am contributing to a human endeavour rather than a bureaucratic monolith. Please keep up the sterling work. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:00, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is acceptable is simply thoroughly researched journalism, meeting WP:BLP, and other policies (The Signpost might be wise to impose an analogy of WP:NOTINVOLVED, but that is an editorial decision). Even within these bounds contributors will make mistakes, but as long as there are mechanisms for raising and correcting them, this should not be an obstacle. However what is desirable is to only report on significant issues, either because of their scope, general interest (or amusement value), or apparent breaking of new ground. I, at least, am not interested in every long-term vandal, COI editor or sock puppet, and if I was I would follow the appropriate pages.
I Agree, while I myself am very new to the community and not very active, I Believe that we should only report on significant issues, and do our best to accurately report on such occurrences with as little bias as possible.Billster156234781 (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The informal guideline in past years was, I thought, it's okay to comment on specific editors regarding RfAs, arbitration cases and when editors (or WMF) was in the news unless there was a case of notable disruption (like widespread sockpuppetry or a paid editing ring). It was also okay to quote specific editors who might have participated in these types of discussions, RfCs or Village Pump debates. I would guess that most readers are fine with quoting editors' comments but editorial commentary on editors has typically been more cautious unless it was considered "Wikipedia newsworthy".
I miss the Arbitration Report especially when I was working as an ArbCom clerk and enjoyed reading the Signpost editor's take on cases that can last months and months. With the light ArbCom load these days, I don't think it would be too demanding of an assignment. Any volunteers lately? LizRead!Talk!23:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
← Back to From the editors