Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2018-10-01. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Arbitration report: A quiet month for Arbcom (0 bytes · 💬)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-10-01/Arbitration report

Blog: After a catastrophic fire at the National Museum of Brazil, a drive to preserve what knowledge remains (319 bytes · 💬)

If you can contribute any images to this very worthwhile project, please do so! Invertzoo (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion report: Interface Admin policy proposal, part 2 (479 bytes · 💬)

My custom signature makes it easier for me to find my name.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Essay: You can do it! Just say thanks. (1,063 bytes · 💬)

Thanks for this reminder, Barbara :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your thank you! I'm thrilled to see you pop in to this article. I hope all is well with you. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉ 22:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Am I the only one who often wishes for a You're Welcome button? (Not to encourage process creep ) – Athaenara ✉ 02:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

From the editor: Is this the new normal? (13,213 bytes · 💬)

If this is 'the new normal' then I'm very disappointed with this month's thin publication which seems to be all at sea with no one at the helm. Wikipedia may be 'the encyclopedia anyone can edit', but The Signpost is not an encyclopedia and needs to be of even better quality than the web site (or more accurately: knowledge base) whose official organ it is, or has become, and not adopt the petty (and sometimes not so nickel-and-dime) controversies so typical of talk pages.

Creating content for a magazine however, is a challenge of a very different nature. In my humble opinion, Wikipedia would be better off without The Signpost in its latest offering, than it becoming basically a technology and research newsletter copied from somewhere else, no compelling reading, and just tidbits of scandal à la Bild and The Sun making broadsides at creative and/or prolific individual volunteers for want of more important content; and long lists for fillers, of links to internal US politics of which the media is already saturated and of little or no interest to the rest of the English speaking world. Trump is international news but his judges are not. 'News and Notes' which seems to have become a 'red top' commentary, should not be a forum for veiled attacks at volunteers either (whether I am involved or not as a former Signpost editor, and there's plenty I could be saying and naming about some of its former editors).

Criticism, especially objective, of named people is fine when aimed at those who enjoy gross salaries without the approval of a community which ultimately creates the content that provides their employment, but even the most unruly of prolific volunteer content contributors, admins, and former arbitrators are generally doing something constructive with their work. I never stooped to slighting any Wikipedia volunteers through The Signpost's columns or its comment sections.

The Signpost needs a regular dedicated editorial team, and someone who, without great debate, can be entrusted to make final decisions as to appropriateness, language, and format - even if they are not held responsible for creating a lot of the content - but it looks as if there is as much interest there as becoming an admin, a bureaucrat, or a regular New Page Patroller, without being a hat collector. My style of journalism may have been controversial in the eyes of some, but it got The Signpost back on its feet and increased its circulation, and whether the readers liked it or not, it still required a lot of time as any former Editors-in-Chief can evince. Thanks to everyone for trying with this month's issue, but no, just no - it's the buzzer from me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I would say less content is vastly better than actively bad content. Fish+Karate 09:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll second that. Natureium (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll add a third to that. Sadads (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Fourthed. Thank you Bri and all! – SJ + 05:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Different people want different things from the Signpost. I want something that's true to its name and original function - a concise newsletter that lets me stay up to date with what's going on around the project, not a verbose magazine full of opinions and essay-writing competitions. So I'm glad to see a commitment to regularity over size. Personally I still think this issue is on the bloated side, with multiple opinion pieces/essays. One per issue would suffice, together with regular news briefings (emphasis on brief) on arbcom/tech/discussions/wikimedia/media/popularity. Waggers TALK 07:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I am actually rather surprised to see this because I have been seriously considering whether to suggest that The Signpost drastically increase its opinion content and editorialization while abandoning pretenses of "neutrality" and "objectivity". This would be an attempt at reviving The Signpost and changing its direction toward a more proactive role in being the voice of the Wikipedia community than its current one of being a reactive reporter and republisher of mere news. Whenever more opinionated content has been published, it has generated more reader discussion, increased viewership, and has frequently been well-received. The Signpost is the only on-Wiki publication to provide such a space for editors; for anyone interested in such content, they would otherwise have to resort to off-Wiki blogs and message boards like Wikipediocracy. Is that really preferable? —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 13:47, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm also surprised, Waggers, because WADR, you are contradicting yourself. You demand a newsletter that entertains your specific requirement, while the last few issues actually went further: they provided not only the dry reports you prefer, but also provided content that other readers want, combining the bland with vivid exposés, bold opinion, entertainment, and some much needed comic relief; and this latter is sorely need in the face of some humourless users' favourite pastime: criticizing things they can't/won't do better themselves, or get involved, and just jeer from the sidelines. Yes, different people want different things. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I've "demanded" nothing at all, merely stated a personal preference. Is that no longer allowed? Waggers TALK 20:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I congratulate our volunteer editors and writers for producing this new edition of the Signpost. It will be read and enjoyed by hundreds, maybe thousands of people. Don't let the naysayers get you down. Please, just keep going. Wikipedia needs glue like this to keep the community together. 213.205.251.57 (talk) 11:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly that "...less content is vastly better than actively bad content." Not big on criticizing the volunteer work of others, especially when I am not in a position to help them out. Keep on trucking! Not Wilkins (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2018 (UTC)NotWilkins

Good an interesting comments but there will always be issues that are better than others. I am an Signpost editor, a regular writer and hardly ever offended. I am going to keep writing Humour articles no matter how much criticism comes my way. Perhaps I don't see how profound it can be since I write for the fun of it. The Signpost may not win a Pulitzer Prize but I sure enjoy writing. Best Regards to all those who have taken the time to leave a comment here. Barbara ✐ ✉ 17:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Support I have enjoyed Signpost in all of its variations. I read selectively, so whatever you do, I can appreciate. I have much regard for the many volunteers who have rotated through putting it together.Bellagio99 (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, kudos to those who got the issue out of the door again. I would rather see something than nothing, and monthly still seems like a good frequency to aim for. Out of interest, where are the attacks on named individuals mentioned above? I've read through the various pages and haven't spotted them yet... Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Congrats on the new issue of the Signpost! I was looking forward to read it! Best wishes from Brazil :) User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 01:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. (Admission: I suggested monthly format, with anything that is ready awhile back). On a broader note, any person/group claiming the mantle of "official voice of Wikipedia" would seem to be setting themselves up for failure. (Have you met our cacophony?) Newsletter is a fine aim, though. Sure, throw in some opinion pieces from time to time, if the opinion writer is 1) willing to work with the others 'in the office', and 2) deal with response to opinion (over which they will have no control). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for getting another issue off the presses. As others have said, a monthly roundup of events is better than nothing and hopefully people who want to contribute features or opinions will be welcomed as and when. If I had one criticism, it would be that we probably need a run-down of who blocked whom and what drama ensued. Also, I missed the featured content section; I always enjoyed seeing the wonderful variety of projects people have worked so hard on and it is after all the raison d'etre of Wikipedia. I'd love to see it back in future issues, even if just in the form of a bulletted list and a very brief description. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Seconding: Commitment to regularity over content is welcome. And I love featured content reviews, more than most other entries (even at the expense of them!) -- a welcome reminder. – SJ + 05:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: perhaps you meant to say "we probably don't need a run-down of who blocked whom"? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Given initial comments above, I thought the rest of this Signpost issue would be a mess somehow, but I don't find that when I begin to browse. I don't see this issue overblown with opinions; I would welcome a lot more publications of essays in fact. I really like the Recent research section in this issue. I'm not sure how new a feature is the Discussion report, but I like that, for highlighting recent interesting goings-on. I note this issue is missing a "most-viewed articles" analysis, but I don't mind, I always found that to be an interesting but weird commentary about how strange is our society, and not really about what is going on with Wikipedia. (I agree with HJ Mitchell that celebrating new featured content is a central, good function, very much about what is going on.) Has there ever been a crossword puzzle feature before? I object, strenuously, to its previous absence! (I also object to this one's wp:IAR perspective, about the "rotational (also known as 'radial') symmetry" requirement, oh well.) Hmm, instead of complaining more about this issue, I'm going to go off and try to solve the puzzle, and read more.... :) --Doncram (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Having regular updates is more important than padding out content. The Signpost editors and writers are still volunteers, just like the rest of us. They provide a valuable service to the community and I'm happy that it exists. Aervanath (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

→ From the acting Editor-in-Chief: Thanks to everyone who has commented on issue 10. Your thoughts are noticed and your encouragement is appreciated. The readers are why we do this. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Gallery: A pat on the back (722 bytes · 💬)

I'm not sure but it seems like this whole issue of the Signpost had a humorous perspective. I love this article, too. Excellent job, Bri! Barbara ✐ ✉ 17:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
comment #2 - I especially appreciate the budder udder/butter utter. Barbara ✐ ✉ 23:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Humour: Pencils are mandatory (2,583 bytes · 💬)

The Council of #wikipedia-en hereby presents to the Knights of the Signpost their answers to the ancient, mythical crossword puzzle! (WARNING: DO NOT CLICK THIS LINK IF YOU DO NOT WANT SPOILERS.) —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 02:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
This was quite fun, thanks! The across were pretty easy while the down ones were tough. 25 was pretty esoteric. Also, I think you guys forgot #14. Opencooper (talk) 10:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

HA! You got it! I'll see if I can come up with a prize. Thanks for participating. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉ 17:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Excellent job! I really like this puzzle. The Signpost should run more of these. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
"Fight Club" doesn't fit in 30 down... Argento Surfer (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Mind blowing Oh dear, finally something that can increase The Signpost's readership :D Please continue. Lourdes 15:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
This is the most hilarious humour issue I've ever read, especially 23 down. I will do it tonight. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

This is pretty funny all by itself. I have a better idea-I'll show someone else how to do it and then they can become the crossword puzzle editor. I will help for a couple months and then this new editor can have some of the fun that I have. Barbara ✐ ✉ 23:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

In the media: Knowledge under fire (5,081 bytes · 💬)

Tate biographies

There has been discussion of the Tate story at Talk:Anthony van Dyck and at WT:WPVA.

It started with a blog post (link) by the art historian Bendor Grosvenor, complaining that Tate should be writing its own short biographies for artists (and so providing job opportunities for young art historians) rather than outsourcing the job. But as his blog post shows, with a link to the Tate's entry on Peter Lely, in the past (link), the Tate has used short biographies from the Grove Dictionary of Art (a commercial provider, so one assumes paid for) but now (link) in many cases (since we think around December 2016) it just uses (with attribution and a link, and for free) the lead section of the Wikipedia biography instead. If this practice spreads, it suggests we should spend more time on creating a good lead section, rather than polishing the body of the article.

Grosvenor also rather trivially complained about the misspelling of "Van Dyck" in the link to our article on Van Dyke beard (as that was the only "error" he mentioned, and deliberately using that variant spelling is not really an error, for the reasons explained in our article on the subject, perhaps this crowdsourced online website that anyone can edit is not doing so bad a job?).

He came back to the subject a few days later (link) to note that the National Galleries of Scotland are also linking to Wikipedia. Separately, he praises art galleries that make images available for free via Wikipedia rather than charging fees for reproduction of images that are public domain (link).

We know that some museums and galleries are linking to Wikpedia as a source of further information already, including the British Museum, the Museum of Modern Art, and the National Galleries of Scotland, and no doubt others too.

Also relevant is this rebuttal from Matthew Lincoln, an art historian and data scientist at CMU, who has actually spent time doing the job Grosvenor wants the art galleries to do. Lincoln encourages curators to avoid spending time and money reinventing the wheel (and indeed undervaluing work not invented here) by (re)writing two or three paragraph short biographies of well-known artists, but rather to deploy their limited resources on activities that add real value to the understanding of the specific works in their collection. You can see the Tate doing that with their online research publications; for example, on Henry Moore: (link). 213.205.251.57 (talk) 11:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the further background, IP user. Perhaps you can write a followup piece about this for the next issue (assuming there will be a next issue)? I don't know if The Signpost has ever published an article bylined to an IP user, but it may be worth a shot—especially given the current dearth of contributors. Lastly, I'll also note the recent discussion about this whole matter at Jimbo's talk page. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 13:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional link - no doubt there are more pieces of the discussion on the issue in a few other talk pages - too.

A Signpost article by an IP editor? A tempting offer, but there is not much to add to what I said above, all released on the usual CC BY-SA 3.0 terms, so feel free to make something of it. 213.205.251.57 (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Very glad for this section

While we're talking about the value and purpose of the Signpost (see the last couple "from the editor" columns), I'd like to express how much I always appreciate this particular section. I really like the curated roundup of Wikipedia news. Thanks, all. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

News and notes: European copyright law moves forward (4,970 bytes · 💬)

Like all businesses, Wikipedia seeks to make profit without constraint. I, for one, am dismayed by the use of our website for political issues like these, especially for the craven purposes of the WMF, who has shown time and again they don't give a damn about editors. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Chris, just to clarify – you mean you don't approve of site blackouts and the banners displayed in June (maybe July too, I'm not sure)? ☆ Bri (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Bri: Of course. I appreciate The Signpost's write up; I was unaware that the community had approved this EU-targeted measure. I seem to recall !voting against a proposal like this for us as an organization to complain about legislation. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and using site banners for political purposes seems quite unsavoury IMHO. It shouldn't be assumed that all Wikipedians will agree with the WMF's stance on this. And if you're worried about downstream commercial reusers not being able to use our files, perhaps getting rid of the fair-use policy would be the first place to start. Currently we intentionally host files that we know they can't use, so worrying about the unintentional ones isn't going to make that much difference to them. — Amakuru (talk) 08:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I have also !voted against this sort of thing in the past. While I support some lobbying, I think we need to be extremely careful not to involve the projects in activism. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC).

Regarding the first bulletpoint, I would personally prefer not to see fights/controversies make the "news and notes" simply because they involve drama between high-profile Wikipedians (I presume this was the reasoning, and apologize if I'm wrong -- it just otherwise does not have the far-reaching implications for the community and/or the encyclopedia that the other items on the list have). It strikes me that it may also impair the ability for the involved parties to put it behind them, as I imagine they would like to do. $0.02 anyway. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

So that's what Kudpung is mad about? It happened, right? Was it an unfair characterization? Do some Wikipedians think that their kerfuffles aren't meant to be fodder for the hoi polloi? Chris Troutman (talk) 21:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I added that bullet as the first item in the report right after we published in August. It was intended to be a starting point for the actual News and notes feature writer to expand on or to discard. As it turned out, it ran in the issue, and I take full "credit" for it; that said, I don't think it's actually inappropriate, though I wish it had had better framing. Two things make it appropriate in my opinion: first, it directly concerns the operations of The Signpost as a dispute over what's appropriate in reader comments; and second, it concerns perception about the actions of one or more administrators/oversighters/arbcom members (even if former), which I see as in the broader public interest here. As Chris states above, anyone should expect our highly visible public actions to be fair game for comment, but certainly so if they hold advanced permissions granted to people in a position of trust gained through especially good judgment. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I might recommend Lorem ipsum in the future. Nøkkenbuer probably would have appreciated an html comment for explication. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Recent research: How talk page use has changed since 2005; censorship shocks lead to centralization; is vandalism caused by workplace boredom? (2,480 bytes · 💬)

I absolutely love the dinner party analogy! Barbara ✐ ✉ 17:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
"For content that is not politically charged or controversial, Wikipedia has proven to be as good as, if not better than, some its peers." -- I'd argue that this stands even for "politically charged or controversial" content. Of course, scientists have political biases too :) Daß Wölf 21:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- Absolutely --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  - All of my teachers would emphasize the point of "who's funding this research?" I might understand the general distaste towards Wikipedia if it was funded by advertisements, or got millions of dollars from a few select corporations... but that's *not* what Wikipedia is! So yeah, I can see why in general Wikipedia can be as good as, if not better than, some of its peers. Clovermoss (talk) 22:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for introducing the concept of stigmergy to me. I find it to be a very good way of understanding what I do on Wikipedia. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 04:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- You already know then, that word will most certainly be in the next crossword puzzle. Barbara ✐ ✉ 23:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  - My two-year-old granddaughter used it in conversation just yesterday. I wasn't surprised. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 23:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Technology report: Paying attention to your mobile (1,724 bytes · 💬)

It took me six months to get around to reading this. Why do they say we get a yellow message that we have a new message on our talk page? Mine have always been orange.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The colour is #FC3, which is somewhere between yellow and orange. - Evad37 [talk] 00:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

And two months later, because there was no purple link after I cleared my history, I ended up reading this again. But I have additional information.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Flooded with them hundreds/SectionRemover was deleted by editor request while User:Flooded with them hundreds/PageMoverClosure was moved to User:DannyS712/PageMoverClosure.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Traffic report: John McCain's death generates over 7 million hits, followed by historical low (3,176 bytes · 💬)

I don't know about anyone else but this is always one of my favorite articles in the Signpost because it is a clue of what is important to so many readers. Sometimes it is concerning that sports seems to take such prominent role in readers' lives but our traffic report is purely objective because it's all about the numbers. Though not as objective but even more interesting are the comments, descriptions and reasons for the traffic counts described by the writers/contributors of this article. They are really very funny. I like funny (surprise). Thanks for all you do, traffic report editors. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉ 17:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
The graphs are a nice addition. Thanks! SchreiberBike | ⌨ 01:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I've always liked the traffic report and it supports my belief that the readers are most interested in bread and circuses; Wikipedia covers the circuses, of course. I differ, though, in the idea that the popularity of bios about the recently deceased or the list of deaths is somehow macabre. Humans are programmed to not care about others until a death, signaling a shift in political order and questioning the tribe's future outlook. It remains this way because metaphorical vultures circle the carcass, exploiting the death to further the needs of the living. I'm thankful for Reddit and, to a lesser extent, Google Doodles, which remind the public of the irrelevant people about whom I would likely write. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Please put the latest week at the top, so that we can see instantly the latest data. Keep the previous 3 weeks below, but this order makes no sense. The-Pope (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@The-Pope: - Signpost formatting of the reports aside, please remember that you can see the latest data once a week (rather than once a month) at the Wikipedia:Top 25 Report, which moves quicker and is longer than the version in than the Signpost, with a new report weekly. For instance, the current report is not transcluded in this Signpost article, as it postdates it. (Apologies for the shameless plug) Stormy clouds (talk) 18:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

"Things are so slow that the only constant was people checking our obituary."

I wished my local newspaper wrote articles like that... I'd buy it more often. Clovermoss (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)