Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom

24 hour shutdown of some wikipedias on March 21

I came here by Smallbones note on Jimbo Wales' discussion page. I could tell you something about the protest of the German wikipedia, especially how 139 politcal activists hijacked wikipedia for their politcal agenda. And I could tell you about the protest of German wikipedians against the shutdown and how the initiators and Wikimedia failed in communicating, why I left wikipedia after 14 years because of it and so on. But you probably won't be interested in this. I also wrote a bit here before, although, it became worse since then. See here, here and here for the protest against the shutdown. Here is also a small report by Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. --Christian140 (talk) 12:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

That's no 'small' report. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The FAZ article is highly critical of the shutdown policy: "Durch die Abschaltung der Seite für eine politische Kampagne verrät die Wikipedia ihr Ziel der Objektivität und büßt ihre Glaubwürdigkeit ein." -- "By turning off the site for a political campaign, Wikipedia betrays its goal of objectivity and forfeits its credibility." It also calls Wikipedia a "gefährlich digitale Monopole" ("dangerous digital monopoly") on par with Google – and says with this action now Wikipedia has made itself an information gatekeeper. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

It's worth noting that "The F.A.Z. is one of several high-profile national newspapers in Germany (along with Süddeutsche Zeitung, Die Welt, Die Zeit, Frankfurter Rundschau and Die Tageszeitung) and among them has the second largest circulation nationwide. It maintains the largest number of foreign correspondents of any European newspaper (53 as of 2002)" – Wikipedia. See also: WMF News Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Kudpung: You mean, I should have written 'short'? Anyways, I looked into the newspapers you cited for further articles cause I was interested about media reports. It seems, most papers took the releases by Deutsche Presse-Agentur and Agence France-Presse. However, by Die Welt and Die Tageszeitung, I found original reports. Elisabeth Nöfer and Gunnar Hinck of Tageszeitung (article here) report what happened, why wikipedia is protesting and informs about Save the Internet. Then, there is a reaction section, saying that most people just used other language versions. Also, a professor of Bremen University is cited that Germany is sensible about Data Protection and that's why the German wiki protested. At the end, it is stated that there was much critic within the German wikipedia and that the participation was low with only 215 participants out of 4931 who would have been eligible to vote (note: not everyone is eligible due to sockpuppet protection). Christian Meier of Die Welt (article here) makes his headline: "Only 139 authors voted for the first Wikipedia blackout". He is questioning the autonomy of wikipedia since only so few participated in the vote for such an important decision. Meier claims that Wikipedia is not affected by the new copyright law's article 13, which was also stated on the shutdown banner, explicitly. He mentions that Google is opposing the EU copyright law and that Google donated 7.5 million dollar to Wikimedia in the past 10 years. Furthermore, he mentions the discussions inside the German wikipedia community, that many protested against the shutdown since wikipedia is not a platform for political activism, citing one author who said, who wants to protest against the EU law should use another platform or do it on the streets. Another one is cited, saying, instead of the banner, it would have been better to show only one neutral article about the law for readers to inform themselves. --Christian140 (talk) 07:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Let's not simply parot others, and have our own voice here. You obviously have an axe to grind here, and there's a much more reasonable assumption: the German Wikipedia had consensus for blackout. You make much fuss of "only 139 people out of ~5000", but the more important part is that two thirds of participants supported it. You may argue that participation was relatively low, but presuming that the outcome would have been different if more people had participate is speculation. As far Wikipedia's purported neutrality is concerned, our WP:NPOV policy (at least on English Wikipedia, no idea what the situation is on the German Wikipedia) applies to article content. Wikipedia needs not be neutral on matters of its own existence and operation. The Red Cross is an apolitical organization, but it does not mean it does not voice its opinion when laws governing blood drives or disaster relief are made. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's what I initially said. I am not involved in Signpost. I am just showing what you could look into. What I cited are a few of the biggest newspapers in Germany. It is also quite disturbing that several users who voted "pro" shutting down Wikipedia did edit it on March 21 and thus ignored their own vote [1], [2]. --Christian140 (talk) 10:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

For sure we should take into account their coverage. As for editing, I don't see that as hypocritical/ignoring their own vote. The point was to make Wikipedia inaccessible to the general public for 24 hours (not sure what the exact details are, if it was SOPA-style, I think you could still view articles after clicking through some banners). The point wasn't to halt all progress on Wikipedia. It just means the result of the edits would be visible after the blackout, rather than during. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

It was supposed to be a full blackout where no one was supposed to see or edit pages. However, Wikimedia said it would be technically complicated to do it like this. A few hours before the shutdown, it was announced to do the shutdown via CSS. Experienced wikipedia users simply used a custom CSS to access wikipedia as they know. The point actually was exactly to halt all processes in German wikipedia globally. It was also officially labeled "complete shutdown". See: de:Wikipedia_Diskussion:Meinungsbilder/Protest_gegen_EU-Urheberrechtsreform#WICHTIG: Finale Infos zur Abschaltung der de-Wikipedia durch die WMF. --Christian140 (talk) 12:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, it was a black-out for me (although I could see some discussion pages), and I was unable to see any articles or to make edits. To be frank I was very annoyed bcause I felt being hostage toan issue I do not fully fathom and I am not sure that WP is on the right side of the divide...--Stauffen (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Those newspapers, pushing for taxes or destruction of news aggregators, are not nearly neutral sources themselves. Wnt (talk) 11:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

However, journalists (reporters) are working for those newspapers and writing those articles. Yesterday, the German wikipedia claimed that journalist associations would oppose the EU copyright reform (articles 11 and 13). --Christian140 (talk) 12:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Christian140: "I am not involved in Signpost. I am just showing what you could look into", is precisely one of the main reasons why The Signpost has failed as a collaborative community newspaper. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@Christian140: Would you consider writing an piece? You don't need to be a Signpost regular to write such a feature – which would allow the issue to be covered in greater detail than would be appropriate for In the media or News and notes. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions for details and guidelines, if you're interested. - Evad37 [talk] 03:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Or, alternatively, if you want to just write a shorter submission, you could run it as a story in News and notes. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but I wouldn't find any time for at least the next three weeks. Moreover, I think I was involved too much in the recent discussion on the German wikipedia. Maybe you could ask some users who were more moderately involved but probably followed the discussion the one or the other day, like Atomiccocktail and/or Stauffen. --Christian140 (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

"From the editor"

I've restarted this article. It is very difficult to write! I'm trying to thread a needle here so that we don't incorrectly blame Signposters for all the brouhaha in the last issue, nor offend any more readers. I may have failed, so far. It's very important that all Signpost contributors and staff come up with something here that we can all more-or-less agree with. If we don't, then the 2nd worst outcome might be that one half or another of our staff and contributors leave the Signpost, and The Signpost will fail. The worst possible outcome, of course, is that all the staff and contributors would leave!

Please comment here. The article is at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/From the editors. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The general piece seems about right save in one or two places, but it's hard to comment without re-igniting a fight, but there are characterization of editors that seem... off to me. At the same time, I also recognize that this reflects someone else's opinion and that's fine.

A trickier bit is the "We sincerely hope that nobody [...] will be offended or insulted by the material we publish..." Offense is a tricky thing, since that could prevent commenting on files like File:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg, which feature a depiction of Mohammed, considered offensive/blasphemous by many (although not all) Muslims. Likewise this fantastic op-ed by Keilana attracted some controversy ("offense") for its language and tone. Neither are things that should be limited in the future. Concerning the list of "those who do not have a choice about their membership in the group", religion is a choice, hardly different from political affiliation, and veteran status seems... a weird mention, although traditionally included in several Western laws to prevent employment discrimination.

I'm not really sure how to balance things here. Maybe 'gratuitously offensive/insulting material' is a better wording, or alternatively "pieces that dehumanize/devalue the personal identities of our editors", which would allow you to lists a bunch of groups without reference to whether or not choice is part of it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

(EC)Thanks @Headbomb:. I do not want to "re-ignite a fight", but I do want to let every Signposter to have their say and I'd like everybody to come to a point where they can say "I agree with most of this, and I'll agreed to disagree on the rest." BTW @Keilana:, I'm not 100% sure why Keilana used all the bad language in her Op-Ed, but I'd love to see a similar contribution from her next month (without the bad language, it would lose its effect the 2nd time around). Being controversial is not the same as being offensive and I do hope we can absolutely minimize people taking offense without downplaying controversy. Keilana, please do comment on the new Op-Ed. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't exactly know what the technique is called, it's a mix of Precision F-strike as applied to the title (which is quite the detraction from the usual one), to the cluster F-bomb as applied to the body of the article. But it was wholly appropriate to convey the sentiment of dismay and frustration. Could there have been other ways to express it? Sure, but this was a very effective way to bring the issue forward. What's more offensive, writing 'fuck' a few times, setting the 'wrong' tone, or a dismal state of affairs due to years of systematic bias which warrant use of that tone in the first place? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

May I suggest something on the lines of "We hope that, when we do cause legitimate offense or insult, it's either in the service of an important editorial point, or, at the least, due to not fully understanding the issues around what we were commenting on. We cannot claim the former, and should have known better. We will try to know better in future."

A true apology should admit fault. It can explain how something happened, but it needs to recognise that the apology is necessary because of a fault on the apologiser's behalf. Anything else isn't an apology, it's an excuse. And sometimes, an excuse is valid: "We accidentally phrased a sentence in a way that opened it to be read in a way it was not intended." for example, or even "We did not know, and had no reason to know that [...] and thus stepped in where we shouldn't have." But this case was kind of a failure, especially with the advance warning about problems.

The nice thing is that an apology, where fault is accepted, then allows you to set out how you plan to make it right, and/or make sure it doesn't happen again. And because you've shown you know why what you did was a problem, your promises have weight behind them. So don't dissemble. Accept fault, and set out how you plan to avoid the issues. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.4% of all FPs} 16:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

We've identified the key part of the apology that needs work. Somebody sent a replacement via email and I might try that, or might just add a phrase at the end. But let's keep on working on it. For now "We sincerely hope that nobody in our very diverse readership will be offended or insulted by the material we publish and we will strive to achieve that goal without shying away from controversies." Though I'd rather keep it shorter - the longer it becomes, the more chance people will read things into it.

I do think an institution like the Signpost can make a collective apology. Individual apologies might seem meaningless to most readers. Personally, if I were Bri, Kudpung or Barbara I wouldn't apologize. But the Signpost as a whole can accept responsibility for offending some of our readers. The institution didn't work as it should have and we are making changes. If I were to list my personal faults on this, almost nobody would understand (I read the article before publication and totally missed both points, the author's presumed point, and the one that some readers have seen. Sometimes I'm just totally clueless. I also failed to step up to defend Bri from some outrageous behavior. Yeah, I saw this one and said "Why step out in front of a speeding truck when it's not going to have any effect anyway? I've got better things to do on a Sunday afternoon.") Well because of me and several others, and just from an overall failure of the institution lots of things didn't work the way they should have. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for what someone else did or may have done are pretty senseless. What is needed is a simple "statement of purpose": Such as The Signpost is intended to convey news about Wikipedia to fellow Wikipedians, and to furnish essays and articles which are the opinion of their authors, and not the opinion of the Signpost. Anything more is silly - apologizing for what others did is not an apology at all. As long as readers know that opinions here are merely opinions and not "earthshattering announcements from on High", that is all that ought be done. In my opinion, of course. Lengthy "apologies" are not going to get the slightest bit of value attached. Collect (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Failure to apologise for having chosen to publish it will probably get a very, very negative response. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.4% of all FPs} 17:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost can't do much more than apologize for having offended. The belief by some that the parties involved should have known better is not universally held. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

This wouldn't be an apology for what someone else did or may have done. First, strike the "may have done" part. The Signpost actually did publish a piece. If the Signpost is apologizing for publishing the piece, "may have done" isn't applicable here, it's "have done." Then, you can strike "someone else", as well. It doesn't matter that it was different personnel in charge at the time. The Signpost is (or, in my opinion, should be) apologizing for what The Signpost did. SP can't apologize for what somebody else wrote, but it can (and, in my opinion, should) apologize for publishing what somebody else wrote. It's an apology from an institution on behalf of the institution, apologizing for an act that the institution took, as an institution. Although it's "from the editor", it isn't a personal apology from the editor, it's an apology on behalf of the Signpost written by the (current) EIC. I support the apology and the one, as written, is quite good, though I would incorporate the tweaks being suggested here (per Adam above). Leviv ich 18:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I've rewritten the start of the apology as "We apologize to all our readers who were offended by the column. As Wikipedia's internal magazine for the community, The Signpost must be more sensitive to potential offense or insult among our diverse readership.".

It's not time to bring this discussion to a close yet. But may I ask that we all agree that

• We can apologize as an institution for our institutional failure, and
• The the current sentence is a better starting place than the previous sentence.

Of course, unless we get out a good issue within a week, none of this will mean much. I'll get to work and just watch this discussion for awhile. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Making this statement is not actually necessary, and of dubious potential usefulness. It's a bit ham-handed. As you point out yourself, it's pretty likely to simply re-ignite dispute. The Signpost visibly being under new management is already entirely sufficient (nor do we have any further indication – that I know of – that editors involved with the e-publication are going to quit, with or without this statement or anything like it; nor is the readership, or the WP editorial community at large, demanding such a missive). Actually just doing your special feature on discrimination against the transgendered will get the point across without spelling it out in ways that are prone to generating further drama. Publications like commercial newspapers and magazines run "shaming ourselves in public" apologies from time to time for one reason only: money. They have a fiduciary interest in convincing people to buy copies of that issue and future issues in spite of previous criticism. The Signpost has no such rationale, so this apology piece, no matter how it's reworded, will not be effective but will come at the probable cost of picking the scab off and starting the bleeding again.

  Some additional comments, if you intend to run with this anyway: I agree with this much of Adam Cuerden's suggestion: "We hope that, when we do cause legitimate offense or insult, it's either in the service of an important editorial point, or, at the least, due to not fully understanding the issues around what we were commenting on." I'm not certain it's really necessary to say this, but it's not wrong. The "We cannot claim the former" isn't actually the case, however; PoV-pushing against English-writing norms to suit self-aggrandizement by our article subjects (what the essay is actually about) is an important editorial point, and one that comes up frequently in connection to honorary, academic, royal and other styles and titles, in trademark over-stylization, in religio-spiritual phrasing and claims, and in many other types of disputes.

  I generally agree with Headbomb, and you've already seen my e-mail raising similar matters. However, in both the original wording and Headbomb's ideas ("gratuitously offensive/insulting material", or "pieces that dehumanize/devalue the personal identities of our editors"), I have serious concerns with descriptions like this appearing without qualification. It implies such actual bad faith on my part and that of Barbara (WMV). There are two things here, and they need to be cleanly separated: the controversial piece was taken as offensive by some (by no means all) readers, but was not written with such intent, and it doesn't actually say or mean what critics claim. The amount of controversy, however, suggests Signpost should review its editorial standards. But regardless, Signpost would never run a piece actually intended to be offensive in such ways, and the controversial piece was not one. Your revised "We sincerely hope that nobody in our very diverse readership will be offended or insulted by the material we publish[insert a comma here, please] and we will strive to achieve that goal without shying away from controversies" may work, but it really depends on where this is placed in relation to other material, and what is between them.

  Contrary to what I'm reading from Chris Troutman's response: Signpost is not in a position to apologize for people's feelings and [over-]reactions (readers control their own minds), only for failure to predict that a particular piece was highly likely to be unconstructively controversial and why (blame that I share, of course, but this was not written for Signpost in the first place), and for not exercising more editorial discretion in the choice to publish in this venue. I concur with Levivich's copyediting of some of this material, if it remains.

  All of this is missing from the statement – there's not even a slight hint of it, and it's actually important: 'I saw this one and said "Why step out in front of a speeding truck when it's not going to have any effect anyway? I've got better things to do on a Sunday afternoon.") Well because of me and several others, and just from an overall failure of the institution lots of things didn't work the way they should have.' It's not okay to viciously attack people with a canvassed army of activists, including off-site meatpuppets, and try to negatively affect people's lives off-site just because they're your "enemies" in some advocacy matter (especially when you're straw-manning them badly in the first place). While this piece need not dwell on the disciplinary matters raised at ANI and ArbCom (and not resolved there – everyone was too chicken to get involved, other than to defend someone they agreed with socio-politically no matter what policies they broke), The "Signpost and people involved in it got censored by a faction, over something the authors didn't actually say or mean in the first place" element to this is arguably more important than the apology element. The ire has blown over (having been manufactured in the first place), but the damage to The Signpost's integrity as a publication has not (in either sense). In the censored sense, nothing can really be done about it (at least the page was just blanked not deleted, though the editorial involvement is probably a permanent loss); in the reader perception sense, a confused and confusing apology won't fix it, only doing better work will. And while you} understand the difference between controversy and offense, many do not, and it's a thin line anyway. Be very careful what promises you make because people will receive that inch and take a mile, especially after they've already seen that ginning up a histrionic shit-fit that violated about 10 policies at once is actually effective at censoring The Signpost and making its volunteer staff want to quit.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• I noticed a small wording issue that you may want to change. Statements such as "We apologize to all our readers who were offended by the column" may not come across as intended. Your readership is likely to pick up on the subtle difference between apologizing for writing/publishing something offensive and apologizing for offending people. The former is an admission that you, personally/institutionally, now believe that the piece is offensive and that it was wrong of you to publish it. The latter does not explicitly admit fault on your part, but it singles out the people who were offended (And no, it wasn't just your "diverse" readers) with the implication that they are partly at fault for being offended. It's almost like saying that it would have been OK to publish this in a different venue where everyone wasn't so sensitive and "those people" were not present. Again, I don't believe that this is your intent, but it's dangerously close to the classic non-apology "I'm sorry if you were offended". –dlthewave ☎ 22:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

For anyone with eyes to read, every single discussion on this topic shows that "the Signpost" is not sorry, and is not ready to give a meaningful apology to the community. The essay in question is still hosted on Wikipedia. Several Signpost "regulars" are continuing to push the view that no action taken was ever wrong and people that take offense are being either idiots, or are the ones deliberately harassing others by complaining, and probably should leave the Wikipedia community and find another hobby if they do not get it.

Unless the Signpost is committed to changing not just itself but the behaviours of its community, making a real apology and taking real corrective action, then don't bother giving a Sorry-Not-Sorry apology. For goodness sake, be honest that you could not give a monkey's toss about the offence or distress your publication on Wikipedia might cause other contributors, that you believe lack a sense of humour. At the end of the day you do not have to publish Signpost on Wikipedia, if Wikipedia's mission does not match the Signpost's need for complete unfettered "free speech", just pick another host that does not have a problem with these types of unfunny "jokes". --Fæ (talk) 11:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• And herein lies the problem: Smallbones is taking pains to apologize and start fresh with the community as his predecessor resigned amid furor. Fae, however, insists that they have a veto over all content on Wikipedia and The Signpost had better come to heel or find a new website. I think Wikipedia ought to insist that Fae comes to heel or finds a new website. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

  I agree in principle (though not in the exact way you said it). The Signpost is just a small newspaper on this large website (shameless plug: write for us!), and can’t do much more than we already have (and are currently set to do in the next issue). The MfD determined that blanking the article, which was offensive and not something The Signpost should have published, was sufficient, and that consensus should be respected by all involved. Please WP:AGF and do not jump to conclusions regarding the opinions of our writers regarding this. I voted “strong delete” (later changed to "leave blanked" after the page was blanked) at that MfD, and apologized before it was cool. We can speak, but it’s up to the community to listen. I encourage Smallbones to go ahead with what he thinks is best, because, as editor-in-chief, it’s his job to decide that. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 13:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your help illustrating my viewpoint Chris. It may surprise others to find that we agree on where Signpost may find a more appropriate host for publication, though of course you "officially" spelt this out to the WMF. If @Smallbones: wants to write a meaningful apology, they should take time to very carefully consider your views, and how as a core representative of Signpost, you have responded to Wikipedians concerned about how Signpost is used for "jokes" and "edgy" issues over the last month.

"[...] I find your rejection of my email to be an empty political gesture bowing to political pressure from braying sheeple. Thank you for letting us know that the WMF took this step. Our other distribution methods reach our audience and if you think the people on the mailing list are too frail to bear reading our words then surely Facebook and Twitter will suffice." diff

"[...] Had the angry crowd discontinued their assault, I'd've left it alone as I had nothing to do with the essay at hand. But I will not remain silent while innocent but mistaken editors are hounded by fellow editors under the influence of ideological blood lust. The president of my fan club stalks my talk page and will take me back to ANI when he finds evidence enough to block me for thirty days. I'm just recently coming off an unplanned break from Wikipedia after my last visit to the drama board. I feel I've been measured in my effort to restrain the worst instincts of our chattering class, though I imagine the angry editors will accept nothing less than Stalinist show trials and consignments to the gulag. I will not oblige. Certainly, as a free market guy I encourage the consumer to stop reading words that they don't like, especially when those words were provided as a service to help this community find its voice." diff

--Fæ (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• This is a Newsroom page, please limit the discussion to material that will help get The Signpost published on time. Fæ (talk · contribs) you've had your say across several forums, it doesn't help anybody to say it here again. If you believe that the apology is insincere, feel free to say that briefly in a civil manner in the comments below the piece after publication. If you want further reaction from me on that send a personal confidential e-mail to me after publication and I'll respond with the same telling you what I really think. Agreed? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

If there is no interest in doing more than a rather obvious "sorry-not-sorry" as currently worded, and has been pointed out that it will be received that way by others above, then what I write here quite literally makes no difference to the Signpost. That's the message you are conveying to our community of Wikipedians of what they can expect in Signpost's future. Thanks for being clear and honest Smallbones that your priority here is on time publication.

Some earlier expectations given to the community that may assist your editorial review:

1. "There will be a full, unambiguous, unqualified apology to all who were offended." (Smallbones, diff)
2. "I have no problem saying that the SP made a mistake publishing the article. I might even invite Fae to write an opinion piece explaining his concerns (properly edited of course)." (Smallbones, diff)

Note User:Fæ#Pronoun. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

First, no one is stopping you from writing an op-ed about this. Secondly, I will reiterate what my boss said above: “This is a Newsroom page, please limit the discussion to material that will help get The Signpost published on time. Fæ (talk · contribs) you've had your say across several forums, it doesn't help anybody to say it here again.” — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 19:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

"Boss"??? –dlthewave ☎ 20:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I mean he is the editor-in-chief, so technically yes... — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 20:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

"please limit the discussion to material that will help get The Signpost published on time"

Do not waste time publishing a sorry-not-sorry that clearly the Signpost community does not believe in. If the only objective of this page is to keep to a timetable, rather than engaging the wider community in creating a meaningful apology, then please stop giving an impression that the views of the wider community matters, or that Signpost represents the community's long term interests. Thanks, good luck doing other stuff. --Fæ (talk) 09:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Constructive next directions

I am drafting an article on constructive next directions for The Signpost in supporting the wiki community's projects in the LGBT+ / trans / non-binary space. A part that I want to play in this is to (1) retain the integrity of The Signpost as a Wikipedia community newsletter and (2) give people positive and constructive outlets to make wiki better for trans/non-binary communities.

My idea is to have an announcement for Wiki Loves Pride 2019 now to invite community engagement and preparation now, and to showcase projects in support of non-binary communities and culture.

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/In_focus

I made 100 decisions and have 100 doubts about publishing this. Smallbones made as many creative decisions in that apology he drafted above and I am pleased with both the current draft and the previous ideas which he shared with me and discarded. He has been very thoughtful. When all this comes out I hope that everyone feels that they had an opportunity to contribute something, write their own piece, and say whatever they liked.

If I were to put an editorial slant on this it would be to encourage positivity around the issue because good conversation and mutual support are the strategies I prefer to make things better. I really would appreciate other contributions, especially those that point away from The Signpost and point to projects relevant to increasing respect around nonbinary communities. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion for Arbitration report or elsewhere - compromised admin accounts

Another compromised admin account reported at WT:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Level 1 desysop of Necrothesp. Since this was reported at ARC/N this would be a fit for Arbitration report (which I'm taking a pause from this month). But maybe the event (mainpage vandalism) and the ensuing discussion are important enough to list elsewhere. Some people are saying that compromised admins should have to reapply for adminhood as the lack of security over their accounts rises to a trust issue (I'm paraphrasing a bit but I think that's the gist of it). There might be an opportunity here for an invited piece by one of the highly motivated commenters at the discussion. Bri.public (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Late ish submission: The Wikipedia Crapwatch

Updated to The Wikipedia SourceWatch to be less contentious. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

It's a bit late, but I had to make sure that the WP:CRAPWATCH compilation was in a presentable state before going 'public' with this. The piece is pretty much ready to publish as is, and barely needs copy editing, if any at all. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry @Headbomb:, I haven't forgotten about this, just thinking it over too much. It's a good piece for the techie/reliable source crowd. I have one objection that some people, even a majority of Wikipedians, might think is silly, but a significant minority might just say "what is all this crap?" I'm probably much older than most folks here. It used to be that you just didn't print the word "crap", even once, unless there was a very good reason. It can be very distracting. This has 44 craps in a medium sized article. I don't see a way to fix that here - it's all about crap. If I had to decide, I'd have to say "no".

So, I'll pass the buck to the editorial team (that's anybody who has contributed in the last 6 months as a working definition). Might there be enough of a minority who would be (slightly) offended by this, to justify rejecting it? What will be our answer to the inevitable question in the comments "what is all this crap?". I'll go with the majority. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's literally the name of the project. You can't really refer to it by anything else. No one's being mocked here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

As for what to reply, you can always tell people to start a WP:RM if they don't like the name. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Also this seems like particularly weird objection given "I will not censor a contributor's opinion simply because you disagree with it" in this upcoming issue's From the editors piece. You'd think the same would apply for something that is, at worse, "mildly vulgar". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not about censorship - it's about normal editing and whether the community considers "crap" to be in poor taste or disctracting. That why I'm asking here. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The community can make an RFC to rename the project if they so wish, but failing to report on it because of its name is censorship. Reader interest is obviously high here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Gratuitous use of the word "crap" might be undesirable in certain circumstances, but it seems unavoidable when discussing Crapwatch. I object to the idea that this utterly inoffensive initiative should be excluded from the Signpost just because of its name. –dlthewave ☎ 12:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
• I don't like profanity, but "crap" is pretty low on that scale. I've tried to come up with alternatives, but "predatory journal watch" sounds clumsy and abbreviating it to "PJWatch" seems to suggest that you're spying on adolescents having a slumberparty, which arguably is far worse than "crap"... In any case, this is a very worthwhile initiative. Predatory journals are becoming a scourge and most editors here are unaware (that's not a reproach, evaluating academic journals is a specialized field) of the fact that much of what gets published in these journals is, indeed, crap. The amount of time and effort put into this by Headbomb and co is quite staggering. Kudos! --Randykitty (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

PS: just thought of this, would "bunk" be an alternative for "crap"? Personally I think the latter is preferable, but if some people have an issue with the fecal matter, it's perhaps a workable compromise. --Randykitty (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• CrapWatch is perfectly expressive, and so mild an epithet it wouldn't raise an eyebrow on broadcast television. BunkWatch would also work. BaloneyWatch, MalarkeyWatch, or even BSWatch. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Smallbones' point, I don't think, is that any but the most pearl-clutchingly sensitive are offended by the use of the word 'crap'. It's more that overuse of the word and derivatives is distracting. Liberally sprinkling so much literal 'crap' through a short article just isn't good writing.

The word crap and its derivatives (crappy, Crapwatch, etc.) appear something like 37 times in the body of the draft article. Despite the fundamental purpose of the project being to help identify and evaluate the relative reliability of sources, the word source and and all its derivatives (source, sources, sourcing, etc.) only show up 25 times. Ditto cite/citing/cited/citation. (Un)reliable and reliability only get 6 uses, as does publication. Trust and quality don't appear at all. All those craps blur into noise, losing their impact and leaving the reader wondering if the text was simply an exercise to see how many times the author could shoehorn "crap" into a Signpost article.

Compare with the WP:CRAPWATCH page itself. It only uses 'crap' and its derivatives 6 times the entire text of the page (even then, it could probably be more effective with fewer). Significantly, it never uses it in the actual data table—it's more useful and informative to describe the specific problems and concerns associated with the listed sources.

Sure, we all get a bit of a giggle with a project called "Crapwatch", and it's an effective does-what-it-says-on-the-tin label. But 'crap' is like literary tabasco sauce—a little bit adds some zing, but too much drowns out all the other flavors. Use a variety of nouns and adjectives to get the job done. The article would be much, much more effective if you took out most of the gratuitous crap. Try editing it down to use no more than 6 words containing crap (including uses of the word Crapwatch). Trust me, it will be easier to read and much more potent. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Headbomb, this is 2¢ from a random editor, but I encourage you to change the name from Crapwatch to something else. Two reasons:

1. It's a serious thing that was put together, obviously with a whole ton of work, and it's going to be very useful to editors. Calling it "Crapwatch" is juvenile; it makes me think this is the project of children. It totally undervalues the work and makes me think of it as some kind of adolescent practical joke, which is not what it is. Beall just called his "Beall's List."
2. In my opinion, at least under US law, "Crapwatch" would be considered trademark infringement of "Quackwatch". It's way, way too similar in name for two things that purport to do the same thing ("name and shame" pseudoscience). Frankly "Crapwatch" is a rip-off of "Quackwatch".

My suggestions is don't call it anything-"watch", since "Quackwatch" is taken. Come up with a completely new name, perhaps something with a suitable acronym. But don't be "cute" with the name. It's a serious thing, presumably we compile this information for the underlying purpose of saving lives, it's published in an encyclopedia not a joke book, so let's give it a serious name. (And this is coming from the guy who posts haiku and limerick closes at ANI, so it's not that I'm a killjoy, I just think the title of this piece isn't a good place to make a joke.) Leviv ich 14:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not a joke, and it does exactly that: it monitors crap citations (and no, this is not a trademark infringement). People are free to create an RFC to come up with an alternate name for it, but that's the name of the project as of now, and withholding publications until (and if) people decide on a different name serves no purpose. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

(EC) With that said, I did tone down the crap. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with US law (or any other law for that matter), but I don't think this is a rip-off of QuackWatch. We also have RetractionWatch (and I faintly remember something like Baywatch :-). --Randykitty (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

"Quack" and "crap" are near rhymes and near-homophones, I would say "crap" in this case is an eggcorn or malapropism for "quack". "Retraction" and "Bay" are not. Also, Quackwatch is a source for Crapwatch; whereas it is not a source for RetractionWatch, and BayWatch is a TV show that no one would confuse for a pseudoscience watchdog. Also, in my opinion, the whole "____Watch" construction is a cliche. It's not up to me what to call it, but I think the name takes away from the value of the project, and needlessly so. What's the point of calling it "crap" other than to denigrate it? Why does Wikipedia need to denigrate pseudoscience? Pseudoscience does that on its own. We're an encyclopedia, we shouldn't be calling things "shitty" or "crappy" or anything like that. We should be more professional than that when it comes to our polished finished products. To me, it's not about being offended, it's about picking a unique and appropriate name, and I don't feel that "Crapwatch" is either. It's distracting in the name, just as it's distracting in the article about the project. Leviv ich 15:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Retraction Watch could very well become a source for the Crapwatch, if it's found to be desirable to draw from it. Also, quackery is very specifically related to medical claims from charlatans, not to simply being a poor sources for other reasons. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I like SourceWatch–good choice. Leviv ich 19:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Be wary many of the entries on the list identify real publications rather than the fake ones listed by Beale. The number of WP cites attributed to a "real publication" should not be deprecated by improper implication. Each entry should be revetted as a result, I fear. MIT Technology Review is a valid source, for just one example. That full name has not been "hijacked" as such per Beale. And listing a large number of valid sources on a page devoted to listing "crap" sources is a poor system IMHO. That "bad list" must be purged of such errant mislabeling of legit source. And the number of "false positives" I found is rather too many in a very long list. Not usable for Signpost. Edit that Craplist more carefully first. Collect (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

There's a big disclaimer warning at the top of the list to detail exactly that, and while there are false positives (which this article discusses at length), they can be handled once identified. For instance if 'Tec Review' is not a match for the hijacked version of the MIT Review, it can easily be excluded once identified. Likewise, the list does contain an explanation of what a highjacked publication is, with the proper caveats that hijacked journals are likely to be cited to the correct version, rather than the hijacked version. A large part of going public after nine months is so these false positives can be identified, debated, etc by the whole community, rather than a handful of people. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

A disclaimer saying some small number of the entries - where that is a massive understatement, is not much use. "This is useful to find articles which need to be updated with reliable sources, or where unreliable sources need to be removed." implies in the Signpost that most of the entries need to be removed. On the actual list, the disclaimer says "While many, if not most, publications and publishers on this list have some questionable aspects to their publishing practices, these can still be reliable (or be otherwise acceptable) in limited circumstances. Therefore use common sense and judgement before removing a citation from an article. When in doubt, discuss things at the reliable sources noticeboard, especially before a mass purge of a certain source. Additions and removals from the listing (including false positives) can be discussed at WT:CRAPWATCH. False positives can be directly handled at WP:JCW/EXCLUDE as well." Which strongly suggests that most of these are questionable at best. IMHO, a real list would be way less than 183K in length! Cut it down to 10K, and choose actual proven "bad sites" not tossing the baby out with the bathwater by including a huge number of well-recognized legitimate sources. I can imagine some "editor" using this list and decimating everything. Bad idea? No. Bad current status? Yes. Collect (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC) FWIW, this post has nothing top do with "offending" anyone, it has to do with real likely damage to Wikipedia itself. Collect (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The project is still out there. You can debate it's merits and how to improve it, or what should or shouldn't be included on it, at WT:CRAPWATCH. Again, this is one of the multiple reasons to publish this in the Signpost. The Crapwatch won't be going away. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Like others here, I'd encourage you to change the name of the project to something less offensive, even though it's only very mildly offensive, given that you could name it something just as descriptive (or moreso, even) without causing offense. Someone suggested BaloneyWatch and I kind of like that. But that's a discussion for another place. With respect to the Signpost, this is a good piece about a worthwhile project, and it would be quite unfortunate if the eds choose not to run it because you have to use the word "crap", repeatedly but in context, to talk about it. I mean, it's not like you called it the Fuck You And Your Shitty Sources Too Initiative. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
• Recommend intro As a matter of style for the anticipated audience, I recommend a first paragraph which in 3-4 sentences says (1) what the project is (2) why anyone should care (3) how someone can use the tool. Many readers will only read the first paragraph. I am not concerned about potential controversy about the name. Maybe there could be a disclaimer that publications featured in the tool are not necessarily bad, but only that they tripped an algorithm seeking what is bad. Everyone should understand that there are many bad publications, and everyone should sympathize with the limits of any system trying to identify the problems. This tool seems like it provides the level of quality which is a norm in Wikipedia's experimental, anyone can edit space. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Bluerasberry. The name is not that important, it can always be changed later. The important thing is to give users a useful tool - once users look at it and use it, then they may make helpful suggestions for improvement, and it can be tweaked to become a better tool. Without a wider audience, ideas for improvements won't be so forthcoming. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Holy crap! The decision is about where I started it. I see a small majority to publish it right now. There have been a lot of issues brought up that I hadn't thought of before. In short, IANAL but I don't see a trademark issue or similar, but labeling a reliable academic journal as crap could be a legal problem. There are two issues - 1 whether to call the project crapwatch and 2 whether to include an article here.
  • Let me propose something a bit different, at this regrettably late date. A short new article titled "Should we cut the crap?" that asks readers for input based on
    • what are the community standards for use of "bad words" in the Signpost
    • would it be better to change the name of crapwatch to something different (let's call it xxxwatch for now - which is not a half-bad alternative)
    • the _watch project would get some good input and avoid making a mistake now (if that's the outcome of the community feedback), it would also get some exposure in general now.
    • when the possibly-adjusted name come out, or if it stays the same, the article can be adjusted (or not) and published then for additional exposure.

Any thoughts? @Headbomb: Would you like to write it, or should I? 3 paragraphs! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Well that was an embarrassing edit conflict. I'm good to go with Headbomb's change to SourceWatch. Thanks to all for the feedback. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• A very nice article, SourceWatch definitely merits some wider attention by now. (I'm happy that you decided to change the name, in the end, since 'WP:CRAPWATCH' does sound more like a link to one of those many mediocre essays hidden deep in Wikipedia, rather than the carefully crafted beast tool it is.) As for the article, I guess I may a bit too late, but I'd suggest removing or shortening the long citation example, it's very unattractive and doesn't add much. Perhaps also you could mention that you have already used the compilation to fix quite a few questionable citations yourself (maybe you could add a sentence after "it was a good start" and break the paragraph after, as it gets long already). WT:SourceWatch is a redlink. Tokenzero (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The long-ish citation is, IMO, needed to illustrate what exactly the bot looks for. We could say simply the |journal= parameter of citation templates, without examples, but an example adds a lot for the non-technically inclined/more visual people.

I suppose I could add a lot of cleanup has already taken place. Doesn't add much, but it is topical. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I will admit I am late to the party but... what the crap? Why the crap are you giving Headbomb so much crap over this crap? I honestly don’t think this crap is worth getting worked up over. I’m not suggesting we print whatever crap writers throw at us—that profanity-laced op-ed someone linked somewhere IMO suggests crappy editorial judgment and I hope the new editor-in-chief will not publish crap like that, because if they did, it would result in the Signpost being crapped on even more in the comments section than it already has been. (Of course, the New York Times has been publishing far worse crap lately, but that doesn't mean we should copy them.) That said, I think voluntarily renaming Crapwatch is smart, as it will likely result in it being taken more seriously. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 21:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
• While SourceWatch is a more presentable name than CrapWatch, I don't think the word crap is remotely offensive enough to warrant withholding an article from The Signpost. — Newslinger talk 01:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration report

Hi. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Arbitration report needs a lot of work, and I don't think I'm going to be able to do it in time. I added all of the links to the activity this month (there is a lot) - can someone else take over writing the report? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll help. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Thanks. Also, for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/News and notes, I believe that we wanted to include a piece about the shutdowns? I don't know anything about them, but I agree it should probably be included --DannyS712 (talk) 04:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

(EC) @DannyS712:  Done. Up to you if you want to keep your name on it or not. I'd be fine with you keeping your name there, since you helped a lot with collecting these things. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Thanks - if I have time to contribute anything, I'll try. I ~think~ I've finished the news and notes (other than the section that someone else needs to write) and am now focusing on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Technology report. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: well, I won't take News and Notes as well since I don't speak German. Plus I've written three pieces (well, hopefully three pieces, Smallbones has some reticence to publish something related to one of Wikipedia's newest efforts to identify crappy sourcing in our articles) already. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Okay - if you want to help with the tech report I don't mind at all --DannyS712 (talk) 04:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Well right now, since the publication of the Crapwatch piece seems uncertain, I need to focus my efforts on finding alternatives to publicize it if The Signpost refuses to publish it out of a fear to offend. Way too much effort (thousands of man hours) have been put in that project to have it die here. I was helping with the others pieces to clear up other editor's schedule to have this published on time, since it was relatively late submission. But I never even dreamed it would be remotely possible that The Signpost would decline to report on it at all. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Ready to publish

@Chris troutman: I've been marking pieces are ready to publish (e.g. they look good, have been copy edited, content seems final), but I admit I don't really know if they are 'technically' ready to publish, with respects to the templates and the like. Could you take a look? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: The approval process goes through the EiC. I generally don't look at anything until the EiC says it's ready, at which point I begin. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: I'm not asking you to review the content here. We've got a new EIC and new people being involved. Just asking you to confirm that pages are 'well formatted', or if it was premature to mark them as ready to publish. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Yes, I think that was premature. I don't think it advisable for any contributor to mark their own piece ready. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

It should be an exciting issue

But not too exciting I hope. The real world has hit me smack dab in the face (no details, sorry), and I'd certainly appreciate all the help possible to get this out. Sunday, March 31, at 10 pm NY Time would be perfect for me as a publishing date. If we can't get it out then, I'd almost have to wait a week to satisfy the Real World God.

Just a run down of what we have and what needs to be done. I'll update this for awhile until everything is in the template.

• From the editor - please copyedit it. I'm satisfied with it personally and hope that the staff can agree it more-or-less reflects the overall view of the staff.
• Special report an excellent article that I haven't officially seen yet, but am totally comfortable with. Now posted, I'll take a look.
• Humour - The Epistolary Of Arthur 37, maybe a bit more copyediting, check blurb
• In focus - SourceWatch, needs copyediting & a bit more editing
• Forum - a pro&con about firearms articles and violence. I need to do a lot of editing and write a good blurb. Sorry for the delay @Springee and Dlthewave:
• News and notes - on the blackouts and the EU Copyright Directive passing - nothing done except research yet, unfortunately it will have to just compile outside sources, but I'm comfortable that it will be tailored for our editors at least. I have some excellent material from Czech and Slovakian Wikipedians on how the blackouts worked there, but it may be a bit dated. Also a good German cartoon. Obviously needs a lot of work, but it's more than do-able. I am hopeful that we'll find a good hard-core reporter for this column in the future.
• News from the WMF - I'll switch the WMF blog from the old version about the blackout to the new statement about the passing of the EU Directive. I'd like help formatting this.
• In the media - almost done, will need copyediting. There's an interesting issue with citing a Breitbart story (yes) written by our own banned editor, The Devil's Advocate. [3]. I'll try to take care of this as soon as I'm done here.
• Arbitration report - looks good, I'll still have to check everything of course.
• Discussion report - looks good, I'll still have to check everything of course.
• From the archives - ditto
• Traffic report - we just got the 4th week, so that needs to be copyedited. Needs blurb and final check
• Technology report - nothing that I'm an expert at, can somebody give me an opinion on whether this is close to being ready?

So that looks like at least 11 stories. Did I miss anything? It's less than last month's 13 stories, but that doesn't bother me. It might be a bit unbalanced with commentary over news. Comments (and help) welcome. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Smallbones: I moved my SourceWatch piece to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Special report by accident. I note that User:Bluerasberry moved something to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In focus without going through Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions. How do you want to proceed here. Swap the two pieces? Was the Wiki Loves Pride piece the special report you hadn't seen? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Now switched. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Smallbones: by switching, I meant we could actually move SourceWatch piece to In Focus, and move the Pride piece to Special report, which seem the actual categories things should be in. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, I'm easy. Could you do the actual switching? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Yup, I'll take care of it. Or get someone else to do it if I run into issues. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

break 1

• We have a timely story at Wikipedia:GLAM/New Zealand Wikipedian at Large/Signpost article on mosque shootings from Giantflightlessbirds andSchwede66. This needs to be edited and we need a place for it, but I think we have a story of international interest here. We have a couple of days, right? Can anyone advise where a story like this should go, if it is a part of a broader page? Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

My guess would be News and notes Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Will do. Just doing final edits. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

NandN is perfect. Put it at the top for now. I added images. Re:Commons. NandN can't publish opinions, but straight facts can be more powerful much of the time. My only concern is that this takes away from what should be the real story. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I've tried to balance the facts with commentary, but the commentary has to stay. Check the current version and if it's too editorial for NandN run it somewhere else. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you get quotes from somebody else (user names are fine). That way you are reporting the fact that somebody else has an opinion. We'd need somebody for a balancing view. I'll see if I can dig somebody up. We have too much commentary already for this issue, but it is perfect for NandN. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I've added a couple of sentences on my personal experience (wrt mosque shootings) to this. Not entirely sure whether this flows well. But I guess it could be an interesting reflection. I have tons of photos that I'll eventually upload. Also from the school strike that I'm referring to. Schwede66 01:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Tech report would usually have another lead story or two, and needs the userscripts section filled (e.g. see previous issue). I'll take a look later tonight, probably not too much work to get it ready for publication. Featured content, which I started this morning, is mostly ready – just needs the top/bottom placeholders image to be replaced (or removed), counts filled in, and a quick copyedit. I'll also try to get this done tonight - Evad37 [talk] 09:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
• I'm considering the options on the New Zealand story. It really does seem perfect to me for News and notes, but I don't like putting commentary there. The commentary addresses a very real issue that I've heard about many times, but it does distract from the real news - the shootings and Wikipedians reactions - and makes placement difficult. The story will be in this issue. The only questions are how and where.

Staff feedback would be much appreciated. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Smallbones: Like every month, we'll also have a "'Recent research" section that I'm taking responsibility of curating, as usual. (I left this note earlier at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom#Article status - but it seems people prefer to coordinate on this talk page instead?)

We'll have something publishable by the writing deadline (although this issue will be shorter than the last one; some promised contributions will likely not make it and need to go into next month's issue). Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)