← Newsroom

WP:POST/SUBMIT

Submission Desk

The Signpost (talk  · chat)
About Archives Subscribe
Newsroom (talk) Coordination Submissions Suggestions
Writing Content + resources Formatting (cheatsheet) Style Technical (talk)
Recent changes: main · talk
Newsletters
v t e

Please propose Signpost stories you want to write (or have already begun writing). Submitted stories are published subject to the approval of the Editor-in-Chief, JPxG. We value the involvement of Wikipedians, and appreciate your submissions. If you have ideas or questions that don't fit neatly into this framework, don't hesitate to address us on our user talk pages, by email, or as a last resort, on the general Signpost talk page.

The Signpost's content guidelines may be useful to aspiring writers. We encourage you to contact us early in the process of developing a story. Different writers have varying levels of interest in editorial input, and we pride ourselves on finding the right balance with each writer; but in most cases, a brief discussion early on can help all parties shape our expectations, and can help produce a strong finished piece. We aim to support Wikimedians wishing to share news with their peers, and look forward to working with you.

Status: V ?
Unreviewed

• Submission: User:Schierbecker/Wikiality
• Column: Humour
• Author: Schierbecker
• Discussion:
  

On the perils of believing everything you read online. This is partially inspired by the Stephen Colbert Wikiality bit and also a short story by B. J. Novak. Written with quite a bit of assistance from ChatGPT.

Humour is hard! This is a much better first try than the large majority that I've seen. Different people have different senses of humour than others, so I'll encourage others to join in and give their opinions, but I'll suggest that it should be rejected and you should be encouraged to try again. Some aspects of my opinion. Wikiality is a 20 year old concept - I doubt that even Colbert thinks it is relevant now. Also using the real name Jimmy Wales is problematic, using a different name - even if everybody will recognize it as J.W. avoids most of these problems. The problems? Jimmy would never do and think what you have him doing and thinking. He might rightly be offended. Colbert wouldn't have as many problems - he's an entertainer and people realize that what he does on the screen isn't the real him. But he should actually say something funny! Also using ChatGBT, IMHO, should be avoided. But that's just quibbling - pick a different topic and send us your next try. Sincerely, Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Status: V ?
Unreviewed

• Submission: Invisible in the Hyperlink Network https://medium.com/p/90fbbaf7d182
• Column: TDB
• Author: OpenSexism
• Discussion:
  This piece is about the Wednesday Index, which has used PAC’s Wikidata tool to measure the gender diversity in the biographies linked from a set of 26 English Wikipedia pages — from ‘Reality’ to ‘Universe’, ‘Science’ to ‘Justice’ —for the past two years to get a sense for both the extent of citation bias on Wikipedia and how quickly it changes. In addition to data visualizations and discussion, the piece links to related research and the two previous posts about the Index. After I published this piece on Medium, I was referred to the Signpost, as it has a large audience in the Wikipedia community. I read the submission guidelines and understand that you prefer to work with writers earlier in the writing process, but I wanted to touch base to see if there was a place for the work in your publication. OpenSexism (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Status: V ?
Needs clarification

• Submission: User:Kazamzam/sandbox/Wiki Fixup Projects
• Column: WikiProject report
• Author: Kazamzam
• Discussion:
  This piece is about the efforts, obstacles, struggles, and successes of editors working on projects like WP:ORPHAN and WP:URA. Kazamzam (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kazamzam I'd be curious about what kind of events these projects work on, e.g. drives, and why do individuals affiliate with the projects, when many people engage in these activities uncoordinated? I like your focus/question on bots for example. Choosing multiple projects to profile is atypical, so clarity why you choose the projects you did, would make sense, for example why not copyrighters guild, NPP, AfC (other than fact they're active?) ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kazamzam also check out the archive for past inspiration, specifically Article rescue squadron. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Kazamzam: This looks like a good outline; if you'd like to flesh it out more I would be happy to run it. Let us know (here or at the Newsroom) if you'd like any support with anything. jp×g🗯️ 01:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Status: V ?
Unreviewed

• Submission:
• Column: Book review
• Author: Sgerbic
• Discussion:
  

I have written a review of Stephen Harrisons new book "The Editors" and would like to submit for publication here in The Signpost. This is my first attempt to submit to the newsletter and if I am doing this incorrectly I apologize.Sgerbic (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sgerbic. Do you have a link to the draft that you'd like to include here? –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have it saved in a word doc, can I email it to someone? Sgerbic (talk) 05:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A good spot for it might be your userspace. You can create any page you want if you prefix it with User:Sgerbic/. So for example, User:Sgerbic/Book review of The Editors. See above for more examples :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sgerbic: Post soon if you want review for the next issue. Otherwise no big deal, can go into following issue. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'm traveling for a few more days and then I will when I get to my computer.Sgerbic (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've made the User:Sgerbic/Book review of The Editors live. Now what happens? Sgerbic (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a valuable topic for the Signpost. Looking forward to reading the review!

Note that the book is not published yet ("Available August 6th" according to this post by the author, which btw also has some interesting background about the book's genesis that might be worth mentioning).

I know that pre-order numbers are considered an important signal in the US book market (hypothesized to have considerable influence on the eventual overall sales), which means that publishers and authors expend considerable effort to drive up attention before publication and create pre-order incentives. Still, I think it would serve Signpost readers better if we publish this review only when the book is actually available to the public. In any case, you might want to disclose that the review is based on an advance copy.

By the way, the "Editorial Reviews" section of the book's Amazon page and the author's own website already highlight a blurb attributed to the Signpost:

“The great Wikipedia novel. There’s a new adventure on almost every page, and it’s hard to stop reading as you fall down the rabbit hole.”

It appears that this quote is taken from a brief note that Smallbones wrote three and a half years ago in Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-11-01/In_the_media#Odd bits, referring an earlier work-in-progress version of the book (then tentatively titled "Infodemic", with Five sample chapters [having been] available here).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC) Updated blurb attribution HaeB (talk) 23:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good and has potential, may be condign to run this alongside the release of the book as HaeB says. jp×g🗯️ 09:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - I am finished fussing with my article and have uploaded a photo of me and my reading helpers to WikiMediaCommons if you want to use it with The Signpost. Thanks all. Sgerbic (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Status: V ?
Unreviewed

• Submission: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Drafts/Disinformation report
• Column: Disinformation Report
• Author: Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist
• Discussion:
  

The piece was previously discussed above under Anti-trans misinformation on Wikipedia - the premise is an investigation into James Cantor, who's been making headlines for FRINGE anti-trans advocacy in the last few months and edited trans topics on Wikipedia for a decade. I've incorporated all the suggestions made in previous discussions and hope it's not too late to go into this week's issue - my apologies for the lateness I bricked my computer Wednesday morning and it took me 36 hours to fix it. I think the piece has been significantly improved by the feedback I received and I can make any additional improvements necessary! Thanks and best regards, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles - I see you haven't been active in a hot minute, I hope this ping finds you well! Personally, it's a coin-flip for me whether extended wiki-breaks are due to good things going on IRL or extra stress there, so I hope it's the former in your case. I'm pinging you because another former arb weighed in on this piece[1] and I'd like your input for it since AFAICT you were the leading arb proposing sanctions for Cantor.

1. Do you believe the committee erred in how it handled Cantor? If so, how/why did it err?
2. Do you believe it speaks to broader issues with systemic bias and/or queerphobia on Wikipedia?
3. Do you believe there are measures the community/committee can take to prevent such abuse in the future?

No worries if you don't want to comment (but I'd appreciate a heads up so I know not to wait on it lol). Best regards, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:Query This might sound slightly odd, but what is the evidence that User:James Cantor is actually James Cantor? The person had a Wikipedia article and was notable. What is to say that the editor was a random person using his name? On Talk:James Cantor, there is a banner at the top which reads: The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject. Your piece says that User:James Cantor is James Cantor as a lesser known fact. Wouldn't it have been counterproductive for him to edit under his name and push his views? (cc: @JPxG). Svampesky (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC) He confirmed it was him in an interview, my bad. Svampesky (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [reply]

• Continued support I supported the previous submission titled "Anti-trans misinformation on Wikipedia" and I support this one as well. I have made more than 50 editorial suggestions to this draft over a few years, and YFNS has both incorporated my suggestions and worked through the meaning of them. Time spent does not equal merit to publish, but this has my personal support. I give that support in part because I especially call for LGBT+ related submissions through WikiProject LGBT+ and Wikimedia LGBT+, where I am active.

I get that this piece is loaded with surprising takes but I confirm the premises that I note. These include that Cantor as expert paid presenter on anti-trans ideology was active as a Wikipedia editor in promoting that ideology, and that he violated basic wiki editing norms including by using sockpuppets, and that sources indicate that his testimony had impact in the media environment to give scientific credence to anti-trans perspectives. I also recognize that in this case, ArbCom became a gatekeeper in ruling how Wikipedia included this info, and I agree with YFNS that something about the relationship between ArbCom and contentious information is systemically over-focused on escalating conduct as the key issue when here, the result was Wikipedia's overall promotion of anti-trans content.

My longer term hope for this piece is that it opens our editorial and content review processes more.

There are so many claims here that the overall piece is challenging to address, so again, I am personally backing it if anyone returns wanting a particular Signpost contributor to take responsibility and blame. That said, Wikipedia is a crowdsourced project and neither I nor anyone else can catch all the challenges in a work like this, and I hope that after we find a path to publishing this in some form, more editors propose better ways to explain that case, ArbCom, and the extremely fast-changing social trends in global conversations on gender.

If any other editors have demands or requests for getting this article in better shape for the Signpost to publish then I will work through those requests with YFNS. Thanks for considering. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Status: V ?
Unreviewed

• Submission: —
• Column: WikiProject Report
• Author: Joe Roe
• Discussion: I'm playing with the idea of putting together a WikiProject report with a slight spin on the usual format. Instead of interviewing participants from a single project, I'd like to get a representative each from some of the most successful WikiProjects (I'm thinking WP:WOMRED, WP:MILHIST, WP:MED – suggestions welcome) to discuss how you grow and maintain activity in a project over the long term.

I've nothing concrete yet. Before starting anything, I wanted to check whether that format deviation would be okay, and make sure I'm not stepping on any toes – I'm not sure if there's a designated subeditor for the WikiProject reports column? – Joe (talk) 09:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe: Go for it! While we tend to follow precedent here, we also follow WP:Bold a bit more that other areas in Wikipedia. One Signpost article isn't going to break anything. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe: Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProject watchers is one measure of the biggest. Wikipedia:WikiProject Contents and Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam are not so well known. Besides the ones you named,Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games, Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics, and Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies have their influence.

Among all of these, d:Wikidata:WikiProject Video games is the only one to have major participation and organization in Wikidata. Medicine, LGBT+, and math get a lot of data administrative questions without major content creation, and for military and women in red it is the reverse with a lot of Wikidata content creation but less administrative development. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]