Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom: Difference between revisions

Please use this page for discussion related to the upcoming issue. For suggestions of a topic to cover, see Suggestions. For proposals for a feature, see Submissions. For general or technical issues, praise, queries, or complaints, see Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost.

This is the talk page for discussing Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Discussion with no replies may be archived after one week. To prevent discussion for the upcoming being archived prematurely, add {{subst:DNAU|30}} (for 30 days without archiving; a different number of days may be specified). Archives of newsroom discussions from before May 2018 can be found at archives of the Signpost talk page.

Next issue deadlines: Writing: 26 October 23:59 UTC (-2084 days ago; -8336%) Publishing: 28 October 23:59 UTC (-2082 days ago; -7711%)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Navigation

• Since your timeline starts in 2018, has anyone with administrator access managed to track down the even earlier version from 2014, which was deleted due to copyright infringement? It would be great to have information about this beyond hearsay.

I do agree with your points about getting Wikipedia wrong, and for anyone who'd like to check I made a check of physics, chemistry and medicine laureates for the last 10 years with links to their earliest Wikipedia histories here.

But if you look at the earliest versions of those biographies, a number of them were in much worse shape than the May 2018 Strickland lemma that was deleted. I think that is an important point here: The standards have changed between the early days and now. That bias means that those who wrote the first bios of (mostly male) scientists back then face far lower hurdles then those who, whether as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red or independently, work on including more biographies of women.

That doesn't mean we should relax our standards anew, but I think it should mean we look very closely at the existing standards. And particularly, when it comes to academics, the problem of having reliable external sources is one we ought to address. Why, for instance, is the website of an established university not considered a reliable source for basic facts from exactly that university, such as who is a full professor, and who is an associate professor? The university website is less likely to get that wrong than a newspaper article, I would think. Similar with fellowships or officerships of a scientific society – why are the society's web pages not considered a reliable source for that? These instances seem to take the requirement for independent sources too far, and in the process make it more difficulties for those addressing the gender gap to create new biographies (even of persons notable according to our own criteria). Markus Pössel (talk) 11:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC) copied from Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Op-ed Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In case GreenMeansGo has not seen this comment, this ping should ensure that. Markus Pössel, I have seen similar sentiments expressed before, especially recently due to this Strickland incident. If you are interested, you can submit a piece about your opinions in this regard, even as an appeal of sorts to change the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (academics) if you think they should be. Sure, you can just start a talk page discussion there, and I notice that you have (permanent link), but a piece in The Signpost may help publicize your position and bring further attention to the matter. That may be especially worthwhile if you expect the aforementioned discussion to persist into November, particularly if you intend to initiate an RfC about it in November. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 17:37, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping and the link! I'll be glad to submit an opinion piece; might that not be seen as canvassing, though? I would like to make people aware of my proposal, but I haven't participated in policy discussions much, and want to be sure to do things right. Any advice would be greatly appreciated! Markus Pössel (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Activities considered canvassing are those that reach out to an audience that you presuppose is aligned with your point of view, as opposed to the community-at-large point of view. Publishing an op-ed in The Signpost is reaching out to the community-at-large by definition, so you're OK wrt canvassing. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply! It would be campaigning though, not? "Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner." as per WP:CAN? Or are signposts op-ed OK in that respect? (Sorry for continuing to ask questions, just trying to make sure.) Markus Pössel (talk) 05:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the best response is that after all WP:CAN is a guideline to which exceptions may apply. A Signpost op-ed is certainly one of those exceptions, standing with common practice to voice one's opinions on one's own talkpage, Jimbo's talkpage, a user essay, and so on. I think if WP:CAN were followed to the letter, and opinions could not be expressed on-wiki, it would really not benefit the user community. At the same time, I'd rather not see op-eds that explicitly say "go to this RfC and vote this way"; rather, a more elevated discussion of consideration of policy and practices, abstracted from one particular venue. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What follows is a longer, more general, and likely superfluous explanation, Markus Pössel. A summary is below. I decided to not reply with only the summary because it seems that your concerns are about avoiding impropriety in policy discussions more generally, so a more general explanation that contextualizes canvassing may best address those concerns.

My understanding of canvassing is that it is a behavior defined by distorting the consensus-building process to one's favor through specific and targeted attempts at notifying those sympathetic to one's positions. This is why canvassing is explained with examples such as creating sockpuppets, soliciting sympathizers, soliciting based on stated affiliations, and gathering support through off-Wiki channels. A related activity is forum shopping, which is the process of repeatedly initiating discussions in different areas of the project with the intent of achieving a more favorable outcome. All of these are types of tendentious editing. What unite all these behaviors are the disregard for community norms, particularly about building consensus, and methods of gaming the system in the pursuit of one's own beliefs and interests. It is not simply the pursuit of one's own beliefs and interests, which can manifest in advocacy and conflict-of-interest editing, since both of those can still, in principle, occur within community norms and without gaming the system or abusing the process. It is thus the behavior of distorting consensus-building through specific and targeted solicitation itself that characterizes canvassing.

Although a Signpost piece can, in principle, be part of a larger pattern of tendentious editing, a prior pattern of tendentious editing is necessary to contextualize the piece as such. Absent that, I do not see how a Signpost piece advocating a particular position or change within the policies and guidelines qualifies as any of the problematic behavior above. Such a piece better resembles an appeal to Jimbo, or a post at the village pump, or one of the many essays that exist. All the aforementioned likewise can be part of a larger tendentious pattern, but only if there is such a pattern.

In any case, none of those are examples of canvassing since they are general appeals to the community and not targeted notifications of specific users or groups. You are not selecting who receives the appeal, nor is the selection process favorable to your position, nor is your "non-neutral" appeal sent only to users who are likely to support your position (which is what the "campaigning" part of canvassing is about). To illustrate this, consider how these terms are used in politics more generally (from where they originate): canvassing is a practice in political campaigns wherein one knocks on doors and targets people based on their sympathies, which is different from writing a sympathetic piece in a newspaper or magazine. In the context of wikipolitics, publishing in The Signpost is the latter; soliciting support from Wikipedian scientists and academics is the former.

Ultimately, if you still feel uncomfortable about it, you can seek further input at WT:CANVAS, the village pump, the Teahouse, or wherever else you think is best.

(TL;DR) "Campaigning" is about targeted solicitation. "Canvassing" in Wikipedia derives from canvassing as a concept in politics more generally; likewise with campaigning. What characterizes canvassing and campaigning is the targeted selection of potential sympathizers in support of a position or cause. Publishing a sympathetic piece in a newspaper or magazine (which The Signpost is) does not qualify as that for the same reason why, in politics, opinion pieces in newspapers are not considered to be canvassing: the appeal is general and does not select who receives the appeal. If you still feel unsure, though, feel free to ask for clarification in the places mentioned above. For all I know, I am entirely wrong about all this and missing something important. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Bri for the information, and Nøkkenbuer for the detailed explanation – both were very helpful to me! Markus Pössel (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...and I have now submitted User:Markus_Pössel/ProposalStricklandCase as an opinion piece, as per your advice. Thanks again! Markus Pössel (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the submission, Markus Pössel! I have read it in full and find it to be a specific and clear explanation of your position. To me, at least, I do not read it as at all problematic with respect to the related discussion you initiated about it, either. Nonetheless, my opinion is my own alone and The Signpost is not, so I am pinging Bri to ensure it is seen. What do you think, Bri? In the mean time, feel free to continue changing and adding to it at your discretion, even (and especially) if it is included in the next issue. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 23:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the positive feedback! Markus Pössel (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Much of this is, and will continue to be under discussion by the wider community. See for example Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability is geared towards the white male perspective. As of yet, how we frame and define the issue, and what, if anything, we decide to do about it, is still very much up in the air.

I have added a footnote to that detailed list to the article as it breaks it down very neatly. Nice job. GMG^talk 17:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the footnote! You might want to add that my list only covers the last 10 years, though. Markus Pössel (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dual op-ed?

I think Markus' piece might fit well as a dual op-ed with GMG's. They express rather different take-aways from the incident, one basically saying that the biographic article mechanisms worked fine as-is, the other calling parts into question. So: a point-counterpoint format. What do other Newsroom contributors think? - ☆ Bri (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with this.  pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 21:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This would make a lot of sense, as would a short editorial piece giving the Signpost’s own POV, or own comments. A triplet rather than a pair, or maybe a thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. A lot of ways to approach this. Qwirkle (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've prepared Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Op-ed as discussed. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except without a synthesis. Maybe I'll wax a little more poetic in the introductory blurb later. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, cool! Thanks for including the text in the op-ed! Markus Pössel (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is so much valuable information the above discussion that a future editorial can be created for the next issue. Barbara ✐  ✉ 12:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The pieces are illuminating viewpoints on English Wikipedia's process of article creation. They don't quite seem like a pair of point-counterpoint op-eds, though, as I don't think one is countering the other. They are examining different aspects of how articles are written with a sufficient level of sourcing to meet English Wikipedia's standards. Perhaps the introduction can just say something like This month's Op-ed presents two different views about the creation of a biography on Donna Strickland, the 2018 recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physics. isaacl (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Triple op-ed

We have another incoming contribution on Strickland from one of the newsroom folks, Chris troutman. I've had a quick look at it offline, and think it would be appropriate. It seems to make sense to include it in Op-ed column alongside the other two.

As far as what Isaac says above, maybe calling it "count-counterpoint" isn't so appropriate anymore, if it was in the first place. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After last issue's discussion, I thought I'd poll the team for how we ought to be handling controversies involving individuals. Is it fair to report on, e.g. administrator behavior that's at noticeboards? Something crossed my radar. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whether I'm still part of the Signpost or not, I've already said this several times (whether I am the target of scandal mongering journalism or not): the apathy to create content for the magazine should not be an excuse to turn the publication into a society tittle-tattle rag. And if its new team is nevertheless determined to turn it into a Tratschlappen anyway, why not do a whole page of reports of every single dispute from every noticeboard and talk page? Let The Signpost become the new Wikipediocracy. Why not? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can all agree that the above is not what the Signpost is, nor is it what we want it to be.  pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 12:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then people should practice what they preach. That said, I have noticed at least three important issues and developments around the movement that are each worthy of a full column for the next issue. Has no one else? (rhetorical question). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have a bit of a bold suggestion: let the readers decide. Rather than have those in the newsroom worry and wonder about it, ask the community to see what they prefer to read and what they prefer their magazine to cover. If the readers generally prefer reports about specific users dropped altogether, then so be it; if they just want coverage of events pertaining to stewards, arbitrators, and maybe administrators, then we can do that; if there is clear and overwhelming support for a new gossip column that also includes recapitulations of the juciest threads in the drama boards (I sure hope not), then, well, at least we know where the community stands.

My point is that we aren't writing (just) for ourselves, and this magazine isn't (just) for us, so there is no need in keeping this among us. Community consensus is more determinative and in-line with the wiki way than anything decided here, anyway. Simply pose the question in a section of one of the pieces, or even begin a new "Community feedback" feature (or revive "Community view" or "Forum") and ask it there, and we will hopefully have a clear answer by December.

As for this issue, however, I'm not sure. I'm not categorically opposed to it, but I prefer judging it on a case-by-case basis. Without the details, I personally am disinclined to judge. If the community is asked, however, a justification can be provided for either decision: we omitted such content this issue due to concerns expressed in the previous one, or we included such content anyway and readers can view them as examples of the content we mean. Either can work; both can also backfire. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 02:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will have limited time to contribute to issue 11. Hopefully some other contributors can finish copyediting and creating some of the missing sections. Again, would like to stick to the planned publication schedule. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to be available to copy-edit this issue, Bri, including the up to three new pieces that are apparently still under construction for it. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 23:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Issue theme/meme/inside joke

Issue 10's running gag maybe was "stigmergic" (wow, not even in my spell checker). We could keep going with something new in Issue 11? ☆ Bri (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how to keep it alive in any conspicuous way, though the first suggestion that came to my mind is for us to just sneak in the term at least once every issue somewhere among the pieces. If so, I know where to put it this issue. Really, though, such nefarious cabalism should not be done so transparently. I duly await this section being wikilinked from the archives if and probably when readers catch on or otherwise out our plans in the comments, whatever those plans become. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 23:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Upon rereading the section, I realize that you do not mean continuing mention of the spicy stigmergy. In that case, it seems that this issue's theme is already largely about Strickland, at least in terms of content. Other than some cringeworthy puns, I've got nothing. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 00:04, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the editor or editors

If anybody wants to take a turn writing "From the editors", please drop a note here. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps add all the (major) contributors this issue to the feature's byline? That might be especially appropriate if everyone adds their comments to the feature. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 23:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Opinion"

FYI

 – This section was refactored down at 23:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC).

I have some concerns about the "Opinion" piece, which hopefully Barbara can dispel. I am bringing this here rather than her user talk page since this pertains to The Signpost and a more general discussion may be due.

Specifically, my primary concern is that Wikipediocracy's copyright policy and licensing are unclear but appear to be permissive, at least insofar as its terms of service assign copyright to post authors along with the usual licensing legalese standard for such documents. The website's footer also contains the standard "Copyright © 2018 Wikipediocracy - All Rights Reserved by Authors".

Regardless, although Barbara is the author of the original blog post, is it a copyright concern to be publishing an updated but otherwise near-identical variant here? Additionally and relatedly, should a link to the original blog post be included in the piece? I am not opposed to the piece, but I don't want to leave these potential problems and concerns undiscussed either. So long as copyright is not a concern, and there is agreement on whether to include a link to the original blog post, I am fine with the piece. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 05:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC); edited at 06:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Actually, come to think of it, even if this technically counts as unlicensed content, doesn't the fact that Barbara herself republished it here under CC BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL by virtue of publishing the edit mean it (or that version, at least) is now irrevocably relicensed as such by the sole copyright owner? Therefore, there is no copyright concern? I assume so, but I might as well leave this up to discuss, anyway, since even just confirming the obvious here is worthwhile for the record. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 05:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one needs to stress, I'll just rewrite it. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 18:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So long as this is not a copyright concern, Barbara, I have no issue with the piece as it presently is. Like my addendum noted, the fact that you are the sole copyright owner and you republished the content here may be sufficient for that to qualify as you providing permission and effectively donating the copyrighted material. Had that occurred to me prior to my publishing the original post, I would have probably not done so. I do not regularly deal with copyright matters, however, and it being legally relevant instills extra caution. That is why I am hesitant to dismiss this as resolved.

What do you think, Bri? Is there no issue here? Or shall we summon someone else more familiar with copyright issues? What about linking to the original blogpost in the piece? —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 18:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia we generally require authors to keep track of copyright on their contribs. I think we should follow that and allow Barbara to correct the issue if she thinks that she relinquished copyright on her original text. I'm not a contract or copyright specialist and wouldn't feel comfortable making that determination for her. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've (cheerfully) re-written my piece but it is probably too long. If someone could go into the article and edit for brevity, copyrights will probably not be an issue. Barbara ✐  ✉ 12:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I regret initiating this discussion, given the fact that the copyright concerns appear to be undue. At least now I know what people mean by copyright paranoia being disruptive. In any case, since it appears that the copyright concerns may be undue, I am fine with the original piece. I am also fine with the current piece, though I apologize for stimulating its creation to resolve potentially undue copyright concerns.

If there are any legitimate concerns about copyright and we are not using the original piece for that reason, however, then we probably should treat this as any other copyright problem and delete those revisions. If not, then that is unnecessary. Given my commentary has already potentially been disruptive enough to otherwise unproblematic work, I will refrain from commenting on this matter any further and support whatever decision is made. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 18:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem from my perspective and the rewrite was 'fun'. Anyone can also edit the piece if you feel like it. I was concerned a little bit since my observance of copyrights has been criticized on ANI and so now I feel bit more at ease. I apppreciate the discussion and don't think it is disrupting at all. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 00:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 'fun'. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the original question, although it's moot now: if an author hasn't assigned copyright rights to someone else, then the author retains the right to make copies. (In theory an author can recreate the exact same text without copying it, but obviously that would be implausible for a text of any significant length.) If the terms of use of the other site doesn't include an explicit assignment of rights, there shouldn't be an issue. Publication on this web site provides a license to copy the contents from here, but plays no role in the right to copy contents from another site. (And re-writing can be good as it provides a chance to revisit and improve the original text :) isaacl (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About the piece itself, I suggest it be modified slightly to emphasize the new challenge of attributing information being narrated by a device, something that has become more widespread with the increasing popularity of assistants with a voice interface, rather than when commercialization arrived. As just one example, people have been selling compilations of Wikipedia pages related to one topic as self-published books for some time now. Some of them may provide attribution, some apparently do not (from what others have said; I haven't personally looked into it). isaacl (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, isaacl, and for confirming what I suspected. Regarding the slight modification, I am pinging Barbara since it is her work. She can even expand it further if she wants; it's not like it will be anywhere near the longest piece this month. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed changes

Given how much content is available this month, it seems that a revival of some irregular features will be necessary. I have been considering how to best organize all this and the following is what I propose:

• Move Barbara's opinion piece to "In focus".
• Add Charles Matthews' "Now Wikidata Is Six" submission (permanent link) as this issue's "Opinion" piece.
• Add Kudpung's "NPP needs you" submission (permanent link) as the "Special report" piece.
• Add WBG's report as a "Community view" piece, assuming a draft is submitted in time. See this discussion (permanent link) for context.
• Postpone republication of Wikipedia:No one cares about your garage band until next issue and replace it with Bradv's "Strickland incident", since I agree that it is important to include Bradv's perspective.
• Import "Why didn't Wikipedia have an article on Donna Strickland, winner of a Nobel Prize?" as the "Blog" of this issue.

The "Traffic report" (perhaps Acorri is interested?) and "Featured content" (any takers?) can also be included this issue. Although I understand that publication is less than four days away, I think we can achieve including all of the above. I, at least, am prepared to copy-edit it all, though anyone else willing to help is of course welcome. Frankly, even if the new issue needs to be delayed until 30 October, I think ensuring a packed issue with many features is worth doing so.

What does everyone think? Pinging Bri, Chris Troutman, and Evad37. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 16:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC); edited at 17:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to what you suggest, but I think this decision lies with Bri. I'm concerned that the Traffic Report hasn't been started yet, as that's a very timely report and (I thought) one of the more read pieces we publish. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, your input is important; thank you for providing it (and the third part of this issue's "Op-ed"!). It seems that, despite the increased interest in writing for The Signpost this issue due to recent events (both occurred and upcoming), there remains insufficient contributors to sustain publication of the more regular features. At this rate, the notion of a "regular feature" will disappear and the magazine will just publish whatever is available at the end of the month. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 17:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really in charge ... if two people think it's a good idea, let's go with it. Sorry I've been absent so much this interval; it's RL calling. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was proceeding with the changes, but ran into what I expected, Bri and Chris Troutman: I have moved "Opinion" to "In focus", but now cannot move "Special report" to "Opinion" or proceed with moving the special report submission over what will be the newly created redirect. If we are going to proceed with this, then it will need to be finished by someone who has the necessary privileges, such as an admin. Alternatively, I can submit technical move requests, but this is more complex a case than is usually brought there. Sorry about the mess. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 02:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right, Troutman has extendedmover, so he can do so when he's available. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 02:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have the privs too, will try to do it momentarily. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, the eyes tend to glaze over a bit when seeing such a robust list of bits. By the way, who has the script for importing the blog installed? I don't and, frankly, it is somewhat unclear to me how to install it; otherwise, I would do it myself. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 03:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The page moves should be done now. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic Report should be ready for copyedit. One section didn't have a clever header in the original. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WBG now has a nearly completed draft about the Bengali Wikipedia editor scandal, the one I mentioned can be published as a "Community view" piece above; for the record, I was informed at my talk page (permanent link). What do you think of the draft and including it in this issue, Bri and Chris Troutman?

Both WBG and I understand that it is not complete just yet, and needs some copy-editing and restructuring (the content can be collapsed and condensed into more paragraphic prose), both of which I can do; however, as the one who first suggested the piece and invited WBG to write it (permanent link), I support including it. This is not my decision, though, and understanding what you two (and anyone else reading this) think of this is important. Particularly, since both of you are far more experienced and familiar with The Signpost, I want to know if a report of this type and content is acceptable.

I will not be available for many hours, but will respond as soon as I am. In the meantime, I hope consideration is given to this piece. And yes, I do still intend to copy-edit the rest of the issue. The totality of my time on Wikipedia will be dedicated to doing so until publication. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 19:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I support including it, but it's far from ready. Most of that document could be boiled down to two paragraphs explaining that the user in question took money from the Government of Bangladesh to put copyvio stuff on bn-wiki. I'm concerned at the bottom where there are statements that WikiData and Commons are ignoring WMF Terms of Use. We need some real proof or we need clarification that admins at those projects aren't concerned about disclosure of paid editing. If we're reporting all those assertions as fact, I recommend someone perform some fact-checking before we run with it. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One of the concerns I had while reading the article—now deleted from the Test Wiki and available here—was the boldness of the claims coupled with unclear sourcing. Although WBG is fluent in Bengali (and familiar with this case), I am confident that around 100% of the usual Signpost readers and a majority of all readers are illiterate in the language (and totally ignorant of these events). That language barrier makes it difficult to verify the claims made in the article (I am also illiterate in Bengali); thus, the sourcing that is provided, but which is not in English, is difficult to check. That makes fact-checking a problem.

For example, some PDF links are provided in the article, but the documents are largely in Bengali (and machine translations of Bengali are incomprehensible), so they are frankly almost useless for those of us who do not understand the language. Consequently, for someone in my position (as a reader and editor), the author's claims cannot be verified with any confidence and so must be taken at face value. Add to this the fact that these events are not being reported in English-language sources—The Signpost seems to be first here if published—and the language barrier for verification becomes intractible.

Separately, there is also the fact that those PDFs contain sensitive personal information about a living person (namely the editor's phone number and personal email from 2015–17), which is why we have policies against using primary sources in such situations. (Those policies seem to extend to The Signpost as well, at least theoretically, so that further complicates the situation.) Unfortunately, I doubt there is a better source for this information, so we are stuck with either publicizing primary sources which contain emails and phone numbers or not sourcing those claims. Those claims are at the crux of this scandal, however, so simply removing them undermines the whole piece.

Given these circumstances, I am not sure how to proceed. The best suggestion I have is that WBG translate the relevant excerpts into English and quote them in the article, and to link to where they are finding their information. For example, which mailing list? What is the link for the email in the mailing list archive? Where did Commons locally override the mandatory paid editing disclosure stated in the Terms of Use? Once that is all provided, the translations can be used for verification. For the claims that are totally unverifiable, they can either be removed on those grounds or understood to be the opinions of the author (perhaps with a disclaimer at the top stating as much).

Ultimately, despite the news being fresher now than it will be in late November, it may be worthwhile to consider postponing this piece until next issue. That will give more time for developing this, too. I still support inclusion, even in this issue (which I think is achievable), and I frankly think scandals like this are worth the investigative journalism (and that The Signpost can benefit from that), but I am concerned about both the language barrier for verification and the sensitivity of the information in some of the sourcing. Regardless, if this piece is not published this issue, then frankly WBG should not wait until next issue; at that point, it may be better to publish the piece on Wikinews, where Wikipedia's policies and guidelines—including about living persons—do not apply. Then, The Signpost can prominently link to it in the next issue. Regardless of what is decided, I intend to help along the way.

With all that said, what do you think, Chris Troutman and anyone else reading this? So long as translated English excerpts and additional sourcing are added to the piece, will the report be acceptable for publication despite these other concerns? As for fact-checking, that will likely require either relying on WBG's translations or involving another bn-4+ editor. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 19:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Returning

• I am not aspiring to become a regular editorial team member again, but I have submitted one article for approval, done some CE on others, and left some status updates and notes in the table. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great to hear! Welcome back. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]