The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2019-03-31. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

“Tides”? —Floquenbeam (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Tides of March, a pun on Ides of March. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Just as a note, I think it's worth avoiding statements that give the impression ArbCom's public workflow represents all (or even a majority) of the work we handle. February was far from tame, I believe. It was just that most of our business occurred off-wiki that month. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: We don't publicize what you don't publicize. Perhaps ARBCOM could provide notes to The Signpost if there are concerns about reportage. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I've been writing this month's Arbcom report - anything I've missed? Its at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Arbitration report, and so far I've covered a policy amendment, 2 procedure changes, 2 case rejections, 1 new case, 1 other motion, and 1 new bot currently in trial. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting you can/should report on things that aren't public. All I'm suggesting is that it's worth avoiding statements that suggest this is all we do, or that ArbCom has been particularly busy/idle (since it's impossible to know that). There have been months where are on-wiki workload has been busy while our overall activity has been less than normal, and there have also been months where our on-wiki workload has been basically nil while our overall activity has been extremely high. (That last case often occurs in January, as many long-term banned editors decide to appeal their bans to a new Committee in hopes they'll get a different result.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

That seems difficult. ARBCOM won't reveal what it does off-wiki but does not want to appear to be doing little, if anything, based upon what we see on-wiki. We could avoid making statements about "a fairly tame February" but it seems natural to compare this month's activity compared with last month's activity. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

It's more that we can't say what we're doing off-wiki, in almost all cases. If we could, we would be doing it on-wiki. We could perhaps bring back publishing the number of appeals we get in a month, which I think was done once upon a time. Not a bad idea. But often, the most time consuming things we do definitely can't be disclosed on-wiki in any meaningful way unless you want statements like "We talked about something for an entire 150 email thread, but it was private, so we can't tell you what it was." That seems unhelpful. As for your last statement, I suppose you can choose to do what's natural or what's accurate, and it's up to the Signpost which they care about. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for writing this. Just nominated the Ardern photo for FP after seeing this piece.

My typical response to comments about "over-vigilant Commons editors" is to urge cutting them some slack for devoting a lot of time to a mostly thankless task of dealing with complicated copyright-related rules most people don't have a great understanding of (freedom of panorama and de minimis being good examples). As with Wikipedia, that a copyright violation was made unintentionally or for this or that reason doesn't do much to mitigate its inevitable removal, but on Commons there are several different rules with many variations based on country, and the person doing the maintenance work is much more likely not to have the same first language as the uploader, so it can be hard.

But there's a reason I said that's just "my typical response" -- because I think you make an excellent point about context. We often lump all copyvios, original research, unsourced content, etc. together in terms of how we react. We revert on Wikipedia or tag for deletion on Commons, then leave a template (or something along those lines). Sometimes we vary that process based on assessments of good faith/bad faith. The subject of the contribution can provide context sometimes, but it's more likely to provide the context leading us to be harsher (original research added to some particularly controversial topic, for example). What we don't often do is consider context in the way you've described -- that for some topics like this, a contribution may be a means of coping with or making sense of terrible events and complicated feelings. And for that, we don't have a Twinkle template. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• Some of those deletion debates are still ongoing.--Auric talk 23:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• "Wikipedia is the first draft of history". Unfortunately, it was not designed to be the first draft of history. Wikipedia was built to be the final draft, subject to occasional alterations. This is why I generally shy away from current events. And yet, when things like this happen, people turn to our encyclopedia, as we've often aggregated the most information about a given event than any other outlet in one page. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: - I flinched when I read that line - for exactly the same reason. And the same awareness - we are both not suited nor designed for the job, but we do it (and may be preferable to any other option). Nosebagbear (talk) 22:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

There are hundreds of websites with "Wiki" in their name. Only a few of them are within our movement. How should we clarify which are with us without confusing the wider world? Many of the suggestions here are really good IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• I agree that Wikimedia Commons should become Wikicommons. Rorix the White (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • This has the disadvantage of not addressing the question @Doc James: has raised. It's just another thing that starts with "Wiki" like Wikipolitica, Wikipotter, Wikitree, or Wikileaks. It still needs adding something to indicate that it's part of the Wikipedia complex, empire, conglomerate, whatever, instead of an independent unaffiliated enterprise. However, we could decide that the question is not important for sites that don't try to face the world; only insiders need know. That would apply to Metawiki and perhaps Wikidata and even Commons. Unless of course the various sites want to appeal directly to the general public as well, instead of being only back offices that outsiders would learn about if they became earnestly curious. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I only meant for simplicity's sake, and uniformity. A banner or note at the bottom (or top) of every page may do the job, especially if it is more of a "back office" as you describe it. Until I joined D&D Wiki, I had no idea that Mediawiki or Meta-Wiki existed (both are occasionally referenced over there), and until I joined Wikipedia, I had no idea about Commons or other "background" projects, suggesting that they may not need much more than a note, as only "insiders" normally know about them. Rorix the White (talk) 13:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
      • But should more than insiders know about Commons? IMO yes. Additionally one can use the term "Wikipedia" in a broader sense than just an "encyclopedia". For example when I tried to recruit partners for "Wikimedia Canada" I would often be corrected "you mean Wikipedia Canada right?". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
        • @Doc James: I suggested having a WMF-made primer for press/partners to help them understand things. You might have relevant feedback there for that idea. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
          • User:Headbomb an excellent suggestion no matter what we do with naming. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
            • @Doc James: I suggest you comment there too, given the WMF's propensity to sometimes be hard of hearing / not realize what would actually help people 'in the field'. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
              • Will point them to this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
      • @Rorix the White: We start with a simple naming question and find ourselves wading into strategic concerns. For years I've been as much a Commonser handling pictures, as a Wikipedian handling words. Over there, some of my colleagues think our service to outside publishers is as important as our role as the picture bureau of Wikipedia. My view of the proper balance has been more the "back office" one, yet I'm pleased that a couple hundred of my photos have been used by local news outlets. I figure, if Commons is to face outward, then distributing press kits to a thousand other organizations is both too big an effort and too little an accomplishment, as the publicity bureau (huh, do we have one?) will surely miss many. Umm, and then we can get into Wikivoyage which might be much more robust if it could take more advantage of the famous brand. The naming question has many tentacles. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
        • I can see the potential there. That makes sense.Rorix the White (talk) 03:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

This page has a download size of 5.1 MB (per [1]). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Or reading this page alone would cost a typical reader roughly the same as buying an actual newspaper. Why the giant images? ‑ Iridescent 16:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I wish I could buy a paper (in the UK) for 8 US cents! Are newspapers as cheap as even the top price (Canada) anywhere? Does it work the same on the mobile site? My question is - why the tiny tiny images everywhere else on WP? Johnbod (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Pigsonthewing, Iridescent, and Johnbod: I've been caught unaware here. I had no idea this was a problem. Looking at the above sites it seems to say that the "cost" of this page in the US in USD is $0.47. Can that be right? My internet bill is bundled with other things and even considering that seems to be intentionally scrambled and re-scrambled by the provider. Still, I must view 1,000s of pages a month and my total bill is nowhere close to what 47 cents per page implies. I do (or did) agree with what Johnbod implies - that we should have larger pix on WP. Sometimes WP looks like a 1950s encyclopedia with all those tiny images. If you want to write this up in detail and explore how this effects Wikipedia and its readers, please consider submitting a piece to The Signpost. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

It might be 'right' on the least efficient data plans you can get on mobile, but most people I know that are concerned about data costs/data usage make efforts to get on wifi networks with unmetered connections. I'm in Canada, supposedly the costliest country there, and there's no way it costs me 0.59 cents for 5.1 MB of data. I pay $58 for 4GB on a mobile plan (and that's with other features, like unlimited text/long distance across North America) which amounts to 0.07 cents.

That's not to say we shouldn't make efforts to be mindful of those with shittier/more expensive plans, or less disposable income, but if you're opening up Featured content... well you should expect lots of pictures, IMO. Having some warning (Note: This page features several large hi-quality images which can use an estimated 5.1 MB of data.) in the blurb might be a good idea, though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe choose a different photo from the article that was actually taken during the Tour (LeMond during the time trial for instance) instead of the one during the Giro? Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-03-31/From the archives

I'm sorry about the controversy and the departure of the editors. However, so much of humor depends on delivery and intonation. You don't have that in the written word. Writing humor is almost an entirely different set of principles. That's why, unless you're someone like P.G. Wodehouse or Steve Martin, don't even try to write extended humor because most people can't convey it. Similarly lots of sarcasm is problematic because the signals are not there, many take it to be true. Save the humor for 1- or 2-lines and be serious - so you can be taken seriously. - kosboot (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Smallbones, for stepping up. Long live The Signpost! Benjamin (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• And I also like the way you stepped up, SB, especially the part where you seem willing to go to the wall for your writers, staff and other contributors! I've heard it said that mere words have no power. So much for that, judging by the controversy that has led to this moment. I'd like to say kudos to those who tipped the scales in the great pronoun debate. If you are not already great and published writers, then you damn well should be! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  16:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• I wanted to say how excellent this month's Signpost was given the loss of three writers and, no doubt, a significant amount of time taken up by the pronoun saga. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• What jumps out to me is the deliberate choice to include the sentence "We're sorry that contributors to The Signpost sometimes are subject to such storm and fury." The complaints made were legitimate. Marginalizing the complaints and those who were brave enough to make complaints in public on-wiki, as "storm and fury", makes this a "sorry-not-sorry" defence, not a meaningful apology. --Fæ (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • And here I thought that SB sent that out to "all" contributors, not just to the ones who were offensive or offended in the pronoun discussion. I hope that in the future you will be able to use more objectivity in your readings. It seemed clear that all persons who read or became involved in the pronoun discussion were subject to that particular "storm and fury", weren't they? It wasn't just one particular side who generated it. Arguments require two sides to generate such storm and fury. Best to you, Fæ! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  20:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
    • This was not a debate with "sides". From the outset, before publication, it was spelt out that the essay would be offensive for trans and genderqueer people. It is not the fault of trans and genderqueer people that an essay that from the first line appears to deride them as "it" is offensive. At a minimum the Signpost should have given a real apology, which did not rush to defend those that chose to publish it, write it, and continue to use Wikipedia to host it. The fact is that Signpost has taken zero action to put things right, zero action to make relevant change to Signpost editorial policy, and the primary advocates of it who went out of their way to be hostile and offensive to all critics, are active editors of the current Signpost, they have not resigned, this is hand wringing self pitying fakenews nonsense. Those same active editors have never apologised, have no intention of making any real apology (apart from the sorry-not-sorry of "sorry you took offense"), and believe it was right that Signpost publish the essay, that their actions are protected by free speech which in their world view means that trans and genderqueer people should be blamed for not having a sense of humour about their being derided as objects. By hosting this type of anti-queer rhetoric, Wikipedia is made complicit in driving away genderqueer contributors and making this a less safe, less comfortable space for all LGBT+ contributors. The response of our "welcoming community"? Defending the misogynistic "blond" jokes of the 1970s; not funny, it never was. Grow up and stop turning harassment of minorities into a spectator sport. --Fæ (talk) 07:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
      • Who are these editors you speak of that you say have not resigned and are part of the problem? The biggest supporters and users most closely associated have all resigned unnecessarily thanks to this witch hunting. I am now restating the facts to remind you as you seem to have forgotten. Out of the five regulars in the Signpost's previous era:
        • Evad voted blank.
        • I voted delete; later switched to blank.
        • Chris voted keep but he is not an editor; he has stated on multiple occasions that he is merely a button-pusher who took the job because he has the requisite user rights. I will not link any diffs as such comments are fairly easy to find.
        • Acorri and Tbayer are single-column writers who don't play a big role in editing.
        • Also: Smallbones was previously an occasional contributor. He stepped into the editor-in-chief position and wrote a very sincere apology knowing full well he would take a lot of hate from it.
      • Please stop harassing us. You have made your points many times before and now they only serve to continue to reignite the drama. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 12:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

        Nice, so I'm "harassing" Signpost, by following Smallbones' advice to raise my comments here, rather than Signpost bothering to engage with me on how the non-apology was meaningless before it was published, and started the round of back-slapping yourselves for getting it out on time. Maybe you should take up the apparent new way of handling complaints by dismissing them to below the line comments with Smallbones, rather than calling them "harassment".

        As for "regulars", that word does not mean "editors". Neither does someone redefining their contributions as "button-pusher" stop them being an editor. One need only look at which accounts contributed to this edition of Signpost to see exactly who the the current editors are. Redefining the meaning of words to turn black into white, is not a credible way of showing that the Signpost has done anything. If you are personally serious about taking action, then take some real action, like proposing a real change to editorial policy rather than pretending that the fundamental problem of Signpost being a boy's locker room or a bad parody of Beavis and Butthead, has magically been solved with a bit of hand waving and editors feeling sorry for themselves. --Fæ (talk) 13:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

        You very specifically said in your previous comment that this is about the people who were working on the Signpost then, not the current team. Above I mentioned the contributors to both of the last two issues; Barbara, Bri, and Kudpung left because of your constant pitchfork-carrying. Evad and me, the only two surviving members with any claim of editorial control, both encouraged removal of the piece at the MfD. (So yes, we have already taken action, as per your encouragement. Probably more action than the people in charge wanted us to take.) So, despite your accusations, there is in fact no current Signpost writer who worked on previous issues (as you described) who thought we were "right" to publish that highly regrettable essay. Anyway, what's in the past is in the past. The story has been pulled and everyone has learned valuable lessons. No editorial policy change is needed—after what we've all been through, I think it's clear to almost everyone, readers and writers, that we won't make the same mistake again. Not sure why this conversation is still going on. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

It appears that's my bad for responding to Fæ in a failed attempt to point out what I perceived as serious weaknesses in Fæ's perspective. Tried to do it in a way that would help; however, it seems I just made things a bit worse. Deep apologies to Fæ and to any and all other editors and readers whose hatred was sparked by my words. Heaven knows, I much prefer to spark the other side of the "thin line". Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  02:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Ah, yeas, even Wikipedia has reached the infection rate where "no minority is allowed to be even remotely be poked fun at, while wikipedia continues to mock and ban anybody who points out the discrimination happening towards non-minorities". Good job boys, you did it. Now go defend the SPLC for being a reliable source for defending this kind of narrative. 71.197.186.255 (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
• @Smallbones and Fæ: I support your pledge, Smallbones, to not attack protected classes. I am not sure - is this a permanent policy for the Signpost now; will it extend to future Editors-in-Chief? As well, can it be expanded to say that users who personally violate that statement, on the Signpost or off, will not be allowed to write for the Signpost? This comment makes it clear that at least one of the two mentioned users violated that, and they should not be included in the Signpost. ɱ (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I do not believe there is such a thing as "protected classes" on Wikipedia, nor should there be. Genuine criticism is sometimes warranted. That said, we have a civility policy for a reason and The Signpost of all our institutions should not be a venue for needlessly attacking specific groups. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

    User:Indy beetle, what would be an example of when criticism of someone's race, sex, etc would be appropriate? Benjamin (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

    Oh I don't think race, sex, etc. are attributes which should be criticized, but language like "protected classes" sometimes extends to shielding someone from criticism in general because they are a member of one of the said classes. This should not be so. Things like religion and culture are a little more complicated, because those involve ideology and practices that can be readily agreed upon as harmful. Naturally though, those things rarely have much to do with the workings of this encyclopedia (a humorous exception would be how acceptable it is to call people "cunt" across the anglophone world), so that is of minimal concern to The Signpost. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you Smallbones. By taking on this job, you are supporting the community, which helps support the encyclopedia, which helps support the world. Keep up the good work.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  19:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
• Thanks for all the comments! One thing I discovered this month is that The Signpost has a great community of writers and staff. It also has a great community of readers.

@Ɱ: I can only say that I promise my best efforts to keep the pledge as long as I am EiC, but I think that future editors would be making a big mistake if they also didn't keep the pledge. There's not now enough organizational structure at The Signpost to guarantee what future EiCs will do - it's just a bunch of folks showing up to do some hard work for no pay, and amazingly enough something good results. I'd like to see, at least, the editorial board formalized with some contingency or continuity planning done.

I'm not going to search the past histories of contributors to see if they pass a morality or ethics test. For one thing, it would be just too much work. It would be better handled by en:Wiki's regular processes involving admins and arbcom - but, of course, en:Wiki does not have any rules about discrimination against minorities or protected classes. My job, for now is just to make sure that insensitive, discriminatory, or harassing material is not included in The Signpost (plus making sure that we conform to all other Wikipedia rules, e.g. BLP).

But Ɱ, if you're talking about what en:Wiki should do about not having an anti-discrimination policy, please just post some info about your proposed op-ed in the Newsroom asap, and be ready with a good draft by about April 20th. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that that this should be handled by community processes, perhaps under a forthcoming nondiscrimination policy, similar to any other conduct issue. The Signpost EIC lacks the authority to write policy or issue topic bans, and they shouldn't be placed in the unenviable position of deciding what is and isn't a violation.

Looking at the bigger picture, I think the Signpost would benefit from more community input and decision-making. The community, not the self-appointed editorial team, should be making decisions about editorial standards and which articles are fit to publish. This would take a lot of pressure off of the EIC and possibly help with the rapid turnover. –dlthewave ☎ 21:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Generally speaking, projects work best when those investing time and effort into the project's tasks are empowered to make decisions about the project. It would be demotivating for editorial decisions to be made by community members that are otherwise uninvolved in the Signpost. isaacl (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

That's only true to a certain extent. Participants and coordinators generally set up the project's internal organizational structure, but they have no control over content decisions. Many of our community processes, such as RFCs, are specifically designed to solicit input from the wider community even though only a small group will do the work of implementing the outcome. The Signpost should be no exception: If it is to be presented as a community newspaper, its content should be controlled by the community at large, not just the editorial team and EIC. This would be a WP:OWN violation anywhere else on Wikipedia.

It's very odd that Wikipedia's internal newspaper attempts to emulate the management structure of a traditional media organization. –dlthewave ☎ 03:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I did say "generally" to avoid going into too many details, which are probably better discussed in another venue. But to expand further: some projects willingly delegate responsibilities to specific persons; others are expressly implementing community decisions. The key aspect though is the project itself decides how it wants to run, because volunteers choose what contributions they want to make and under what conditions. The Signpost has no special protected status to be the community's only outlet for internal news and opinions, so there is no reason to force Signpost decisions to be made by community members who do not work on the Signpost. Anyone can create a project to aggregate news and opinions in whatever ways they wish, and they can seek community approval to publicize their project in ways similar to the Signpost.

Coming at this from another direction, it's hard to get volunteers to write on a schedule. It's also hard to get a group of volunteers to make consensus decisions on a schedule. Put these two things together and it's really hard to put out a regularly scheduled periodical with crowd-sourced editorial control. Of course it's not necessary to have a regular schedule for a news feed; you can, for example, have a Reddit-like model where content is put out there and then crowd-sourced feedback pushes it up or down. If someone wants to do that within English Wikipedia, more power to them! But I wouldn't impose this way of working on a group of volunteers who wasn't interested in it. isaacl (talk) 06:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• To Smallbones: Thanks for taking on a very difficult job. I disagree with one point: "those who do not have a choice about their membership in the group" does not include "those based on ... religion". Even if a person is born and raised in a religion, he or she can choose to convert to another religion or abandon religion altogether. JRSpriggs (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I think it's probably unnecessary to nitpick exactly which groups do or do not have sufficient measure of choice. I might be tempted to question whether people always have a choice about becoming veterans -- but I didn't raise that point because conscription for military service is and was a thing, and avoiding it is awkward. As for religion, some people can be executed for apostasy, so the person cannot always choose to convert religion or abandon their religion without any possible penalty. It's a huge gray area, and it is easier just to accept that these (the list mentioned by Smallbones) are the things about which one should avoid discriminating. MPS1992 (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
    • A religion which can only hold its members by threatening them with death if they leave deserves to be disparaged and humiliated. If I were being held hostage by such a group, I would welcome the criticism. JRSpriggs (talk) 02:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
      • I'm not quite sure what you mean there. Christianity was such a religion for most of its existence. A minority of Muslim states have the death penalty for apostasy still. Your country (the USA) is funding most or many of that minority of Muslim states. Can we perhaps agree that Smallbones' list is not particularly problematic? MPS1992 (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
        • What I am saying is that criticism (including humor) of particular religions should be allowed. That this leaves Christianity (as well as Islam) and the United States Government open to criticism is not a problem. JRSpriggs (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Well I guess it is up to Smallbones as to whether he agrees with that, about religion, veteran status, and other things. (I can think of yet another argument, about another item mentioned, but I decided not to mention it because it is not an obsession of mine!) But I think his editorial was very clear. So he will probably let us know if he changes his mind. Have a nice April Fool's Day. MPS1992 (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

  It seems facile to suggest that one has a choice about one's beliefs. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 08:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC).
  

• The Signpost is a very important part of the project. Many thanks for these remarks and to Smallbones for stepping up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
• Based on Wikipedia's fundamental goal and fundamental rules of cooperation, I would suggest to ban jokes offensive to any group regardless the protected status of the group. We have colleague Wikipedians who are blondes, lawyers, and even blonde lawyers . I don't think all of them will love to read a lawyer joke in Signpost. The only exception is for the group of people who edit Wikipedia and any subgroups thereof, for the same reason African Americans freely address to each other with the N-word. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

  Publishing jokes that are offensive to transgender and genderqueer people is quite different to making jokes about lawyers. If you can not see the difference, you probably have much bigger problems than being civil on Wikipedia. Or maybe I am wrong and you will be welcome to write childish locker room jokes for Signpost, given the "storm and fury" non-apology by Smallbones. --Fæ (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

  If you cannot see that an offense is an offense is an offense, then you probably have much bigger problems than preaching civility in a condescending way. I explained my reasoning. Please assume some GF and instead of personal attack prove than my reasons under the suggestion are invalid. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for stepping in Smallbones. Anthere (talk)

• Re "no minority is allowed to be even remotely be poked fun at ...": This, like so many comments at all stages and pages of this debate, misses the point that no minority was actually "poked fun at". The piece was about a fictionalized cult leader making strange demands about honorific titles, special symbols, over-capitalization, post-nominal terms, and unreasonable pronoun usage (all things that WP writing should avoid doing in our own editorial voice) in ways that bear no resemblance to transgender/non-binary use of pronouns (and "It" was specifically selected for this purpose because it's the exact opposite of the TG/NB case (they are sometimes called "it" by transphobes; they don't demand to be called "It"). Nevertheless, the fact that it addressed pronouns at all, in any way was latched onto by the "find any excuse to be outraged, no matter how many wicker effigies I have to burn to raise a drama mob" crowd. It's really troubling that this bullshitty tactic actually mostly worked, and not only let someone already long-term topicbanned from gender drama get away with canvassing, meat-puppetry, and off-site stalking without consequences [so far], but actually resulted in The Signpost being censored and arm-twisted into resignations and an "apology" post. I'll repeat what I've said many times before, about this and some other matters: The real long-term threat to WP's future viability isn't vandals and trolls, as in the early days, but socio-political manipulators of its content and policies undermining both the project's neutrality and its community self-governance. This kind of farcical WP:NOT#ADVOCACY failure (which was piled on with steaming heaps of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL violations) is basically a kind of roadmap for any sort of PoV-pushing camp. I just hope this is more obvious to more real Wikipedians over time so they become more resistant to this "stragedy".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Your irony about childish locker room jokes for Signpost is misplaced. I would love to read some childish locker room jokes in Signpost which deal with Wikipedia. I would also love to see some adult jokes in Signpost which deal with Wikipedia. I would love to see some elitist snobbish jokes which deal with Wikipedia. Signpost is the herald of Wikipedia, isn't it? How about a competition for the best childish joke dealing with Wikipedians?

• "Knock-knock - Who's that? - A Wikipedian - Wiki-who? ...."
• "Why did a Wikipedian cross the road?..."
• "How many Wikipedians are required to change the lightbulb?..."
• "An inclusionist and a deletionist walk into the bar...."
• "A wikipedian and a wikivandal land on an inhabited island...."
• "Why did the Wikipedian paint the toenails red?"
• "In Americs you read Wikipedia, in Soviet Russia..."
• "A wikipedian unkorks a dusty bottle and... "
• "What is the shortest joke on Wikipedia?..."
• "Wikipedia: you have two cows..."
• What did Snow White say when she met seven Wikipedians? ...
• Little green men pull a Wikipedian into a wormhole. In 20 years xe comes back...
• Top Ten Ways to Troll a Wikipedian: #10: Revert xim with edit summary "Not an improvement. #9 ....
• What is a Spherical Wikipedian in Vacuum?
• A Wikipedian had a dream that he was driving a quadriga. Early in the morning he goes to a dream interpreter for an explanation....
• This one Wikpedian lays his hands on a time machine...
• What would have happened if the Flintstones decided to create a Wikipedia? ....

Do I need to continue convincing you that there is plenty of humor without insulting anybody? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, let's give it a shot:

• An inclusionist and a deletionist walk into a bar. The deletionist rips out the taps for any beers not nationally advertised and all the bottles not on the top shelf. The inclusionist offers everyone a lukewarm diet Dr. Pepper. They both ask the bartender for a donation.
• In Russia, the Kremlin reads what you write on Wikipedia. In America, the Kremlin writes what you read on Wikipedia.
• Wikipedia: You have two cows. After discussion, your neighbors reach consensus that the cows belong to them, dismissing your objections per WP:1AM. You call the police. The police give the cows to whomever touched them last.
• A Wikipedian and a vandal are stranded on a desert island. On the first day, the Wikipedian builds a raft. At night the vandal destroys it. The second day, the Wikipedian tells the vandal that one or more of his contributions to the raft did not appear constructive, and rebuilds the raft. The vandal destroys it. The third day, the Wikipedian asks the vandal to please refrain from making unconstructive changes to the raft, and rebuilds it again. The vandal destroys it. The fourth day, the Wikipedian tells the vandal to please stop destroying the raft, and that if he destroys the raft again, he may not be allowed to participate in the building of the raft. The Wikipedian rebuilds the raft again and the vandal destroys it again. On the fifth day an admin arrives with the navy, announces that nobody can build a raft until everyone on the island agrees on whether or not a raft should be built, and sails off.

Leviv ich 02:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: that raft joke is hilarious. Well done! Bradv🍁 03:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

BOOM 👏👏👏 — JFG ^talk 20:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Top 10 Ways to troll a Wikipedian:

1. Create a numbered list

1. And then ...

1. Wait for ...

1. The payoffs!

1. Muahaha!!!

1. Is this 10 yet?

1. No! This is the 7th item!^{[citation needed]}

1. Yes! This is the 10th item!^{[undue weight? – discuss]}

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• Actually, the above are top 000A-0002 ways to wikiTroll a wikiGnome. A random Wikipedian will not even frown. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, here's my top ten ways to troll. isaacl (talk) 04:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

---

Q: How many genderqueer people does it take to write a Signpost article?

A: None, as none feels welcome here.

--Fæ (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Could probably say the same about right-leaning conservative people. -- œ^™ 05:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Nah, people like Fae think those are actual Nazis that need to be banned. 71.197.186.255 (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

So, for Fæ is OK to insult both genderqueer people and the whole Wikipedia community. What about zillons of articles written in wikipedia on LGBT topics? Why writing for Signpost would be impossible? If one "feels" unwelcome, then you better file an ANI/I complaint, because THAT would be a gross violation of Wikipedia ways, and the complaint will certainly be taken seriously. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Here's a setup for a joke; maybe someone can think of an amusing way that it might end (since I certainly can't): Fae walks into a discussion of Wikipedia humor... EEng 02:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, wait, here's a good one:

Q: How many tsk-tsking doctrinaire genderqueer thought police does it take to change a light bulb?

A: That's not funny!

And if you change change a light bulb to screw in a light bulb, the permutations are really endless. EEng 03:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

---

I'll try one from Stasek Lem's list above:

• "What is the shortest joke on Wikipedia? WP:IAR

Well, you can see why I won't be writing the humour column.

@Levivich: Please write 20 more jokes similar to the above. Include at least one about Wikilawyers. Submit to The Signpost, and we'll have next month's Humour column. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Smallbones:

After a long trial, a wikilawyer's client is found guilty. "REVERT!" announces the wikilawyer.

The judge laughs. "What? There's no rule that allows a 'revert'." The wikilawyer shrugs. "NOTBUREAUCRACY."

"Of course it is," says the judge, pointing to the bookshelf behind him. "This is a court of law. We have statutes, regulations ..." The wikilawyer interrupts: "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS!"

The judge grows impatient. "That's enough! I'm declaring you out of order!" The wikilawyer waives his hand dismissively: "IGNOREALLRULES."

"This is my courtroom," says the judge, "and I'm in charge here!" "{{Citation needed}}," responds the wikilawyer, wagging his finger.

The judge opens one of the books and points to a page. "Very well, it's right here, see?" The wikilawyer takes out a pen and crosses out the paragraph.

The judge jumps out of her chair. "Just what do you think you're doing?!" she demands.

The wikilawyer smiles, "ANYONECANEDIT." Leviv ich 05:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• Welcome Smallbones! Thank you for filling such an important role. -- œ^™ 05:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
• I'd also like to add my welcome and thanks to Smallbones for taking this on. On the humour front, I've steered clear of reading that column in the Signpost after having read some previous entries and found them utterly unfunny. Writing humour is difficult and takes special talent, especially in a global, multicultural context such as Wikipedia. I'd much rather see some snippets of lighthearted humour included within the context of a Signpost report than have a regular column dedicated to trying (and usually failing) to make people laugh. The former is usually amusing and relatively effortless, the latter is the opposite. WaggersTALK 10:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

  @Waggers: while humour is certainly subjective, this issue's column is pretty lighthearted, and seemed a return to the roots of the humour column from years ago. Not quite chuckle worthy, IMO, but certainly enough to make you smile if you're easily amused. Can't know what the future holds for that column, but this is something that could have been published in anything from the prudest of Victorian-era newspaper, to the most recent of New Yorker issues. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks Headbomb, I shall take a look! WaggersTALK 16:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

How many Wikipedians does it take to change a light bulb? 5 - One to notice the bulb is out and tag it for changing, one to install a new bulb, two others to argue over what color/type of bulb would be the best replacement, and an admin to revert to the broken status-quo bulb until they can find a consensus. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Ok, I'll take the bait...

1. There comes a time on Wikipedia when it's important to know when to stop arguing with editors, and simply let them be wrong.
2. Do you want to make money from Wikipedia? It's easy! Log out and go to work!
3. Wikipedia: where anyone can edit and enjoy the benefits of income equality.

^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I haven't read the wall of comments that precedes. But apropos to Smallbones's concluding comment, may I just add that before anyone starts running to ANI, try to AGF and contact the editor first. These things don't always have to escalate. Really. Let's try to be a community. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• New comment, not a reply to StevenJ81 - As for not making fun of groups: I hope The Signpost editors aren't including groups that have embraced being made fun of, even if there is or ever was a member who had no real choice to join. There are some universities and student groups that embrace being made fun of, but no doubt some of their past or present members were all but forced to enroll or join by family members or by other outside pressure. For example, Texas A&M University is a highly-respected university, but as a whole, its students and alumni accept and embrace "Aggie Jokes." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• Do you have a reliable source which states that all aggies do not object to aggie jokes? (BTW if you find ones, you may even write "Aggie joke" article!) Staszek Lem (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• <3 lovely - ɱ (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
• Had me LOLing. Thank you! Leviv ich 16:33, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
• Thanks for the mention (I think!). — Earwig ^talk 20:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
• That the talk page links to blue is a nice touch. Elfabet (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
• Most hilarious! I doth heartily approve! Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
• There were no CDs in 19th century, only CMs, and e-mails came out of use with the advent of firearms. So I guess this must be an April Fool's Day joke. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delightful! Tokenzero (talk) 10:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

A previous discussion about a technical error related to the publishing script was moved to User talk:Evad37/SPS.js#Publishing script error. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for fighting the good fight. Efforts like this are why the credibility of Wikipedia is increasing. Keep up the good work.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  04:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I second this, and I'd like to thank everyone involved for stepping up to make Wikipedia a more reliable and trustworthy resource for our readers. — Newslinger talk 04:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
• The "list" is rather all-inclusive - even managing to have The New York Times in its talons. Bot-generated lists are not something I recommend for use as the number of "false positives" is beyond belief. Argh. Collect (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Collect: To my knowledge, The New York Times is not on the SourceWatch anywhere (if I'm wrong, please point where). It is listed on Journals Cited by Wikipedia, but that's not the SourceWatch. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

It is on the list in the very first column one arrives at through the only "search" box provided! - and even casual users would notice it, as most of the "bad sites" are also in that second column. This from the "search" function on the "Sourcewatch" redirected page. As are all the other NY newspapers, the MIT Technology Review (listed quite prominently as a hijacked journal) and more. Voice of America and Radio Free Europe are listed as "propaganda sources". Page N18 of the sources list. I fear the "search box" missed your editorial review I had suggested a while back? Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/N18 To begin with, cut out that "search" which misleadingly lists every journal known to man. The best part is the list of redlinked sources - but as there are an infinite number of possible redlinks to add, that does not help. I suspect that the separated "actual real Wikipedia problem sources" list will be much more manageable. Oh, and blacklisting every "wrong science source" may be nice to some, but deleterious to many articles. Meanwhile, is there a reason to keep publishers on the whist which Beall had deleted from that list? Collect (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Collect:

1) The New York Times: That's from WP:JCW/N18 which is part of Journals Cited by Wikipedia, a compilation of every |journal= used across Wikipedia, not The SourceWatch, which is a specific subset of JCW (specifically the pages ending in /Questionable#). A thing that will help here is that if you do not see the big SourceWatch warning on the page, you are not dealing with The SourceWatch.

2) Voice of America is categorized in Category:United States government propaganda organizations and Radio Free Europe in Category:Anti-communist propaganda.

3) The MIT Technology Review was indeed hijacked.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Are you asserting that MIT Technology Review is not listed as "hijacked"? Item number 30 on the very first page of your list? Did you read Beall's comments which made clear that "Tec Review" was his problem and not "MIT Technology Review"? That would be reassuring as it would then be clear that evil forces are corrupting my downloads. Meanwhile, it means the "search" function is totally useless for this. I am glad you pointed out that many organizations are given deprecatory descriptions, by the way. It makes one feel reassured that WP:NPOV is adhered to in all projects. And the reason for "redlinked journals" in profusion is? Collect (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what a hijacked journal is. I also don't know what you mean by the "redlinked journals" in profusion.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Beall's lists "Tech Review" as the hijacked journal, and MIT Technology Review as the genuine journal! One column (the left one in his list) is the fakes, the second column (the right one is clearly labeled "authentic journal") is the "authentic journal" It helps to read the column headers!!! Collect (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

MIT Technology Review is the hijacked journal (a legitimate academic journal for which a bogus website has been created by a malicious third party), TECH REV: Technology Review journal is the hijacker. The Beall website gets the terminology wrong. Also I've tweaked the search box to only search in the SourceWatch when on a /Questionable page.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

As noted, Beall only lists the fake one as the "hijacked journal" and the "real one" is listed as "authentic." And Beall got his own terminology wrong? Nope. It quite appears the reverse. The person who writes the first list is the one who gets to choose his terminology. But "The Beall website got the terminology wrong" does not quite impress me. Sorry. Collect (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Jeffrey Beall did not invent the term hijacked journal. Again, see our article hijacked journal and the explanatory note Hijacked journals are legitimate academic journals with imposters pretending to be the legitimate publication. These citations are likely not problematic, but it is good to check that the real journal is being cited. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

You mean the article I corrected because it misrepresented the sources? The one where you removed an old talk page entry as "no one cares"? [2]? The one where you reverted my actual use of the sources? [3] which admits Butler (a main source" was "misused - but doubled down on the misuse? Sorry, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt -- but misusing sources and doubling down on that misuse is not my cup of tea. Add all the sites you wish as I seem to have a very bad taste in my mouth. Collect (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

See the note on the talk page. And no one cares about a talk page message posted by a bot ages ago. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

And I am getting a teensy bit upset about your hatting and rehatting of my post at WP:RS/N#Hijacked_journal_problems as a violation of WP:CANVASS while your post at WT:WikiProject_Academic_Journals#Talk:Hijacked_journal#bad_reverts which seems not to relate to the problems at hand - specifically making "interpretations of sources" directly contradicted by the sources. Collect (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

That's because, again, per WP:CANVASSING, if you want to bring people to a discussion, you give a neutral notice of the discussion happening. You don't poison the well by injecting your opinion/side all over the place. WP:RSN is to discuss whether or not sources are reliable. It is not the place to debate their interpretation, or decide on what terminology is clearest. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:RSN is a neutral noticeboard, and I stated the issue clearly. It is not "CANVASSING" buy a mile or two. The article has exceedingly few viewers, and you "pinged" friends to go there, while I "pinged" no one at all. Period. I rather think that when a reliable source uses a word, we should not assign it a diametrically opposite meaning. Maybe I am in a minority, in Carrollian way. That should end the contretemps as I have done my best to state facts and not hat the helk of someone. Collect (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:RSN is a neutral noticeboard, yes. It was your message that was not neutral, and violated WP:CANVASS. But that's rather irrelevant to this Signpost piece, so can we please keep debate about what to do with the article on the article's talk page, rather than have a meta debate about how to have a debate on a half a dozen page? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

You hatted and rehatted my post which I believed and still believe set forth the issue. That you assert it was not "neutral" and not placed in a "neutral" place is not of import as it is still hatted and anyone can read it for themselves to see how non-neutral it was. Or possibly actually feel it was a reasonable post on the proper noticeboard, and less CANVASS that "pinging" three friends. Collect (talk) 01:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, I did not ping three friends. I pinged the original author of the words, and the two people that posted on the talk page before. Neutrally. You on the other hand, poisoned the well at WP:RSN, presenting your side, rather than neutrally advertise the ongoing discussion. Now, take it to Talk:Hijacked journal, as has been requested of you over a dozen times now, where a discussion of the actual issue can happen, rather than these silly meta debates about how to have a debate about something. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• Bad news... the name is taken —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Hmm that's a bummer... Time for an RFC! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• Assume for a moment that for ideological reasons a fairly large number of Wikipedia editors dislike some reliable sources and like other, unreliable sources.

Given the above assumption, is there any way that this list of questionable sources be gamed in such a way that it can be weaponized in the ongoing bare-knuckle, no-rules brawl between Team Blue and Team Red? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

My gut feeling is that this is as 'gameable' as any of the original sources themselves. Debate about whether something on Beall's list is reliable has occurred countless of times. The answer with Beall is usually Beall was right, this is a garbage journal, but since Beall classified questionable journals alongside literally zero academic worth journals, these discussions often result in 'Yeah this is published by X, which isn't the greatest, but it's not zero worth'. Facts backed up by those journals would usually fail a WP:MEDRS check, but would be often be considered perfectly valid sources for basic claims that aren't at the cutting edge of research (e.g. Foobarin is a complex protein discovered by James of Foo in 1942) and aren't used to back up completely wild OR/POV claims. Likely all this list will be doing is accelerate the rate at which those discussions occur, since it makes finding these potential problematic citations easier.

The list is a tool, and like any other tool it can be abused if you really want to. But you'd have to ignore the bigass disclaimer the top of the list, saying that the SourceWatch is only a starting point, that it's not perfect, that it doesn't know the full context in which a source is used, and tells you that you shouldn't go on a mass purge without discussing things at the RSN first. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• A disscussion that took place on the Huffington Post article about paid editing can be found here on the Administrators' noticeboard. —T.E.A. (Talk•Edits) 16:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• Is it April Fools' or did The Signpost just in all seriousness link out to a Breitbart article? GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @GorillaWarfare: The article mentions that it isn't considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. I'm not sure what Breitbart is, but I would think that the link is for context about what that website's claim is, not that it is a reliable claim/website. Clovermoss (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
    • @GorillaWarfare: My understanding is that it did so mostly on the basis that the writer of that article was a banned Wikipedia editor, and that the Breitbart piece has been making some waves in certain circles. Not because the Signpost agrees with anything said there in particular. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
      • @GorillaWarfare: @Headbomb: It also appears that the link is a wikilink to the English wikipedia article about Breitbart, not Breitbart itself. I'm going to read it now, since I'm curious. Clovermoss (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Beware, for when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you comes to mind here. You're about to dig in one of the worst 'news' organization of the American far-right there is. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
        • @Clovermoss: I was referring to the link to Trump Jr.'s tweet, which in turn links to the article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
      • @Headbomb: Does The Signpost usually make a habit of providing a platform for banned users? GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
        • @GorillaWarfare: I can't say that I know if it's a habit or not, but I'd say it falls squarely within the realm of editorial discretion. You could see it as given them a platform, but the story is already out there, being circulated by much bigger platform than the Signpost: the Breitbart Network and Donald Trump Jr. Should Wikipedians be kept in the dark about this? Reporting on it keeps us informed, and lets us stay aware of what's being said about us, even if it mostly falls within the realms of disgruntled sour grapes peddling conspiracy theories. Is there an argument for WP:DENY too? There is. Which is stronger? I don't really know. But I'd argue that as a newspaper with a mission to inform, The Signpost should err on the side of reporting, rather than burying, at least when it comes to stories which make headlines in widely read outlets, even if those outlets are not themselves reliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
          • As I mention below, it's not the unreliability of Breitbart that concerns me here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: - Thanks for bringing this up. It's me you need to discuss this with. I wrote the paragraph and included breitbart because I think it's important to identify all sources on paid editing. There are a lot of stories on paid editing from non-reliable sources and they express a very different view than most others (e.g. "this is something every business needs, and here's how to get around the rules") I hope to be able to continue showing these views. In the first draft I ended this something like "Breitbart claims the article was written by banned user The Devil's Advocate. Please consider the source in evaluating this information." I was unhappy with this and ask for feedback in the Newsroom, but didn't get any. The last sentence seems like I'm telling the reader what to think. TDA contacted me on Meta and said it was written by him and gave me the DT Jr link. That did seem fair to everybody involved, but I forgot the declared editor target, who I did inform after publication when I saw it again. I don't expect to link even indirectly to Breitbart ever again, but may do other blacklisted links from time to time. Please let me know via email if there is anything else I should do here, or any steps I should take going forward. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Smallbones: If The Daily Stormer wrote an article about paid editing on Wikipedia, would you link there? GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: You must admit that The Daily Stormer is an extreme example. Breitbart is not quit as extreme - there's even an argument to be made that it is fairly mainstream now (I wouldn't agree) because the former editor worked as a strategic advisor in the White House. Sad times I know. And the link wasn't made to Breitbart it was made to the President's son's Twitter.

But let's put aside the arguments and concentrate on what to do now. Should the link now be deleted? In future editions would you recommend not linking to any blacklisted sites? I'm sure you know policy on this better than I do (I essentially found nothing on a search in the day before deadline). Could you give me the links? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

There is quite a range of websites that fall between "not as extreme as The Daily Stormer" and "a reasonable website to direct readers to," and I would argue that Breitbart News falls between the two. I don't know of any explicit policy saying The Signpost can't circuitously link to Breitbart News, but linking to Trump Jr.'s Twitter to evade a URL blacklist to direct readers to an extremist website seems, at best, poor judgment. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, let's keep the reasons that Breitbart News is blacklisted in mind: "The site has published a number of falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories." We blacklist it to protect Wikipedia articles from these falsehoods, conspiracy theories, misleading stories from being presented as fact. Things are quite different when Breitbart News is the story. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

(EC)Thanks, GW. Going forward, I'll leave the link in for now - any real damage has already been done. I'll consider your arguments before the next issue and reconsider before indirectly linking to a blacklisted site. If you have further thoughts on this, please do email me. I've been thinking a lot about how Wikipedia's rules apply to The Signpost, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-03-31/From_the_editors. As far as I can tell, traditionally it's just been more-or-less a "hands off, we all know how newspapers are supposed to work." That changed with an ArbCom case about an April Fools' Day joke by Gamilele (sp). I think it may have been your 1st case. As near as I can tell now, it's considered something like a WikiProject talk page, or maybe Jimbo's talk page: rules about articles (OR, NPOV, etc.) don't apply in the same way, but more general rules (e.g. BLP, PA, harassment) do. Any help appreciated. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

What about linking to sites that publish harassment, BLP violations, etc.? Possibly more concerning, to extremist sites which aim to radicalize readers? On a completely separate tack (and one I'm not sure I really agree with, but it's food for thought), I've seen less objectionable links removed from Jimbotalk and other discussion venues, citing WP:BADSITES. The argument for removal in those situations is often that posters on the site have engaged in the behavior outlined at WP:BADSITES, such as doxxing and other harassment, and so links to the site should be removed even if the directly linked content does not contain that behavior. In this case, the author of the Breitbart piece has engaged in that kind of behavior (against myself, actually), so it's a bit discouraging to see him amplified here. Furthermore, the piece itself "takes a run" at specific Wikipedians, as stated in this page.

To be clear (and to reply to Headbomb, my concern with linking to Breitbart is not that it's been declared an unreliable source. I'm well aware of the reasons behind it being declared an unusable source, and that that decision just means it can't be used to support claims in mainspace Wikipedia articles. The list of blacklisted and deprecated sources is fairly short, and although it overlaps with websites I think should not be linked from Wikipedia, it also contains websites that I wouldn't care about links to, and doesn't contain websites that I would. To use my above example, The Daily Stormer is not included there, but I'd still object if someone linked to it in a Signpost piece.

Not that it really matters, but just to correct the record, Gamaliel wasn't my first case. I'd been on the Arbitration Committee for two years by then, and I recused on the case. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I agree there's a general concern with linking to harassment/defamation, especially harassment of other editors. But this also has to be balanced against journalistic considerations when a such a story becomes part of the wider American national discourse. I freely admit I don't really know how to balance let's not link to general nonsense / gross character assassination / whatever against we need to report on these prominant political figures / media figures which have said general nonsense / made gross character assasinations / whatever except to do in based on my gut feeling. I suspect most of the American media are still struggling with that question as well, save for an increased reliance on their EiC to make a judgement call in those situations. I also suspect this is what Smallbones did here, but they can speak for themselves. However, it'd be worth investigating how other media outlets (the good ones at least) deal with those stories, and if they have developed guidelines for this beyond the 'gut feeling' approach.

For the record, I haven't read the Breitbart piece myself, mostly because there's nothing TDA has ever said that ever interested me much in the first place, and I didn't feel like giving Jr or Breitbart the traffic. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I've had a few run-ins with TDA and RA myself and can understand why even the mention of his name might be hurtful. I didn't think the paragraph in any way validated what he wrote. Rather the opposite. I'll leave it there for now. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• I look at this in the only way I think appropriate to an encyclopedia (or a newspaper ) : the way to show that sources are unreliable is to show the sources, in context. I might of course feel differently if it were I the bad sources were attacking. Our refusal to link to link to sources like Breitbart does not harm them, but it does harm our usefulness as a way to get further information., and it does let those who hate us make the (greatly exaggerated) claim we have political bias. I know that the standard rebuttal to this, is that our bias is for the truth. But you can't distinguish truth from falsehood without being aware of falsehood. Yes, it's dangerous--people might misunderstand. Trying to help people find the truth for themselves will always be dangerous DGG ( talk ) 18:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Mike "Vago claims the Wormhole will be a 5,664,405-week series" ? That's more than 100,000 years, according to my maccalculator. Color me skeptical! – Athaenara ✉ 02:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• ... before Israel??? My first thought was "thousands of years ago" but that made no sense in context. It would've been better to say "before the modern state of Israel" or something similar. Yes, the context is clear, but if it made me a do a double-take, it probably did the same to other readers. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• After reading the article in The Times of Israel, I can see that the Wikimedia Foundation presumes that it has sole rights to the high moral ground. I am very moved by the photographs displayed in the Times article, bringing to life the sweat equity and the joy that made modern Israel and sustain it today. – Athaenara ✉ 09:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

From the Electronic Frontier Foundation:

• EU’s Parliament Signs Off on Disastrous Internet Law: What Happens Next?
• Facing Criticism from All Sides, EU’s Terrible Copyright Amendments Stumble into the New Year

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The "blackouts" were an impotent snit that the EU, flawed as it is, is actually trying to address the rights involved in intellectual property. The issues can be discussed, but "blackouts" do essentially nihil. Flaws are something to convince the EU lawmakers of, not something to make a todo over online. IMO. Collect (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The system of "intellectual property" is an extension of the system of human property: it is a slave system. There have been times where a veneer of gentility has been placed on the practice, but this is certainly not one of them. When you are told that you can't set up a way to talk to your neighbors about the news without paying to have a machine watch over your conversation to implement the Massa's wishes, to keep you from saying too much about the news and to check everything you say to see if it's someone else's "property", what does that make you?!

The people have stood around cowed, confused, afraid, as the most radical and conniving extremists of the New Capitalism have made ever more bizarre demands - patenting software algorithms, business plans, setting up ownership of asteroids and space militaries to enforce them. We have stood paralyzed as the health care system, entrusted to the capitalists, stopped wiping out diseases and instead focused on dribbling out treatments for conditions like hepatitis C to only the wealthiest few while the millions of poorer infected were used as a reservoir to infect future wealthy customers. Now the connivers come to destroy even the hope of the people for a saner future, to carve up the remnants of even the cheapest and most fundamental of rights as they usher in an age where humans are the cattle of robotic masters.

But it shall not stand. "The moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice." The cost of defeating slavery in the United States was high: 1 out of every 40 people in the entire country was killed. Yet who can say it didn't need to be paid? There is a Dark Age coming, not because of some divine malice, but out of necessity, and the question we need to ask ourselves is how long and how Dark our actions will make it necessary for it to be. Wnt (talk) 12:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that "copyright is slavery" utterly. Nor ar patents "slavery". Nor is keeping the design of nuclear bombs secret "slavery." Nor is protecting software "slavery." The "dark age" of allowing copyrights and patents led to US strength - in computers, communications, books, movies, art, music and more. So, I disagree. Collect (talk) 12:57, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The strengths you describe are the result of a) there being worse censorship policies in countries that otherwise potentially could have competed and b) government grants for research. Wnt (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Or it is possible that you might be quite wrong, of course. Collect (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Where are the best places to follow this story as it affects Wikipedia and the Internet in general? czar 16:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I'll copy what Guy comment on the Blackout story (the MWF blog is good too)Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
    • From the Electronic Frontier Foundation:

• EU’s Parliament Signs Off on Disastrous Internet Law: What Happens Next?
• Facing Criticism from All Sides, EU’s Terrible Copyright Amendments Stumble into the New Year

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• I had never heard of "Out of Commerce Works" in copyright context. [4] Jim.henderson (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Probably what most people call "orphan works". Just an example - a book published in 1927 which sold 1,000 copies, and then went out-of-print in 1929. It's still covered under copyright, but is not part of any commerce now. The relation to copyright is indirect but powerful. Say you find the book in a library and say "this is the greatest book I've ever read" and want to republish it, serialize it, put it on the web, etc. All you need to do is find out who owns the copyright, track them down and negotiate a license. All 3 of those steps are now required and any of the 3 can be impossible for many reasons (e.g. the wife of the author just died without a will and no estate except the copyright and nobody really ever cared who owned the copyright anyway or even remembers about it). So "copyright in general" prevents you from publishing, even though there is (very likely) nobody who claims copyright. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Orphan works are already covered in the 2012 Orphan Works Directive for much the same actions by cultural institutions. According to the new directive, out-of-commerce works shall be deemed such "when the whole work or other subject-matter, in all its translations, versions and manifestations, is not available to the public through customary channels of commerce and cannot be reasonably expected to become so". Each member state should have a register of them, similar to the register of orphan works which should already exist. I think a lot depends on how the new directive is implemented, but once a cultural institution has an agreement with a collective rights management organisation for a type of work, it should be able to assume that the same rules will apply for similar works of which the right-holders are not covered by the organisation (but the right-holders of each work will still be able to veto this). Strobilomyces (talk) 10:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Well done to both sides for putting their viewpoint forward and making it fit the editing requirements -- and well done to the editorial team for making this happen. It appeared there were quite a few hurdles along the way. MPS1992 (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

As an aside, I rather liked the "Modern Sporting Rifle" name, so blatantly euphemistic. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I have to say, as the guy who copyedited the most of the thing, I found this to be one of the most thought provoking debate I came accross in a while, and not just on Wikipedia. I don't agree with everything on either sides, of course, but both were very well argued. I have my own opinions on the topic, and both sides have challenged them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

This Op-Ed has parallels to recent controversies and criticism regarding Wikiproject Military History and the "clean wermacht" thesis. It was a significant/divisive Arbcom case (don't have the link handy--apologies). Interesting article on the Clean Wermacht and Wikipedia here. It can be easy to underestimate the power of Wikiprojects.AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I can see the parallel if the assumption is a project has influence on the articles related to that project. However, I think there difference between the clean wermacht issue and this. Here it isn't a question of interpretation of material or if such material is reliable. Rather it's a question of if the basic material is within the scope of a particular article. Springee (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The broader issue, relating to Wikipedia in general not just Nazis and guns, is how weight and wp:due are used tactically by editors. For example, the argument that war crimes details in a biography article are wp:undue. Or in the case of Pennsylvania State University, the argument that including the sexual assault crimes there was wp:undue.AugusteBlanqui (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I think that hits on one of the questions I had, weight is somewhat gray in these areas. Do articles about PSU normally mention the crime (I assume we are talking about those related to the assistant coach) or are people using articles about the crimes to establish weight for inclusion in the university article vs an article about the crimes. Also, even if a one or two articles about the school talks about the crime is that sufficient to say articles about the school include discussion of the crime? The closing of the automotive RfC mentioned in the Con OpEd closed with a statement that suggested that when in this gray area it basically does come down to the subjective opinions of seasoned, and hopefully, uninvolved editors to give it their best judgement. Springee (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The notion that the use of guns are permitted is very USAmerican centric. In the rest of the world this is not at all accepted or acceptable. As this is not reflected in the reporting on guns and gun violence it is proof perfect that Wikipedia is biased. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

In the rest of the world this is not at all accepted or acceptable -- citation needed? Actually the difference is that in countries like New Zealand or the United Kingdom, when terrible things happen due to widespread legal availability of guns, democratically elected politicians bring in measures to change that, and these changes are not shouted down or drowned out by interest groups or lobbies or whatever. (1988 and 1997 in the case of the UK.) MPS1992 (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how this is a US biased discussion. The crimes discussed aren't limited to the US though in terms of shear numbers the US has more such events. The firearms articles aren't country specific in general. Springee (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The language itself in the comments betray the bias. First, this is not a discussion about crimes, it is about guns. At this moment it is even framed in specific types of guns. My statement is about the use of guns, legal and otherwise. The other is in the absurdity to ask for "citations". When you are really interested in this discussion, when you are truly engaged in the subject, you know statistics, publications et al. In a talk page, asking for citations is posturing to defuse a point made. To illustrate my point in a personal way; I have never ever carried a genuine gun. I will not, I abhor the notion that I would have a gun of any type. I am not alone in this, the majority in my country is like that.

To make you appreciate more the difference in the outlook on guns and gun violence. In Utrecht a guy shot four people dead in a tram. Our country went into lock down.

When the point is made that "the firearms articles aren't country specific", it is EXACTLY the point that I am making. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Going to agree here with @GerardM: that to a non-American, this debate is clearly an American one, if only because Americans are downright obsessed with guns compared to the rest of the world, what happens is that these articles tend to reflect the American voice. The same is true of this debate. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree it's an American one (but we will still let others join the discussion ;D ). However, bias has baggage that saying this is an American debate does not. Debates about Cricket are largely not American as few people here follow or even know the game. However, I guess that also might impact what is seen as significant. A parallel might be an article about the Ford F-150 or another full size pickup. A reader in one of the markets where such trucks have been common might be interested in knowing about what engines/options were available in a specific generation while someone from a country with narrow roads and high gas prices might only be interested in why Americans want to drive such things. I could see that leading to a debate about, "Should criticism of the environmental impact of driving full size pickups be included in the F-150 article just because it talks about the consumption of the Ford F-150?" Anyway, I would agree this is very US centeric but I don't think bias is the correct term. Springee (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The reason for the discussion is to resolve two positions. However both positions should be in a separate article about the USA and its issues with guns. The problem I signal is that guns and its acceptance is globally a much bigger problem because of the effects of the USA crisis with guns. The comparison with cricket is false because the dominant discussion in the USA drowns out any NPOV as there is not even an acceptance that its discussion does not reflect the global realities. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 08:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Quite an interesting debate. Perhaps we could get more articles in this style in the future? --Joshualouie711^talk 21:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• I certainly agree with that opinion. It mostly depends on finding 2 people willing to submit the articles. There are some technical difficulties - and I have to ask the 2 writers to solve these in good faith, even though they disagree on the topic (Thanks @Dlthewave and Springee: for helping in this part). The basic difficulties are similar length and style, not crossing certain lines, e.g. nothing close to a personal attack, and which piece is published on top. The top-most writer has an advantage in setting the scope of the debate, but the writer of the bottom-most piece has the advantage of having "the last word". If you know of two folks who can agree to disagree in such an agreeable manner, *please* send them to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Just started reading, and already it looks like a good Signpost. Something useful; the past few weeks have been a busy season for coaching edit-athons, and now I see I should be encouraging "persistent" rather than "prolific" editing by newbies. We indeed are the prolific; our idea of fun is to spend hours most every day at this, and we want to recruit more like us. However, that will come, if it does, after our new editors return a few times per week for an hour or so. I can advise that when they run across an interesting fact or story, they should check WP for background, and then study the articles for the possibility of improvement. Or, watchlist articles they have already edited, and return once or twice a week to find, understand, evaluate and maybe repair the work of fellow editors old and new. Always we old-timers can learn something new and useful. Jim.henderson (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
• The study is interesting (though perhaps unsurprising) especially in light of the recent CMU proposal. I'm interested in why it is being covered now, when it was published in 2016. Calidum 04:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
• See also m:Research:Testing capacity of expressions of gratitude to enhance experience and motivation of editors for upcoming work on whether saying thanks encourages people to return. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

BlueRasberry - thanks for this. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

+1 ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Bluerasberry:. With regard to your words that make it appear that Signpost will officially "encourage our diverse contributor base to better respect all parts of our community", could you confirm whether the Signpost community still includes or has excluded the two people that just a few days ago wrote the following, and have never made an apology for these and other deliberately offensive and derogatory comments about those brave enough to stand up to them and object to what you now reframe as a "misguided humor column"?

• "My point was that the same "gender warrior" types are making everyone miserable everywhere about everything they can think of, using the same "distort what you really said and claim you're saying something very different and that it's an attack on TG people" bullshit, and they're crawling all over Wikipedia like ticks [...] I care about reasoned writers being witch-hunted by censorious TG/NB "allies", a bunch of hypocritical busybodies – over things the writers didn't actually say or mean. It's just one example of the sorts of PoV crap that hits us in waves, of course, but it's one hardly anyone will dare to speak up about, because even doing so garners accusations of "transphobia" (it has nothing to do with that at all, but with calling TG-obsessed, cis-gendered extremist activists on their bullshit)." diff
• "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." diff

Note that "TG" above is being used as an abbreviation for "Transgender" and "NB" for "Non-Binary".

If no lessons have been learned, then using the names of WikiProject LGBT Studies and the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group as if those communities are part of, or should be seen as supporting the Signpost immediately after the "misguided humor column", is empty political spin and a misuse of the reputation of these long established LGBT+ communities. LGBT+ Wikipedians and our allies should not be expected to be derided as "Sheeple", "Gender Warriors", "TG-obsessed", "extremist activists" or degraded as "Ticks".

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for at least describing the humour column in the previous issue "misguided", though I was certainly hoping for a more formal apology. I am definitely glad that the Signpost is still going strong and that you are using this incident (in a way) to encourage LGBT editors to contribute their perspectives to the newsletter. This article is good and I am glad very glad to be directed to some LGBT-related conversations that play on Wikimedia. I was unaware that Wikidata still has one property for "sex or gender" and that the situation there is still fairly awkward, so I'll definitely look into that! That all being said, I really would have liked a formal apology rather than an immediate defense on the authors involved in the incident... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Aditionally, great ideas and input from the LGBT+ User Group at the 2019 strategy summit! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 13:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you Bluerasberry for this exceptionally well constructed and well written article - and some credit is due also to Headbomb for his Copy editing. Quite clearly this is a piece about Gay Pride and Wikipedia's efforts to support LGBT objectively; it was not intended to be a further apology for a 'misguided' humour piece: The Signpost published a misguided humor column in the February 2019 issue. The people involved in writing and publishing the article had good intentions and reputations for being advocates for the LGBT+ community. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• This section is adapting Tech News content, but it appears this is not being acknowledged anywhere. Am I missing something? – Ammarpad (talk)

  See the first sentence under "Latest tech news", which links to meta:Tech/News as well as the pages for the specific weeks that items come from. (I wasn't the one who copied over the tech news for this issue, but when I do it I always make sure to also add an attribution link in the edit summary like [5] to comply with WP:COPYWITHIN.) - Evad37 [talk] 02:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

  OK, thanks. – Ammarpad (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-03-31/Traffic report