Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom: Difference between revisions

This page is to discuss the upcoming issue of The Signpost. 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.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Template:Wikipedia Signpost/Deadline Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Navigation

• February issue totals thru March 1, 2020, 2,134; March 3, 7,668; March 7, 13,254; March 14, 19,892; March 21, 32,508; March 28, 44,988.
• March issue totals thru March 31, 6,203; April 4, 26,276; April 11 42,591; April 18 50,059; April 25 57,878.
• April issue totals thru April 27, 5,033; May 2, 10,657 [1], [2]

• Pageviews list 1 (top 10)
• list 2 (remaining 7)

I broke out the columns/features in May issue due to a limitation in the pageviews tool; it can only display 10 at a time.

Current top five are: From the editor (281), Arbitration report (251), News and notes (200), In the media (181), Op-Ed (177). ☆ Bri (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody please step out of the way and put your keyboards down. Chris needs some room to publish. Please go ahead @Chris troutman:

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: starting now. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's going to be a good issue and will generate reader feedback. Sometimes it feels critical but we should all take pride in creating something important. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Smallbones: Published, tweet sent, email sent, and archiving and resetting for another month. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. More in 5 minutess. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everybody involved - the authors, copyeditors, tipster, interviewees ... As always to Chris troutman and Bri. I do think this could be a great issue, it certainly was a challenging issue in many ways. We'll see what the readers say.

BTW, we do need a bit more organization at deadline. It's usually not hard to chase down 1 or 2 last minute issues, but if we have 4 or 5 often enough that will lead to a serious problems sooner or later. Some of this is obviously my fault - I've had a tough month. But I'll likely email a couple of folks and better explain how I think the deadline should work.

Special thanks to everybody who contributed to the French paid editing story. Getting an important story like that near the deadline and coming up with a pretty good article is always enjoyable. That was worth the whole month for me.

Thanks again. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Special:RelatedChanges/User:Bri/Signpost 2020-05-31 talk

You can monitor reader feedback with the link above. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A few readers suggested a title commensurate with the open state of the case. I recommend changing the title to "Board member to receive editing restriction". ☆ Bri (talk) 03:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I don't know if this is a vote (probably informal even if it is), but this seems reasonable to me. -- puddleglum^2.0 04:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed the headline and issued a correction. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a topic of interest for the newsroom.

• There are 267 watchers of this page.
• There are 47 watchers of May's In the media, 40 watchers of News and notes, 35 watchers of Op-Ed, 33 watchers of Discussion report.
• All these numbers are far greater than the number of active Signpost contributors.

Presumably, the watchers of the articles put them on their watchlist during construction, since it's kind of uninteresting to watch changes to a published column. People seem to be interested in our pre-publication process, but I'm not sure what else to conclude. Invisible oversight? Potential recruits to the effort? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Bri: in addition to the regular contributors, watchers here probably include former contributors, WMF staff, people who are watching for discussions that should be suppressed, and people who watch both The Signpost's content pages and the discussions about them. ↠Pine (✉) 04:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Probably it also consists of editors (like me) who watch the page because they're part of a discussion and then when the disussion ends they forgot to unwatchlist it? My watchlist has more than 200 pages, mostly due to counter-vandalism, so its tricky to scroll through them all, which leads to simply just forgetting. I guess that's what I would venture to think. -- puddleglum^2.0 04:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Puddleglum, thanks for patrolling for vandalism. ↠Pine (✉) 04:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of these may be editors who at one point (possibly years ago) watchlisted the generic "Next issue" version of these pages; once the article is moved to the dated page name during publication, that new page is then automatically added to the watchlist. Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that solves it for me. The numbers more or less carry over from issue to issue, but I'd never figured out how they switched from one issue to the next (but how then do they switch back to "next issue"?) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are watching the basic ‘next issue’ page every time it gets created, so moving just adds a page to the watchlist and as the next issue is recreated users automatically watch it again. Not sure about the tech behind it but I’ve experienced this with The Signpost and users who move their talks to user talk:Example/archivenumber before recreacrating their talks. Hopefully that makes some sense. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a pretty radical thing to have an open newsroom — I can't easily think of any other journalistic entity that does. And while it's in keeping with Wikipedia's ethos, I might support if there was an effort to make it closed. Newsrooms need to have discussions about which content is or is not appropriate for publication, and when those discussions are public, that process is hindered and the line between published and unpublished content gets blurred. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm one of them, and have a pretty easy answer: who doesn't want an early peek at the news? Sometimes it's interesting to see the process play out, but more often it's just because I look forward to the Signpost and like to see the content early (and, I suppose, flag any potential issues, but that's secondary). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I generally watch pages I copy edit, and talk pages that I want to follow, which would account for watching some published articles. isaacl (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Isaacl and Rhododendrites: - don't worry, we still love you and all copyeditors! Writers - feel free to email me if there is anything sensitive, or even if there's not. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Smallbones: I am trying to arrange another interview for June's OTBS. For a gallery, how about photos from the Seattle Japanese Garden? ↠Pine (✉) 04:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

should we publish the interview under "Interview" and just leave OTBS until you are ready with it? For Gallery, I'd like to have something every month, topical if possible (e.g. do we have pix of riots this month, or perhaps photos of people killed by police). With a resource like Commons we should always have something, even if not topical. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Smallbones: personally, I get plenty of news of violence from the news media. Also, headlines in the United States mainstream media, while often good subjects for Wikipedia mainspace articles, are not necessarily what I want to write about in The Signpost. This is not to diminish the significance of the incident in Minneapolis, bad policing, and the peaceful protests and harmful destruction in U.S. cities. Being timely is good, but also consider Wikipedia:Recentism. If you prefer, I can put the Seattle Japanese Garden photos and also the interview into OTBS and leave The Signpost's Gallery space for a different topic. ↠Pine (✉) 18:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Go for it on OTBS, however you want to do it. Just let us know so that we don't do exactly the same story in 2 places. Duplication doesn't matter unless it's 2 big or medium sized articles, e.g. 2 mentions of the same story in paragraphs in "In the media" and "news and note' or in an Op-ed usually would just give slightly different viewpoints. But 2 big stories can be a problem.
• For the Gallery - you're right that this would be a horrible time for timely topics. In general topical is more of what I want, e.g. Megalibrarygirl's Gallery of women in March- I just loved that. Timely and topical do have major overlaps however. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi @Smallbones: OTBS is underway. OTBS usually does not include lengthy descriptions of high profile news. The only time that I can recall of OTBS providing coverage that could have been in N&N was for English Wikipedia's 6 million article milestone. Regarding the gallery, see June#Events in June for some ideas. ↠Pine (✉) 06:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Smallbones and Bri: I pinged Misaochan regarding the interview for OTBS. The interview can wait until next month if it's not done by this month's publication time. The rest of OTBS is ready for copyediting. ↠Pine (✉) 00:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Pine: did you forget to mark OTBS ready for copyediting? ☆ Bri (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Bri: I am waiting to hear from Misaochan. ↠Pine (✉) 01:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oops! I misunderstood and removed tohe intrview section @Bri and Pine: I'll self revert and put the ready for copyediting in. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Smallbones and Bri: I removed the content for Misaochan's interview due to the time constraint. If there is an OTBS next month then I hope that the interview will be published then. My level of frustration with WMF is high enough that I'm not sure that there will be an OTBS next month. I have some projects that I would like to do for Wikipedia, but I'm tired of conflicts. ↠Pine (✉) 07:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we compile a list of the contributors' names for the Gallery. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri, Megalibrarygirl, and Pine: I've clearly changed my mind on "this would be a horrible time for timely topics". If we have the time this could be the definitive use of "Gallery" as a photo essay. As far as giving credit to the photographers, it will take a lot of time and the photogs are given on Commons as usual. The photos are not set yet. Perhaps somebody could list all the photogs at the end of the article, maybe in small print, since there will be 40-50 photos.

There is another set of contributors that we should also list - the writers and people who picked the photos for inclusion. I want to make a written statement in the text that the photos and the selection of the photos are not NPOV. On a photo essay, I don't see how they can be. So I might state my POV very briefly as "black lives matter" (no caps?), others who write or select might want to briefly state other POVs, e.g. "do your duty", "I love America in spite of its flaws". These will likely be controversial, but so be it. These contributors should write their own "brief POVs". So who wants to be listed as coauthors? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can do that, Smallbones. Where do you want it listed? Do you need help with the captions? I was going to leave captions off of most, since I like that aesthetically, but I'll caption them if you all want. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl:

• 
  Protestor, Washington, DC, June 2
• 
  Fire, Minneapolis, May 28

I like your aesthetic idea, but some very basic info is needed to keep the reader from getting lost. I don't want to comment in the captions in any way, so let's keep it as simple as possible on the captions: (1-3 word description), location, date (without year). I see 2, a flag and a map that can't easily fit this format.

There are 63 photos now. 50 max in the finished product. They will be rearranged. 2-3 paragraphs of text (total) will be added between blocks of photos. And some non-US protests need to be added. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I compiled a list of photographers: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/Gallery/photographers - Bri.public (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The gallery is looking great. Maybe we could get one or teo images from non-US cities? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noting here that the map in the Gallery is titled "US and Canada" but it does show one in what I believe is Bermuda, part of the UK a British Overseas Territory. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For awhile I've been thinking of getting some article about "Wikipedia after the pandemic" i.e how the pandemic will change the 'pedia. If anybody has ideas on this let me know. The mood I've been in over the last week though is getting to me. I don't remember 1968 being like this. I really hope I don't feel like writing "June Meltdown" for the next issue. If anybody knows of a good optimism course, let us all know. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: I just spent a few minutes thinking about this. I can't really come up with any really major ones, which actually makes me fairly proud. Unlike pretty much all the social media platforms, which have had ongoing and largely unsuccessful battles with misinformation and other ails, we were pretty much ready for something like this, and all we needed to do was just get to work using the methods/policies/tools we've already established. The talk pages histories at WT:19 and Talk:COVID-19 pandemic chronicle things from there. There were some areas where we lacked sufficient coordination/standardization (maps is the big one that comes to mind), some kinks to work out (here's a very small recent example: T253743), and some features deployed widely for the first time (for instance, excerpts), but on the whole, I don't think the pandemic has necessitated a course correction for Wikipedia. For the world, absolutely, but not for Wikipedia. Does that qualify as some grounded optimism? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, being a good steward of our subscriber list, I removed almost a hundred names of editors who have been gone for a least a year, some for a couple years. It's not many compared to the vast number but this sort of scrubbing has to be done every now and then. Otherwise, our monthly publication lands on an unwatched talk page, piling up until it hits the limit. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chris. That sounds like a lot of work. Did you have to click 1,106 links, then click "User contributions" for each of them? I counted 1,017 subscribers left. I'd guess this list of subscribers is the most important notification that we have, but there must be at least 4 other methods. Do we have any idea which others are the 2nd most important? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As one point of anecdotal data, I have used the watchlist method. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: I used Navigation Popups. I don't know that we've ever collected data on how people find our latest issue, whether talk page notification, watchlist notification, Twitter, the mailing list, or my preference: {{Signpost-subscription}}. I imagine someone could identify the inbound traffic's origin. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed our founder is a subscriber. How many people find the link on his talkpage? ☆ Bri (talk) 01:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've almost always found it there. That includes the last year, it's just an interest place to wait. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all! For this month's WikiProject Report, I noticed that project Black Lives Matter was created recently by User:Another Believer. I thought that before I put time into preparing questions though, it might be a good idea to get advice here - I know this is a more contemporary topic than most Reports. It might be an interesting read, but I'd like a go-ahead from higher up before I put any time into it. Thanks. -- puddleglum^2.0 02:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Puddleglum2.0, my 2 cents is that WP:BLM is most definitely the project to interview this month. I'd be happy to help with drafting questions and conducting the interview if that'd be helpful. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sdkb, that sounds great! If you want to help with questions, I've created the Wikiproject Report page here, so if you want to help out, feel free to contribute there! Once we get enough questions, I'll drop a note over at the BLM talk page to get some interviewees. All the best, -- puddleglum^2.0 03:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Puddleglum2.0, I added a few potential questions. How do they look? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sdkb, overall, great! I've removed one question, as it's answered in the very top of the main page - I usually include the "Statement of Purpose" in the article lead. I've dropped a note on the talk page - we should be getting answers soon. Thanks! -- puddleglum^2.0 00:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Puddleglum2.0, sounds good! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Puddleglum2.0: something that's just occurring to me now is that, by the time we publish, a lot will most likely have changed. I wonder if we're diving into this too soon by posting there already. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sdkb, sorry to report so late, didn't see your ping. The questions should be timeless, the less should be written more closely to the deadline though. Speaking of though, I'm really busy this week and struggling to keep up with IRL, so if you have time, it would be great if you could draft the lede and I can hopefully find some time to skim and review it. sorry this article has been more your work - life is crazy and unpredictable. :) All the best -- puddleglum^2.0 23:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This all looks very good. Don't worry about the project being very new. It also is, for now at least, very big and active for a Wikiproject. There are lots of good people on the member list. It will get something done. I think we're likely to get scooped on this - but don't worry we can do it better. Some of the outside press might even make it into the article - I'd have a fairly long introduction on this - perhaps Another believer explaining his motivations with outside press info in there, and maybe groups like Blacklunchtable.com asked to comment separately if they'd like. Don't be afraid of being creative. Go for it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, we'll likely print https://medium.com/freely-sharing-the-sum-of-all-knowledge/we-stand-for-racial-justice-49c31afbabca in News from the WMF. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We pretty much have to have coverage of George Floyd, the protests, the reactions to the protests, US and international in this month's Gallery. There are thousands of pix from around the world at Commons.

• Please help me go through all the categories at Commons and add some of the best, most striking photos and videos to the gallery

Some Guidelines:

• Different people have different views on these matter. Please respect the photographers' POVs while respecting your own. Getting every photo NPOV is not possible and is not what NPOV means. Having a range of POVs is.
• I'll cut down the number of pix when the time comes, but for now add pix until we get up to about 120
  • I really want *striking* photographs - boring, poor lighting, poorly framed, etc are not striking, bright colors are.
  • See @Megalibrarygirl:'s Gallery in March for the types of photos I'd like. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-03-29/Gallery
• Don't include pix that are likely to get deleted at Commons, no fair use allowed
• Any help appreciated.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: do you want the pics emailed to you? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl: I've had some emailed to me and I'll add those, but the easiest way is just to add them directly. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We might have some editorial decisions on how to report issues like the one that resulted in this request for page protection. The page in question has been referenced by The Independent and other RSes. But are we going to wade into a tidal wave of celebrity accusations? ☆ Bri (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday, Sushant Singh Rajput received over 7 million page views (more than the main page), unfortunately due to tragic news. [3] Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan described as a country by Wikipedia is definitely newsworthy and has been picked up by at least one media outlet in Taiwan. I added it to In the media. However, this is the outcome of a 4 June RFC that I don't see any coverage on. We should probably talk about it in our own discussion report. This has been a contentious area and is covered by discretionary sanctions. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see [4] which is in French and first appeared May 22. There is a news article in English about the article inFrench ‘A woman’: Wikipedia page records trials and achievements of invisible women

Should we make this our "essay" article this month? Google translate seems to do a pretty good, but not perfect job. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it's time to have a humor column only now and then, when something actually funny is available. Perhaps editors of the French Wikipedia find this amusing, but then the French think Jerry Lewis was a comic genius so go figure.
  BTW, in a little side-clicking while writing this post, I came across Jerry Lewis#Critical acclaim in France, which could itself be pressed into service as a Signpost humor column, being (apparently) a masterpiece of subtle parody:

==Critical acclaim in France==

While Lewis was popular in France for his duo films with Dean Martin and his solo comedy films, his reputation and stature increased after the Paramount contract, when he began to exert total control over all aspects of his films. His involvement in directing, writing, editing and art direction coincided with the rise of auteur theory in French intellectual film criticism and the French New Wave movement. He earned consistent praise from French critics in the influential magazines Cahiers du Cinéma and Positif, where he was hailed as an ingenious auteur.

His singular mise-en-scène, and skill behind the camera, were aligned with Howard Hawks, Alfred Hitchcock and Satyajit Ray. Appreciated too, was the complexity of his also being in front of the camera. The new French criticism viewed cinema as an art form unto itself, and comedy as part of this art. Lewis is then fitted into a historical context and seen as not only worthy of critique, but as an innovator and satirist of his time. Jean-Pierre Coursodon states in a 1975 Film Comment article, "The merit of the French critics, auteurist excesses notwithstanding, was their willingness to look at what Lewis was doing as a filmmaker for what it was, rather than with some preconception of what film comedy should be."

Not yet curricula at universities or art schools, Cinema Studies and Film theory were avant-garde in early 1960s America. Mainstream movie reviewers such as Pauline Kael, were dismissive of auteur theory, and others, seeing only absurdist comedy, criticized Lewis for his ambition and "castigated him for his self-indulgence" and egotism. "The total film-maker, so admired in France, made Hollywood uncomfortable, since the system has always operated otherwise."

Appreciation of Lewis became a misunderstood stereotype about "the French", and it was often the object of jokes in American pop culture. "That Americans can't see Jerry Lewis' genius is bewildering," says N. T. Binh, a French film magazine critic. Such bewilderment was the basis of the book Why the French Love Jerry Lewis.In response to the lingering perception that French audiences adored him, Lewis stated in interviews he was more popular in Germany, Japan and Australia.

"Singular mise-en-scène" – Well, that's one way of putting it. EEng 20:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have started the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Humour and am interested in whether folks here think this is funny. So far it's via Google translate, but that doesn't look like a major barrier, with a little copyediting or help from the French authors. Another possible problem is the references. French references seem to work on English Wikipedia! Most of the time at least. So far about 16 of 20 seem to work, the others I just stripped to bare refs. Only 140 more refs to go! I doubt that Jerry Lewis has a lot to do with this - you either think it's funny, or you don't. @Megalibrarygirl and Slimvirgin: - what do you think? Smallbones_(smalltalk)

Um, that "column" (or whatever you call it) is what I was talking about above. I'm generally considered to have the most catholic idea of what's funny of anyone within a 2000-mile radius, but I have no idea at all in what way that's supposed to amuse. None. It might be an Onion reject. The article linked at the very top of this thread quotes someone's breakthrough insight that "Humour has always been the tool of the oppressed, a means to wittily expose what cannot be said" and I heartily agree, but first it's got to be witty. EEng 22:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: instead of being funny, I find it rather beautiful. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still looking for feedback on this. Whether it should go in "Humour" or "Essay" is now a question. I do think that there is a misconception involved in the "oppose" - articles in The Signpost do not have to appeal to all Wikipedians, for example an opinion piece might be opposed by half or even more Wikipedians - if that happens, so be it. Or the "Recent Research" column might never be read by 1/3 of Wikipedians, but that does not mean that we should discriminate against the 2/3rds that might be interested. I have pledged that we will not use humour to put down any protected groups, including any group whose members do not have a choice in their membership. I don't believe that this column would put down men, women, or people of any gender, the French, or any such group. It really just pokes fun at society as a whole, but maybe it does hit pretty close to home for French headline writers, not a protected group in any sense. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about anyone "opposing" anything. There's just nothing I can see funny about it; I can't even see what's supposed to be funny about it. It seems to be trying to be a parody of something but I can't tell what, even after reading the link at the top of this thread (which seems to be machine-translated from something else); seriously, can you give some indication of what the joke is? It's clearly trying to make a point about women's achievements being underappreciated, and there's something about some habit of French headline writers writing "A woman", or something, or something, or something, but beyond that it makes no sense. And it's certainly not an essay. It reminds me of this falls-flat-on-its-face attempt at parody from 35 years ago [5], which has always haunted me as the archetype of the embarrassingly strained attempt at satire. EEng 15:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm from fr-wiki, please accept my apologies for my poor English writing. Many French-speaking media and social media enjoyed the pastiche (usually, pastiche is closer to a parody than to a hoax). Several news items are listed at the top of the Fr talk page, all of them very positive about the wikipedia page. A member of the main syndicate advocating visible women in the news declared the pastiche is both funny and well-spotted. Its purpose is to mock the newspaper's habit to declare "a woman has done this". No one ever writes in France "a man becomes the president", "a man becomes a pilot". Men are economists, civil servants, philosophers, engineers... why don't newspaper call us (I'm a woman) by our first and last names and say "Jane Name, an architect, creates the biggest bridge on Earth"? We're not "a woman". ;) Kind regards, - - Bédévore ^{[knock knock]} 17:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your English is fine. Finally someone has explained it. I get it now. The problem, then, is that you haven't seen headlines like that in British or American publications for at least 20 years. That's not to say headlines don't point out when a woman breaks a significant barrier: God willing, in November there will be headlines proclaiming the first woman US vice-president. But they don't announce every achievement by a female as if it's a outlier, so as things stand I think the point will be lost on most readers.

I can vaguely believe that this piece might be salvaged somehow, but if that's to happen there will need to be a very careful translation plus an intro explaining the cultural and linguistic background. EEng 18:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I could add to the intro. An English-language editor has suggested that we alert our readers that the practice of referring to women's achievements in headlines using "A woman" is now long past - "you haven't seen headlines like that in British or American publications for at least 20 years"[6], followed by 4 or 5 references already in the article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe you could not, because it would misrepresent what I said. I distinguished headlines which (a) appropriately acknowledge breakthrough achievements by women in areas traditionally dominated by men from (b) thoughtless headlines treating women's achievements as curiosities or aberrations (which is what I meant by headlines like that, because that's what our French colleague was talking about), or worse (c) organizations clumsily showcasing women as windowdressing. From our French colleague's comments I gather there's a lot of (b) still to be seen in France, but the headline you linked is probably (a) -- though possibly (c), but I don't think so -- and your mention of references in the article is irrelevant because the article's references are in French and I made it clear I was speaking of British and American publications.

I've tried to help but it looks like my efforts are ineffective. The intro you recently added will help, I think, and I guess we'll find out in due course how the piece is received. EEng 16:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would work better with some mock ups of actual newspaper headlines with attributions to the sources (or out-of-copyright images of headlines) heralding accomplishments of "a woman" and just going into the piece, without an intro. I don't think trying to explain the context is effective; it drags out the reveal and it loses its punch. isaacl (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like it might really help. EEng 19:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a humour column listed for this issue. Is it really supposed to be there? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it just resets automatically Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19#Academic_pre-print_with_quantitative_analysis_of_Wikipedia's_response. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just out: The value of Tor and anonymous contributions to Wikipedia reported by the official Tor blog, about a report by researchers at NYU, University of Washington, and Drexel, concerning edits made via Tor network through 2018. According to Meta, English Wikipedia tends to block many Tor exit nodes under the WP:Open proxy policy. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is copied over fro Wikipedia@20, so only needs light copyediting. Some copyediting issues I've left are

• The use of the LGBTQ+ outreach logo at the top. I like to use the same images as Wikipedia@20, as much as possible, but I also don't like using somebody else's logo without permission (even if its on-Wiki) @Bluerasberry and RachelWex: Could you see if the use of the logo is ok or suggest a different image?
• I trust the reference formatting I used meets both the academic and Wikipedia standards.
• I substituted "article" for "chapter" in many cases, but chapter is used also as in Wikimedia chapter. Somebody should double check that.
• We could put in Wiki links or even links to Facebook and Twitter. Go ahead and link 5-6 of these if you think appropriate, but let's not overdo it.

Other than that, just a light CE by somebody not associated with the article so far should do it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about File:Wikimedia LGBT outreach logo.svg. This is fine to use. This used to be the logo for Wikimedia LGBT+, the organization, but 1-2 years ago the organization changed to File:Wikimedia LGBT+ logo.svg. That leaves this logo free for anyone to use, as it is the meta:Wikimedia Community logo and available for anyone. I will do copyediting and post back here when done. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Context: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/News from the WMF

Regarding the ED's recent Medium post: IIRC, the post was made within hours of ENWP concluding that taking any stance on the issue would be an unacceptable breach of neutrality.

While the Signpost does not require everything to be completely neutral, there's a line between "giving an opinion on Wikimedia-related topics" and straight political advocacy on a wide array of non-Wikimedia-related topics, and the post is clearly the latter. I'm not sure it could be reasonably accepted in the project space at all, let alone be a good idea to send it out from the Signpost. Given the community position regarding the acceptability of using the wiki for dissemination of (non-WM-related) political advocacy, I think the Signpost should summarize, contextualize, and link to the post, rather than directly copy-pasting and publishing the raw content.

(Note: The post was originally on the Executive Director's personal Medium account, not on the Wikimedia Foundation blog. The WMF blog originally created a redirect to the post, but the post was then added to the WMF blog itself (presumably due to legal/technical/privacy issues that a redirect would cause).) --Yair rand (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is noted. You might want to post it again in the comments section when the article comes out in The Signpost. We are an independent newspaper published to inform and entertain all members of the Wikipedia movement. Just as we are independent of the WMF, we are also independent of ArbCom, the editors who choose to participate at WP:ANI, as well as those who participate in RFC's that aren't related to The Signpost, with the exception that if there is a clearly stated rule (e.g. WP:BLP) that applies in project space, we have to follow that rule the same as anybody else. Think of journalists at The New York Times: they can publish what they like, subject to their own editorial control systems, without prior censorship. After publication anybody can take them to court to correct or punish anything published that broke the law. And certainly all journalists have to follow normal everyday laws against illegal parking and the like. But if the Mayor of New York City, joined in by the Governor of New York, and the President of the United States, tell them that they cannot publish something, they'll almost certainly publish it just to defend the principle of no prior censorship. Same applies to The Signpost. If Katherine Maher, Jimbo Wales, ArbCom and a unanimous RFC of 100 editors told us that we could not publish the article as an act of prior censorship, we will certainly publish it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, it doesn't quite work that way. The New York Times would still judge the item on its own merits to determine if it should be published. Various levels of government might, for example, urge the news media to forego publishing details of a crime during an ongoing investigation so that they could be used to identify the true perpetrators from pretenders. It wouldn't turn around and publish the info simply out of contrariness. isaacl (talk) 09:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Isaacl and Yair rand: - My post above assumes that a potential story is "subject to (the newspaper's) own editorial control systems". There's no reason that editors can't change their mind, especially if there's new information or if they are asked by the authorities to delay publication to, e.g. help catch a criminal. But we're not talking about that here. Yair trots out an entirely bogus theory that an RfC against a WikiBlackout supporting Black Lives Matter prohibits The Signpost from publishing an article by the ED and COO on the current upheaval. Then he speculates that the article could not "be reasonably accepted in the project space at all, let alone be a good idea to send it out from the Signpost," i.e. a threat that he will get the article removed, censored, according to some non-existent rule. That's just intimidation, and I am not about to quietly accept anybody trying to intimidate The Signpost. Yair - if that's not what you meant to say you need to apologize right now. If that is what you meant to say - then just take it straight to ArbCom, to see how fast your complaint is laughed off their page. Or perhaps you'd prefer that I publish your "Letter to the editor" in the forthcoming issue, together with my shorter reply. Your choice - my choice is just to say "no" to intimidation. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: I'm going to write a fuller reply soon, but I'd like to say now that that is not how I intended my post at all. --Yair rand (talk) 00:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read the post that way, though I can understand in the context of some of the previous community conversations why you might interpret it that way. To me it was disputing if the article fell within the scope of Wikimedia-related matters, which I think is a reasonable question to ask in this case, no matter which answer I personally agree with. isaacl (talk) 00:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: There are two primary points I wanted to make:

1. WMF statements such as these would be best published in the third-person, "WMF said X", in my opinion.
2. Coverage would be improved by giving context. (For example, information about the recent relevant rejected proposals, and the location of original publication, as well as perhaps some points of relevant WMF internal policy, among other things.)

While strictly speaking, inclusion in the Signpost has a lot more leeway than your average project-space page (notwithstanding the confusing controversy last year over "It"), I think the Signpost should try to take more care than that space in determining what should be included, taking into account community norms and the potential for alienating people. However, for the Signpost, whether or not something is a good idea is a judgement to be made by the Editor. I don't think it would be a good idea to publish a WMF post advocating changes to US healthcare law and criminal justice reform in the Signpost's own voice, and you've noted my opinion, which is all I can ask for. I do see how my post sounded threatening, and I apologize for that. --Yair rand (talk) 01:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. You'd be surprised how many people come to this page (or others) telling us what we have to do. Sorry if I over-reacted in your case. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About rebranding -

1. This weekend's meta:All-Affiliates Brand Meeting might be the start of the biggest protest the Wikimedia community has ever organized
2. The WMF rebranding proposal has been controversial for months, several hundred people have contributed significantly to the discussion, I read the wiki community as alarmed and scared, and there is no good journalism or summary or timeline of this yet
3. The WMF says that rebranding is about renaming Wikimedia to Wikipedia or about color changes in the logo. The Wikimedia community says the rebranding discussion is about community self governance.
4. There are some in the wiki community making serious claims of either extreme ignorance or dishonesty in Wikimedia Foundation dealings on this issue
5. Statement this morning from Nataliia on the board, this is not an obvious response to many wiki community concerns, but also not bad

I have some people who are submitting content, will try to organize this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to contact a writer on this, a friend of yours BR. The email got through, but I'm not sure the message got through. In any case we absolutely have to have an article or two on this. It's really about opinion at this time so I'd love to have a calm reasoned opinion piece. No possible outing of the Board Chair or anything like that please. The second article might just be straight news about which opinions were expressed at the All-Affiliates Brand Meeting.

I really don't want to enflame this issue. Let's talk about it calmly. The stated issue, when it comes down to it is just whether to replace an "m" with a "p". Obviously, there's something more than that really going on: it's about a constitutional issue, power sharing between the m and the p. I wouldn't think that giving a platform here for somebody to say "Let's get rid of the WMF" would be of any use to anybody - in the long run. Nor would anybody saying "The WMF can do whatever they want." Let's try to find somebody who has a reasonable, practical alternative somewhere in the middle.

I'll email you BR. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• meta:Community open letter on renaming‎ <---- primary outcome of discussion, this is where the conversation is. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No one is pushing the panic button but some Wikimedia community members are voicing awareness of the need for one. I am not sure where to start pulling journalism out of this.

The general idea is a nightmare scenario as follows:

• There is the meta:Wikimedia mission (m:Mission?), and possibly in conflict, the wishes of Wikimedia Foundation staff. There is a trend toward the WMF staff defining mission-driven activities as what they decide even when contrary to community input.
• The Wikimedia Foundation ceases to recognize Wikimedia community governance (when it differs from what the WMF desires)
• The Wikimedia Foundation wishes to eliminate any claims that the Wikimedia community has on WMF revenue
• The Wikimedia Foundation claims a position to speak for Wikipedia, the Wikimedia community, all readers, all volunteers, etc. entirely through its internal organization without community or volunteer input
• Currently the Wikimedia community has elections for 5 of 10 of the board of trustees as described at meta:Wikimedia Foundation elections, then 4 more are non-wiki appointed experts, and 1 is Jimbo as founder. The board just expanded to 16 seats. There is fear that the WMF will appoint "community representatives" or control the elections to seat corporate minded people.

At the meta:All-Affiliates Brand Meeting the phrase "deplatforming the Wikimedia community" was spoken. This means disenfranchisement, disempowering, removing from governance, diprioritizing, or otherwise excluding the Wikimedia community from the resources of the Wikimedia Movement. The rebranding was one case of this. Other issues mentioned include the following:

1. The disbanding of the meta:Grants:APG/Funds Dissemination Committee
2. freeze on WMF funding to chapters, a variation of which happens every few months
3. halt on funding for both online and offline Wikimedia events due to COVID-19 - offline clearly halted, rumor is / lack of evidence to the contrary suggests that WMF is not supporting online events
4. In general, WMF revenue going up crazy fast, and money for any projects not controlled by WMF staff getting cut. Also no financial transparency in the way the Wikimedia community approves.
5. Cancellation of Wikimedia Summit - meta:Wikimedia Summit 2020 - no online alternative
6. Cancellation of Wikimania - WMF makes no apparent move to support with funding, staff, etc. any alternative meta:Wikimania 2020
7. suspension of the Wikimedia community election for board of trustees
8. speculation that the the expansion of board seats will increase WMF control of the board at the expense of community representation

These are rumors but at the All-Affiliates Brand Meeting my read on the situation is that some in the Wikimedia community have a real fear of the WMF being co-opted by executives who do a money and power grab to exclude any meaningful Wikimedia community oversight forever, and especially, that the WMF is getting super angry and fearful about the Wikimedia community closeness to the money which donors give to the Wikimedia movement.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spreading fears and rumors is what I want to avoid. "Deplatforming" sounds something to me like "Defund the police" - if it means what it sounds like it means - just getting rid of the police (or of Wikipedia editors who don't toe the line), then I don't think it's a good idea to push this - unless it is explained in detail. Better to spend the time explaining (and documenting) all the real issues noted above. Now who is going to write it up? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Makes me think of defenestration. EEng 04:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That word "deplatforming" has been bouncing around in my head for a couple of days now. It seems very wonky to me. If/when we write this up, could we use something more in the realm of conversational English. Marginalizing? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Bracketbot! Port me to that platform for some horizontal integration! EEng 20:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please submit all articles (except for the few I've approved for later submission) by Friday, June 26 at 11:59 PM NY Time. This will be another tight deadline issue and I might otherwise be overwhelmed by the time of Sunday publication. There are 4 articles ready to be copyedited now. One bright spot - due to relaxation of the lockdown, as of July 6 I'll likely have at least 4 more hours a day to work on The Signpost, so I shouldn't be complaining about that anymore. All help appreciated. I've cleared my schedule and have all day Saturday to write(!) and edit. @HaeB and Bri: - you're cool Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smallbones, Featured content is down to the image captions and a title, otherwise can be ce'd. For the title, there's an unusual amount of sports articles, so maybe something about winning (without making it seem like featured content is a competition) I'll be back later today to finish up my work... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The WPR should also be ready - I dropped a note on interviewee Phoebe's talk page regarding the last portion of their answer to the last question; it's a bit outdated, but besides that, it should be good - Thanks Sdkb for doing the brunt of the writing! All the best, -- puddleglum^2.0 22:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the use of the CHAZ map in this article: WP:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In the media

If the map is included, it might be best to note that it was deleted from the article as likely inaccurate original research. See this discussion. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 05:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll likely delete it from our article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:25, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: Are you open to persuasion regarding whether it's necessary to say "alleged police killing of George Floyd" in the first sentence? My understanding is that, even if one feels that Chauvin's actions were in some way justified or understandable, there is no doubt from the coroner's report that they led to Floyd's death, which makes calling it a killing an objective description of what took place (and is what Killing of George Floyd does). Saying "alleged killing" comes off to me as introducing uncertainty where there is none in the name of false balance, which would be a disservice to our readers. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence in question is the first sentence in The Signpost's article "The global reckoning over racial justice arising from the alleged police killing of George Floyd in June..." I added "alleged". The authors added "Police" to the link to the Wikipedia article. We have to be very, very careful not to state that a police officer is guilty of killing Floyd. That is a matter for the courts to decide. I think the easiest way to do that is to use the word "alleged" - most people understand that that means we're not stating anything about legal guilt - not that we're saying anybody is not guilty. We simply cannot convict anybody in The Signpost. It would be a violation of the cannons of journalism and of WP:BLP. Another way might be to remove the word "Police" which was added by the authors.

BTW, I have a great deal of sympathy for stating the facts as simply as possible, which appears to be what the authors are trying to do. Nevertheless, I've added "alleged" in about three articles so far. Messing with the cannons of journalism and WP:BLP is just a step too far, IMHO. @Sdkb, Puddleglum2.0, Bri, Chris troutman, and Eddie891:

All comments on this welcomed. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMO we should say "the killing of George Floyd". Taking any of my personal opinions out of the matter, the article is at 'Killing of George Floyd' so not piping it removes a critique that we are making any judgment as to Chauvin's guilt. Also, it's what the 'real' newspapers are doing. Take the WSJ article I read just this morning, it says Since the killing of George Floyd and the protests that followed, or this one The Memorial Day killing of George Floyd, a black man, by a white Minneapolis police officer touched off a series of mass demonstrations that began in cities throughout the U.S.. Though I have limited experience dealing with contentious BLP issues, it's also worth noting that the article was moved to 'Killing of George Floyd' after a lengthy discussion, where the closer wrote in part that "The arguments advanced in the discussion whose strength was given most weight in this close neither concluded that this homicide was a murder nor that it was a justifiable homicide. It was rather overwhelmingly agreed that that is a matter for the courts to decide. Those arguments only posited that, for now, the the title should reflect the official finding by the ME [that it was a killing]." Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the death of George Floyd makes more sense, as we know objectively that he died. Use of the word killing imputes motive, in my opinion. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smallbones, the simplest fact is that we do not yet have a jury verdict, and the move to Killing of ... was folly. While I count myself among those who personally believe that George Floyd was murdered in a city where police abuse is long-standing and rampant, it should be considered a BLP violation of the most egregrious kind for Wikipedia to be convicting Chauvin without a trial, and the only reason you are having to discuss whether to add the word alleged is that POV warriors won a naming dispute. I suggest that we should hold a BLP RFC about convicting people without a trial, in Wikipedia's voice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no doubt that we are talking about a death while in police custody. If it was an accidental death, it is still a killing. The independent medical examiner found it to be a killing: there is no other health issue that could cause or contribute to the death. That plus the community decision for the title makes our choice obvious. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all who commented. I'm leaning with Bri towards "killing" or perhaps to "homicide" (I'll look at the coroners' reports to see if they are official). I'm not entirely convinced by Sandy Georgia's argument, but she makes it well, and it's certainly something to think about. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you and Bri privy to the evidence presented by the defense ... In a trial that has not yet happened? Is the press? I believe that Floyd was murdered, but what Wikipedia has done is indefensible, and we should hold an RFC to make it a BLP vio to convict a person in Wikipedia’s voice without a trial. The coroner is not the only voice, and this is folly. An example of letting the masses decide when all are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Let’s just go ahead and lynch Chauvin and see if that makes everyone feel better about what happened to Floyd and many similar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Odd use of 'lynch'. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO "lynch" is written all over this, and I'm not going to be a part of "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." However, I do believe that "homicide" is as neutral a term as we're going to get and it is an official report. There's another place (or 3) that this issue comes up in this month's paper. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From Black's Law Dictionary 8th edition

homicide
The killing of one person by another.

From The Dictionary of Cultural Literacy via dictionary.com:

homicide[ (hom-uh-seyed)

The killing of one person by another, whether intended (murder) or not (manslaughter). Not all homicide is unlawful; killing in self-defense, for example, is not a crime.

But whatever ☆ Bri (talk) 02:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of that will be among the evidence at trial. I think the "lynch is written all over this" comment summarizes what Wikipedia has done, and as much as I regret Floyd's (IMO) "murder" and abhor what Chauvin did, and hope he receives his due, Wikipedia should not make itself out to be the jury. The article can be moved to "Killing of ... " once a jury has decided. But this is now beating a deadhorse ... sorry :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While we're pondering the different means words can have, perhaps it would be worth considering whether comparing the titling of a Wikipedia article merits comparison to lynching which has been more in the public consciousness recently. Richard Nevell (talk) 09:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While we’re pondering how to improve race relations in the United States, perhaps it is worth considering how Wikipedia furthering vigilante justice, which is precisely what lynching was/is, helps anyone or furthers anything worthy. We cannot amend for the past by engaging the same unjust practices. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think engvar is to blame for editors' differences of opinion on this. Apparently, in American English, "killing" doesn't mean "deliberately" (or "wrongfully"), but in British English, it does:

• American dictionaries:
  • American Heritage: The act or action of causing death, as of a person.
  • Merriam-Webster: the act of one that kills ("kills" defined as to deprive of life : cause the death of)
  • Dictionary.com (Random House): the act of a person or thing that kill [sic!] ("kill" defined as to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; slay.)
• British dictionaries:
  • Oxford Learner's: an act of killing somebody deliberately
  • Cambridge: an occasion when a person is murdered
  • Collins: A killing is an act of deliberately killing a person - Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simply "the killing of George Floyd", without any other descriptors, seems appropriate. – SJ + 15:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, ENGVAR does not explain my concern, which is that we should not label Floyd’s death in any way without having heard from the defense. We have one side of the story; Wikipedia should judge after the legal process does, not before. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see the awkward thing about this one is that we have presumably all seen at least part of the video. Taking Murder of Meredith Kercher as another notable death, Sandy if there was no dispute as to it being a murder, but the investigation and court case was about who the murderer was, would you be OK with us describing it as a murder at this stage? ϢereSpielChequers 17:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The legal process has already deemed this a "killing". It's a homicide according to two medical examiners. Wikipedia isn't saying that the police are guilty of anything. But it's the two medical examiners who say that this was a homicide, i.e, a killing. The use of the word "killing" is only an "injustice" or a "lynching" if and only if you think "killing" means "deliberately" or "wrongfully". If you take that out of the definition of "killing", as is done in American English (and this is an American article), then there is nothing wrong with calling it a "killing". It's not in dispute that this was a "killing" under the AmEng definition of the word. The defendants are not going to argue that GF was not "killed". They're going to argue that they're not legally responsible for the killing; but they're not going to argue that a killing didn't happen. Nobody is going to argue that GF died of natural causes or something. That part's already over with the two autopsies that found that GF was killed (manner of death: homicide). They also found that GF was killed due to police restraint, which is why "killed by police" is not a BLP violation, but rather a faithful summary of reliable sources.

To put it another way, if you think Wikipedia is doing something wrong by calling it a "killing", then it follows that the BBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, NBC, ABC, CBS, and every other major media outlet in the US and the world, are all also doing the same thing wrong. But of course, that's not the case. "Killing" meets the journalistic standards of every single major media organization in the world, hence their use of the term. I don't see why Signpost should hold itself to different standards than the standards used by the world's best journalists. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Smallbones appears to have made the change that is being requested here. See this diff. I agree that the word "murder" would be inappropriate until a court has given a verdict, but several other words would be appropriate, and using exactly the same word that appears in the coroners' reports is good. ↠Pine (✉) 18:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's not very many words to copyedit here, but I'd appreciate everybody looking at them and improving them. I feel like all I could come up with are platitudes. Any help appreciated. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smallbones, the short captions look okay to me for the most part. There are a few photos where it's not so obvious what's going on, though, such as the one of people standing spaced at the U.S. Capitol, so I'd suggest further description for those. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm not so much concerned about the photo captions as the small amount of text between the photos and intro. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smallbones, for the text in the article, if you want something a little less platitudinous, the thing I'd talk about is the idea of "needs to be seen to be believed". We often think about our role as documenting the world's knowledge too strictly in terms of text, but images are a big part of it. The problem of police violence has existed for a long time in the U.S., but it's only getting attention now because it's been visually documented in a way that makes it impossible to deny, whereas the text descriptions before smartphone cameras were more easily dismissed. This applies to the protests, too, where, for instance, you have the NYT "visual investigations" team doing fantastic work using bystander footage to piece together a narrative of what happened in Philadelphia. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: It wasn't WP:BLM nominated, it was the project at meta; see my comment here. We shouldn't repeat the inaccuracy. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you – confirmed and so noted at ITM ☆ Bri (talk) 00:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think everybody messed that one up, including Harrison, myself, Bri, and maybe Sdkb. Harrison included links in 2 different places to the WP project on WP and the deletion on meta. That's the original source of the confusion. I think I've corrected ITM now so that it's not a sore thumb sticking out begging to be whacked, just an oddity (which is what I think it is). We might argue for a long time on who made the first or biggest mistake - I'd guess it was the nominator and that's pretty much the message of the RfC. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl, Eddie891, Bri, Indy beetle, and Puddleglum2.0:

A lot of articles need to have brief CEs. I'm personally most interested in the Opinion piece I just posted, but can't CE it myself per besst practices. I do need a conclusion, but the rest can be copyedited now.

Thanks for any help. 15:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

5 minutes. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman and HaeB: all ready to publish. I'll be back in 5 or 10 minutes if there's any problems. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting now; please no more editing. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones and Bri: at this time I think that there will be no OTBS for July from me. I don't know if I'll write for the Signpost again. I have not made up my mind regarding leaving the Wikiverse, but I'm thinking about it. Best wishes, ↠Pine (✉) 18:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]