User:Nathannoblet/MedCom Case Signpost

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut:
WP:POST/N/O

This is a section of the newsroom for The Wikipedia Signpost. Below is a list of some Signpost stories in development.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Front Page
About
Archives
Newsroom
Next Issue
Suggestions
Tools +/-
Comments
Single-Page

[edit] Next issue (December 4)

Please keep discussion to appropriate areas. Add a note here if you are planning on writing a story.

The deadline for story completion is Monday, 17:00 UTC.
The current time is Monday, 01:33 UTC. Update

  • E-mail and spamlist distribution may be done later today, if not Tuesday night. Ral315 (talk) 06:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Special stories
    • Arbitration series - Update on candidates, voting open, etc. Ral315 (talk) 06:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Have we covered LSS yet? Probably deserves a mention at least in N&N- Flcelloguy, have we done that yet? Ral315 (talk) 16:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
      • No, not that I'm aware of. I'll put it in this week's issue; apologies that I didn't catch it earlier. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • User:Michael Snow/Seigenthaler revisited
    •  ???
    •  ???
  • Regular features
    • News and notes -
    • In the news -
    • Features and admins -
    • Technology report -
    • Arbitration report -

* Not publishing

    • Wikiproject Report - User:Nathannoblet/Wikiproject Report
      • The Wikiproject Report is cancelled; sorry, but it's not up to snuff. Ral315 (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Longer term planning

After a discussion with elian I'd like to put up for debate the issue how the interwiki report should look like in future. There's only the Russian report to be done (as far as 100,000+ article Wikipedias are concerned) so it might be the right time to think about the future format of the reports.

We agreed with elian that the current form, however informative, is a little boring and making next versions in the same form is not advisable.

One possible solution might be to create topical international reports on important issues across all major Wikipedias like:

  • dispute resolution
  • fighting vandalism and copyright violations
  • editing tools, scripts and helpful templates
  • and so on (what's your vote?)

This kind of report requires more time and effort, interviewing representatives from respective Wikipedias and sometimes advice from experts (software, templates, etc.) However if done right might give a broad picture to Wikimedia audience with potential implementation of some solutions in other projects. This kind of reports with real lasting value should be archived on the Meta.

Apart from these topical reports, regular "What's new" reports can be of use in future as well. Needless to say Wikipedias are very dynamic, bustling with various activity and interacting with the outside world so it'd be also good to inform the English-speaking Wikipedia community about it.

Kpjas 09:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd volunteer to take care of such a regular column. I can't promise to deliver a weekly report since each topic requires a lot of research, but it should be possible on a two week basis. --Elian Talk 19:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
A very good point indeed. I'm not sure if taking a topic and comparing across Wikipedias is advisable (I expect they'll tend to go in the form of "X wikipedia does Y this way. Z wikipedia, meanwhile, does Y this way...") Perhaps spotlighting a language a week or two, as is the case today, but giving a broad look at things like this- I would imagine one could look at arbitration cases, things like featured articles, where I noticed the German community has only 20% less than us, etc. The other advantage to taking one Wikipedia at a time is that it's a lot easier to get in contact with one language a week rather than 5-10.
The only thing is that if we're going to change this, I want to do it for every report from here on out, not have one excellent report and ten comparatively horrific reports. Otherwise, I'm perfectly open to tinkering with the format on this. Ral315 (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the idea of comparing ways other languages deal with common issues is very useful and could promote Best practices across the Wikimedia Foundation. --Trödel 01:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
If it's a big issue, I agree. If it's something like "X has featured articles and good articles. Y has only featured articles", I can see it getting bad. Ral315 (talk) 05:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

For the next Dutch report, Cyriellie reads the Signpost and might be interested. Ral315 (talk) 05:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - only just noticed this discussion. I agree that the current format has become a little boring, but there was no reason for each report to adopt the same template; I guess it was just easiest to write each one the way the previous one was done. The most interesting parts to me have been the discussions of evolving policy and recent issues.
It would be nice if we could build up a cohort of "foreign correspondents", with at least one in each of the other main non-English Wikipedias, who could report once a week (or fortnight, or month, or whatever) on local developments. Perhaps rotating each month would be best, with a report each week from three of the top 12 wikipedias, and irregular reports from the others? Or would this be too formal/difficult? We would need bilingual volunteers to write the copy, of course. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I for one have enjoyed all the interwiki reports and I'd like to seem them continue. I also agree that there's no reason for everyone to follow the same template - just tell us what's interesting. Haukur 15:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Helpful links

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/a/t/User%7ENathannoblet_MedCom_Case_Signpost_dbc6.html"