756:
extensive changes to the way the
Signpost operates, the technical forces for which now seem aligned, need to be evaluated against two key metrics: Things that will attract more net contributions. Things that will allow the Signpost to function with less overhead. I ran a first-ever analysis of the Signpost's actual (as opposed to perceived) traffic pattern almost a year ago now, the results of which you can read here. While it would be interesting to run an update, I am all too sure that my original conclusion still hold, chief among which was a substantiated impression that this focus on "weekliness" (as expressed by e.g. Risker above) is totally misleading. I have a college, and my college has a newspaper. I was an avid reader of the school broadsheet back in high school, but neither I nor seemingly anyone else really follows college news. The trouble is that the paper publishes too often: there are too many young journalism students who need CV material, and too much money circulating around, for them to stick to the most interesting stories and publish in a monthly format, like my high school paper did. I admit, "The Signpost is weekly!" is something that I admit I also once loved to brag about. After looking at the numbers, however, I realized that maintaining such a schedule encourages "shortcuts", flavor-of-the-week stories, and other such brief coverage of associated trivia that people don't actually want to read. It burns out editors who get tired of the commitment (as I inevitably did), and I believe that, just as in the case of the school newspaper, it burns out readers who may be interested in tuning into the "best" stories, but don't want to have to muck through weaker stuff to get to them. I think the Signpost ought to be a sleeker, more magazine-like, monthly publication. Instead of going wide but shallow, we should go narrow but deep. Yes this week's...month's...Signpost took a long time to arrive, but on the whole, the content was excellent. I like this new way of doing things. I think this is the future of the Signpost. We should keep doing things this way, and thinking along these lines.
960:
at
Knowledge. I'm sure that these problems have been discussed at length regarding the encyclopedia overall (I long ago gave up trying to follow any sort of project talk pages because it's extremely time-intensive), but my sense is that barriers to editing the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" are amplified by the deadlines and standards in place for this newsletter. In short, everything takes a considerable investment in time to learn to do, and as someone with experience in both worlds I don't think I could find that time. Even with that experience, I'd be spending twice as much time on an article here than I do out in the world, and I'm getting paid for those. I hope a solution is found, but Knowledge is the sort of environment where things get more complex and cumbersome with time, rather than simpler. Best of luck; I'll revisit this when I'm retired and see if I have enough remaining mental acuity to dig in.--
2007:
month" feature might be a good idea. (It would be easy to compile—no real writing required, just Q&A interview format.) How about a
Foundation report, submitted by someone from the WMF and covering any number of Foundation-related matters, from Wikimania and smaller gatherings to noteworthy board votes, office actions, new or planned wikis, various meta issues, and so on? And how about a very short column, "Knowledge by the numbers", with statistics on number of new accounts, new articles, and the like. On a less serious note, there could be something lighthearted such as excerpts from particularly absurd or witty threads. Op-eds are already encouraged, but how about asking readers a question every month and then publishing the best responses? None of these added elements would be particularly time-consuming to put together, and they might well draw new readers who in turn might become valued contributors.
1457:, and I can support that. Neither I nor anyone else has any loyalty to the current interface, and if it were possible to get a similar publication in a quicker and easier way, then that would solve a lot of problems. Could either or both of you volunteer to publish the next few issues, or otherwise recruit someone who would? You establish the easier process that the other publishers failed to identify, then following that everyone can do things the easy way. To the limit of my understanding the current publishing process has ease of use and speed as a priority in its design, except that the speed and ease are only for the users who invest the time to understand the weird publishing interface. Maybe you have an idea which is quicker and easier for everyone and requires only the wiki editing skillset.
1074:. This solves the problem, is cheap, and the money can go to a Wikimedia chapter which needs to be developed. India and Bangladesh would be my first choices because those countries, for whatever reason, have a history of attracting journalists as Wikimedia editors. Also in those economies the money would go further, and the WMF already has plans to spend $ 1000s to recruit volunteers who will contribute labor that could be purchased outright for $ 100s. I know that the Wiki community places a taboo on buying labor, but for some tasks, paying someone outreach is a lot cheaper than funding the recruitment campaign that will identify and groom the volunteer who would do the task. Administering
908:
general interest to
English-speaking Wikimedians. For example, initiatives to support more female editors (not just for the English version of Knowledge but in general), progress on Wiki Education Foundation initiatives in the universities, redefining acceptance criteria for articles about people in the developing countries, the impact of contests and challenges, improved user interfaces for Wikidata and Commons, modernizing the "look" of Knowledge article pages, developing better tools for search/sourcing/referencing, etc., etc. If these could be posted on preparatory pages, editors could contribute to them as they wish. It might at least be worth a try.--
1352:
channel. When you say "no editors to write the
Signpost", please recognize that we have people who are willing to do journalism but not people who are willing to do weird idiosyncratic software manipulation beyond the norm of Knowledge which is already really weird. It is not normal to expect a newspaper editor to run the printing press, be the secretary managing the calendar and incoming messages for an archaic and inhuman messaging system, and provide therapy to writers who get scared of a ghastly software submission process. A newspaper editor makes editorial decisions, and there are volunteers willing to do that.
1714:, conventional section titles, etc. to work with. That status board IMO drives the team to completion and is where the team collaborates on tasks remaining for the issue, who's taking them, and when they are completed. Whatever the alternative is to be, don't we need a red light/green light status board for the E in C to decide "now's the time to declare victory and publish"? I'm not saying something else isn't workable, but am saying that we only have vague hand-waving as to what the alternative is at this time. ☆
110:
2041:
devised. When editors here burnout, it is because the editor here has also been burdened with the unrelated duty of publishing. If there were a reliable publisher then the publication would reliably attract and retain editors, journalists, etc. All of your content ideas are great and people would do these things, except for the fact that at the end one person has to navigate the awful publishing system to get the issue out and we cannot retain one person to do this terrible, boring function with regularity.
130:
809:. Lane's suggestion is not without merit - he's one of our users who often comes up with ideas, I know him well personally and have nothing but admiration for his energy. However, there were some valid concerns expressed about the suggestion of WMF funding. While it would be an incentive to keep someone in the printing machine control room, IMHO I believe it would be important for the newspaper to remain independent of the Foundation. Having discussed late last night with
1487:) and individual news items queued by a coalition of the willing? When the issue fills up for irregular digest distribution, ship the completed work, blank the page, and start again. If no one works on a given section, that section won't run. For those who have contributed while we've been running at reduced capacity for the last year with no figureheads, is the problem the coordination for a single delivery date, or corralling final copy, or just that no one is interested in
2305:
Readers might even give them more heed. To keep a "periodical structure," if needed or wanted, there could be a tidy quarterly recap, perhaps with "special editorial features" or whatever. If the workload still loomed too high and heavy, no worries, such periodical recaps could rather be bi-yearly, even yearly (these much written and composed over long spans of time, as the short issues went out), or never. Either way, I'd bet thruppence
Signpost won't go dark any time soon.
103:
321:
90:
2271:
do on
Knowledge that a lot of editors don't go out of their way to read it. Hell, I don't always read the Wikiproject newsletters I may get. I guess it's worth a shot. But is linking it on watchlist pages a last ditch effort? There might be someone somewhere who wants to see it continue on. But if you need writers, you need to make it attractive to them to want to write. Has the recruitment process been ongoing? Lots of questions that need answers.
1183:. It's a great way to stay on top of any and all news about this encyclopedia and its project. I hope this is all just a bad dream, because I wouldn't know how to do without it, and I would think that many other readers feel the same way. How would we keep up with all the newsworthy info about Knowledge? Death is change, so change it to make it better. The staff does important work – consider yourselves implored to continue
120:
36:
140:
100:
1242:- the problem is that at the moment apart from the regular article contributors, there is no editorial 'staff'; some whose names are still listed in the masthead/imprint have actually retired from Knowledge and are unresponsive to messages and emails, while the current E-in-C, for whatever legitimate reason, is not currently available. I always looked forward to every issue of
150:
658:- presumably some catch22 situation: the ability/will to manage such a push actually decreases as it is most needed, and vice-versa. Some pushing of it around the tea room etc could also be helpful. Having some interesting bits and updates about the site written in a much more communicable and friendly format than, say, the policies and guidelines, is a nice change.
760:
extension finally arriving and further streamlining the notification strategy. I'm particularly excited about this bit of code because if it's easy to use, and if we do a bit of lobbying to get people aware of its existence, the
Signpost could easily double or triple its subscription base through sheer ease-of-use (this is another conversation we need to have).
1710:. Single-page edition; RSS feed (probably); at-a-glance readiness report for copyediting, article titles and "blurbs"; and the window dressing like links to previous/next issues. I think to some extent you're pushing 2-3 hours (maybe less if scripts work as expected) of work onto the publication manager to streamline the rest of the team, who do have the
1307:
consolidate all sections of the
Signpost into a single feature (bar opinion pieces and the occasional long piece), which requires less writing and makes organization easier. Although there would be less content, this format would prioritize the most important content first so the Signpost can focus on the more important topics and not the niche ones.
1658:, The proposed grant has nothing whatsoever to do with editorial control. Publishing the newspaper is a purely button mashing exercise - complex perhaps, but nothing more and nothing less than inking up; I don't recall anyone on the factory floor of a newspaper printing press, or even the type setters having much of a say in what gets printed.
944:
the editor-in-chief defended the piece and essentially said that whoever does not like it it is their problem). It might be a good idea for the current editor-in-chief to reflect on this and to assure the potential contributors that this policy has been discontinued and will never return. (And, well, to make sure it has indeed been discontinued).--
2011:
the position last a standard interval of six months—renewable if everyone agrees but with no expectation of renewal. I don't like the idea of payment, but surely other enticements might be made available, from the sublime (all-expenses-paid trip to
Wikimania) to the ridiculous (lousy t-shirt). Just a few ideas, anyway. Sorry for the long post.
1880:
to have a lukewarm monthly edition with lots of filler material in a bad month, and lukewarm weekly editions in a good month. Just because it's more frequent doesn't mean it will attract more readers. This will ease the workload, and obviously "moving the goalposts" never does any good for the motivation of the editors involved.
752:
to produce something at the end of the day) right now consists of, ask far as I can tell, of Pete and Tony. This situation fluctuates: things were worse two summers ago, when essentially all the content was being written by Ed, and they were a heck of a lot better a year or so ago, when the board had five or six active members.
1143:. I have heard this idea from others who have not written a draft. I support Bri's proposal as nearly identical to the one I posted, and plan to collaborate with that user. Also, I do not claim credit for the idea, which has been perennial for years. The WMF spends at least US$ 300,000/year of the sort which wiki magic in
2330:
You can be the publisher if you want. Yes, ideally, there would be regularly publication (weekly) with some issues being huge and some being smaller. The bottleneck is not in journalism - writing and editing - but in the publishing and administration. Administration is tedious. The journalism is fun.
2010:
By all means, make it monthly, and set a publication week, rather than day, so that it's less likely to be late. Greater frequency has proven impossible to sustain, but twelve issues a year should promote contributor retention by demanding less frequent deadlines. If editor burnout is a problem, make
2006:
Other things could be added to build readership. For instance, there could also be some sort of brief Community Report, some of its content cribbed from the Administrators' Newsletter, with the rest compiled by checking recent major RfCs, popular VP threads, and the like. A regular "Wikipedian of the
1996:
helps ensure that nothing critical flies under the radar. 'Honestly, it still has a lot going for it. The content tends to be timely and interesting, with the columns Arbitration Report, Traffic Report, Technology Report, and In the Media providing a lot of worthwhile information that would otherwise
1506:
I have no idea of any stats concerning contributors so it would be irregular for me to comment with any authority beyond the op-ed I wrote, which has at least stimulated some important comment and suggestions. I had one article queued for publication and even I as a seasoned Knowledge
1034:
is because it has been uniquely responsible for being the communication channel for resolving community discussions which have allocated millions of US$ dollars of WMF funds in ways that would not have happened without community engagement in the community newspaper. Here are some options in front of
959:
I've been editing at Knowledge for many years, and I also write for several news services on a regular basis. Bringing my experience from Knowledge and news writing to bear, I have to say that the material about contributing is daunting and confusing, much like most of what goes on behind the scenes
813:
about trying to get this latest issue out, I'm not so sure that the tasks of 'publisher', while requiring perhaps somewhat more technical knowledge than mine for example, are so onerous that they merit a remunerated position. We're all volunteers and each one devotes as much time as they
751:
Risker brings up the elephant in the room, above, making a well-founded point (and one that I'd alluded to just before): that the chief issue facing the Signpost at the moment is a structural lack of writers. The editing members of the editorial board (AKA the people that feel they have an obligation
283:
have received complaints from users that they were not adequately informed. It is naturally understandable that not all users possess the editing skills to compile and publish the periodical, but out there are certainly some with a flair for prose and reporting. There are ways of creating
2270:
Don't assume I didn't know about it. On my watchlist page is exactly why I clicked on it. I never bothered to go out of my way to read. Is putting a link to the latest edition on watchlist pages really going to increase readership? I don't know. I have my doubts. There is so much other stuff to
2040:
Editor burnout is not the problem. Being editor is a lot of fun. The problem is publisher burnout. Publishing is unrelated to journalism and is the totally dumb technical process of getting the content into an issue. Knowledge is not made for article publishing so this is complicated with any system
1879:
IMO the first thing to do for Signpost should be to pick a schedule (once a month seems to be a fair goal judging by recent publication times) and stick to it. From the readership standpoint, it's better to let the stories and work accumulate to produce a killer monthly edition on a good month, than
1271:
I think The Signpost's structure is too confusing and difficult for random editors to jump into. I also think that if a few people do dominate The Signpost, and say they are failing to keep it going, and their proposed fix is to have WMF pay them to get back to publishing it, WMF would be foolhardy
1021:
The WMF should not fund Wiki content creation and editorial control - everyone agrees on this. I do think that the WMF should fund the tedious tasks which no volunteer finds enjoyable, but which when completed, amplify volunteer engagement. For various reasons, including 1990s software, the need for
924:
The first quality for a journalist is to be pleasant to read, even if you disagree with what is written. And to be pleasant to read, you must have pleasure to write... to the point of publishing on a regular basis. Orthogonally, it often happens that an efficient journalist becomes an opinion maker.
759:
All this is premised, of course, on having a strong, reliable infrastructure for sending out new issue notifications. This infrastructure is wanting, but, it appears, is a temporary hurdle. Not only is the bot hopefully going to get fixed, but there's also the prospect of the long-awaited Newsletter
710:
The one time I tried writing anything for the Signpost no one bothered to even see if they wanted to publish it, eventually I just deleted it myself. That was 2012 and it was markedly detached from its readership then, now it's even less engaged. Keeping it going if there's genuine interest is fine,
603:
I've just found signpost and read through 2 years worth in a couple of days - I wish I'd found it a few years ago when I went through my small bit (compared to the active editors round here) of editing on various bits. It would be a shame to see it disappear just now. I only found this via an ArbCom
222:
for journalism students then from one perspective it seems controversial to pay for content, but from another perspective for years the international wiki community has major projects with major investment which are almost unknown for lack of journalism. … This is wiki's own newspaper of record and
1581:
This does indeed smell like an "editorial control" issue, but who does the editorial control, and why can't they do it in public by reviewing an ordinary Knowledge page anyone can edit before a final draft is agreed upon and people change a template so it "goes live" and gets transcluded onto user
1351:
lacks is volunteer labor to do the boring parts, like managing a 1990s software interface which never was intended for publishing newspapers and coordinating an archaic messaging and scheduling system which is both unlike routine Knowledge conversation and unlike any other reasonable communication
1246:
and found it hugely informative even if not every section appealed to my sphere of interest. Trying to find out what was wrong, I stumbled through its offices and felt as if I were wandering nostalgically through a disused factory, hearing in my mind's eye the bustle of activity and the noise of
943:
mentions, the Signpost at different times and on different occasions pissed off a large number of people who have no desire to contribute anymore. (My personal point of no return was when they asked a user who was and still is banned from the Wikivoyage to write a piece on the Wikivoyage, and then
2304:
Why follow deadlines at all? If I were the publisher, I'd try putting out Knowledge news and topical op-eds as they came up. I'd see nothing untowards about an issue of Signpost with only one article, followed three days later by another short one, followed two months after that with yet another.
2064:
out, perhaps those tasks could be shared among several users who have been acquainted with the process. A roster could be compiled, a call for assistance put out, and whoever on the roster has the time and patience could do the dirty work for a given issue. That way, no one, including the editor,
1968:
Why not a format like the German : Long articles in one column, short notices in another, an admin to remove unsuitable stuff and vandalism, and articles older than a month flushed out. This way it would be shorter if there is less to write, and longer if there is a lot going on. From my personal
1511:
and I got together and got it out with my hurriedly authored op-ed. I don't believe there is actually any lack of article writers but if they see the process is as daunting as I did plus the fact there is not going to be an issue any time soon, it stands to reason they will
1306:
This is part of a larger problem prevalent here: if nobody wants to do it, it won't be done. Although "nobody" would be an exaggeration here, if there are no editors to write the Signpost, then there are no editors to write the Signpost. One possibility is to scrap the multiple-feature format and
1152:
is able to generate. Money from the same pool will go toward communication one way or the other, and I see great value in making the case that some portion of the available funds should go toward relieving the onerous burden of adminsitration and managing odd software to make community volunteer
907:
One way of maintaining a flow of interesting content at least once a month might be to invite editors from some of the more active WikiProjects to report on progress or difficulties experienced. It would also help to have regular coverage (maybe once every three or four months) of other areas of
687:
Now that new Signposts are much less frequent, I doubt there would be objections to a notification at the top of watchlists when one comes out. This should be tried. As I said in the original discussion, part of the problem is the lack of readers, as well as writers. And without new readers, new
267:
is 20 days overdue. For many years, the newspaper has been a pivotal point of information for regular contributors, both to article content and maintenance areas and while a new trend has developed towards issuing newsletters, these are sent to selected groups on dedicated messaging lists
2155:
My problem with signing up to contribute on a regular basis is that real life tends to get in the way unexpectedly. With the kind of editing I do, nobody misses me if I duck out for a few days or even weeks, but that wouldn't be the case if people were depending on me to contribute content by a
1452:
I will not obligate either of you into anything, because I have just made the claim that publishing the newspaper is a lot more complicated than many people expect and that there is a history of reform proposals which have seemed worse than the present method. However, you both are imagining an
1066:
and also the administrative support necessary to communicate in the normal way that any contemporary newspaper would operate is not available, because Mediawiki is not set up for this. Lots of people say "just fix the software, do not pay someone to be publisher", but it is crazy hard and crazy
755:
The Signpost always prided itself on publishing weekly...until it didn't. The situation now is tenuous as always: if either Tony or Pete were to go, the Signpost might simply cease to exist. The descent from the weekly schedule and into publish-time uncertainty is a symptom of this fact, and so
727:
Anything Lane suggests, like this grant, is not helpful or effective. The bottom line is that creating and producing a publication like this takes a lot of free digital labor, and who has the time to do this on a sustained level? And who could do it to the level of competency that would require
1382:
in a section at the bottom of their talk page, and then one editor points it at the latest Signpost whenever it's finished, and finishing involves taking off the noinclude tag (though perhaps some minor sections would keep noinclude tags for brevity) Whatever on Earth is this hidden, obscure,
1050:
has already proven itself to be an amazing forum for reaching broad consensus in the English and international Wikimedia communities. It has some value and merits some amount of investment for this reason. It has already earned its funding by resolving problems which otherwise are unfathomably
1026:
is a lot of work. We can get a volunteer chief editor, and writers, and all the roles which are "journalism", but managing the very strange back end of publishing in Mediawiki software is tedious beyond anyone's willingness to volunteer. The least expensive way to manage administration is with
289:
Kudpung has been a Knowledge contributor since 2006 and an administrator since 2011. His focus is on policy changes concerning deletions/notability, RfA, and the improvement of the new page patrolling and AfC processes. The views expressed in this article are his alone and do not reflect any
1835:
I think funding the Signpost would be contrary to our principles. Do we really want the newspaper of record of the volunteer Knowledge to operate on payment? I would rather see the paper fold. At any rate, I do have an idea for an op-ed that I'd be willing to write if the Signpost wants it.
1582:
talk pages? In any case, I'm even less enthusiastic about the notion of WMF paying somebody to do editorial control than paying them to use baroque software. The "fun part of writing a newspaper" may be work that allegedly a lot of people are willing to do, but I can't believe there is
1660:
The submissions script does not generate any content at all. Submissions are generated by their authors. The actual submission system is so complicate it even confused me enough for me to make a mess of it. The system almost certainly puts some people off wanting to submit an article.
396:
1761:
up and running, but it has a steep learning curve and I'm more comfortable in other areas of Knowledge that I've already taken years to get used to. Perhaps next time, Bri might take a chance at giving the script a whirl - if we can twist his arm to be the publisher again.
1605:. Why? It would seem more practical to have a simple noticeboard format like the Science Refdesk or ITN submissions, where people propose ideas and get comments in a public Knowledge forum. The other structure seems more useful for burying news than writing about it.
1426:
This is a sign that the Signpost interface needs major restructuring to make it simpler. There is no need for complex templates because the Signpost is not a formal newspaper. It is a side project for editors to share opinions and to keep updated on recent developments.
1807:
Every four weeks should be perfectly realisable considering we once used to have a news-packed periodical every 7 days. The problem with any magazine with news content is that if the space between issues is too long, while features may always be of interest,
1788:
This periodical serves a vital purpose. However, do the editors have to kill themselves to bring it out on a deadline? As en electronic medium, there's no reason it must be published on an artificial schedule dictated by guilt. Thank you all for your hard work!
582:
I'd suggest a once a month magazine style publication. Long form journalism and opinion. Lots of people around here like to write, have opinions, and can marshal facts to support their opinions. The sporadic/weekly format doesn't encourage that very well.
553:
was the one and only place where I learned about things like: James Heilman being ousted from WMF board (2015/16); inexplicable (and ultimately rejected) application of a Silicon Valley king to the WMF (2016); the dewiki walkout of arb's (2017?).
436:
would be a shame. I have always enjoyed the materials in the Signpost. Once a month is about right. But if this cannot be applied, If need be, make it once every two months, but please don't cancel this highly informative and interesting feature.
1691:
Alright, I have to admit those proposals are at a much more definitive stage and far more non-editorial than I'd imagined. But if this is just button pushing, I still don't understand why you need any special buttons or button pressers.
143:
2059:
Interesting. To be fair, editors of various publications often have various technical and administrative duties that have nothing to do with editing per se, so the situation here isn't unique. If there's drudgery involved in getting the
191:. Originally begun as a weekly publication, in July 2016 the official schedule was changed to every two weeks, but by November the issues were already running late with the next issue appearing on 26 November and the following
2115:
There is no rewards system, even something like virtual points, for contributing. Furthermore, since dissenting opinions are shut down, the assenting opinions just become state to both read and write. Give virtual carrots to editors.
982:
some of the foundation's vast resources, rather than putting it entirely on the shoulders of volunteers. Might be something worth considering during the next board election cycle. I'd vote for someone who had that as a plank in the
113:
1586:
shortage of aspirants to power. I know our whole society is structured around proles shovelling money into the snouts of an ever-decreasing number of Brahmins as some kind of a religious devotion, but I don't like it anyway.
1378:, put a template at the top containing the text "this isn't published yet, check back later" followed by a noinclude tag, and have people edit various sections like in any other Knowledge article. Readers could transclude
1547:
fills a unique niche as a periodical with editorial control and aspirations to periodical-hood. It's unclear to me with a free-wheeling "just contribute and stand back" approach how editorial control is possible. Which is
2205:, with only 312 edits in 11 years it's understandable you may have missed it. This was the first time we put it on the watchlist. You may wish to subscribe to it and get your copy delivered regularly to your talk page.
814:
can to Knowledge - what is needed just as urgently is also an enthusiastic and responsive editorial team. AFAICS, the current E-in-C is not the only Signpost 'staff' who has not edited in a long while.
1816:
is important - it fills the gap between dedicated newsletters in our local dissemination of information. The features - the 'interest' stuff - make it readable, the news element tells us the 'need to know' now.
187:, who continues to contribute to Knowledge, is beginning to show signs of tiredness. This may be due to a perceived downward trend in many meta aspects of the encyclopedia. The first issue was released on
452:
I wrote for the ArbCom report for a good year and honestly while I would still like to contribute to the Signpost there's no real motivation to continue. At the very least finding something else to write about.
153:
2156:
certain date each month. I suspect that many active editors have similar concerns about becoming involved. Would sporadic, undependable contributions be better than no contributions at all? I have my doubts.
1022:
secretarial documentation and maintenance of a calendar, and demand for adherence to community values which are excessively time intensive for the niche purpose of running a newspaper, being the publisher of
284:
more awareness of the newspaper, such as watchlist notices or even incorporating it in welcome templates, but there are also many possible other suggestions for solutions. They just need to be made.
1147:
accomplishes almost for free. There has never been great wiki community loyalty to the corporate WMF social media accounts and newsletters, nor the editorial freedom and excitement of participation, which
133:
1906:
until today, when I saw it at the top of my Watchlist page. How were editors supposed to know this even existed? If you want readers for this thing, some steps need to be taken to create more visibility.-
70:
1375:
722:
529:(suggest a prior topic discussion first, but it is not mandatory). Also on the Newsroom page, near the bottom, there are a lot of blanks in the primary/backup publication and editing roles. – ☆
1623:-related grant proposals I am aware of is for funding an editorial role. There would still be a separate editor-in-chief and volunteer editorial staff. If this isn't clear enough in the trial
1042:
falter. If we do this, the WMF will invest US$ millions in marketing research and strategic planning to come to conclusions which would have arisen spontaneously from volunteer engagement in
796:
To avoid news becoming 'old news' especially where many parts of the Knowledge operate on a monthly schedule, I think perhaps a monthly issue would be the minimum sensible calendar.
1087:
out. We have content submissions, excellent editorial oversight, and readership. It is annoying that the bottleneck is in administration of adapting weird obsolete software to journalism.
1543:
quite a bit and we'd have to understand that. First, it may seem goofy, but the look-and-feel elements are important to establish an identity. But, substantively, there's another thing.
1567:. This is retaining the current publishing model but making modest improvements to ease-of-use for newcomers. If somebody wants to give it a whirl, I'd like to hear what you think. ☆
1992:
is still a vital information source and I'd hate to see it fold. Even with frequent checks of VP and the various noticeboards, it is all too easy to miss important developments, and
1483:(Getting déjà vu) Why does the Signpost need to be treated like a periodical with a masthead? What's stopping us from running it like ITN/DYK with every section run ad hoc (like the
1058:
easier to publish. These software changes would still be a pain and go obsolete in 3 years because that is how Mediawiki development goes. Editing a newspaper is unlike publishing
1564:
1078:
is esoteric and provides no job training or relevance to actually doing journalism, and the fault is in Mediawiki and the Wiki community's overriding need to publish in Mediawiki.
1120:
Why on earth should we pay someone to administer the Signpost? Why not just have a freer forum where editors write what news they want and there is basically no administration?
514:
76:
2335:
has always had regular contributors, and has always struggled to keep any one person who will do the very boring work, totally outside the field of journalism, of publishing.
1915:
1272:
to do so. Whereas if they do fail, someone else can expand into the niche, perhaps even under the old name, and see if they can streamline whatever needs to be easier to do.
1201:
613:
596:
1316:
737:
1379:
1115:
677:
646:
1845:
1757:
did, there is in fact a lot of button pushing, but it provides an insight into what the automated script actually does. I'd love to go through it and do it and help keep
573:
1895:
1140:
1013:
355:
1798:
1707:
1521:
1470:
1436:
1365:
1301:
1264:
538:
2373:
1166:
525:
since we just cleared the page after this month's issue. Copyediting new content might be a good way to get your feet wet. Op-eds and special content are welcome at
375:
1937:
1624:
2108:
2082:
2054:
1499:
1228:
625:
Various forms of reaching out have been considered, such as a notice when an editor hits 500 (or another milestone of edits), and I completely agree with you that
370:
2348:
2214:
2192:
1347:
There are lots of volunteers who want to do the fun part of a newspaper - story writing, being editor, doing interviews, and making decisions in journalism. What
1281:
211:. Forsyth's article, which explained some of the concerns surrounding the newspaper, received a significant number of comments from readers including one from
205:
2284:
1870:
459:
2028:
953:
697:
380:
365:
350:
2173:
485:
1982:
917:
842:
823:
247:'...experiencing parallel attenuation (...) Better to have fewer issues with excellent content than to fake along for the sake of hitting a weekly deadline'
2125:
1392:
1129:
507:
2258:
1997:
escape most of us. (As long as the developers and office staff are assiduous about sharing important changes in advance, the Technology Report alone makes
1826:
1419:
934:
878:
864:
360:
123:
900:
779:
338:
996:
973:
1771:
1701:
1670:
1576:
1292:
needs to be trimmed down. I'm guessing that most readers were primarily interested in the 'Arbitration report', 'In the Media' & 'Op-ed' sections.
1251:, but if the contributors of the regular columns can get their copy submitted on time, and if at least a couple of articles can be submitted, and if
728:
meeting the very high standards -- as well as nonsense -- of the Wikimedia communities. It totally makes sense the Signpost is in trouble. - Erika aka
411:
1942:
Of course, but if nobody knows about the Signpost, this also means that potential writers do not know about it. I came here to make the same point as
1531:
526:
2149:
833:
has been around since shortly before I became a Wikipedian. Yep, it appears the end is near for it. Even Sears/Kmart is nearing its end in the USA.
1723:
1636:
1614:
1596:
978:
Additionally, I can't help but wonder if, given the important independent voice represented here, this might not be a suitable project to actually
332:
55:
44:
790:
446:
385:
1962:
1507:
found the process rather confusing. When I realised how late the next issue was and with no signs of it being published any signs soon,
2131:
308:
299:
1711:
1552:; I'm all for self-organization. It's just that it wouldn't be a periodical anymore in the usual sense of the word. It would be more like a
2443:
522:
501:
1530:
I'm glad that the op-ed has created this discussion. Overhauling and re-invention is great. I've written down some of my own ideas at the
716:
476:, is it? You haven't been editing much at all for the last six months (though I hasten to add that no one is criticising you for it).
2314:
992:
969:
925:
But self anointed opinion makers are rarely pleasant to read... and the potential readers are quick to draw their own conclusions.
1563:
Since working with Kudpung for issue 4 (the March issue), I've created a streamlined interface and instructions for contributors
21:
2419:
2391:
400:
604:
ruling - perhaps something could be done to let more editors who aren't so embedded or regularly active be aware of Signpost?
2414:
2409:
940:
712:
518:
416:
1083:
I advocate for paying an individual to publish as the most practical, cheapest, and most likely path to success for getting
423:
255:
From August 2017 that weekly deadline became monthly; now in its thirteenth year, the previous issue was published on
2404:
2366:
2360:
You talk about needing someone to do the publishing. Less talking and more doing. Don't just talk about it. Do it.
2277:
2236:
1560:, so one must ask why duplicate those outlets. As a matter of fact I've drawn some ideas from those in my own writeup.
2249:. Either you didn't know it existed, or you didn't want to read it. Either way, your feedback would be most welcome.
1415:
673:
93:
887:
IMO every issue is the end and a new beginning. It's up to us to reinvent something that remains relevant. Call it
279:
pointing to important issues – and even occasional humour – would be a great loss to the community; indeed, some
2226:
I have almost 20,000 edits since late 2005. But I've been editing regularly since April 2006. I have never read
1953:; I am also a long-time editor who had never heard of the Signpost. Perhaps this new exposure will help things.
1864:
772:
639:
238:
280:
1973:
contribute and have done so once, but the last thing I want is "we need something from you until Friday". --
1619:"WMF paying somebody to do editorial control" is not a proposal, nor would I support it. Neither of the two
2399:
1027:
payment to someone who will stay out of editorial decisions but facilitate what editors and writers submit.
989:
966:
320:
256:
49:
35:
30:
Death knell sounding for the Signpost?: Despite the brave efforts of many past and present editorial staff.
17:
494:
188:
1911:
1095:
711:
but to keep on writing for the sake of the Signpost is just a paraphrase of After the Thrill is Gone.
275:
The newspaper is a vital line in Knowledge's train of communication. A final abandonment of the fine
1539:
I've thought about Wnt's suggestion. It's not something to dismiss. But it would change the nature of
1197:
763:
655:
630:
1336:
If we lowered the barrier to the technical publishing then we would have more people do journalism.
806:
2331:
Journalism only gets to be disappointing when content creators cannot rely on regular publication.
2188:
2103:
1553:
1889:
1432:
1312:
986:
963:
669:
1067:
expensive to improve software as opposed to just paying someone outright to do the boring parts.
629:
is hard to find, but it seems no one with the ability/will to make that happen has come around.
223:
if it has problems then I wish we could explore options to support volunteers in maintaining it.
2343:
2049:
1465:
1360:
1161:
1110:
1950:
1907:
1841:
1557:
1411:
609:
2425:
2165:
2093:
I think that we need to clearly define what information is to be shared, then ascertain if
2074:
2020:
1189:
661:
589:
454:
243:'Sort of like the Wiki Journal of Medicine? It is a fair bit of work. But could be good.'
8:
2310:
2202:
2184:
2098:
949:
787:
743:
733:
442:
1902:
I've been editing WP regularly for almost five years, and I've literally never heard of
1978:
1958:
1882:
1706:
Here's what would be lost if we jettisoned the current publishing apparatus documented
1447:
1428:
1327:
1308:
1397:
For me this is the Signpost's main problem. The plan above sounds like a great idea. —
268:
which don't necessarily reach everyone and which do not have the wealth of the
2355:
2336:
2254:
2246:
2210:
2145:
2121:
2042:
1933:
1822:
1794:
1767:
1666:
1517:
1458:
1353:
1297:
1260:
1224:
1154:
1103:
913:
874:
860:
838:
819:
802:
693:
481:
407:
212:
184:
2298:
1854:
1837:
1398:
1219:
basis? doubt it. Those who kept it updated weekly, just aren't interested anymore.
805:'s grant suggestion in my op-ed but I had not researched all the background
665:
622:
605:
569:
559:
201:
2140:
editors willing to update the Signpost (at least) once a month? then it's doomed.
2157:
2066:
2035:
2012:
930:
869:
Oh, I've been the subject of a few Arbitration report stories, over the years ;)
584:
469:
2325:
2306:
2180:
I've had a wiki account for over a decade and this is the first time I've read
1493:
945:
784:
729:
438:
234:
200:
appeared on 17 January 2017 with a lead article from (then) editor-in-chief,
183:
our English Knowledge 'newspaper' which began when the project was started by
2437:
1974:
1954:
1858:
1719:
1697:
1632:
1610:
1592:
1572:
1388:
1277:
1125:
896:
534:
226:
1491:
the content, no matter the form? (Are there any regular contributors left?)
1383:
apparently difficult to work with interface that you describe actually for?
2265:
2250:
2221:
2206:
2141:
2117:
1929:
1818:
1790:
1763:
1662:
1513:
1484:
1293:
1256:
1220:
1153:
journalism, research, and editorial engagement the focus of the newspaper.
909:
870:
856:
834:
815:
689:
477:
250:
172:
163:
565:
555:
545:
Next to the Signpost's "communication" task, I also find it very good in
1239:
The staff does important work – consider yourselves implored to continue
926:
1247:
machinery of yesteryear. It was never my intention to get involved in
1102:, appoint a chief editor, and protect the values of the publication.
1374:
the bizarre software interface? I think you could just make a page
179:
Despite the brave efforts of many past and present editorial staff,
1754:
1750:
1715:
1693:
1655:
1628:
1606:
1588:
1568:
1508:
1443:
1384:
1331:
1273:
1252:
1136:
1121:
892:
810:
530:
1051:
complicated, stressful, and high risk to resolve in any other way.
521:, watch the ongoing conversation and chip in. You could visit the
259:
with a note that the next one would be due out on 27 February
1255:
can ink up, I'd probably lend a hand with some copy editing.
1003:(x-posted from 27 March Knowledge:Village pump (proposals))
195:
not being published until 22 December three weeks later.
1141:
meta:Grants:Project/Rapid/Bri/Signpost publication manager
1070:
Pay ~US$ 100 per issue to an individual for administering
1014:
meta:Grants:Project/bluerasberry/fund a Signpost publisher
493:. I'm interested in contributing. How do I get involved? —
215:
who suggested that a grant may be worth considering:
517:. Further suggestions by current contributor Bri: Visit
1601:
As for the submissions script ... it still generates
1627:written my me, it needs to be clarified further. ☆
1340:lacks for volunteer labor unrelated to journalism.
421:If your comment has not appeared here, you can try
527:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions
2435:
1054:Pay US$ 300,000 to a software developer to make
855:until I was mentioned in it. A long time ago...
233:could be made a blog, or even a journal, with
218:If there were a rotating internship program at
1062:. There is a bottleneck of ability to publish
549:(especially wrt self-critical re Knowledge).
161:
1344:has no shortage of volunteers in journalism.
746:said way back in 2016 rings true even today.
1090:Anyone with ideas might also try to form a
1098:. This would establish a board to oversee
1010:with a WMF grant for a paid administrator
245:Stating that other related projects are
2097:is the best method for achieving that.
424:
14:
2436:
290:official opinions of this publication.
71:Death knell sounding for the Signpost?
519:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/Newsroom
263:. At the time of writing, this next
54:
29:
1139:drafted almost the same proposal at
783:How about a bi-monthly schedule? –
2444:Knowledge Signpost archives 2018-03
1179:since early 2009, back when it was
851:Ha! I don't believe I discovered
27:
2065:would be stuck with it each time.
1030:The reason why we should maintain
319:
56:
34:
28:
2455:
406:These comments are automatically
1857:: we’d love to have your op-ed.
1810:new news gets stale very quickly
1376:WP:Knowledge Signpost/2018-04-01
941:The Blade of the Northern Lights
713:The Blade of the Northern Lights
688:writers are unlikely to appear.
148:
138:
128:
118:
108:
98:
88:
2245:I don't know what it tells you
2001:worth seeking out every issue.)
2230:Now what does that tell you?
417:add the page to your watchlist
253:makes a poignant reflection.
13:
1:
562:) 20:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
237:, known for his work on the
1969:perspective, I'm willing to
1556:channel, or Reddit, or like
392:
18:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost
7:
2392:delivered to your talk page
1215:basis, will be possible. A
10:
2460:
2374:00:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
2083:19:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
1420:17:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
1393:20:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
1366:14:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
1317:02:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
1302:00:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
1282:00:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
1265:21:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
1229:18:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
1202:16:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
1167:15:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
1130:00:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
1116:21:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
1096:meta:Wikimedia user groups
997:13:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
974:13:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
954:12:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
935:08:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
918:07:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
901:02:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
879:04:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
865:03:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
843:02:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
824:01:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
791:01:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
780:23:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
738:23:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
723:22:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
698:14:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
678:23:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
647:22:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
614:21:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
597:20:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
574:21:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
539:19:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
508:19:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
460:19:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
447:18:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
2349:20:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
2315:12:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
2285:10:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
2259:09:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
2215:08:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
2193:08:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
2174:16:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
2150:16:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
2132:Once a month or it's over
2126:13:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
2109:09:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
2055:20:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
2029:17:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
1983:14:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
1963:09:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
1938:16:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
1916:13:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
1896:00:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
1871:01:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
1846:23:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
1827:15:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
1799:13:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
1772:16:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
1724:03:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
1702:00:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
1671:22:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
1637:18:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
1615:18:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
1597:18:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
1577:03:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
1522:03:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
1500:02:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
1471:19:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
1437:02:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
1211:Perhaps updating it on a
486:22:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
1554:public-access television
1753:, done manually , like
1175:Been an avid reader of
1012:I posted a proposal at
1181:The Knowledge Signpost
762:
495:AnAwesomeArticleEditor
414:. To follow comments,
324:
225:
39:
1712:Newsroom status board
1453:easier interface for
749:
323:
216:
38:
1625:rapid grant proposal
564:(edited re dewiki -
410:from this article's
281:Requests for Comment
1928:that are required.
1812:. And that's where
1380:WP:Current signpost
656:Eddie891's creature
515:"How to contribute"
432:Signing off of the
241:, responding with
206:Next steps for the
401:Discuss this story
356:Arbitration report
325:
45:← Back to Contents
40:
2172:
2171:
2081:
2080:
2027:
2026:
1888:
1869:
1204:
1199:
777:
680:
664:comment added by
644:
577:
425:purging the cache
376:Technology report
292:
272:s mailing list.
262:
50:View Latest Issue
2451:
2428:
2387:Want the latest
2372:
2369:
2364:
2359:
2346:
2341:
2329:
2283:
2280:
2275:
2269:
2242:
2239:
2234:
2225:
2168:
2163:
2162:
2136:If we can't get
2106:
2101:
2100:William Harris •
2077:
2072:
2071:
2052:
2047:
2039:
2023:
2018:
2017:
1951:Bryanrutherford0
1908:Bryanrutherford0
1892:
1887:
1885:
1861:
1558:Jimbo's talkpage
1532:submissions desk
1498:
1496:
1468:
1463:
1451:
1407:
1406:
1403:
1363:
1358:
1335:
1241:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1164:
1159:
1113:
1108:
773:
768:
719:
659:
640:
635:
592:
563:
505:
472:, it isn't just
457:
428:
426:
420:
399:
371:Featured content
343:
335:
328:
311:
303:
287:
260:
239:Medicine project
229:suggested that
166:
152:
151:
142:
141:
132:
131:
122:
121:
112:
111:
102:
101:
92:
91:
62:
60:
58:
2459:
2458:
2454:
2453:
2452:
2450:
2449:
2448:
2434:
2433:
2432:
2431:
2430:
2429:
2424:
2422:
2417:
2412:
2407:
2402:
2395:
2384:
2383:
2371:
2368:I didn't do it!
2367:
2362:
2361:
2353:
2344:
2337:
2323:
2301:
2282:
2279:I didn't do it!
2278:
2273:
2272:
2263:
2251:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
2241:
2238:I didn't do it!
2237:
2232:
2231:
2219:
2207:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
2170:
2166:
2134:
2104:
2099:
2079:
2075:
2050:
2043:
2033:
2025:
2021:
1890:
1883:
1867:
1819:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
1764:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
1663:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
1514:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
1512:lose interest.
1494:
1492:
1466:
1459:
1441:
1404:
1401:
1400:
1361:
1354:
1325:
1257:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
1237:
1191:Paine Ellsworth
1190:
1162:
1155:
1111:
1104:
891:if you like. ☆
857:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
816:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
766:
742:I thought what
717:
633:
595:
590:
504:
498:
478:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
455:
430:
422:
415:
404:
403:
397:+ Add a comment
395:
391:
390:
389:
336:
331:
329:
326:
315:
314:
309:
306:
301:
295:
294:
261:(a week later?)
189:10 January 2005
176:
175:
168:
167:
160:
159:
158:
149:
139:
129:
119:
109:
99:
89:
83:
80:
69:
65:
63:
53:
52:
47:
41:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
2457:
2447:
2446:
2423:
2418:
2413:
2408:
2403:
2398:
2397:
2396:
2386:
2385:
2382:
2381:
2380:
2379:
2378:
2377:
2376:
2365:
2339:Blue Rasberry
2318:
2317:
2300:
2297:
2296:
2295:
2294:
2293:
2292:
2291:
2290:
2289:
2288:
2287:
2276:
2235:
2203:Pelirojopajaro
2196:
2195:
2185:Pelirojopajaro
2177:
2176:
2164:
2133:
2130:
2129:
2128:
2112:
2111:
2090:
2089:
2088:
2087:
2086:
2085:
2073:
2045:Blue Rasberry
2019:
2008:
2003:
2002:
1986:
1985:
1948:
1947:
1946:
1945:
1944:
1943:
1919:
1918:
1899:
1898:
1876:
1875:
1874:
1873:
1863:
1849:
1848:
1832:
1831:
1830:
1829:
1802:
1801:
1785:
1784:
1783:
1782:
1781:
1780:
1779:
1778:
1777:
1776:
1775:
1774:
1737:
1736:
1735:
1734:
1733:
1732:
1731:
1730:
1729:
1728:
1727:
1726:
1680:
1679:
1678:
1677:
1676:
1675:
1674:
1673:
1659:
1646:
1645:
1644:
1643:
1642:
1641:
1640:
1639:
1599:
1561:
1536:
1535:
1525:
1524:
1503:
1502:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1461:Blue Rasberry
1424:
1423:
1422:
1356:Blue Rasberry
1345:
1320:
1319:
1304:
1285:
1284:
1268:
1267:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1206:
1205:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1157:Blue Rasberry
1133:
1132:
1106:Blue Rasberry
1088:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1068:
1052:
1028:
1018:
1017:
957:
956:
937:
921:
920:
904:
903:
885:
884:
883:
882:
881:
846:
845:
827:
826:
801:I mentioned
798:
797:
748:
747:
744:Resident Mario
740:
725:
707:
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
700:
682:
681:
650:
649:
617:
616:
600:
599:
587:
579:
578:
542:
541:
513:Quick link is
500:
499:
491:
490:
489:
488:
463:
462:
405:
402:
394:
393:
388:
383:
381:Special report
378:
373:
368:
366:Traffic report
363:
358:
353:
351:News and notes
348:
342:
330:
318:
317:
316:
307:
298:
297:
296:
177:
174:
171:
170:
169:
157:
156:
146:
136:
126:
116:
106:
96:
85:
84:
81:
75:
74:
73:
72:
67:
66:
64:
61:
48:
43:
42:
33:
32:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2456:
2445:
2442:
2441:
2439:
2427:
2421:
2416:
2411:
2406:
2401:
2393:
2390:
2375:
2370:
2357:
2352:
2351:
2350:
2347:
2342:
2340:
2334:
2327:
2322:
2321:
2320:
2319:
2316:
2312:
2308:
2303:
2302:
2286:
2281:
2267:
2262:
2261:
2260:
2256:
2252:
2248:
2244:
2243:
2240:
2229:
2228:The Signpost.
2223:
2218:
2217:
2216:
2212:
2208:
2204:
2200:
2199:
2198:
2197:
2194:
2190:
2186:
2183:
2179:
2178:
2175:
2169:
2161:
2160:
2154:
2153:
2152:
2151:
2147:
2143:
2139:
2127:
2123:
2119:
2114:
2113:
2110:
2107:
2102:
2096:
2092:
2091:
2084:
2078:
2070:
2069:
2063:
2058:
2057:
2056:
2053:
2048:
2046:
2037:
2032:
2031:
2030:
2024:
2016:
2015:
2009:
2005:
2004:
2000:
1995:
1991:
1988:
1987:
1984:
1980:
1976:
1972:
1967:
1966:
1965:
1964:
1960:
1956:
1952:
1941:
1940:
1939:
1935:
1931:
1927:
1923:
1922:
1921:
1920:
1917:
1913:
1909:
1905:
1901:
1900:
1897:
1894:
1893:
1886:
1878:
1877:
1872:
1868:
1866:
1860:
1856:
1853:
1852:
1851:
1850:
1847:
1843:
1839:
1834:
1833:
1828:
1824:
1820:
1815:
1811:
1806:
1805:
1804:
1803:
1800:
1796:
1792:
1787:
1786:
1773:
1769:
1765:
1760:
1756:
1752:
1749:
1748:
1747:
1746:
1745:
1744:
1743:
1742:
1741:
1740:
1739:
1738:
1725:
1721:
1717:
1713:
1709:
1705:
1704:
1703:
1699:
1695:
1690:
1689:
1688:
1687:
1686:
1685:
1684:
1683:
1682:
1681:
1672:
1668:
1664:
1657:
1654:
1653:
1652:
1651:
1650:
1649:
1648:
1647:
1638:
1634:
1630:
1626:
1622:
1618:
1617:
1616:
1612:
1608:
1604:
1600:
1598:
1594:
1590:
1585:
1580:
1579:
1578:
1574:
1570:
1566:
1562:
1559:
1555:
1551:
1546:
1542:
1538:
1537:
1533:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1523:
1519:
1515:
1510:
1505:
1504:
1501:
1497:
1490:
1486:
1485:Top 25 Report
1482:
1481:
1472:
1469:
1464:
1462:
1456:
1449:
1448:Esquivalience
1445:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1434:
1430:
1429:Esquivalience
1425:
1421:
1417:
1413:
1409:
1408:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1390:
1386:
1381:
1377:
1373:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1364:
1359:
1357:
1350:
1346:
1343:
1339:
1333:
1329:
1328:Esquivalience
1324:
1323:
1322:
1321:
1318:
1314:
1310:
1309:Esquivalience
1305:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1291:
1287:
1286:
1283:
1279:
1275:
1270:
1269:
1266:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1250:
1245:
1240:
1236:
1235:
1230:
1226:
1222:
1218:
1214:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1203:
1198:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1186:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1173:
1168:
1165:
1160:
1158:
1151:
1146:
1142:
1138:
1135:
1134:
1131:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1114:
1109:
1107:
1101:
1097:
1094:user group -
1093:
1089:
1086:
1082:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1036:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1020:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1009:
1004:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
995:
994:
991:
988:
981:
976:
975:
972:
971:
968:
965:
955:
951:
947:
942:
938:
936:
932:
928:
923:
922:
919:
915:
911:
906:
905:
902:
898:
894:
890:
886:
880:
876:
872:
868:
867:
866:
862:
858:
854:
850:
849:
848:
847:
844:
840:
836:
832:
829:
828:
825:
821:
817:
812:
808:
804:
800:
799:
795:
794:
793:
792:
789:
786:
781:
778:
776:
771:
770:
769:
761:
757:
753:
745:
741:
739:
735:
731:
726:
724:
721:
714:
709:
708:
699:
695:
691:
686:
685:
684:
683:
679:
675:
671:
667:
663:
657:
654:
653:
652:
651:
648:
645:
643:
638:
637:
636:
628:
624:
621:
620:
619:
618:
615:
611:
607:
602:
601:
598:
593:
586:
581:
580:
575:
571:
567:
561:
557:
552:
548:
544:
543:
540:
536:
532:
528:
524:
520:
516:
512:
511:
510:
509:
503:
496:
487:
483:
479:
475:
471:
467:
466:
465:
464:
461:
458:
451:
450:
449:
448:
444:
440:
435:
427:
418:
413:
409:
398:
387:
384:
382:
379:
377:
374:
372:
369:
367:
364:
362:
359:
357:
354:
352:
349:
347:
344:
340:
334:
333:29 March 2018
327:In this issue
322:
313:
305:
293:
291:
285:
282:
278:
273:
271:
266:
258:
252:
248:
244:
240:
236:
235:James Heilman
232:
228:
224:
221:
214:
213:Blue Rasberry
210:
209:
203:
202:Peter Forsyth
199:
196:
194:
190:
186:
182:
181:The Signpost,
165:
155:
147:
145:
137:
135:
127:
125:
117:
115:
107:
105:
97:
95:
87:
86:
78:
59:
57:29 March 2018
51:
46:
37:
23:
19:
2388:
2356:Bluerasberry
2338:
2333:The Signpost
2332:
2247:Fishhead2100
2227:
2182:The Signpost
2181:
2158:
2137:
2135:
2095:The Signpost
2094:
2067:
2061:
2044:
2013:
1999:The Signpost
1998:
1994:The Signpost
1993:
1990:The Signpost
1989:
1971:occasionally
1970:
1949:
1925:
1904:The Signpost
1903:
1881:
1862:
1814:The Signpost
1813:
1809:
1759:The Signpost
1758:
1620:
1602:
1583:
1549:
1545:The Signpost
1544:
1541:The Signpost
1540:
1488:
1460:
1455:The Signpost
1454:
1399:
1371:
1355:
1349:The Signpost
1348:
1342:The Signpost
1341:
1338:The Signpost
1337:
1290:The Signpost
1289:
1249:The Signpost
1248:
1244:The Signpost
1243:
1238:
1216:
1212:
1188:
1187:
1184:
1180:
1177:The Signpost
1176:
1156:
1150:The Signpost
1149:
1145:The Signpost
1144:
1105:
1100:The Signpost
1099:
1092:The Signpost
1091:
1085:The Signpost
1084:
1076:The Signpost
1075:
1072:The Signpost
1071:
1064:The Signpost
1063:
1060:The Signpost
1059:
1056:The Signpost
1055:
1048:The Signpost
1047:
1044:The Signpost
1043:
1040:The Signpost
1039:
1032:The Signpost
1031:
1024:The Signpost
1023:
1008:The Signpost
1007:
1005:
1002:
984:
979:
977:
961:
958:
889:Signpost 2.0
888:
852:
830:
803:Bluerasberry
782:
774:
765:
764:
758:
754:
750:
660:— Preceding
641:
632:
631:
627:The Signpost
626:
551:The Signpost
550:
546:
492:
474:The Signpost
473:
434:The Signpost
433:
431:
361:In the media
345:
339:all comments
288:
286:
276:
274:
269:
264:
254:
246:
242:
230:
220:The Signpost
219:
217:
207:
197:
192:
185:Michael Snow
180:
178:
94:PDF download
2426:Suggestions
2394:each month?
1855:Indy beetle
1838:Indy beetle
1603:submissions
1370:Why do you
983:platform.--
666:Nosebagbear
623:Nosebagbear
606:Nosebagbear
408:transcluded
257:20 February
204:, entitled
144:X (Twitter)
2159:Rivertorch
2068:Rivertorch
2036:Rivertorch
2014:Rivertorch
767:Eddie891's
634:Eddie891's
585:Smallbones
547:journalism
470:GamerPro64
456:GamerPro64
82:Share this
77:Contribute
22:2018-03-29
2420:Subscribe
2326:Gwen Gale
2307:Gwen Gale
946:Ymblanter
785:Athaenara
730:BrillLyle
591:smalltalk
439:werldwayd
412:talk page
312:"Op-ed" →
270:Signpost'
2438:Category
2415:Newsroom
2410:Archives
2389:Signpost
2363:Mr. C.C.
2299:Deadline
2274:Mr. C.C.
2233:Mr. C.C.
2105:(talk) •
2062:Signpost
1975:Pgallert
1955:KarlFrei
1859:Eddie891
1621:Signpost
1416:contribs
1288:Perhaps
853:Signpost
831:Signpost
775:creature
674:contribs
662:unsigned
642:creature
523:archives
502:contribs
302:Previous
277:Signpost
265:Signpost
231:Signpost
227:Aschmidt
208:Signpost
198:Signpost
193:Signpost
134:Facebook
124:LinkedIn
114:Mastodon
20: |
2266:Kudpung
2222:Kudpung
2142:GoodDay
2118:Nergaal
1930:GoodDay
1926:writers
1791:Bearian
1489:writing
1294:GoodDay
1221:GoodDay
1213:monthly
910:Ipigott
871:GoodDay
835:GoodDay
690:Johnbod
304:"Op-ed"
251:Carrite
164:Kudpung
2345:(talk)
2051:(talk)
1467:(talk)
1405:coder
1402:python
1362:(talk)
1217:weekly
1163:(talk)
1112:(talk)
718:話して下さい
566:DePiep
556:DePiep
386:Humour
154:Reddit
104:E-mail
2405:About
2167:WATER
2076:WATER
2022:WATER
1924:It's
1006:Fund
980:spend
927:Pldx1
468:But,
346:Op-ed
173:Op-ed
68:Op-ed
16:<
2400:Home
2311:talk
2255:talk
2211:talk
2189:talk
2146:talk
2122:talk
1979:talk
1959:talk
1934:talk
1912:talk
1891:Wölf
1865:Work
1842:talk
1823:talk
1795:talk
1768:talk
1720:talk
1708:here
1698:talk
1667:talk
1633:talk
1611:talk
1593:talk
1573:talk
1565:here
1550:fine
1518:talk
1495:czar
1446:and
1433:talk
1412:talk
1389:talk
1372:need
1330:and
1313:talk
1298:talk
1278:talk
1261:talk
1225:talk
1126:talk
1038:Let
1035:us:
950:talk
931:talk
914:talk
897:talk
875:talk
861:talk
839:talk
820:talk
807:here
734:talk
694:talk
670:talk
610:talk
570:talk
560:talk
535:talk
482:talk
443:talk
310:Next
2201:Hi
2138:any
1884:Daß
1755:Bri
1751:Wnt
1716:Bri
1694:Wnt
1656:Wnt
1629:Bri
1607:Wnt
1589:Wnt
1584:any
1569:Bri
1509:Bri
1444:Wnt
1385:Wnt
1332:Wnt
1274:Wnt
1253:Bri
1137:Bri
1122:Wnt
939:As
893:Bri
811:Bri
531:Bri
162:By
79:—
2440::
2313:)
2257:)
2213:)
2191:)
2148:)
2124:)
1981:)
1961:)
1936:)
1914:)
1844:)
1825:)
1797:)
1770:)
1722:)
1700:)
1669:)
1635:)
1613:)
1595:)
1575:)
1520:)
1435:)
1418:)
1414:|
1391:)
1315:)
1300:)
1280:)
1263:)
1227:)
1128:)
1046:.
952:)
933:)
916:)
899:)
877:)
863:)
841:)
822:)
788:✉
736:)
696:)
676:)
672:•
612:)
572:)
537:)
506:)
484:)
445:)
300:←
249:,
2358::
2354:@
2328::
2324:@
2309:(
2268::
2264:@
2253:(
2224::
2220:@
2209:(
2187:(
2144:(
2120:(
2038::
2034:@
1977:(
1957:(
1932:(
1910:(
1840:(
1836:-
1821:(
1793:(
1766:(
1718:(
1696:(
1665:(
1631:(
1609:(
1591:(
1571:(
1534:.
1516:(
1450::
1442:@
1431:(
1410:(
1387:(
1334::
1326:@
1311:(
1296:(
1276:(
1259:(
1223:(
1185:!
1124:(
1016:.
993:W
990:P
987:T
985:~
970:W
967:P
964:T
962:~
948:(
929:(
912:(
895:(
873:(
859:(
837:(
818:(
732:(
720:)
715:(
692:(
668:(
608:(
594:)
588:(
576:)
568:(
558:(
554:-
533:(
497:(
480:(
441:(
429:.
419:.
341:)
337:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
