Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-06-09/From the editors

From the editors

Signpost status: On reserve power, help wanted

That tectonic meeting of crust and cloud.

Dear Readers,
It is hard to believe it has been over three months since the last issue. We apologize for the hiatus in Signposting. We love publishing it, but are missing a few regular contributors. As a result some regular articles cover only part of recent months, and we can't yet say when the next issue will come out.
Help us return to a regular schedule! We are looking for editors, news submissions, and ways to simplify and publish. If you can help, or at least lob puns from the sidelines, please join us.

← Previous "From the editors"

Next "From the editors" →

In this issue

From the editors

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

If anyone wants to assist in working on the Arbitration Report, that would be much helpful. Would love to get a helping hand with those. GamerPro64 02:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drop me a note. I'm interested but would like to know about work load, article expectations, and etc. --Izno (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also be interested in helping out if you need it. Mz7 (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would gladly help. I'm not sure how much I can help, but I will try. Just tell me what I can do. Eddie891 (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Has the readership of the Signpost dropped significantly or are you just short of editors? It's been a long while since I was a new user, and I'm not really sure how people find out about the Signpost these days. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 16:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Philosopher: Readership is still pretty good for this issue, and really good for the Op-ed, see Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/2017. Compare the current graphs on that page with the ones for earlier issues this year, in the collapsed box. I also add graphs for several issues from last year on Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/2016, and the pattern is pretty similar: A peak of a few hundred views the first day it is published, dropping down to and generally staying around 100 views per day by the second or third day. - Evad37 [talk] 01:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the Signpost would be interested in analysis of the $436K paid out in 2015-2016 to Minassian Media, Inc by the WMF according to their 2015 990 form. (The company is registered to Craig Minassian, Chief Communications Officer of the Clinton Foundation). Another story I'm working on is the superhuman effort of an editor who has written 17 book reviews this month. The two stories may even be loosely related based on political affiliation and strategy. SashiRolls (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SashiRolls: Perhaps this is what the payments were for? meta:Communications/Wikimedia_Foundation_messaging_strategy/2014-16_audit Adamw (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that's not all, because such a document (interesting as it is) isn't worth anywhere near that amount. There is also talk of training staff.SashiRolls (talk) 08:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind helping out a bit TUXLIE 10:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of The Signpost? Share your feedback.

Home

About