Hi, Michael! I have some questions about this article, questions I assume any good editor would have discussed with you before publication. If the answers to these questions are somewhere, on a talk or discussion page of some kind, post a link, because I'm fascinated by the journalistic process at work here:

some controversial attempts at intervention -- What makes them controversial? Who made the controversial attempts? It might perhaps be a stronger lede to discuss something specific, instead of a statement so general as to be next to useless. Can these "controversial attempts" be linked to a single editor? A group of editors? Who's attempting to intervene and why are important questions unanswered by this lede.

Jimbo Wales recently removed a reference to majority votes when reviewing deletions, with a comment that "Voting is evil, this is nonsense." -- What makes this less newsworthy than the first paragraph? In fact, "Wales Changes Deletion Review Policies" is perhaps the most noteworthy thing in this article.

Recently, Badlydrawnjeff (whose user page currently calls him "the Vile Dark Lord of Inclusionism") -- I assume you confirmed with Badlydrawnjeff that this is a self-description? (Of course, being a Wiki, anyone can edit his user page.)

In light of previous controversy over IRC discussion leading to questionable blocks of longstanding contributors, this was a rather provocative claim. Provacative according to whom? Sentences that lead to these types of questions need to be re-written, stat! "IRC discussions leading to questionable blocks of longstanding contributors have caused past conflicts between editors, including (example here.)" That's a fact. "Provacative" is an attitude, and a categorization that's not supported by facts.

The actual conversation was mixed, and whether it could support Zsinj's characterization is debatable. -- I'm not sure what a "mixed" conversation is. I am sure I don't want to "debate" characterizations! There's no need to do so; sticking to verifiable facts will help prevent these types of problems.

The controversy over the block gave added impetus to the possibility of an arbitration case dealing with the situation. -- According to whom? "If you can't attribute, don't include" is a pretty good rule of thumb for sentences like this.

With the additional developments, a number of arbitrators now favor addressing the case, although it is not yet clear whether it will be accepted. Also unclear from this sentence: How many arbitrators want to take the case, how many arbitrators it takes to accept a case, and what the "additional developments" are, and how they might impact whether or not arbitrators would be interested in taking the case. Don't assume your readers know everything about arbitration policy! The vast majority don't... Jenolen ^{speak it!} 06:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jenolen, I'm not sure what to make of this if it's not a sudden fit of grandstanding over the decision not to use the article you submitted. Some of your comments seem to confuse Signpost writing with the principles that apply to encyclopedia articles, such as asking to whom statements should be attributed. In case it's not obvious, aside from quotations they are attributable to me — Signpost articles have bylines for that very reason. I do try to provide links where appropriate for additional information or as evidence (and if you actually read the link to my previous story about IRC, you would find the example you're demanding included there). But putting together a story usually demands that I synthesize disparate information and summarize the newsworthy elements for my readers, and many of your comments are simply objecting to the result of that work. If you actually disagree with the characterizations, please say where, but I think if you actually investigated and tried to recreate this reporting you would find most of them aren't significantly controversial.

I also try very hard not to let stories adopt any of the internal political agendas floating around Wikipedia, something that comes across in your comments and was probably a large part of the reason your own story wasn't used. Sometimes I lose specificity and the quality of my writing suffers as a result, it's a difficult balance to maintain. --Michael Snow 18:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your comments seem to confuse Signpost writing with the principles that apply to encyclopedia articles, such as asking to whom statements should be attributed -- Now, I'm confused. I thought the Signpost articles adhered to the accepted standards of journalistic neutrality, which would, in fact, call for all statements and facts to be appropriately sourced. (In this article, some are, some aren't, as I tried to point out.) Also note: The vast majority of stories in newspapers, such as the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times are attributed to reporters, as well, but no one would ever think that unattributed statements, except for the most uncontrovertable and innocent of facts were attributable to the reporter. ("The sky is blue..." doesn't need an "according to..." but just about everything else does.)

In fact, my proposed article was derided (by some) as being too much like an opinion piece. ("an absurd piece of editorializing rhetoric" huffed one editor...) so for you to say that unattributed statements should be attributed to you seems like a very odd mix to me. Either it's journalism in the traditional sense -- or ALL Signpost pieces are, by their very nature, opinion pieces. Which is it?

many of your comments are simply objecting to the result of that work. Not at all. The article is simply filled with mistakes, primarily in the realm of attribution, that a freshman journalism major would be expected to correct before their sophomore year. I know very few Wikipedians are practicing journalists, or professional writers, and any attempt to mimic the form of something without truly understanding it would, no doubt, be a bit like a person off the street looking at a fine painting, and thinking they could paint. Sure, they could put a brush in paint, and slap it against a canvas. But is it art? Probably not.  :)

I think if you actually investigated and tried to recreate this reporting you would find most of them aren't significantly controversial -- So, you're saying that some of the reporting is at least partially controversial?  ;) Again, if you want the Signpost to have any sort of basis in actual journalistic practice, this simply isn't good enough. But the good news is, the better way -- of removing unsupported characterizations and unattributed statements -- will make your stories leaner, more tight, and just plain better!

I also try very hard not to let stories adopt any of the internal political agendas floating around Wikipedia, something that comes across in your comments and was probably a large part of the reason your own story wasn't used. The only reason that "my" story wasn't used should be that it wasn't newsworthy. But then again, on Wikipedia, there is no "my" version -- I fully expected an actual editing process to take place.

What was perhaps more interesting to me was that after all the complaining, and after all the critiquing, not one editor has suggested in the traditional Wikipedia way -- by EDITING -- a single change to the version I wrote. Odd, huh? I'm not in love with that story as a first draft; there's certainly room for improvement. But I am a little surprised that a community of enthusiastic editors, who were certainly quick to jump in with opinions about the story ("beyond repair," "an absurd piece of editorializing rhetoric," "heavily pov, in the way you interpret the facts and stitch them together" (the horror!), and "(failing) just about every measure of sourcing, objectivity, neutrality, etc.") couldn't think of a single thing to change, other than to complain that the article was useless.

Worse, I think the judgement that thousands of logos and album covers are being deleted by a former admin who lost his admin powers for prior poor judgement when it comes to image deletion isn't newsworthy to be puzzling, at best. (At the current rate, Wikipedia may, in fact, someday delete itself... but then, who would read the Signpost?) :)

I'm sorry that you see an article critque as a "fit of grandstanding." That certainly wasn't my intention; I'm simply trying to determine what standards are at work here. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 09:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've read the New York Times, the LA Times, and plenty of other newspapers in my life, and always found their stories to be totally loaded with facts and analysis attributable to nobody but the reporter. I don't know what they teach in freshman journalism classes, but the kind of attribution you seem to be talking about has no relationship to professional practice in the field that I can tell. Just as a quick example from today's New York Times, in an area related to my own training, this passage about a Supreme Court decision:

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, whom [Alito] succeeded, would almost certainly have voted the other way, bringing the opposite outcome.

Even in the context of the full article, that statement is not supported by any quote or other attribution. It's making a key argument about the significance of the case, and since it speculates about a hypothetical scenario, it's certainly not obvious enough to be incontrovertible. I don't disagree with the reporter on the point, but the rest of the article is similarly written and it's very clearly her analysis running all the way through.

So that leaves us with the fact that you haven't disagreed with any of the assertions in this story, yet are criticizing its style based on considerations unsupported by the examples to which you point. That you go on at such length about your own story illustrates how relevant it is to your motivation for critiquing this one. I'm not interested in rehashing or defending other people's opinions of it, but your point that people could have tried fixing it doesn't mean anyone was obligated to do so, and if they felt it would be too much work to fix then that's the nature of life on a volunteer project. It's not a judgment of newsworthiness, in fact plenty of newsworthy stuff doesn't get attention, it's a judgment about suitability for publication when facing a deadline. --Michael Snow 18:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So while heavily pov, in the way you interpret the facts and stitch them togetheris a bad thing in one instance, it's S.O.P. in others? I guess, my point is that so much of what people see as bias in reporting is actually their own biases, reflecting back at them. They see the world through a prism, and indeed, I think that's what's happening here.

My only motivation for critiquing this article was that it seemed to be the most "newsy" and newspaper-like of the articles in the Signpost this week; nothing more, nothing less. But if Signpost submissions are going to be held to strict objectivity standards, it seems only fair to me that those standards are applied equally.

In terms of critiquing a creative work, poor critiques sit on the sidelines and throw stones at windows. Better critques illustrate potential problems, and offer potential solutions. I'd like to think the critique here was at least of some value in that department, while allegations an article is "beyond repair" strike me as, perhaps, not having enough weight to be taken seriously.

As for attribution examples - the top four stories on LATimes.com right now: The American Civil Liberties Union announced this morning that it would sue a Boeing subsidiary in San Jose federal court today, alleging that the company helped the Central Intelligence Agency with "the forced disappearance, torture and inhumane treatment" of three men the government suspected of terrorist involvement.

Disappearing just as quietly as they arrived, a pair of wounded humpback whales that spent more than two weeks wandering up the Sacramento River appear to have slipped back into the sea, officials said today.

After spending 16 years in prison, Hudie Joyce Walker walked out of a Pomona courtroom Tuesday a free woman — a sign of how much the law has changed for battered women who strike back. - This is what you're talking about - the reporter, seeing something first-hand, and writing about it. "Sky is blue" territory, when it comes to attribution.

Continuing a week that has been as close to unforgettable as any in the Lakers' rich history, Kobe Bryant has said he wants to be traded from the Lakers. "I would like to be traded, yeah," Bryant told ESPN radio. "Tough as it is to come to that conclusion there's no other alternative."

Each of these stories has what I would consider the "proper" attribution. ...picked up steam this past week with some controversial attempts at intervention... is on the border, definitely, of straight reporter opinion, and is perhaps supported by the facts in the story. Then again, those invovled may or may not have thought the intervention attempts were controversial. We just don't know -- which is we we always try to leave words like "shocking," "controversial," "unbelievable" and others out of news copy -- give the readers the facts, and let THEM determine whether something is controversial. Or if Jimbo says, "This policy is very controversial"... then report that JIMBO says so. But I still think Signpost stories would be stronger with less "reporter opinion," and more truth. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 19:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So is your critique simply about the lede? Because that's the only way in which those stories even approach the kind of attribution you've been talking about. (And I'd point out that while it may be obvious that a woman walked out of a courtroom, it is in no way obvious that this is "a sign of how much the law has changed for battered women who strike back." In your approach that's unattributed analysis.) Writing a great lede is a challenge, no doubt about that, and I'm happy to entertain suggested improvements. I'll consider what I can from your critique, but a single-minded focus on attribution isn't going to be it. From your comments about bias and opinion, it's also not clear to me whether you accept that there's a difference between objective analysis and editorializing. The Signpost strives for the former and to avoid the latter. --Michael Snow 20:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to thank Michael for trying to be objective in this article and it would have been nice if he had asked for my opinion on the topic. I feel that this article puts me into a bad light which had already been dealt with by the community. I'm participating in the Arbitration case and I would like to point out that I was not thinking straight that night after I had gotten back late from class (as I mentioned in the IRC conversation you referenced). Thanks. Zsinj^Talk 14:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm glad you're able to see the effort put in here. Unfortunately, with the amount of material to review I didn't really have time to seek additional feedback beyond the statements already made by the parties. However, in the rush to produce the story I did neglect to mention or link to your subsequent public apology. That was an important element to the story as I see it, helping to reflect a more complete picture of your actions. I've now included it and regret not having done so initially. --Michael Snow 17:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Michael. It is a well written article capable of bringing people up to speed with the whole slew of events. :-) Zsinj^Talk 18:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a good story. Perhaps it highlights why admin decisions should not be based on IRC conversations. Always a bad move, as there is almost no transparency. :( - Ta bu shi da yu 12:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jenolen makes an interesting point above about collaborative editing. I also agree that the topic of his rejected article should be covered in some way, though maybe his choice of attention-grabbing headline was unwise "Defrocked Admin goes on Deletion Tear..." Hmm. Anyway, getting back to the collaborative editing point, I would love to see a Signpost article written by the community for the community, in the true wiki-way. Has that ever been done? Carcharoth 08:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a headline doesn't demand that you click through to read the story, re-write the headline!  ;)

Also, I assumed that all, or most, of the Signpost articles were written in a collaborative, Wiki-way. As for why they're not, I have no idea. As always, my first draft stands ready to be torn apart and rebuilt!  :) Jenolen ^{speak it!} 03:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborative editing works pretty well for proofreading and tacking on tidbits that are either brand new or were omitted through some oversight of the original drafter. The proofreading part certainly happens for Signpost articles, which regularly get fixes both before and after the issue's publication.

Collaborative editing alone, however, is inadequate for meeting deadlines or building content up to meet particular standards with high expectations. Either of these requires somebody to take the lead and make sure anything necessary is taken care of to satisfy the requirements. This can occasionally be a small team rather than a single individual, but regularly observing things like the featured articles process will show that the number is never large. And if nobody has the drive to see a particular work through, then it's not going to make the cut. --Michael Snow 17:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]