New editor-in-chief

The Signpost has been an integral part of Wikipedia since its inception in 2005. Nearly a thousand editors on the English Wikipedia alone have subscribed to it, in addition to the many on other foundation sites who have subscribed to global delivery. Others subscribe via email, including outside individuals interested in the movement. The Signpost's rise has been aided by a series of extremely respected and capable people; those who have been around for years will easily recall names like Michael Snow (January – August 2005), Ral315 (August 2005 – December 2008), and Ragesoss (February 2009 – June 2010). Editors who joined more recently will recognize HaeB (June 2010 – July 2011) and the Signpost's interim editors-in-chief since: Jarry1250, SMasters and Skomorokh.

After the recent departure of Skomorokh and SMasters, I offered to complete the largely formal process of pushing buttons to publish each edition. While the issues have gone out with few problems, Signpost journalists felt that appointing a new editor-in-chief would serve as a point of contact and final arbiter over journalistic decisions that confront us each week, like what topics to cover and matters of weighting. My name was floated as a possibility, and many of the regular journalists supported the idea. So I accepted.

Being the eighth editor-in-chief of the Signpost is an intriguing challenge, as the newspaper is written in a unique genre from the rest of the project: we have deadlines, are not limited to an encyclopedic style, and disseminate Wikimedia-related news—and I am sure nearly all of you have heard "Wikipedia is not a newspaper", our little irony. I also feel that I have to live up to the esteemed former editors who have done so much for the Signpost, while simultaneously blazing my own trail, bringing the Signpost to new heights, new places, and new readers.

One of my goals in changing the Signpost is reviving its dormant opinion desk. My definition of an op-ed has traditionally been expansive, thanks to my time as an editor of the Military History Project's Bugle. In my view, op-eds can be anything from "how-to" articles (e.g. the oft-cited "Let's get serious about plagiarism", or the Bugle's "John Goodall's The English Castle and delving into castle editing"), in-depth observations into a Wikipedia process, calls for participation in an important new initiative, or position pieces on a divisive newsworthy development. I am keenly aware that no matter what topic is being discussed on-wiki, you will find strong support and determined opposition among our diverse contributors. While we cannot publish every submission that comes our way, as we are looking for high reader interest and engagement, your imagination is the outer limit.

Send us your preliminary thoughts for an op-ed at the opinion desk, on my talk page, or to my email—whichever you are most comfortable with.

— The ed17

In this issue

21 May 2012 (all comments)

From the editor

News and notes

WikiProject report

Featured content

Arbitration report

Technology report

+ Add a comment

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.

Welcome to your new job. I hope that The Signpost continues its success with the new leadership. Pine^(talk) 03:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tough job, but someone's got to do it :-). Can you comment as to the approach you intend to take regarding the previous editors' excellent work in also covering the negative stories about Wikipedia, and their resistance to efforts to make the Signpost a mouthpiece and cheering section of the Wikimedia Foundation? -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 05:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost is completely independent of the WMF, full stop, and that will remain true both formally and informally. I guess I don't have a specific approach in mind for the first question. There will be positive and negative aspects to any action the WMF takes; the SP's job when covering these is to affirm/encourage the former while providing community critique of the latter. Doing one or the other would provide a skewed view. (and to be clear, I'm not arguing for opinionated regular articles). Does that make sense? If not, I'll clarify later; I'm running out the door right now. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great news; welcome, and kudos to the 'post. – SJ + 06:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. I looked forward to the best news of you. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 07:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Ed! I'm sure you will do beautifully in the role. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congratz! I look forward to reading more opinion pieces. --J36miles (talk) 14:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, and good luck wrangling the 'post! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 16:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The right choice was made. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a good idea would be to run the article on TCO's report on the FA which was spiked last year after his attackers refused to write a rebuttal.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I remember attempting a rebuttal, I'll have to hunt it up. Please give me a link if we start discussing it again. Oh and ... Good luck Ed, and good choice guys. - Dank (push to talk) 13:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]