User talk:Pi zero

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search
I watch talk pages where I have recently left messages. Please reply in the same section to make discussion easier to follow.
If you leave a message on this page, I'll reply to it here.

News agencies aren't supposed to create facts, they are supposed to report them.
Jason Safoutin

Jan–May 2011
Jun–Dec 2011
Jan–Jun  2012
Jul –Dec 2012
Jan–Jul   2013
Aug–Nov 2013 
Dec 2013–       2014          

Some more assistance?[edit]

Hello again Pi Zero, I was curious about images and such for an article. I haven't seen how to reference an image from a news site or if it's even allowed. I'd like to get like a small basic knowledge on what sort of images are acceptable from other places, like Wikipedia or from news articles on other news sites. Is there like a place I can go to find images that all news sites use, including Wikinews, I mean apart from WikiCommons.--Ying Blanc (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

We specifically aren't able to use images from other news sites (unless, of course, they're released under a license that allows them to be uploaded to Commons). Our fair use policy for local uploads expressly forbids uploading images copyrighted by competing news organizations.
When at all possible we prefer to use images from Commons, because that gives maximum flexibility for syndication of our articles. Occasionally that isn't possible, as with coverage of the Paralympics (or Olympics), which is funded by selling the rights to commercial coverage, so the images we take have to be under a non-commercial license, which means they can't be put on Commons.
We usually have to settle for whatever we can find on Commons.
I'm not the most knowledgeable here about images, though I know these basics. Possibly you might get some interesting info at the assistance water cooler. --Pi zero (talk) 23:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Pi, I was more worried of more, well not breaking news situations, but news situations where images are quite limited to what the media has put out, like in terrorist attacks and shootings and such. That's why I asked if there was like another bank of free images for newspapers, but I would guess there are none. Thanks anyway Pi again. --Ying Blanc (talk) 23:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


Something I keep meaning, and forgetting, to bring up; is it really necessary to protect non-mainspace redirects such as this? My understanding of the technical issues behind protection is that they don't apply to such things. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 11:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Is it necessary? Not in the same sense, no. However, they're not like the project content-pages themselves (such as WN:Newsworthiness that could be subject to a good-Samaritan copyedit due to a lurking typo, or whatever, even after years of stability. So the benefit in trade for leaving them open to vandals is relatively low. Granted, it's not a burning issue; I mostly just figure, broadly speaking, the fewer targets we offer, the better. There may well be specific cases where a choice to protect is especially dubious. --Pi zero (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

First arrests made in Singapore for possession of New Psychoactive Substances[edit]

Many thanks for peer-reviewing the article and publishing it. I hope I did better on this one compared to my previous attempt at creating an article. I've looked over the article again and corrected some grammar mistakes. If you could review those, that would be greatly appreciated. (Iuio (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC))

Thanks. Should the article also be placed in the "Heroin" category? I've noticed that some articles are sorted into categories, despite only having passing references to the subject matter of said categories. (Iuio (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC))
The recommended principle for deciding whether to put an article in a category is, if you looked in that category for articles related to its topic, would you like to have that article pointed out to you as one of them? In this case, I'd say that's a good question. --Pi zero (talk)
Well, I'd say it's related and should be in the "Heroin" category, but that's just my opinion. Would that mean that the decision to put articles in some categories is a subjective one? (Iuio (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC))
The question of 'what would be useful' is practical in nature, but it can't help being a matter of judgement. The more reproducible the better, and in the long run finding ways to improve quality control is desirable — so different users will end up making the same call about whether a given article belongs in a given category. In this case, I think I agree with you: the availability of new drugs similar to heroin is relevant if one were researching what our archives have about heroin. --Pi zero (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thanks, that was a very enlightening answer. I was a little bit confused on the inclusion policy for articles in certain categories, given that at points in certain articles in certain categories, the subject of the category is only mentioned once in the article and that's all, and I wonder what merited the inclusion of that article in that category if the category's subject only received such a passing reference. Well, yes, being related is important, but at the same time, some categories, particularly those pertaining to location and genre, can be rather all-encompassing. But in this case, "Heroin" is a rather specific subject, and since this article only addressed heroin in a very passing manner, I wondered if it might be included in the "Heroin" category, given what I'm seen in the past while reading old articles on the site, and also as per the subject of the article, a potential for "synthetic heroin" to one day emerge (if it hasn't already). (Iuio (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC))
Heroin having been invented by Bayer. (Ah, the "good old days" of unregulated pharmaceuticals.) --Pi zero (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
True, true. By the way, how did I do on this article? I hope I did a better job than the last one. Is there anything that I need to keep in mind/correct when I write any future articles? (Iuio (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC))
I'm sure there must be something; one never stops learning. It's probably worth skimming through what edits I made during review. But the things that come to mind, off hand, are marginal. There were some phrases identical to source, but at least a couple of those I left alone because I decided the wording, which occurred in multiple sources, was probably from the wording used by the police. I suspected one or maybe two of the sources might not have been used, but wasn't entirely certain and several were pretty short so didn't add to the review load as much as big sources would have. It's always harder to review with more sources... yet I hesitate to complain too much about that, because more sources (when legitimately used) can provide more breadth, which increases the value of our articles. --Pi zero (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I sort of stuck close to identical wording because many of the sources also had identical wording, so I came to the same conclusion as you, that the wording was used by the police or some other authority in charge. I did use all the sources on the arrests themselves, albeit, some of the usage was marginal since they were very short and similar/near identical to each other. Since the sources on the arrests were short, and since the illegalization of NPSs happened only two days before the arrests, I thought it beneficial to incorporate information on NPSs themselves along with the illegalization, to provide depth to the article along with some background on the situation, or else readers might shrug and think "So what? It's just a standard arrest for drug possession and trafficking.". I just wanted to show the arrests set a precedent and what said precedent was. I was somewhat concerned that the background information on illegalization of NPSs might overtake the premise of the article, which was the arrests. Is there anything I should keep in mind in future when incorporating additional background information that is related to, but does not directly concern the premise of the article like in this example? (Iuio (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC))
It's a good idea to break up indentical wording like that when possible, as I did in several cases iirc; partly perhaps just to keep in practice :-), but also because sometimes identical wording in multiple sources is because they all paid for the right to draw some of their material from the same wire service.
Background is great, it's one of the things we can do to give the reader added value. As long as the body is spiraling outward from the focus identified by the headline and lede, rather than having a different focus from the headline and lede. (Mentioned at WN:PILLARS#style, and WN:Newsworthiness#Specificity.) It worked pretty well, I thought, and drawing on the CNB page seemed a nice touch (helping to further mitigate that a good deal of the background was from one source article). --Pi zero (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, yes, the background did spiral out from the headline and lede, and I agree with you that it also gives the reader more information and value in a single source, though at the same time, I did not want it to overtake the news of the arrests, which was why I made sure to come back and address the topic of the arrests in the last paragraph, with the sentencing of the suspect, to remind readers that's what the article is mainly reporting on and to provide "bookends" in a way. Since background was an important, but not as major part of the article, I didn't use as many sources on it, but the CNB page was definitely one to include as it was an official source from the organization involved. I think taking more sources in for background may have caused that part of the article to drag on longer than it should, and I already found it lengthy. Of course, we must keep the articles at a manageable length. (Iuio (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC))
It felt about the right length; I agree. We can do long articles, of course, but they need a more substantial focus to anchor them than 'two guys got busted for drugs'. --Pi zero (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, I think if the arrests were anything but the first ones under this new legislation, it would simply be 'two guys got busted for drugs' and thus not newsworthy, hence the background to keep readers from simply thinking that 'two guys got busted for drugs' is all there is to it. But most articles I've seen on here are about the length of this article or shorter, so I'm quite satisfied with how it turned out. Many thanks for your assistance. (Iuio (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC))

Disambiguation protection[edit]

Regarding disambiguation pages: unlike normal redirects, there's valid reasons to edit a disambiguation page – I think we shouldn't use full protection on them; semi-protection would be sufficient. Thoughts? Microchip08 (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

They must be fully protected, or they mustn't be allowed in mainspace. Overriding technical concerns, not a matter of "there's no reason to change it".
There are two ways to allow editing while keeping the mainspace page fully protected. One would be to use a redirect from mainspace to a disambig page elsewhere; tbh I dislike that option. The other is to transclude, on the fully protected mainspace disambig page, an associated template, providing a link for editing the template. (I'd use template space because that space has flaggedrevs enabled, so can be sighted as an anti-vandalism measure.)
I believe I can see how to construct a single template to put on mainspace disambig pages, that categorizes the page, and handles setup, transclusion, and editing of the associated page-specific template without a clumsy section heading on the disambig page. I'll see if I can't cobble together such a template later today (supposing nothing more urgent comes up). --Pi zero (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
What are the technical concerns? It seems much easier to add a clause to policy exempting full protection for disambiguation pages than creating a hackish workaround (and the less indefinitely fully protected pages, the better). Microchip08 (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Software security concerns which I am not going to discuss on a public forum. --Pi zero (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
If there's a security concern relating to wikitext content with Mediawiki, then you should report it. If the bug doesn't involve Mediawiki, then surely it isn't our problem, and certainly shouldn't be influencing policy. Microchip08 (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I've been trying to be polite, but you're evidently assuming I'm incompetent. I'm not. I followed this road all the way to its end (somewhere in the general vicinity of the Gates of Hell) years ago with bawolff. You're taking a deeply wrong-headed position; drop it. --Pi zero (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to be so grumpy about it. --Pi zero (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

"Decat for userspace"[edit]

Hello, I noticed that you made an edit to an article I wrote with "decay for userspace" in the comment. For future reference, how does one prevent an article in userspace from appearing in category pages? --David Blayney (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

There are three different kinds of things to do.
  • With the categories, you put a colon before the "Category". So [[Category:Foo]] becomes [[:Category:Foo]].
  • With many templates, such as infoboxes or {{original}}, you add a nonblank nocat parameter. So {{Foo}} becomes {{Foo|nocat=1}}.
  • With a few templates, mainly article-status templates like {{tasks}}, you add "tl|" to the front of the template call (just inside the double-braces), which turns it into a call to template called {{tl}}, which displays the markup of a template call instead of doing the call. So {{tasks|foo}} becomes {{tl|tasks|foo}} (which looks like this: {{tasks|foo}}).
We don't usually move failed synthesis articles to userspace, though. Occasionally we do (it's usually handled by an admin), but usually the failed articles that get preserved this way are original reporting. --Pi zero (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Advice on story idea[edit]

Hi Pi zero,

I was wondering if you could possibly point me in the right direction with a story idea.

Last week Australian Seven's Women's Rugby Union organisers were reported to be poaching Jillaroo Australian Women's Rugby League players, in effort to put together a team for the Rio Olympics 2016. I originally wanted to write up a WikiNews report on this story, as the captain of the Jillaroo's team lives in my suburb. However, when I contacted and asked if she would be happy to be interviewed she said she wasn't keen to speak to any more media on the matter as other media outlets had misquoted her or made up things she had said.

This then led me to think I could write up an original report or feature for Wikinews talking about the inacuracies in media reporting on the supposed poaching. Sam, the captain, has confirmed that she is happy to speak to me about this.

However, I just found out that today the Women in League held a luncheon where Sam was a person on the panel. I thought maybe it would be a better idea to take a news angle on the luncheon, talk about what Women in League are trying to do for Women in Australian football and possibly get some quotes from Sam about the event.

Which angle do you think would be more appropriate?

Thank you in advance!

Brittany ( BCarter UOW (talk) 09:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC) )

  • What media files do you think you can get for these? A report on inaccuracies in the media can, under fair use/fair dealings, use photos/scans of the relevant inaccurate parts of mainstream news articles.
As I found, when I edited together the video clip for the Nigel Farage protest, now that Wikimedia Commons supports the WebM format you could get a lot into the 100MB upload limit (from my upload, I'd guess 15-17 minutes footage).
I wasn't the first to try and do video work on Wikinews, and it is a good-deal easier than when Gabriel interviewed John Key in 2007.
A point that puzzles me is, going from rugby to football. However, if more than one sport is covered you may-well draw more readers. Plus, if Samantha Hammond can point out examples of other sportswomen being misquoted, quoted out-of-context, or having quotes fabricated, I think you'd have a very interesting story angle.
The non-fun part is doing the transcription, but the timeliness of your article relies more on "when it is ready" than when an event happens. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

North Korean singer thought executed appears on state television[edit]

Thanks for reviewing the article. By the way, I took the name of the event that Hyon appeared in from her Wikipedia article, which states that the event is called the "National Convention of Artists". Hope that is ok. (Iuio (talk) 05:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC))

Wikipedia cannot be used as a source. It is intrinsically not trust-worthy. If Wikipedia claims some fact, and you want to use that fact in a news article, you have to find the fact in some trust-worthy source and use that. And cite it, of course; all sources you use must be listed in the Sources section. Sometimes Wikipedia will itself cite a trust-worthy source. If Wikipedia makes the claim and doesn't cite a trust-worthy source, well, that calls the claim into question and what you need is, exactly, a trust-worthy source.
Btw, I forget if this has come up: Wikipedia's license is incompatible with ours. Copying Wikipedia content to here word-for-word, even with attribution, is copyvio. --Pi zero (talk) 10:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you able to change my article's title?[edit]

Hi there, not sure if I'm doing this "talk" thing correctly... I just need to change the title of my story. Someone told me I can't do it myself and I need to get a reviewer to do it. I noticed you've been editing my story (thank you!) Are you able to change the title for me? I just want it to be "Eleven-year-old golfer qualifies for U.S. Women's Open" (the reviewers said it needs the sport listed in the title). Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Misspinkuow (talkcontribs) 00:14, 22 May 2014‎

Hi. :-)
I moved it for you.
You could have moved it yourself, I think, because your account is more than four days old. Up at the top of the page over toward the right there should be a star, and then a dropdown menu. Move (or might be called "rename") should be on that menu (in fact, I suspect it'll be the only thing on that menu).
Btw, when you post on a talk page like this, type four tildes at then end, ~~~~, and they'll automatically expand to a signature for you when you save your edit. --Pi zero (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Chinese police arrest six after woman beaten to death at Shandong McDonald's[edit]

Regarding this article, I seem to have just discovered a peculiarity with the source from The Australian. Trying to access the source directly from the article itself leads to a paywall asking for a subscription, while if you type "Woman beaten to death in McDonald's" into Google, as I did when searching for sources, and then find the source from among the search results and click it, it leads to the source in full, effectively bypassing the paywall. The source should be on the first page of search results that I linked to. This was how I first accessed that source, since I don't have a subscription to The Australian's website. This happened purely by chance, since I was also unaware that the Australian's website even required a subscription. What can be done about this situation, since I know we aren't supposed to used paid sources in articles. (Iuio (talk) 02:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC))

Hi Iuio, Pi zero seems to not be available at the moment, so I'll respond for him. I could directly access the Australian's article from your submission. For sources like the Australian (who charge money for reading articles after some days or weeks) I recommend you archiving the sources you added so that they are always available for their review on Wikinews. Try adding a bookmark to your browser containing the following code:
javascript:void(location.href=''+escape(location.href)+'&email=INSERT YOUR EMAIL HERE')
I have archived the Australian's article here. Regards, and I hope to have been of help (somewhat) --Diego Grez 02:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello Diego, I clicked on your archive and ran into the paywall as well. It seems that the only way I can assess the source in full is via Google search results, which is a peculiar problem. I want to stress that the whole thing happened by accident and I had no clue a paywall even existed since I search for sources via Google and got to the source in full without hitting the paywall. It is only through the article I wrote on Wikinews and your archive that I encountered said paywall. I want to know whether or not that means The Australian article can be used as source, or if it needs to be removed. I that article cannot be a source, I suppose I will have to remove the information I used from it (a tedious process) and/or try to find alternative sources with that same information. Thanks for your assistance anyway. (Iuio (talk) 03:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC))
I have just noticed Webcite didn't archive it properly. Well, you can just point out in the article's talk page that the source can only be completely accessed through Google News. Is the Australian article a major source for your submission? Can it be replaced with another one from another news media? Diego Grez Cañete 03:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, yes, that source has quite a large bit of the information I used. Other sources have graphic photos of the dead woman that I don't know if they would be allowed to be used as sources, since obviously knowingly linking people to sites with bloody and gory images is not so ethical. I don't know what to do now, except maybe wait for Pi Zero to give an answer, since what you suggested is basically telling people how to deliberately bypass the paywall of The Australian's site, and frankly, I doubt that is something we should be doing or encouraging. (Iuio (talk) 04:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC))
Iuio: No, no, that info (instructions on how to access the article and not to be directed to the paywall) is supposed to be for the reviewer. They are going to use the sources for the article's eventual approval, and it would be really helpful if you clarify how to access the article on the talk page. Diego Grez Cañete 04:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I realize that, which is why I left that message on Pi Zero's talk page, since I do want his advice. He has been reviewing the last few published articles and he'll likely review this one too. SO I clarified this stuff on this page. But to leave it on the article's talk page where it'll be more widely seen by other people, that just doesn't seem right. The Australian article has important information like the name of the victim and the murderer, which few other sources do, and those other sources have graphic photos of the dead woman, which I am, once again, not sure is allowed, so I guess this matter might be something for Pi Zero to decide. (Iuio (talk) 04:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC))
Iuio, as I just told you, it would be better if you share on the article's talk page that the article cannot be directly accessed through that link, but rather by searching it on Google. Pi zero may be the one who will review this article, but there are other 30 reviewers out there who could still review it, and it would be best that you point out all of this on the talk page. As for the other sources, I've checked them, and they are totally allowed to be linked to on Wikinews. Wikinews is not censored. Though you can, for sure, wait for Pi zero's advice later today. Diego Grez Cañete 04:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't really want to spread this matter all over the place, and Pi Zero seems the most likely one to review the article, so I came here. I'm not sure if linking the other sources with bloody images needs to be accompanied with a warning or not, though I guess that is the case. However, even if I take out The Australian source, and maybe find other sources that have the same sort of information as The Australian source, I fear that the reviewer might say that the article has been "contaminated" with content from the Australian source, since that source was used when the article was first written, so it may be a copyright violation anyway to not cite The Australian source. I fear that the only recourse then would be to completely rewrite the article from scratch without The Australian source, which would certainly be an unpleasant undertaking. (Iuio (talk) 05:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC))
It isn't necessary that you rewrite the whole article, don't remove The Australian as a source. It is not "wrong" to "spread all over the place" on the article's talk page (as a note to the reviewer, actually) that the Australian needs to be accessed from Google News, just leave a note on the talk page, after all, as I have told you... sources are there for the reviewer, and not exactly for (future) access to Wikinews users. The Australian's source possibly may not be available even after trying to access it by Google, in a couple of days... so, I don't see the problem that you point out on the article's talk page how to temporarily access it without reaching the paywall instead. By the way, you don't have to specify that some links contain bloody images, it's totally unnecessary. Regards, Diego Grez Cañete (talk) 05:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Goodness, there's been quite a bit of conversation here while I was asleep. :-)

Any note addressed to whoever reviews an article should be placed on the article's talk page; our review gadget even has a mechanism built into it (which sometimes works) to remind the reviewer to carefully read the article's talk page before submitting a review of the article. On the other hand, asking some particular person's advice is naturally something to do on their user talk, which also has the advantage it'll be easier to find later on. In this case, it'll get archived here, so one doesn't have to remember which article's talk page it was on; and of course we still haven't come up with a good solution for the problem that, in the awful event that an article doesn't get published, the record of discussions on its talk page disappears — sometimes a blessing, but often a curse, and the first community discussion I participated in when I first arrived here was about that problem... I guess about five years ago.

With an article behind a paywall, in the particular event we'll try to muddle through — but then for the future the thing to do is to avoid that source. We don't want to habitually bypass somebody's paywall, as this would be undermining the means they have chosen to try to support themselves financially. Under any ordinary circumstances, it doesn't matter whether we agree with the means they've chosen; journalism is already difficult, as we well know, and we're not out to make it even more difficult for those who do it. --Pi zero (talk) 11:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I apologize for any problems this caused, but once again, the whole thing was unintentional. I had to leave to do something else immediately after finishing the article and submitting it for review, and it was not until I came back hours later that I discovered there was even a paywall to begin with when I attempted to access the source via the article I wrote. As such, if need be, I'm willing to find other sources or do a rewrite of the article if this is a major issue. Also, I was reluctant to use other sources due to the presence of graphic images. Should such sources be used at all due to said graphic images? And is a warning necessary should those sources with graphic images be used? But yes, the whole thing was a complete accident, and I will keep in mind to avoid that website in future and check the sources again so the problem does not re-occur. (Iuio (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC))
Don't worry about graphic images. Wikinews is not censored, nor do we issue warnings for content. When there's a news reason for it, we use graphic images and language ourselves.
I realize these paywall problems come up. Sometimes it's because news sites provide an article freely for a little while and then move it behind a paywall. --Pi zero (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for publishing the article. I did try to reword some things, but it does seem that when you reviewed it, a few of the smaller details were removed. I'm the sort of person that would like to include as many details as possible, so that may have been a handicap when trying to find other ways to say things. I will also admit I was in a bit of a rush, since I wanted to finish writing the article before I left to do something else. I was also possibly hoping to get it reviewed in that time while I was away so I could then change things if it was deemed unfit to publish. I guess I'm still working out what details to include from sources into the article and what to exclude.
As for The Australian source, I guess it doesn't seem ethical to leave that message on the talk page of the article telling people how to get past the paywall. I mean, telling people how to exploit that just seems wrong. For all I knew, that paywall could have been there this whole entire time and it was a glitch or flaw with either The Australian's website or Google that allowed access to the source in full. That's why I offered to rewrite the article without that source and even do it from scratch if that was necessary to avoid contamination due to that source containing a good amount of information used in the article. I guess months or years from now, however, many of these sources will be taken down by their news agencies and this issue will decrease in relevance.
For the sites with graphic images, I'll keep that in mind for future articles.(Iuio (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC))
Don't take what I did during review as a model of what to do during writing, only as an indicator of where the problems were. As reviewer I was limited in what sorts of changes I could make, and removing things is often the least intrusive thing a reviewer can do. The advanced techniques for synthesis, that really get great distance from the sources, rearrange the material drastically. I remember there was a bit about what color shirt and pants she was wearing, or something like that; well, maybe that information (but not wording) could have been worked into some entirely different part of the article. But I, as reviewer, couldn't do something so drastic without disqualifying myself. This is part of why I tell people not to reword at all; don't think of it as rewording, because rewording implies starting with the way the source said something and then altering that, instead of saying something entirely your own way.
I really want to find a good way to show people what to do; it's one of my major long-range goals for the project. A really lucid... teaching aid... on how to use sources without copying from them would be immensely valuable, well beyond synthesis news writing.
I've learned from Wikinews, and it's true of Wikipedia too but isn't so obvious there, that crowdsourcing an information provider — like any of the wikimedian sisters — is largely about helping contributors learn the expertise they need to contribute. Of course you want to keep down the amount of expertise required, but the current efforts on Wikipedia to get more contributors by lowering the bar to contribute seem misguided because that's not the main problem; once you've got most of the accidental expertise out of the system, spending further resources trying to reduce needed expertise even more is bad because those resources would be better spent helping contributors acquire needed expertise. --Pi zero (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif attends Modi inauguration - template wording[edit]

The trouble is that even with your wording people will read the headline and think - "hang on, wasn't he installed a while ago?" Then they click through to the article and discover that we are not covering the swearing-in ceremony, or even saying whether the President of Pakistan did in fact attend the swearing-in ceremony - we're just saying that a couple of days before the ceremony (which itself was 7 days ago), he said that he would attend. Wow, how exciting and newsworthy that is, this long after the event! Hence my attempt to focus on the reaction, which is perhaps a slightly less stale point (and yes I know that "stale" is a term of art, but so what?) and at least draws attention to a different part of the original report.

My preferred option, frankly, would be to hide templates 4 and 5 when the "news" on the front page is as old as it currently is - our lead story is something the Pope said 8 days ago (?!!!), and something that was announced 9 days ago. If Wikinews cannot generate 5 publishable stories in a week, then it needs to rethink its front page to hide its limitations. Regards, Bencherlite (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree the wording can still be improved. However, I disagree about hiding leads. Yes, we need to think about how to present these things, but when things get slow like this the function of the items on the main page changes, not abruptly but sliding along a continuous spectrum, to illustrating the output of the project.
I'll see what I can do about the phrasing of the Sharif/Modi lead. --Pi zero (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I tried a different approach to the lead phrasing. --Pi zero (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. The function of the main page doesn't appear to change, though, when the project is going through a slow patch - perhaps instead a couple of slots could be turned over to "from the archives" for some FAs to be displayed in the sunlight again. Just an idea. Bencherlite (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
That's an interesting thought. Though, I'm not keen to put time into engineering adjustments for the main page, likely to get into deep infrastructure as they touch on WN:Make lead, for the express purpose of more smoothly handling slow spells, when the fundamental long-term problem is missing infrastructure that I'm already pouring all my available time into (I've been at it for, what, coming up on three years now? And at this point one massive push may finally see things start to come on-line...) --Pi zero (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

'Living' ear created to commemorate Vincent van Gogh[edit]

Hello, I noticed your review on the article, but I would like to inquire what can be done about it. The piece did go on display on May 30, according to the museum's webpage, but no one seems to have written anything about it until say 2 days ago, when I first saw articles about it. What's the policy on freshness in this case? I don't know why there was such a delay between the piece going on display and articles being written about it, so what changes can be made here? It could be conceivable that maybe details on how the piece was made came up recently, and that could be what the sources are writing about, but I'm grasping for straws in that case. (Iuio (talk) 00:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC))

I looked around on the sources again and found a bit in the source from The Guardian where the artist told the Associated Press on Tuesday that she wanted to combine art in science, her motivation for making that piece, I suppose. Could this count as a "recent event"? I added it to the lede and resubmitted the article for review in any case, since I think with that line, the sources may more or less be reporing on how the piece was made, rather than it first going on display. (Iuio (talk) 01:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC))
I wasn't happy about the case — I hated not-ready'ing it, at the same time I didn't feel there was anything else I could do.
The reason everybody's reporting on it now, probably, is that one news source, probably AP, did a bit of what Wikinews would call original reporting, produced an article, and the rest of the mainstream media followed by a sort of herd instinct. Most reporting by the news sources we use is, in fact, what we would call OR if our reporters did it; calling up the police to ask for confirmation of something, asking somebody for comment, etc, are all original reporting... but if they're done on Wikinews, the big effort that goes into that sort of reportage is out in the open for all to see, whereas it's mostly opaque when AP or BBC or the like do it.
When we do major OR, our reportage is to some extent its own focal event, which is why freshness works a bit differently for OR than for synthesis. But when somebody else does OR, that doesn't necessarily make a focus suitable for us.
I should probably try to look tonight at what you've changed (though I seem to be fading fast, which tends to happen to me in the evenings these days; I used to be able to pull an all-nighter to catch up with review when necessary), and then perhaps sleep on it and see what my back brain has made of the situation by morning. --Pi zero (talk)
Well, I only really added one sentence from the Guardian source I told you. Just to maybe give some "recent" context about the article. If the piece went on display May 30 and the artist only really told news sources how she created it like 2 days ago, I guess that gives them something to write about, number one, and maybe puts things in a more recent context, number two. Maybe, and once again grasping for straws here, the focus is on the artist commenting about how she made the piece, as opposed to the piece itself going on display, which gave AP something to write about. (Iuio (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC))
Okay, I saw your review on the article. In that case, what event should be focused on? Should the article be renamed to maybe say "Artist described how 'living' ear was created to commemorate Vincent van Gogh"? That seems more like the focal event rather than the piece going on display. Apart from that, are there any other means to change the article to make it publishable? (Iuio (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC))
I don't know how to make the article newsworthy, given the interpretation I'm following of how Wikinews principles apply to the situation. Which bothers me, but there it is. --Pi zero (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, given that we are at a deadlock on this situation, and I can't think of much of a way wither, I think it's probably better that you delete the article then, since pretty soon, I think even the artist being interviewed by AP on Tuesday would be past freshness. (Iuio (talk) 05:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC))
That happens naturally, in due course: when an article hasn't been worked on for four days, it's tagged with {{subst:aband}}, and after two days' warning it's deleted. That's the fate of most articles that don't achieve publication. There's no hurry to delete the thing; after all, what if someone else wanted to do something with it? --Pi zero (talk) 10:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, even if someone wanted to do something with the article, I don't see how it can be salvaged, since neither you nor I can come up with a good solution to resolve the matter. By then, even if someone thinks of something, it'll likely be way past freshness and still unfit to publish, so I don't really see it as a matter with a positive outcome. (Iuio (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC))

"Never" = "under 5 minutes"[edit]

I did enjoy this edit history, sorry! Bencherlite (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

 :-D  --Pi zero (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Let me ask you a serious question..........[edit]

I've got it cleared up in my head that people outside the US seek accreditation because its important in EU society etc. OK, I get it. All that notwithstanding, why do you think we have so many people come here and in the 1st or 2nd edit, ask for accreditation.....then never do a d$mn thing again.....? What are your thoughts on that? New editor engagement has REALLY dropped off recently....and I hate that. But, it just seems so weird to me that so many don't edit a little or write a little (or even jump around messing stuff up accidentally!!) and THEN ask for accreditation 2 weeks later. --Bddpaux (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

New editor involvement has dropped off because some would-be sororicides over an Wikipedia used a concerted misinformation campaign to manipulate the Wikipedian community into removing the Wikinews link from the "In the News" item on the Wikipedia main page . It's that simple. Afaics we still get traffic here coming over from Wikipedia, at a somewhat lower rate. And I'm still working on our core problem that we need to improve our statistics on retaining the ones we get (hence my interactive tools, which are now on the verge of producing real results... making this perhaps the dozenth time in the past year they've been on the verge; but of course this time they really are :-).
There's a need for accreditation, as you say. Perhaps people assume that Wikinews has no standards, since it's a wiki; yet another way for Wikipedia's problems to negatively impact us. --Pi zero (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Toads defeat University in round seven of Sunshine Coast Rugby Union season[edit]

I think I've made the appropriate adjustments to this article. --RockerballAustralia c 17:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

re Election Committee[edit]

What would I have to do? -- Cirt (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Replied on your talk. We have two volunteers for the election committee, including you, and the membership of the election committee is to be settled by today (July 6). --Pi zero (talk) 00:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Done, hope I can be helpful! :) -- Cirt (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


Hello Pi zero. I sent information about the press card to scoop. But I don't understand what it changes, because they could be present at the music festival without a press card. Now, the information of the article can be checked with two external sources from other medias. As I said, she did not take notes during the performances. I have another question, because we plan to write a report about the whole festival (the festival ended yesterday night) some days after it with more pictures. Do you think that it could be possitive? Or do we have problems? --Millars (talk) 09:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

As for why it matters: documentation is about the whole context of the situation. Original-reporters routinely provide information about how they got to events, what the weather was, whatever. I've read stuff about how difficult it was to find parking at a sporting event, the mood of the crowd, technical difficulties setting up interviews, all sorts of things that weren't mentioned in the article itself but add to the documentation of the circumstances surrounding the acquisition of information. And, besides that general interest in context, it's certainly of interest to know the reporters' relationship with the event, as well as others' attitudes toward the reporters in general.
It's really important for an original-reporter to take notes during an event, in some form or other. Writing stuff from memory the next day defeats much of the purpose, and writing only the article, with no additional context included, is even worse. Handwritten notes are recommended for many purposes, though other forms have been used successfully, and there are situations where other media are superior (for example, interviews are routinely recorded as audio files). Preparation ahead of time is crucial to successful original reporting, as noted at WN:OR. --Pi zero (talk) 11:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you. In this case, this was our first collaboration of this kind (for these people) and we found people interested who didn't wrote on Wikimedia projects before. I know that we could do some mistakes, but we learned for next time. I talked with Aparaulart and finally she can upload her notes. --Millars (talk) 11:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your patience and for passing the article. I had a meeting with Aparaulart this morning and we talked about all this. She'll try to send more documentation to scoop and upload an image of her notes (she took some). After uploading that, and linking some external sources, as I said, we wanted to write a longer article about the whole festival, like a final report, with more pictures, and in Spanish, Catalan and English. What do you think about it? Could it be possible? --Millars (talk) 12:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
It sounds good. I'm hopeful it could work out well. --Pi zero (talk) 12:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)