From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!

Wikinews news

• Wikinews is holding a writing contest starting on January 25. Sign up! Newbies welcomed and encouraged.
• Wikimedia (the non-profit who runs wikinews and several other websites) is in its annual fundraiser. Please consider donating.
• too lazy to replace {{developing}} with {{review}}. Now we have a button to magically do it for you on {{develop}}.
• Google news now indexes us sort of. Please do a hard refresh before reviewing your next article.
• {{topicon}} should now make icons that go by the title bar (like on FA articles), that work with vector/all skins.
• We're now using vector, and the enhanced edit toolbar!
• Users who come directly to Wikinews from Wikipedia, and edit something immediately (That is not old), get {{Editintro from wikipedia}} while editing. Users who edit an old article get {{Editintro notcurrent}}.
• The number of articles on the main rss feed has been shortened. If you don't like this change, please raise a fuss.
• If you are using {{Latest news}} in a main page re-design, you have to switch to using {{latest news/old}} as {{latest news}} has changed significantly.
• [edit lead] links on main page is now invisible to anons.
• Easy Peer review gadget now bumps {{date}} automatically
• bugs (affecting Wikinews): useful categories, old request to switch to dpl2, RSS feed extension, DEFAULTSORTKET: causes articles to go to top of DPLs, Blanking page causes article to be most recently published
• things needing doing: Accreditation requests: 0 Requests for permissions: 1 Flagged revs requests: 0 Bot requests: 1 Articles needing review: 4 Quiz: Ok ^Edit

---

Wikinews Blog - Wikinews on Flickr - Wikimedia news - Wikipedia news - merchandise - Wikimedia blogs

+/-

Policy

Refresh

Archive

Archives

Policies and guidelines and the Style guide contain or link to most of the current en.Wikinews policies and guidelines, however policy is based on the accepted practices of the day on Wikinews, often these might not be written down. This section of the Water cooler focuses on discussions regarding policy issues.

You may wish to check the archives to see if a subject has been raised previously.

Strategic Planning

The Wikimedia Foundation has begun a year long phase of strategic planning. During this time of planning, members of the community have the opportunity to propose ideas, ask questions, and help to chart the future of the Foundation. In order to create as centralized an area as possible for these discussions, the Strategy Wiki has been launched. This wiki will provide an overview of the strategic planning process and ways to get involved, including just a few questions that everyone can answer. All ideas are welcome, and everyone is invited to participate.

Please take a few moments to check out the strategy wiki. It is being translated into as many languages as possible now; feel free to leave your messages in your native language and we will have them translated (but, in case of any doubt, let us know what language it is, if not english!).

All proposals for the Wikimedia Foundation may be left in any language as well.

Please, take the time to join in this exciting process. The importance of your participation can not be overstated.

--Philippe

(please cross-post widely and forgive those who do)

Unacceptable usernames

For those admins who've not got it yet... If someone creates an unacceptable/attack username you block totally. No sending email, no editing talk page. Simply don't give them any further opportunity to publicise their pathetic little 1½-inch "statement". A large range has been blocked to deal with our current pest so there likely will not be any recurrences for a week, pending block expiry. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 00:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Admins should at least give users the benefit of doubt when they violate policies such as these, in my opinion. Remember that newbies aren't familiar with our policies. Benny the mascot (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, someone who creates profane or extreme attack usernames will obviously not contribute constructively to the project, I don't think they need to be given the benifit of the doubt. I agree with Brian that obviously inappropriate accounts should be hard-blocked immediately so that they draw as little attention and are publicised as little as possible. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict]I'm pretty sure Brianmc is referring to User:Brian McBullshit. In cases like these (usernames that are clearly meant to attack someone), I agree that it is entirely appropriate to block on sight and disable email and what not. (which i probably should have done in that case, but i just hit the block button and kept the default settings without thinking about it). In other cases, such as confusing usernames (someone once registered with the name Senior Wikinewsie) giving the benefit of the doubt, and still allowing talk page edits seems much more appropriate. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• <conflict>Really? For obvious attack names? No. If someone creates an account Penis you block them completely and permanently. No creating a talk page for Penis, no sending email as Penis, and no creating another account until the autoblock expires. We've had worse than that recently including deliberately confusing names similar to administrators, slurs against Wikinews, attempts to set Wikinews and Wikipedia against each other, and others. You'd have us do what? Give them a template equivalent of a smack with a rolled up parish newsletter? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 01:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • And do you really think that every violation of policy is intentional??? Think about the username "Anonymous", for example. It could be construed as an impersonation of Anonymous101 or instead as the selection of a lazy user who couldn't choose a better name. We could also apply the same idea to "Jack69". An admin could techinally block that user for sexual innuendo (69), but maybe such a user might have been born in 1969. Should we really deprive such users of the ability to appeal their block or choose a new username? Benny the mascot (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

There are some instances where if the user really wasn't intentionally violating policy, then that means they're so clueless, its almost in a way worst then if they were intentionally violating policy. If someone registered a username [[user:Benny the mascot kills babies at night and is generally a <insert some swears here>]], saying they didn't realize that such a username was inapropriate, that just doesn't work as a defense. On the other hand, if a username is just mildly offensive, or confusing, the person in question would be politely asked to change there name. There are cases of people who had usernames that were controversial, subsequently changed them, and became very active contributors (for example TUFKAAP, although its somewhat disputed if his original username was actually against policy). Bawolff ☺☻ 02:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Bureaucrats closing RfAs they've voted in

Are bureaucrats generally allowed to close RfAs that they've voted in, or do they have to recuse themselves after they give their opinion? I've seen a few RfAs here in the past where bureaucrats who'd voted had closed requests, but I know that on most other wikis this practise is frowned upon. Just wondering what is the current protocol on this? It isn't mentioned in any policy, as far as I can tell. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

News in pictures

I think that it would be a good idea to bring back the news in pictures section to the main page, especially having seen the release of articles like this:

• Winter wonderland: the recent U.S. blizzard in photos

Please reply here if you have any suggestions/opinions. Thanks, Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 17:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I did like the section when it was there, but it seemed to get very outdated; without reporters on the scene with a camera, there is very little we can do by way of pictures—most articles use file photos. It would be a good idea if we were as active as, say, en.wp, but there's maybe only a couple of dozen active contributors here (and that's a generous estimate), so we have little chance of having a reporter available to take pictures for us. Dendodge _T\^C 21:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Technical

Refresh

Archive, post

Archives

Wallmart greeter gadget

Want to greet newbies (if your an editor), go to special:contributions/newbies, look for the dropdown by the search box on vector, click greet newbies, will automatically add {{howdy}} to any new user who does not have a talk page, and has edited somewhat recently. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• This includes *everyone* with a redlinked talk page, like Hottygirl2010 (talk · contribs), I dread to think what repercussions I face for testing another of Bawolff's diabolical creations! :P --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• You needn't worry about that one Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Fundraising notice

Whoever wrote the fundraising notice can't seem to realize that this is Wikinews, not Wikipedia. Can we remove or at least change it? Benny the mascot (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• There is a gadget in preferences. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 01:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  • But readers will still see the error in the message. Benny the mascot (talk) 02:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I know, I shall whinge appropriately. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 02:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually, it's correct; Jimmy did found Wikipedia, he did not found Wikinews. The technically correct version would be "Wikimedia Foundation". --Brian McNeil / ^talk 02:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, but if you "hide" the message, then you see "Wikinews Forever" with the Wikipedia logo in the middle of it. Benny the mascot (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* The devs still couldn't fix the logo issue, after all these weeks? Oh well, it least the WP logo isn't too conspicuous now. I'm tempted to make it a bit smaller with .css, but the devs would probably complain ... Tempodivalse [talk] 02:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• If you wish to replace with our logo via CSS I'll beat devs with a stick if they hassle you ;-) --Brian McNeil / ^talk 02:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I think there is enough consensus to change the logo, so I don't see a problem at all. Benny the mascot (talk) 02:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) Fuck, I'll do it if someone shows me what to paste where. Let's kill the thing entirely. There need be no consensus; it's the same as our blocking policy - if it's clearly damaging the project, nuke it. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, to remove the notice entirely you should add

#centralNotice {display:none !important;}

to Mediawiki:Common.css. Expect to be hassled by the devs though. Tempodivalse [talk] 16:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Done Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe if we keep quiet about this, the devs won't notice. Or we could add some wikicode to their personal .css files to make them think the banner is still up even though it'll only be showing for them :-P Tempodivalse [talk] 17:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Funny, but no. Undone by Bawolff. Cbrown1023 talk 23:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

lol, that is a good idea. ;) On a serious note, its not a good idea to remove the banner completely. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Since when did you have the authority to overturn consensus? Benny the mascot (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't particularly have authority to do so. Do you mind if we have this conversation on irc? Bawolff ☺☻ 23:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I remember the devs said somewhere that fundraising banners aren't subject to community consensus, and shouldn't to be removed locally. I'm kinda tempted to hide the banner again (it's too Wikipedia-centric), but the folks at the foundation would probably give us a hard time. Open to thoughts as to what we should do. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't figure out how to access irc through a smartphone, so no, sorry. Now when exactly did the developers get the authority to override consensus as well? This whole thing just seems totalitarian to me. Benny the mascot (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm on IRC right now, and Brianmc tells me it was a board resolution, not just a decision by the developers. But I don't agree with it either ... Tempodivalse [talk] 00:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict]Devs don't have authority to override concencuss (Well except in technical situations). wmf: does generally. (It should be noted that neither devs, nor wikimedia officials were involved at this time. However at the beginning of the fundraiser we were instructed not to block the banner). In paticular, we are funded by the wmf. without the wmf there would be no computers to run wikinews. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, but whoever makes these fundraising banners should at least get them right. Benny the mascot (talk) 03:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[unindent]. I agree, this fundraiser had been horrid imo. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Restart - Constructive solutions

• Okay... I'll try and work up one tomorrow when I get back from my interview. Someone note the code to substitute in our own Wikicode. I will do some graphics to go in it too. Then I can test on main page talk and we okay our own override that favours Wikinews and raises cash. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 03:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

  There are two things to sort. First, the large banner. Then the small one. Now, for the large one I suggest we say damn the professionals and others. So:

  [Smallish] Wikinews needs your help!

  [Jimboimg] Read Jimmy Wales' appeal

  I'm thinking about doing a customised version of one of the Jimbo headshots (no mad eyes, poss B&W) with some sort of Wikinews logo emboss on it. GiMP experiments required.

  For the small appeal:

  Wikinews [small WN logo] Forever Currently needing donations to keep the lights on.

  Since I'm off to bed shortly, please comment, suggest. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 04:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good layout. Could we drop the "Wikinews Forever" thing though? IMO it sounds kinda unprofessional. "Wikinews needs your help!" or something along those lines is more suitable. The Jimbo appeal I have no objections to. But, a bigger issue is: would the devs/wmf approve of us using our own banners? They did tell us not to tamper with them. Tempodivalse [talk] 04:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'll link to the discussion here. I imagine doing what I want will take a few hours and I need to get some sleep. If I sleep now I'll not get up for my morning appointment. So, sleep for me will be 10am to around 3pm. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 05:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I recall Bawolff saying some of this might not be substitutable via CSS for Internet Explorer. Well, tough noogies on that; people can easily turn of JavaScript too and I dislike that being relied on to feed to bots. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 05:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

"people can easily turn of JavaScript too" - actually, it's a miracle that some Internet users managed to install it in the first place, and the rest of us consider it more convinient to just leave it be. If it messes with my browser I'll consider it much easier to find a way to suppress the banner on my account than to try and convince my computer to have JavaScript on in one tab and off in another. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Note, i was referring to adding text to something in css is very hard (And only works in moz). We can change the images using css (on second thought not easily). We can substitute the banner using js (and the banner requires js in the first place since somehow it puts less stress on the servers to have it loaded from js) However, its still slightly messy. if we wanted to go that route, it'd probably be better just to hide the banner with css, and put the new banner in the sitenotice. The ideal solution would be to convince the people in charge to change the banner to something more appropriate. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Also following js will replace wikipedia img in notice with wikinews logo in the collapsed notice:

addOnloadHook(function () {
try { // in case no central notice
var img = document.getElementById('centralNotice').getElementsByTagName('img')
for (var i = 0; i < img.length; i++) {
if (img[i].src === 'http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Wikipedia-logo-small_%28Fundraising_2009%29.png') {
img[i].src = 'http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/Wikinews-logo.png/25px-Wikinews-logo.png';
}
}
}catch (e) {}
});

Bawolff ☺☻ 04:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Disabling rollback

Is there a way for me to disable rollback? I don't use it anyway, and I have a tendency to accidentally click the button. Benny the mascot (talk) 01:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Not really; but don't worry, most people still manage to accidentally hit it at some point. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 01:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

  Rollback is packaged with Editor status. unfortunately, you can't get rid of one without removing the other as well. Maybe you could use .css to hide the rollback button somehow? i dunno. Cheers, Tempodivalse [talk] 02:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Probably yes on the css. I'll look up the class in the moment. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Add the following to special:mypage/vector.css (if you don't use vector, change to appropriate skin name):

.mw-rollback-link {display:none}

Bawolff ☺☻ 00:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Benny the mascot (talk) 02:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of Wikipedia BUT

Wikipedia is now run by all these moderators who in my own experience and in the experiences of many others, come across as being a pack of cunts running their own pedantic shit head fiefdoms - while we the peasants get our input, corrections and submissions trashed add-nauseum.

So I now tend to regard Wikipedia, as useful - but not the kind of a place or event I want to associate with nor support.

These scribbling pharisees and and their ganging up on people with their rules and banning them and getting their jollies out of fucking with everyone else and their contributions - if you arseholes want Wikipedia all to your very own selves - you can also pay for it.

I like many, many, many other contributors who have left am saying - "You can all go drown, all by yourselves in your own shit - we have better things to do".

You're aware that this is Wikinews, not Wikipedia, right? :-P Tempodivalse [talk] 14:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• And, because you randomly spam this boilerplate everywhere, you'll end up blocked. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; nor is Wikinews. There is a need for rules to try and make the project content credible by process. You will find more hurdles to that here because we've worked to get the project listed in Google News (alas, somewhat unreliably). There are usually rules for a reason, not all as stupid as my Member of Parliament telling me I could face prosecution for using the word clusterfuck in an email. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

LQT for Comments: Namespace

For anyone living in a deep, dark cave, there is this cool new extension called LiquidThreads (or LQT for short) that gives MediaWiki threaded comments. We all know that our Comments: Namespace for articles could use some help. Most readers (Anonymous, non-Wiki people) either can't figure out how to post comments, or maim the shit out of our pages every time they do. The answer, for lack of a better one, is LQT. I know not everyone is happy with how LQT does things, but it is the best option we have. The reason we've not pushed for it previously, is that it was too buggy. Well now that has changed. Werdna recently posted that LQT was 'almost ready' to go main stream. I also talked to him briefly and he said we could do this as a pilot 'pretty soon'. If we get it on and it doesn't work out, we can always ask them to turn it off again.

The Proposal In Short: LQT, once 'ready', should be turned on for the Comments: namespace (Only).

Comments

• Question - Could you please provide an example of what the changes would look like? Benny the mascot (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at strategy:Village pump for an idea of how LQT looks like. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Votes

• Support --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 23:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support Bawolff ☺☻ 23:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support but only for Comments: namespace, however, Oppose for talk and user talk pages. While I personally don't like LiquidThreads very much, I can see how it's more useful/easier to manage for people who aren't familiar with the wiki editing interface - plus we get to look cooler and more like professional news sites. :-) On regular talk pages, however, I feel that our current indenting system is better. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

  I thought I was fairly clear when I wrote "for the Comments: namespace (Only).", but alas. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 00:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

  Actually, I noticed that comment (and understood it), but thought I'd be completely clear just to be on the safe side. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support --I like them a lot. Definitely.    Tris   23:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support on all discussion pages. Our indenting system gets messy sometimes, especially when some use colons while others use bullets. Benny the mascot (talk) 23:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  • heh...I didn't see the "comments namespace" part and thought this was a vote on all talk namespaces. Sorry! Benny the mascot (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Had a look at the sample on the strategy wiki, which got posted a bit above here, and I have to say it makes the comments look like a flaming vBoard or something like that. Ugly and not particularly great. Sorry - Iceflow (talk) 01:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support I hate trying to manipulate layout/comment nesting with it, but it's easy to use for non-wiki editors. Ideal for Comments: --Brian McNeil / ^talk 05:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral - I've never been that sure about LiquidThreads, but I guess a trial in the comments namespace couldn't hurt. the wub "?!" 11:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support I'm too used to the tired old system to like it (I could probably adjust) but newcomers should love this. It gives a degree of clarity. Iceflow, however, is right in that it could be improved yet. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support I ahve been hoping/pushing for this, since we got Comments NS. I am glad it is getting over its buggs problems Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 21:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support a trial on the Comments namespace. The current indenting system with colons and asterisks is far from user friendly; even as a relatively experienced user on Wikimedia projects I manage to mess up frequently. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 10:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support Computerjoe's talk 22:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Google news update

[posting this here in case people are curious. those on irc probably know this already]

We discovered today that some of our stories are not getting into google news (originally we thought they stopped indexing us, and panic ensured on irc, but we figured out it was only some articles). This appears to happen when the title (not neccesarily the url) has certain characters in it (double quotes mostly). For example, the following stories were not indexed:

• Payment pending; Canadian recording industry set for six billion penalties? (this one did not get indexed even when url had no special chars in it)
• Boeing 787 "Dreamliner" makes maiden flight (this one did not get indexed via its redirect, but instead directly from the DPL (as it had number 787 in it. perhaps google just detected that it was a duplicate or something)
• Israel "illegally annexing" east Jerusalem, EU reports (this one is not in google news)

We currently don't have a solution to this (And to be honest, don't really understand the problem). Perhaps Amgine's proposed extension will fix it. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm. This happened at a very inopportune moment, considering that the writing contest is coming up and everything. Has anyone tried contacting Google about this? From what i understand from IRC discussions, the problem is probably on their end and not ours. Hope we can fix this soon, in any case. Tempodivalse [talk] 03:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• I expect to be told Google is deprecating page scraping for news. Most sites at least feed out decent RSS or Atom. XML is better yet because you can have GNews categorise articles in lots of interesting ways. Also, user custom feeds. It's time to get this done right, refresh the rotating sitenotice until the one for an entry on Bugzilla comes up and *everyone* register an account and vote for the bug. I intend to blackmail the devs into having a comittment to getting us it at least a week before the competition. Ideally, (this might be where you stick in the or else) WikiVoices can tell the good news about us getting software developed and vetted for our use. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 05:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I just got an email (CC for bug) that Erik has put a new WMF dev on our needed bug. WikiBlackmail at work™ --Brian McNeil / ^talk 06:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Note on the most sites have a decent RSS or ATOM feed - Google news does not accept RSS or ATOM feeds for syndicating[1], so that wouldn't exactly help the situation [although it'd be cool for other reasons]. (and our feed setup isn't that horrible, could be better, but its not horrid). Bawolff ☺☻ 11:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Further updates: We switched from using ugly hack #1 (JS auto-created redirects in hidden div on main page) to hack#2 (appending ?dpl_id=<some numb> on to the end of urls) after tim's changes to DPL. Well this is less ugly then the previous hack, it would still be much better if google was fed by a site map, as then we can see why any article might fail to be indexed [2], as well as just generally seeming more reliable. Bawolff ☺☻ 08:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• I've said my piece on the bug. Hacks should be avoided. Google could turn round tomorrow and say "no more scraping, sitemaps mandatory". Then we're screwed again. We, also, still can't have a section for developing stories on the main page. That really hides away the fact that readers can become contributors. I believe the GNSM solution would also allow a plethora of RSS and Atom feeds (per category, per category intersection) that are normal for a news site. With GNSM our resident Javascript hacker, Bawolff, would be able to write a small gadget allowing contributors to custom-build any feed they wanted and there is no reliance on the not-so-reliable Toolserver. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 11:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

For those interested, Bugzilla:21919. Bawolff ☺☻ 20:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposals

Refresh

Archive

Archives

iPhone version

I've just come across this site-www.intersquash.com, which makes an iPhone enabled page from any RSS feed. This is what results from our RSS feed for any iPhone/iPod Touch users-[3]. What do people think about redirecting iPhone users to the iPhone friendly version of the site, with a link back to the normal version?    Tris   09:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

personally i'd prefer if such mobile versions were done in house. Bawolff ☺☻ 18:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• We should be able to do our own versions. This should be us being pioneers, and when we run into a brick wall with the WMF techies, we get Commons or Wikipedia to go "ooooh! nice!" and fight to get our new gadgets and toys made WMF-wide. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, if someone can and will do. Any volunteers?    Tris   08:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

For both these things, the point seems to be that we should be doing it ourselves. However, noone does, for whatever reason & I'm not blaming those who are able to. Of course I'd prefer it done in house, but it's not, so until then, maybe we should consider outsourcing.    Tris   10:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Good news everyone: Wikimedia Technical Blog - Mobile Homepage in your Language! There might be a few kinks since its only used for Wikipedias at the moment, but this seems like the best route to take. the wub "?!" 21:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Do we know how easy it would be for the devs to make this work for Wikinews? I guess all we really need on the mobile Main Page is a DPL (though we should try to squeeze on as much as we can) so it shouldn't, I wouldn't have thought, be overly difficult. Dendodge _T\^C 22:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Devs tend to be squeeze resistant. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Reboot of Print Edition

` I also came across this website-www.feedjournal.com, which makes print newspapers from an RSS feed. Their basic, trial version results in this for Wikinews-[4]. Unfortunately, in order to use it, it cost $59 a month. I asked the owner and he said he would do it for half price for non-profits etc. Implementing something like this would rejuvenate the print edition, as it could be automatically created every day/every week for people to download. So, thoughts?    Tris   09:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

All that produces is what's contained in the feed. It doesn't reproduce entire articles. And he seriously expects us to pay anything for that?! No thanks. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Meh. I tend to agree with BRS, all it does is produce little blurbs that don't provide much info - and it doesn't have any more info than the feed. If it made entire articles, i think that would be something to look into, but not when it copies the first few sentences only. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact that it is only a section is because that is how the RSS feed is. I'm sure it would be pretty easy to get a full article RSS feed and only use it for the Print Edition. Yes, it's only doing what's in the feed but it's putting it into a nice format, it would all be Wikinews branded and we would have a daily paper without anymore extra effort. If you read the archives on the Print Edition, the problem is that it takes ages to compile and even then, in my opinion, didn't look as good as this. Also, if you read the archives you'll see that it can and does act as a very good marketing tool-if everyone left a few of PE's a day in their local library, reception etc.    Tris   16:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

What's to stop us creating our own autoversion, based off of Category:Published? Set up a DPL and get some code to follow the links. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

lack of people contributing code. Otherwise we definitly could have something crawl cat published, feed it through latex or something, and auto make pretty output. (The idea was tossed arround in the talk page of the print eddition a couple times). The only thing stopping us, is that no one has done it. Bawolff ☺☻ 18:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• I still have a copy of the OpenOffice template Craig used to use to create the print edition. Mail me if you want a copy, the job is supposed to take ~10 minutes per day. If we can get 3-4 people working on it I think we could keep it going for a while. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

  Here's a test File:Print-edition-test.pdf. Done in about half an hour, but is a first attempt. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

  For a first attempt, it looks pretty good. If you had a bit more time, I presume you'd do something better with the images and try to avoid so many widows and orphans (as well as finding a way to get those last two boxes onto the page before), but the format looks good to me. I'd be willing to help if you need somebody to do it (I've not been very active this month due to other commitments, but from next month onwards, I'll be able to devote all my attention to Wikinews and, by extension, the print edition). Dendodge _T\^C 21:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

  Email me to get the template. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

  OK, email sent. Dendodge _T\^C 21:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've uploaded a replacement test, just today/yesterday, and added Commons PotD. 00Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This is all looking good. One suggestion, Brian: You might as well delink everything. Some (most/all?) printers will reproduce the blue link, which looks crap on a paper version. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to mention that, but decided that this was probably intended to be a demonstration of the layout, rather than the content, and that it went without saying that the links would be removed in the real versions. Another complaint I have, albeit a minor one, is the large amount of whitespace on the last page. Could this be filled with something else, perhaps? I would also like it if the bottoms of the boxes were correctly lined up, but that makes virtually no difference and is hardly worth the effort involved. Dendodge _T\^C 22:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'll see what I can do to delink stuff. For the last page, there is a real problem getting a balance. Anyone ideas on how to put as much of this on a page as possible ready to quickly cut and paste in? The latest version took about 10-15 minutes tops. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

V2 hackery

I'm working from the template I've got Z(just sending you updated copy DenDodge). Plus Main Page/PrintEd. From that page I cut and paste leads into the template. You select from the end of the text up until the picture is included in the section. Then, move on to the list of recently published, view each story, cut/paste headline, cut/paste text sections excluding IBs/imgs/quoteboxes. The WP FA is from their main page, as are the Wikiquote, Commons, and Wiktionary snippets.

If there's some way to change the template to allow the hyperlinks without blue & underline, let me know - I've done very little with OOo. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You can highlight all the text, then change the colour to black and turn off underline (I think you may have to click the underline button twice, since the first click underlines everything, then the second turns it off for everything). That's the quickest way, I think.

As for filling in the last page, I don't really have any ideas. Maybe we could just shove some request for donations or something there, if we can't think of anything else. At least it's better than whitespace. Dendodge _T\^C 23:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

So, we work on taking a number of days articles (for current uploaded version, 2). Add up to 1 story to fill whitespace, and have a column's worth of deletable filler to neaten up. That filler including fundraiser stuff. Does anyone know how to set OOo documents to "track changes"? This could be done a lot faster on the wikinews-l mailing list. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 00:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'm very glad that this has caused the Print Edition to be reconsidered. Is there anyone who could make a bot to do it automatically, because although it's relatively easy by the look of it at 10 minutes a day, if it could be done automatically, then it would make it all much easier and mean it was properly regular.    Tris   08:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion seems to have stalled. Should we go ahead and make an issue, or is there still more to discuss? Dendodge _T\^C 10:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we should, based on the template, have a few people take a short at making it. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 11:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll add it to my growing list of commitments for tonight. Dendodge _T\^C 13:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Audio Wikinews Re-Build

So...Audio Wikinews has been that project in the corner that keeps flinching with life, and then dying again. Every time it does flinch, it seems to do the Wikinews project good. At this time, Audio Wikinews is like a huge graveyard full of abandoned sections and guides that overlap and conflict with each other. It's because so many people have come and gone from Audio Wikinews with their own ideas and not coming across the same idea already done with neglected linking and capitulation so it gets made again. Although I have been slaughtering alot of pages with the historic template, I try my best to keep the general way of things but it's just gotten far too hard and it's not friendly to new users at all. I remember it took me months to go though every nook and cranny inside Audio Wikinews to make any kind of sense of it. So far I've spent a darn long time trying to organize it but it seems like an endless and impossible operation, so here's what I'm suggesting;

A complete deletion or archival of the Audio Wikinews project and a full rebuild.

I've been very dedicated to this project from my arrival at Wikinews and I believe I can make this work. Hopefully this will make it alot easier for new users to contribute to the project.

Any thoughts? --James Pain (talk) 13:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I really think the audio has massive potential-if we could get it going regularly, have it on iTunes, get some people downloading it and hopefully up our contributor numbers. However, I do agree, it's so hard to understand at the moment. If we could restart I think that would have large advantages-however, we would need to be sure that we could keep it going for a decent period of time before doing that(ie. not two weeks).    Tris   22:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Assistance

Refresh

Archive

Archives

Keeping copyright to my images, fair use of original work.

Hi Guys, i'm more than happy for the text of my articles to be used in any way according to the CC licence, but as a semi-pro and with my images going to other places and not just Wikinews, I need to maintain copyright fully over my images, particularly in terms of commercial usage and attribution. I get the impression that I can do so by uploading locally to Wikinews as fair use media. To clarify, is this okay with OR photos to upload via fair use? Also, what option should I selec under 'Licensing', I know it says "Specify the license/what it is of the file by selecting it from the drop-down list below. Only the fair use situations listed in the licensing drop down are permitted on Wikinews" But maintaing copyright and granting limted use to Wikinews is a must for me. Thanks, --Juleshs31 (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You are free to retain control of attribution of your images. (In fact almost all photographs used are attributed to their original author) However in order to include it in a story, you must allow other people to reuse and potentially modify the image (even commercially). At one point we did allow wikinews only images, but we no longer do. Bear in mind that you still retain copyright control, all that is required is that you let other people use it. You can still sell said image to someone else, etc. note that you don't have to upload the full resolution. Some people upload web-resolution version of their images, and sell the high-res versions. Also note that there is a variety of licenses that you can choose from, some more restrictive than others. In particular, i believe that GFDL images require that anyone who reproduces an image has to attach a 7 page legal document to it (which makes some uses for such images prohibitive). See commons:COM:L#Well-known_licenses for a big list of choices.

Just to clarify, fair use refers to specific parts of copyright law, which simply don't apply to your images (IANAL). See w:Fair use.

Last of all, I hope you'd be willing to contribute images, but if you don't feel comfortable doing this, we still welcome any other contributations you might make. Cheers. hopefully that answered your question. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I’m more than happy to contribute my images, but I'm not sure if I want to license them for commercial use under CC. I have no problem with their use for non-profit projects such as the WMF, but if I give it away for free commercial use under creative commons then I can't exactly sell commercial licenses to clients. Can I not submit it under a CC non-commercial license, like “Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 2.0”. I’m more than happy to share under that license. I know it isn't accepted by the commons, but can't I upload locally to Wikinews under said license? --Juleshs31 (talk) 11:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No, we aim to create "properly" free content. As I said on your article's page, a good way forward would be to release a few completely and link to the rest on a noncommercial license somewhere. We want everyone to be theoretically able to use our content - including newspapers. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

As Blood Red Sandman says, Wikinews and commons both share the same view point on this (in fact all of wikimedia does). We aim to allow content to be distributed by anyone, for any purpose. As such non commercial licenses are not allowed. ( [5] is the general philosophy used to decide what can be allowed). With that being said, if you release some of your images under free licenses, and keep others restricted, perhaps the free ones will help promote the images you're selling. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

This is scientific article but considerably outdated Another alike event covered by some press could save it from deletion But I could not find one Can you help?

I hope it is not too late. Do you have some free 30 minutes? I'm just afraid that this novice user Wikiwide, the author of the article, being probably a scientist (you just look at the first version of this article), has a very little understanding of what Wikinews is. And probably has lots of other work to do, is not interested, etc. Even the topic of climate contrarians near UNCCC sounds scientific, doesn't it? I think that if you revive this article, it will be very good for Wikinews, for this user, and for the environment (as some of the "skeptics" or just common diesel car drivers can find this article realistic). I think only an experienced Wikinews user can manage with such significant and responsible task. Q/0/k 22:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) seems to have edited the article somewhat to get it up to standards. Maybe I'll try a bit as well, this is certainly a worthy topic. Tempodivalse [talk] 03:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. The lede needed beaten about a bit and the conference-end was a good excuse to try and resurrect it. If you can call it OR, I looked up the climate contrarian guy's website; apparently owns hundreds of others. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 03:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

"If you can call it OR" - do you expect me to do it? I think I am not very experienced to make up an Original Research. But the conference is already over. The article is getting less and less newsworthy. Please, help. Q/0/k 05:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Help with article requested

Hello. If anyone has the time I'd appreciate help in expanding a new article on Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri's death. This is an important event, and if it's big now it will be huge tomorrow when the burial happens. Cueball (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The article in question has now been published. Tempodivalse [talk] 18:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Refresh

Archive

Archives

NewsTrust.net

As sent to the list...

I just got off of an hour long Skype chat with Fabrice Floren, founder of http://newstrust.net. Jimmy suggested to him it might be interesting if there are ways Wikinews can work with them. I think there are, but to some extent we need to check we're all within WMF rules, and we might want to kick a few more people about Amgine's MediaWiki extension for XML feeds.

NewsTrust is a non-profit, ostensibly a news aggregator, but they challenge people to review news and become more critical of it. They're a hell of a lot more clued up about reviewing and being critical of news than the feeble review widget in MediaWiki.

I was up-front with Fabrice, Wikinewsies will look at their site and say, "what can we steal?" Well, unless we run into the privacy policy, we're welcome to steal all their gadgets, and get them reviewing our stuff.

My thoughts on this at the moment are there is room for collaboration; feeding Wikinews stories into NewsTrust and putting the NewsTrust review/rating widget on each Wikinews article. This could be incorporated into the publish template.

Second, they have pretty good background on the sources they follow and are crowdsourcing "credibility ratings" for them. Could we pull that data into the {{source}} template on Wikinews? By this I mean someone reading one of Wikinews' articles scrolls down to the sources, it says "The Guardian", gives the WikiTrust rating for the source, and the cited article.

Fabrice had not had a lot of time to look at Wikinews articles, but will be sticking a couple up for the NewsTrust community to review. Cirt will be pleased to know that at a semi-casual read his "Glenn Beck" coverage was deemed comprehensive and well-researched.

I'm going to sign up on the site and have a real dig round in the morning. For now, there's the following links that might interest people like, ooh, I don't know ;-) Bawolff?

http://newstrust.net/tools/buttons http://newstrust.net/sources/the_guardian http://newstrust.net/widgets http://newstrust.net/feeds/todays_feeds

I also have a PDF of a NewsTrust presentation (~6Mb) if you want a copy let me know a suitably well-endowed email address.

--Brian McNeil / ^talk 01:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Although this will make Wikinews a lot more reliable, we might see a decrease in contributions. People simply might not want to put a lot more time into making sure their articles (especially original reporting) are 100% factually correct. Benny the mascot (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see it being a disincentive. I expect it to challenge people to build their reputations here, as expressed by NewsTrust's reviewers. And, if you haven't yet, I recommend subscribing to the wikinews-l mailing list. (subscribe, archive, NewsTrust thread). --Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• I like the look of this. A lot. Can we have a mix in that sample we send them to review - maybe a few recent FAs plus a random grab-bag of 2-3 of the latest stories? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• That's the general idea. Fabrice has already put up Cirt's Beck story and my INDECT one. Judging from their other picked and featured articles it should be our longer, more comprehensive stuff we submit. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• What's the purpose of a mailing list when we can discuss everything right here? Benny the mascot (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• I take it you don't have experience using mailing lists. First, wikinews-l is not restricted to one language edition (although dominated by English). It offers an opportunity to send courtesy copies (or blind carbons) to interested or involved parties. Readers get their own copy of messages and can review and respond when suits them. In theory these functions would be served by meta. Most prior efforts to do so (eg WORTNET) die after a few months. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the offer, but I really don't intend to participate that much in Wikinews's administrative matters. I prefer to spend my time writing and reviewing articles. Benny the mascot (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Major contributor categories

I've created Category:Brian McNeil (Wikinewsie) and added to all articles where I'm a major contributor. Now Brian McNeil runs on DPLs, including the FA bit at the top.

Anyone complains about me admitting I'm jobhunting on my user page Google my name and you'll see why I do it here. Apparently this would be pretty much acceptable for anyone who's a real contributor and not just doing it for self-promotion.

I've asked DragonFire1024 to create Category:Jason Safoutin (Wikinewsie) for himself. I'd like to invite all accredited reporters to do so as stage 1 of this attribution project. Cirt's the tricky one as he's ultra-cautious about having his real name known. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

This will also work as metadata about the article. For example, at some point in the hopefully near future, I plan to modify the newsTrust icon so that one you click it, it submits appropriate metadata with the article (Currently if you click it, news trust asks for what categories the article is in, who wrote the article, etc. Hopefully that'd be all automatic soon). Bawolff ☺☻ 14:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought that Cirt wasn't an accredited reporter? Tempodivalse [talk] 14:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT): Cirt is one of the ones who has written articles about CoS, right? If so, he has a good reason to be wary of revealing his real name. (Anti-Libel: IMO) they are incredibly sue-happy over there, and will gladly bankrupt a blogger or citizen journalist by filing frivolous lawsuits against them. I'm not accredited, but if I was I'd also be wary of revealing my real name for that reason.

This won't solve the immediate problem, but is it possible to create some kind of anonymous posting account that could be accessed by accredited reporters to post stories about organizations like CoS? Such an account would have to be only accessible by people who also have access to wikinewsie.org (accredited users), and it wouldn't allow people to bipass the review system. It would simply take the burden of legal defense off the individual.

grrrrrrrrr I HATE this stupid edit conflict system. Lost half my post:(. Anyway, trying to remember what I said down here:

Having the burden of legal defense on the individual will eventually lead people to self-censor themselves out of fear. *Real* news organizations are protected by laws (in some countries) and by their parent companies. We have neither of those things. In the eyes of many countries we are, effectively, nothing more than group bloggers who try to maintain a NPoV in our blog. And I seriously doubt that the WMF has the resources or the will to go up against something like the CoS and protect us all from crippling lawsuits, should CoS ever notice that we exist:P. Regardless of whether or not by above idea about an anonymous account is workable, *something* needs to be done. I see this as a serious problem if we're going to force people to give their real names, and open themselves up to these kind of threats. Gopher65_talk 15:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Some of us are brave enough to just get sued, and indeed to sue back (I have a longstanding promise to sue my government before the Court of Session under the ECHR should this come to fruition) but I would agree that generally people will want to avoid that sort of crap. The ACLU might cover you in the States, but let's not risk it. I like Gopher's idea; would the WMF fight to protect the ID of anyone using such an account? Time to ping Mr Godwin? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• The key problem is that shared accounts are *very* vexatious. I'm pretty much against the whole idea of them. However, I do have an alternative.

Say a particular contributor comes up against something where they'd incur the wrath of the CoS, or even a government, they do the work on Wikinewsie's wiki. Sure, someone will have to create them a new account and they will *always* have to use it via Tor, but the work can be copied from Wikinewsie to here and it has been made considerably more difficult to track the originator.

It goes back up the chain from there. If you're in a hypothetical where Cirt has done a really damning exposé of the CoS, following the above, it'd go to legal action against the hosting provider to get the web logs. Tor would protect that but then they would know who created the account and take action against them. Might as well assume that's me; I own the domain and would probably be targetted at the same time as Godaddy who currently host it. If they successfully get an order for me to release who requested the account we're kinda stuck. I don't know if there's any way we could work with Wikileaks on this, their approach is to potentially not even know the source. They might can offer some advice or be able to put us in touch with techies who can. Realistically, you need a dedicated server somewhere that runs very short logs on rotation with censoring of these when writing to longer logs for usage &c. So, by time of publication here, no logs of even which Tor node someone wrote the story through. For OR verifiability we will have to have the evidence somewhere though.

Oh, and we're incredibly more geeky than your average journos. Everyone should have generated a GPG / PGP key. While encrypted emails raise red flags we should all be capable of sending them. Fortunately for me, Evolution has support for this built in; what we need is to get key-signing done so we call all satisfactorily verify each other's correspondence. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Would non-ARs be allowed to create separate personal contributor categories as well, or would it be restricted? e.g., could I create Category:Tempodivalse (Wikinewsie)? Tempodivalse [talk] 21:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'll keep entirely out of any discussion like that, I've implemented a quite conservative scheme following the earlier discussion. I don't object at all for you (as long as you're not claiming the VOA based-ons). I'd be leery of putting a pseudonym into the journalists category but, there's a notable blogger covers UK politics from Ireland called Guido Fawkes. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I'm probably not going to do it, but was just wondering. Tempodivalse [talk] 03:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

US East Coast prepares for blizzard

I know we have lots of contributors from the US East Coast. I was wondering if some of them would like to volunteer to help with the above article? I thought perhaps they could upload some pictures of how the blizzard is looking like in their area, and perhaps collaborate up an extensive OR piece. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Chacaltaya glacier--too late for news article?

Since the glacier finished melting early this year, I'm worrried that a news article on it wouldn't be timely enough to pass muster. But I do think it is newsworthy and underreported--(I missed seeing it until recently, and I'm a fairly avid newspaper reader.) What's wikinews policy on this? Thanks, Richard L. Peterson (talk) 09:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Generally such events have to happen very recently for an article to be written on them. One week would probably be the cut-off (and thats stretching it quite a bit). Generally cut off is ~2 days for political type news. Sometimes sci-ency type news the cut-off is more lax, but if it was early this year, its probably much too late. (Unless there is some sort of new angle on it that just recently came to light). Bawolff ☺☻ 10:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't publish something a week old. 3 days is pushing, maybe a little longer if it's heavily underreported. Beyond that - sorry, too late. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur with above. Three days is generally the maximum age a story can be and still get published. A week is far too much. Tempodivalse [talk] 16:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)