Wikinews:Water cooler/miscellaneous

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!

Jump to: navigation, search

Refresh

Archive

Contents

[edit] Collaborative Media Network (aka Wikinews Foundation V2)

I proposed the creation of a Wikinews Foundation several months ago. The problem I was attempting to fix is Wikinews’ need for the ability to properly handle press credentials. Press credentials let reporters get into events and allows people (including the government) to quickly identify the person as a reporter. The Wikimedia Foundation can not safely issue press credentials and community issued credentials are problematic. A separate organization however could. The organization has been retitled to the Collaborative Media Network. The mission of the organization has been expanded to include providing similar services to other like news organizations. The Collaborative Media Network however for all practical purposes is focused on Wikinews and sister projects. See this page for more information about why we need CMN.

I have been working for a while on the details needed to make this happen. The bylaws and most of the other initial paperwork is now done. We now need to select a board and get the paperwork actually filed. Board members are technically appointed, but I would like the community to have a hand in selecting them. I was thinking that we should probably start accepting candidates for the board in the next few days and discuss election methods and the like.

We have a couple options in how we can do the elections. The first decision we need to make is how we wish to operate the election. The simplest is probably just to do a vote on wiki. This would mean though that all votes would be public, is a secret ballet worthwhile? The next issue is how we wish to operate the handling of candidates and nominations and platforms. Shall we just let it be anything goes or do we want to set rules?

The other option is we just forget temporarily about the whole idea of having an elected board. We can ask interested people to submit their qualifications and just pick a few people. The plus to this is it can be done quick, the downside though is that we lose the benefit of the community's say in it.

Maybe we should do an IRC meeting to discuss this all.

Any thoughts? :)--Cspurrier - (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I see this being a long thread so I would also suggest an IRC meeting. That way anyone from WMF can watch or attend and the conversation can be done better with all of us able to communicate right away.
For now though I think the board should be elected...of 50/50. I think this being a Wikinews thing, Wikinewsies should be most involved in this process. I think maybe we should have a nominations page then a voting page...like the board elections only less fancy. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
A few quick questions... Is this ? What other organisations apart from Wikinews will it serve? What is the legal status of the CMN organisation? Adambro - (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
It is not yet recognized by the WMF. I wanted to have it complete before it is presented to them. At the moment just Wikinews. I have not really tried to get others interested yet, as we do not yet have much yet put together. Organizations will be carefully selected to ensure that they are not incompatible with us. CMN at the moment has no legal status. The paperwork is already to go other then getting the signatures of the incorporaters (our first board). It will be a South Carolina nonprofit cooperation. We will try for federal nonprofit status as soon as feasible. --Cspurrier - (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)#
Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. It is clear that for any credentials to have any significance, there has to be a respected organisation behind them. How will the reputation of CMN to be build up to ensure accreditation is of value to users? Even if legally distinct from the WMF, is there any scope for the organisation to be supported by the Foundation?
I've recently being concerned that Wikinews accreditation has lost some of its value by seeing users who don't contribute here granted accreditation. What procedures will be in place to prevent CMN accreditation from being devalued in such ways? Adambro - (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
You raise several interesting questions. I have delayed answering them in part so I could come up with the answers they deserve :). Building a reputation will be tricky and take time. In the short term just the fact that we are an actual registered organization (as soon as we file the paper work) will help us differentiate us from the random blogger. Much of our reputation will have to be built from the works of our accredited reporters. I believe that developing a strong code of ethics should be a very high priority for us. I believe that this code and our reporter’s obeying of this code is the best way to build a reputation as journalists (an of course actually writing :) ).
I hope/intend to maintain as close of relationship with WMF as is possible with out putting them at risk. CMN is designed primarily to fulfill a need that several WMF projects have, our separation in my opinion should be only that which is required to keep us legally distinct. --Cspurrier - (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • We will be having an IRC meeting on Thursday, April 3 at 21:00UTC (5pm EDT) @ #collabmedianet irc.freenode.com If you are interested in The Collaborative Media Network proposal please attend. I know this is probably a poor time for many, but we need to have a meeting ASAP, and this was the only time that worked for the key CMN people. There will be meetings in the near future at better times/days.--Cspurrier - (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IRC Meeting log

Please click here for a complete log of the IRC meeting. --Anonymous101 (talk · contribs) (Note I have no link with the organization anonymous) 15:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikinews in book by presidential candidate

Not as impressive as it sounds, but still cool. Ruth Bryant White (who, if elected, would be both the first woman president and first black president of the USA) has written a book about her campaign and the campaign struggles faced by third party and independent candidates. Her campaign manager just sent me a message about the publication, called None Of the Above: The 2008 Presidential Candidates Americans Were Forced To Choose From and the Ones They Never Knew About. I'll post more when it's published. -- Zanimum - (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Review Discussion

Hey everyone. I just wanted to alert you that I discussed some of the criticism of my work in Israel on the Wikipedia Review, and I addressed my feelings about some of the more general criticism of Wikinews. If you are interested in the discussion, it's under whether there is an Israeli cabal on Wikipedia (and I entered to clear up some misinformation that had been poking around on the WR for a little while). If you have any questions, feel free to e-mail me or leave a question on my talk page. --David Shankbone - (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no, you have posted on WR! You shall be forever tainted with the evil of Wikipedia criticism! Seriously, though, having had a read of that, David, I would say that you were probably a bit long-winded in places, but generally the way you've responded there has been a plus for Wikinews' image. The biggest problem I have with WR is that 9 times out of 10 when I look at a random thread it seems to be someone griping because they didn't read the rules and had an article deleted or got blocked because of it, but the 10th thread is usually an actual problem with Wikipedia or Wikimedia that needs addressing if it hopes to have any chance of keeping up a decent public image. I'm not saying that this thread started in the first category (although there certainly would have been a risk of it going that way), but I think your involvement has pulled it firmly into the second. Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 05:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Me, long-winded? The biggest problem I have with WR is what Chris mentions, and why I proposed Wikinews try to do what they do, better and more NPOV, without the personal attacks. A long-standing problem on WR is that they complain about the inaccuracy of Wikipedia/Wikimedia, with wholly inaccurate criticism (for instance, I was an Enron trader simply because I mention I worked there and I should be embarrassed to mention this temp job; there are naked photos of me all over Wikipedia, et. al.) It's difficult to be taken seriously claiming Wikipedia can't get it's facts right when you yourself don't take care to...get your facts right. It is, however, important anything that wields influence has a watchdog, or influence gets abused by someone, somewhere. --David Shankbone - (talk) 11:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Even if Wikinews takes on some of what WikipediaReview does, we could not fulfill the role of watchdog, as we are another project of the same foundation. That's like making VOA the Fourth Estate for the US. Whether WR achieves that or not, is another discussion altogether. --SVTCobra 00:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Cobra. I disagree - I think whether we became Wikipedia's watchdog or not would only be determined on whether we were successful in covering them well or not. Wiki is very different, since "anyone" can do it; theoretically, the entire cast from WR could come over here and begin writing NPOV Wikipedia stories, if they wanted to do so. The Foundation doesn't have the authority to step in and say, "No more covering WP issues." Or Wikimedia issues. I think we talk ourselves out of a lot of good ideas that we never attempt to see if they would work well or not. We are very hesitant to experiment on this project. --David Shankbone - (talk) 02:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rubenstein Public Relations

I have had contact with this PR firm, one of the most influential and largest in the United States, since I worked with them at the Tribeca Film Festival last year (and will again this year). Like any good PR firm, they would like to work with Wikipedia. They realize they should not edit nor change articles to suit their clients interests, but they would like to know what they can do to contribute to Wikipedia. For instance, my work with them at TFF creates for us a lot of GFDL images of celebrities. They would like to forge a closer relationship with the Wikipedia community, and I have gone to a few lunches to discuss with them some ideas. A collaboration with PR agencies can create a wealth of opportunities for Wikipedians in the English-speaking world (such as attending film festivals), put us closer in touch with their clients' perspectives (which would help with getting quotes), interviews and improve the projects as a whole. For instance, remember our BBC collaboration? What if we did that with Time Magazine, a Rubenstein client? If anyone is interested in discussing the possibilities we might be able to have working with them, or have suggestions of things we would like, please leave it on my talk page. Dave --David Shankbone - (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. Certainly your Tribeca photos are great and if they demonstrate what can be achieved by this type of collaboration then it should be something to look into more. Of course there are the COI concerns but the job of any PR firm is not simply to promote their clients, it is to ensure that material about them is accurate. It is here where our paths cross and where their assistance can be mutually beneficial. Adambro - (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
You really ought to confer with the WMF, specifically Kul and Jay, before proceeding further with that.Swatjester - (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
There isn't really a "plan" or anything outlined. We've just been meeting to discuss how we can work together to create content that passes all of our guidelines and policies. Such as my Tribeca Film Festival work. You have to remember: we fly blind on Wikinews. We don't subscribe to a wire service, we don't have contacts that give us leads, and we don't typically get invited to do things that most people in the press get invited to do. --David Shankbone - (talk) 14:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe so, but I would like this discussed on Wikinews. This is after all something for Wikinews? Or is Wikipedia Review right in this is more for WMF than Wikinews. My point is, a conversation like this and the ideas etc need to be discussed here, with Wikinewsies if its for WN. Not on some Wikipedia bashing site. I am not liking the fact i see more discussion about it there than here. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Your point is valid, Jason, but your issue shouldn't be with me. Nobody here *is* discussing it. Defending it where it's being questioned would only be a problem if I was ignoring, but I log in here several times a day, and as you can see, I am the last one who wrote anything back on April 9. I am not going to have a conversation with myself. And regarding the Wikimedia question, everything I do is Wikimedia. Just like the appropriate place to put my photography and audio is Commons, and to transcribe my interviews is on Wikinews, I look for opportunities that can be of benefit to multiple projects. That's never been a secret, not since I was first up for accreditation, and it's clear on my User pages. Is this news? You'll remember, I first worked with Rubenstein when I was not a Wikinewsie, at the 2007 TFF. --David Shankbone - (talk) 03:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
No issue with you. just would like to be kept up to date in places I read as opposed to something that I just found out about a few days ago. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 04:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no "Up to date" - nothing has happened with it, literally. WR talks as if it knows what the deal is, and right now, there is no deal... I was coming *here* (and WP, Commons) to discuss ideas, saying that I wanted to see if people had any. Like I said originally, the Tribeca Film Festival is a template. I work with them during that. Everyone works with them during that. Getty, WireImages, New York Times, the public, the celebrities. They manage the Festival, especially the red carpet - television, print, web...we all deal with Rubenstein. Now, most major news organizations have long-standing relationships with the PR firms that run things like...film festivals, or press conferences after your client makes racist remarks. Have you ever wondered how the press knows to show up for J.K. Rowling talking on the steps of the court in Manhattan, like she did yesterday? PR agencies. I apologize; I guess I didn't think I needed to explain this here because you all knew how the game works, especially with celebrity stuff. On the Wikipedia Review I get criticized if I eat lunch with a person they don't think I should have lunch with. Some of them will criticize anything; supposedly I am also helping a former gay porn star turned homophobic commentator with ban evasion on Wikipedia! If only life was so interesting.... --David Shankbone - (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, its a good idea. I like it. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 04:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's just it: I don't know what the idea is. I wish we could set up some kind of wire. Scoop is just not working well as a wire; I already feel overwhelmed by the in box. But I don't know what else we have. I don't know how Rubenstein would alert us, what they would alert us for, etc. These are relationships most news agencies have, that I am not sure how they work, and in particular, how they would work for us - from the basic mechanics up to the events. --David Shankbone - (talk) 04:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

New paragraph: Why not an RSS of a sort? I don't know how to do those things unforunately. They can also use scoop as well. We definitely should think of something. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 04:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, either. This is where I thought Sandy could help. I literally don't know how the whole press machine works, and I am too embarrassed to ask my contact questions that make me look like a high school kid trying to get on the party list. Everything operates differently, too. Like the international work I was setting up--they are run by different kinds of agencies, etc. It's all such a learning process. I have a good friend who does travel segments for Fox News; I'm going to get him to explain it to me more in depth. Maybe I'll do an IRC chat about whatever I learn, if it's even interesting. --David Shankbone - (talk) 05:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I would certainly appreciate some "insider knowledge" to improve our rate of returns when we contact people for comment and interviews. My last couple of mails trying to chase up the Cronkite interview have gone unanswered and my attempts to get comment from the EU commission on the copyright extension issue have fallen on deaf ears. The offices of two commissioners responded saying they could not comment outside discussion and I should refer to Commissioner McCreevy. His office hasn't even said "no comment". For the same issue I attempted to get input from the music industry. Sir Paul McCartney's company did not respond, when I phoned EMI I got bounced around until I hit a voicemail box - and didn't get called back. I attempted to get in touch with Sir Cliff Richard as well, again no response.
My latest "nothing but static" non-response has been the Vatican. I wasn't trying for an interview with the Pope (perhaps later ;-) ), but for collaboration with the WMF to expand the Latin Wikisource. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikinews Article Stats Update

[edit] Shankbone interviewed

The tables were turned this time as David Shankbone became the interviewed. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikinews article hits front page of Digg.com while undergoing Deletion request

The article Church of Scientology warns Wikileaks over documents hit the front page of Digg.com at 07:39 UTC (currently still at the front page with 543 Diggs) while in the midst of an ongoing deletion request at Wikinews:Deletion requests. Is this a first for Wikinews? Has an article from Wikinews ever hit the front page of Digg.com before, let alone while also undergoing a deletion request? Can anyone say Streisand effect? Cirt - (talk) 08:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the only 2 Wikinews articles to make it to the front page was the first Anonymous article and the Benoit article. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 09:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Has an article from Wikinews ever made it to the front page of Digg.com before while also undergoing a Deletion request discussion - or is this a first for that? Cirt - (talk) 09:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
No that has never, to my knowledge ever happened...and what surprises me more, it keeps going up...588 diggs, and beating Bush war crimes at 477. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 09:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
If we can confirm that this is the first time that a Wikinews article hit the front page of Digg.com while also undergoing a Deletion request, then that is a very interesting first for Wikinews. Cirt - (talk) 09:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the fact that it was undergoing a deletion request makes it any more interesting or notable. Internet people are going to read this stuff whether it's real news or not (especially on Digg, where you can post your opinion on the issue without actually reading the article in question). Streisand effect doesn't really apply here. ~Planoneck~ 11:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikileaks and the Streisand Effect - that explains it pretty well, though I'm sure there are other sources that go into it also. Cirt - (talk) 11:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikinews articles that made front page of Digg.com
  1. "Chris Benoit mystery editor confesses: claims "terrible coincidence"". Wikinews, June 29, 2007 - Digg.com link
  2. ""Anonymous" releases statements outlining "War on Scientology"". Wikinews, January 23, 2008 - Digg.com link
  3. "Church of Scientology warns Wikileaks over documents". Wikinews, April 7, 2008 - Digg.com link - also believed to be the first time that a Wikinews article made the front page of Digg.com, while also undergoing a Deletion request discussion. Cirt - (talk) 10:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Length of time that candidate discussions sit at WN:FAC

I think the issue is that most people focus on the main namespace and peripheral issues get neglected (See David's above comments in the Tribeca discussion). --Brian McNeil / talk 07:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually Brian (talk · contribs) went ahead and archived the old stuff at WN:FAC so I think we are okay there for now - Thanks Brian! Cirt - (talk) 07:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CNN video, Front Page - "Wikipedia Wars"

After watching this piece, I had an idea - how about Wikinews takes a detailed look at the changes made the the Wikipedia articles w:Barack Obama, w:Hillary Clinton, w:John McCain - and does an OR analysis write-up of them, sort of similar to the investigation that went on for the article Wikinews investigates Wikipedia usage by U.S. Senate staff members, but this may involve registered editors as well as IP address. Wikinews could also try to get in contact with the Wikipedia editor, Dan Rosenthal , who was interviewed on-camera for the CNN piece. Cirt - (talk) 11:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I can likely dig up Dan's email address (if Outlook will cooperate). He's one of my fellow communication committee members. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimedia Foundation blog post mentions Wikinews

In discussing the article Wikinews interviews team behind the 2,000th featured Wikipedia article:

"Wikinews has a fascinating interview with Beasley-Murray and two participating students."

Cirt - (talk) 08:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikinews in Consultation with David Kaufman - May 11

Renowned journalist David Kaufman, International Travel Editor for American Express magazines and Fox News television contributor, has agreed to consult with Wikinews on an IRC chat. I may try to start a series of discussions with well-known journalists where the Wikinews community can ask a reporter anything. Anything. From basics ("How long should a letter be to a prospective interviewee?") to the complex ("What do I do when an interviewee becomes hostile?"). The subjects can range from interviews to journalistic ethics to what is and is not a proper source. This is the time to ask basic questions. If this IRC chat is productive or something the community finds useful, I will try to arrange future interviews with renowned mainstream media journalists and professors. Please let me know thoughts, and also what time on May 11 would be 1. convenient for Mr. Kaufman, who is based in New York City; and 2. convenient for as many Wikinewsies as possible who want to participate. --David Shankbone - (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

And just FYI: I need a head count for who will attend. If I don't hear anything, I won't ask Mr. Kaufman to schedule his time. --David Shankbone - (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
May 11 is a Sunday, so yes, I think I can log in and participate no matter what time of day this gets scheduled for. Question, is this expected to be an interview or a seminar for (prospective/citizen/amateur) journalists? --SVTCobra 23:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I can attend as well as long as its on a Saturday or Sunday or any weekday AFTER 4pm Eastern time. And yes...what will this essentially be? Can you be more specific? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I see this more as a seminar for Wikinewsies to ask mainstream media reporter questions about the craft of journalism. I have questions, so I would imagined other people do, also. I see it as an opportunity to learn from people whose paying careers are writing and journalism. It's a chance to get insight on how we operate, our policies...etc. I don't see making the IRC chat transcript public, so it's a chance to ask questions you think are dumb, insignificant, or complex. But if there is little interest, I don't want David Kaufman to bother. He's pretty busy. --David Shankbone - (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to attend this, and as it's a Sunday it may be possible for me, but it may be hard enough finding a time suitable for both American and European/British editors without having to consider UTC+10 as well. Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 02:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I think 4:00 New York City time (which would be 9:00 pm London time) might work? Like I said, I don't want to print a transcript of the conversation on Wiki. I want it to be an opportunity to learn and to ask questions about the craft of journalism. David, a graduate of NYU's journalism school, has written for The New York Times, Details magazine, Monocle, Wallpaper* (he wrote the Wallpaper city guide to Tel Aviv), et. al. This is a pretty great brain to pick, and he is a friend of mine and understands no question is too dumb or insignificant, even if the question is, "Can I use my Wikinews work to get a job as a journalist?" --David Shankbone - (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
That time should work for me. Good idea asking him, if this goes well maybe Sue has someone as well that would be willing to do another session like this from another perspective.--Cspurrier - (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I will be ablr to attend the IRC meeting if it is at a reasonable time in the UK. (Not 4am, for example) --A101 - (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
9pm London = 7am Canberra on Monday, which would actually work for me (if I don't sleep in, then I can log on before I go to work). Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 06:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Is there any news on this? Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 08:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This needs to be postponed. I didn't realize that this Sunday, May 11, is Mother's Day - Kaufman will be with his Mom. Next weekend is my Nephew's First Communion, so I will not be a good weekend for me to coordinate. Postponed until further notice. --David Shankbone - (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikinews on Alexa

Image:Alexa wkinews.png

Because of wikinews' vastly increasing readership, I believe we should take a look at what we are doing rather then working on a day by day basis. Symode09 - (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

They aren't very accurate, and they've recently changed how they get statistics. I also don't see an upward trend. (more of a downward based on they're website and Wikinews:Awareness statistics. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
In reality, we have no real accurate way to get these numbers. Even those statistices are mostly off site generated. And alexa only works if you have their toolbar installed. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Alexa comparisons are "relative" vs. "absolute" since the same browsing restrictions apply to every website. From that perspective, the Alexa rankings and trends for Wikinews are accurate. 128.210.58.222 16:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OJR is looking for us

[1]. –Doldrums(talk) 21:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL...indeed...we should contact them. Would benefit Wikinews greatly IMHO. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Not for this report in particular, though. I quote: 'we are not looking to examine so-called "citizen journalism" efforts'. Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 13:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
hmmm... missed that bit :( –Doldrums(talk) 19:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article copyedit drive?

Hi I'm new here and thought one of the best ways to figure out what this project was trying to accomplish would be to take a look at some featured content. The first couple I've looked at have had some small, but obvious, problems with the writing: tenses, capitalization, incoherence, etc. Maybe we could all take a quick look through the featured articles to catch any remaining problems like this. Sancho 13:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Some examples would be nice. Perhaps in the form of {{editprotected}} use on article talk pages. I'd be happy to review proposed changes, but these are generally archived articles and a lot of caution has to be exercised. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I've tagged the couple of changes I suggested already with that template and they were fixed pretty quickly. You can check my contributions to see what I had suggested. They were really just copyedits to bring the content within the syntax of the English language, nothing serious done to the content or anything like that. I'm simply suggesting that maybe a few eyes to go through the twenty featured articles on this project would catch some more of these types of errors so that we're actually showing off great writing. I could easily do this myself, but at least one other person would make sure nothing is missed. Sancho 16:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Major WMF announcement: board restructuring

See http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees/Restructure_Announcement -- This just in, from a post by Raul654 (talk) at w:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions. Thought this would be of interest - both for potential article(s) on this change, and on the impact it would have to Wikinews. Cirt - (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ugh...what a mess. I see several problems straight off the bat with this:
  • Jimmy gets an extended seat despite his promises to step down this year.
  • Nice they have chapter seats, but too little representation and those should be voted in also.
  • So much for board elections this year and next year basically as although the seats have been extended, less are voted in. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have just created Wikimedia board of trustees announces restructure on this restructure. --A101 - (talk) 05:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Official Election Notice

The 2008 Board election committee announces the 2008 election process. Wikimedians will have the opportunity to elect one candidate from the Wikimedia community to serve as a representative on the Board of Trustees. The successful candidate will serve a one-year term, ending in July 2009.

Candidates may nominate themselves for election between May 8 and May 22, and the voting will occur between 1 June and 21 June. For more information on the voting and candidate requirements, see <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008>.

The voting system to be used in this election has not yet been confirmed, however voting will be by secret ballot, and confidentiality will be strictly maintained.

Votes will again be cast and counted on a server owned by an independent, neutral third party, Software in the Public Interest (SPI). SPI will hold cryptographic keys and be responsible for tallying the votes and providing final vote counts to the Election Committee. SPI provided excellent help during the 2007 elections.

Further information can be found at <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/en>. Questions may be directed to the Election Committee at <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Board_elections/2008/en>. If you are interested in translating official election pages into your own language, please see <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/Translation>.

For the election committee,
Kwan Ting Chan

Why even bother with an election this year...or any at all? It seems to me that the board wants to pick and choose their members and want them to be "experts." So really is there any point at all in having an election anytime soon? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The election this year will be for one of the 3 elected position, for one year term. All 3 of the elected position will then be put up for election next year for a 2 years term. Under the proposed restructuring, there will in addition be 4 directly appointed specific expertise seats, and 2 seats selected by Chapters with method to be determined themselves. There will also be one rolling 1 year term seat reserved for Jimmy Wales for as long as the Board renew it, or until Jimbo decides to step down himself. KTC - (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
One: jimmy promised to step down already, but now that he has a permanent seat, I would doubt that to happen, but prove me wrong. Two: There is one seat up for this election. And that's Florence's. If anything she has been the one board member to accomplish anything. Three: This still leave the unanswered question of: Why are we having an election this year? Four: What of Jimmy's seat in the unlikely event he does step down? From what I hear, it gets abolished. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 02:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
One: I cannot comment on that as I do not know anything about that. I guess you can ask him on his talk page or on foundation-l. Three: Because the seat that Florence was elected to be on is due to end this year. Four: As far as it has been stated, yes it get abolished. KTC - (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I've asked Jimmy Wikipedia:User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Board_restructure. A101 - (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
link not working? links back to here. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I've fixed the link. KTC - (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Petition

Someone set up a petition to protest the board restructure. You can see it here --A101 - (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

I think Wikinews should have something like zh:2008年4月30日香港報紙頭條 (translation) on the english Wikinews. Any thoughts? --A101 - (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems a bit unworkable. Google news will always have us beat with that and we would not be offering anything more, --Cspurrier - (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Water_cooler/miscellaneous"
Personal tools