Wikinews:Water cooler/miscellaneous

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!

Jump to:navigation, search

Refresh

Archive

May 2009
June 2009
July 2009
August 2009
September 2009
October 2009
November 2009

Contents

[edit] Audio Wikinews

I have noticed the Audio Wikinews pages is extremely disorganized and since it it linked in the Main Page, I thought it would be best for a group of editors to fix up the mess that is Audio Wikinews. I'm willing to help also. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 04:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I am still working on a show idea. I am working on setting up my Windows for broadcasting. Maybe later this month I can produce my first test run. How did the broadcast go? Which software did you use to stream? I like the Wikimedia Radio idea and may use that as a template, but of course change it up a bit. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 03:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
The broadcast was a breeze. I'm using Ubuntu Linux with some "tweaks", I ran a two hour show, and I had zero dropouts. Given Wikinews' current contributor levels though, the thing is to look for content syndication. If Wikinews can have a 5-10 minute bulletin updated ever 12-24 hours then places like http://1Radio.org will 'syndicate' it. Part of the lead-up to establishing that sort of use is Wikinewsies running broadcasts on such freebie/trial stations with these news items as insets. --Brian McNeil / talk 04:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Add adding these to iTunes and Archive.org work well too. I think I could use Wordpress also. Maybe that weekly news thing could also be revived. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 04:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately I didn't see this thread until too late-Brian, is the show going to be a regular? Do you have a recording of it-I'd quite like to have a listen. 1Radio sounds like a really cool idea-how long has it been going?    Tris   08:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Not sure how long 1Ragio has been running; it's the PRS registration that makes it interesting. You can play mainstream music. As long as the tags on the file are correct and sent when broadcasting, you're fine. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Task Force: Expanded Content - Thinks Wikinews is useless

"Topical information (Wikinews): Given that Wikipedia already provides topical content, does its presence precludes the need for Wikinews? If not why not? If so, what should be done with Wikinews?" FTFA. Sigh, I hate people. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 22:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I've had my say too and I invite everyone else to post their views --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Me too. I see now I wasn't the only person who read that as "Wikinews isn't useful". Tempodivalse [talk] 23:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(<--)I may not be the most active user, but Wikinews, useless!? That makes me sick. And here I am am planning on resurrecting Audio Wikinews in a new format, when the WMF says this project is useless... --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 05:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rant #1

If i recall, she proposed closing only us (she's active with toolserver and dev side of things I think). It was someone else who wanted to close everything. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
That (above comment) does seem about right... I mean Wikipedia is a great project, but so is Wikinews, so is Simple English, so is Wiktionary, and so are all the WMF projects, but all projects are volunteer work and do require effort to maintain. I’ve been doing some audio at Wiktionary for pronunciations, and that’s effort for the most backed up Category I’ve seen since Wikipedia’s Clean-up. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 05:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a disgrace. WMF should apologize to us IMO. Really I don't know what to say here, but I did reply to the thread above. What an insult to us. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 05:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Obituaries - some thoughts

I'd been blissfully unaware a remake of The Prisoner had been done, but finding out prompted me to look up w:Patrick McGoohan. The one point that caught my attention was one of the sources Wikipedia uses - http://www.palisadespost.com/content/index.cfm?Story_ID=4587 - this is an obituary nine days after the man's death. Certainly, there are some elements within it which might not fit within Wikinews, but it is more what people expect when they read an obit.

How could Wikinews do similar? We do already get comments on noticeably older articles - this is an example where the subject's Wikipedia article needs the news story, and the news story stands distinct. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

What do you suggest? Cirt (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
An initial obit - "(Wo)man dies aged xy" - should show up within the standard timeframe. However, we can gather a week of comments together while putting in more background to report "Tributes paid to man" or "Woman remembered". That would end up as roughly the sort of thing you link to. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I like it! :) Cirt (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Me too, this sounds like a good approach. Tempodivalse [talk] 22:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Time for some Deops/Decrats?

I dont think we've got a solid policy on idle-ness, but I just happened to be looking through the list of 'Crats and noticed Eloquence (talk · contribs) was still on there. I checked, he's had 4 edits in 2008 & 2009, I'd say that calls for decrating/admining. There is no point in us having a ton of admins/crats, who are never around (plus this will help with the argument of "we've already got enough 'crats" that we go through every time one is up for election). Anyone have any problem with putting admins & crats up for rights revocation who haven't been active in the last year? I could even be convinced to warn them first.... --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 21:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I say just do it. Worst that happens is the community shoots you down, but I doubt it somehow. You should email them, though. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd say send them an e-mail first. If they don't intend to become more active just deflag. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with desysoping inactive admins/bureaucrats and WN:IP. But if we're going to consider deflagging, it should go through WN:RFP. Tempodivalse [talk] 22:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Writing competition

Some of you will remember that I held a writing contest a few months ago. I wasn't very satisfied with its outcome, however, as only eight users signed up and barely 50 articles were generated. I'm thinking of starting another writing contest again in the near future - but this time, I'd like to advertise it more to get better participation (i.e., perhaps a sitenotice or watchlist notice). We could offer barnstars or something as a reward to help encourage/motivate editors. I've tried to think up a few rules for the contest based loosely on the previous one, see what you think:

  1. Contest will last a predetermined amount of time. During that period, users will receive one point for every article they created or added to significantly (we can set a limit, like 1.5kB). At the end of the time period whoever has the most points will win.
  2. We can have a separate contest for reviewing articles. For every reviewed/published article, you receive one point. It should be stressed though that this doesn't in any way encourage sloppy reviewing.
  3. I'd prefer that we don't have an "elimination-style" contest because fewer and fewer users will participate as the contest progresses, and we might not get as many articles that way. If we allow everyone to remain in the competition to the end, people might be motivated to write more to increase their standings.

Thoughts? Tempodivalse [talk] 18:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hm, it's been pointed out to me over IRC that this is probably not the best time to host a writing contest, with the holiday season approaching in a few weeks - I didn't think of that. Might be best to start this sometime after the new year to get the best possible participation. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Personally I am of the opinion that elimination contests tend to generate more content than non-elimination contests. However i do not have any evidence to back this up. Bawolff ☺☻ 19:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Agree with New Year. Also think that people are likely to write more if they will get eliminated otherwise.    Tris   08:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, we've settled for sometime after new year. I'm still not sure if elimination contests will produce the most articles, but I'm okay with using that if a lot of people prefer them. I'd however want the restrictions for staying in the competition to be fairly low - like a minimum of one article for every two days. Meanwhile, perhaps we should advertise this discussion elsewhere in the upcoming weeks to the new year? I'd like to get as much participation as possible, so we don't end up with barely 6-7 contestants like last time. Maybe we could also link to this on other wikis (Strategy, perhaps?) to attract new contributors. (Also, feel free to sign up at User:Tempodivalse/Writing competition if you're interested in participating.) Tempodivalse [talk] 15:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rough proposal

I believe a competition needs run over a reasonably long period of time so that there is a sustained increase in the number of published articles. So, an elimination-style comp. is likely inappropriate. If it is based on points per article, then people will self-eliminate if not in the top 10-20% of those competing after a certain period of time. Thus, there is a need to try and get new contributors enjoying working on Wikinews even if they can clearly see they won't win the competition.

For a points system, I don't think one point per article is particularly good. If a certain minimum size is set for an article (eg 1,800 characters when published. And, a minimum of, say, 2,000 when initially submitted for review) then award five points for basic publication of that. Doing this, with a competition that runs 2-3 months, will see people well into three figures for their score; psychologically, I think this is better and anyone who's chasing to hit 1,000 points has more of an incentive than trying to reach 40-50 points where only one is awarded per article.

There should be consideration of other projects; by this I mean if someone gets a new photo or other media file for Commons which illustrates an article in the competition, this should gain additional points. Fair-use media hosted here would be more problematic; new contributors could well be discouraged if they inappropriately take an image from a 'competing' news source and it is deleted. However, things like doing new maps should be encouraged; a lot of these don't display well at sizes suitable for inclusion in a Wikinews article so more focussed maps with a pleasing look could be very useful long-term.

Original Reporting is quite difficult to work into a competition of this type. Thus, I prefer seeing it not included for new contributors during the early stage of the competition. Most of us have to rely on a degree of trust dealing with people's OR, so it makes sense to be to encourage competitors to establish a reputation and get comfortable with the fundamental policies of Wikinews before trying OR.

Ideally, the competition would not just be restricted to English. However, we need to be sure that any other language involved has certain minimum standards. To me the simplest metric for that is that they meet the criteria to be published in Google News. This then makes Google a potential source of prizes and publicity. That might not work out in the proposed competition and be something for later on, but Google are already sponsoring a competition for one of the African Wikipedia languages.

I totally agree that cash prizes does smack of paid editing. This is another reason I'd prefer to limit it to very new contributors - to avoid the appearance of arranging to have ourselves paid. If I could pick a physical prize for the overall winner instead, I'd like to see it be something useful for contributing to Wikinews, such as a netbook. Alternatively, if we could arrange with Amazon to make Wikinews available to their Kindle owners, that would be a nice prize.

Again with the new contributors focus, I would want to recruit Bawolff to help develop some Javascripty templates to make taking part simpler. Someone has their article ready to submit for review, they're guided through a form to submit for review, and detail the points they think the entry should get. It'd be good to also have an automatic "standings" table for the competition; that'd drive page views and is an additional incentive to those competing.

To those of us in the West, a prize pot of $500 spread across the top 3 or 4 competitors isn't really a lot, but is beyond most current Wikinewsies discretionary spending to put up. So, we do need a well-constructed competition; then outside parties might be encouraged to put up prizes. I have a few ideas of where to ask about that, but I'm playing them close to the chest for the moment. Don't beg anyone for anything right now, we need a fairly firm 300-400 word summary of rules to pitch when begging for prizes. It needs thought out such that the prizes can go to anyone anywhere in the world. It also needs to allow people to contribute under a pseudonym, but identify privately to get a prize.

If, as I would hope, such a competition were to attract 50-100 entrants, then we're really going to need all the current regulars doing reviewing and helping people get up to speed; this is another reason why I'd prefer to limit the eligible entrants. Most regulars with 10-20 or more articles have done the work to find rules and policies they need to know; the competition should have as a secondary goal improving the interlinking and publicising of this information to make life easier for future contributors.

Lastly, and coming back to my theoretical $500 prize fund, this is only a newsworthy amount of money depending on who puts it up. If it is a well-known journalistic figure, or a journalist's union/organisation, that should do the trick. Perhaps better yet if competition entries can be 'syndicated' to them and gain even more publicity. If we work from the assumption that this will be a recurring competition then longer-term I'd want to aim for an independent judging panel to pick the top entries from the entire competition and award additional points once it's closed; for that, I'm thinking, again, journalist orgs/unions or senior editors from more heavyweight publications or public service broadcasters using criteria such as 'most comprehensive coverage of a news event'.

Now, that's a lot to digest. Think carefully before responding. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This sounds quite exciting, actually, if implemented. If we could get even 40-50 new entrants, that would give a massive boost to article production, and if a portion of them went on to become regulars, that would expand our user base substantially. The key to getting as many participants as possible is in the publicity.
A few thoughts about how we could score the contest:
  • One-point-per-article is probably not the best way to do it, i agree; e.g.: an in-depth OR piece and a three-paragraph synthesis article would receive the same score, despite one being obviously much more difficult to write.
  • We could establish a points system something like this: You receive a base score of 3 points for each article written and published up to 2 kilobytes in size. For every additional 1kb of material added, you receive an extra point. If a significant part of the article (let's say one mid-sized paragraph) consists of OR (but not broadcast report) you receive an extra five points, plus one point for every relevant image you add to the article. This would encourage users to go out and do some first-hand reporting, and write longer, more in-depth pieces. OR, though, as Brian points out above, needs to be restricted somewhat, because newbies could have some difficulty establishing credibility and trust.
Another issue is how to divide the two groups, if we're going to create a two-section tournament. I'd suggest setting the line at who doesn't have Editor status at the time of registration versus those that do - that would remove most COI in the newbie group associated with allowing users to review each other's articles. If someone receives Editor status during the competition, they have to promise not to use it to review articles written by others in the newbie category. The two groups would be completely separate, in terms of standings, prizes etc. Most of the focus would be on the newbie group - but I'd like established editors and admins to be able to participate in some way, so they can help boost article count and have some fun too. The "regulars" group would also be more informal, e.g. no judge panel, fewer or no prizes,
If we're indeed going to have upwards of 50 contestants, we're looking at an output of at least 30 articles per day, assuming conservatively that each contestant will write almost one article per diem. That's way beyond our current paltry output of 5 articles a day, and we, even if being "all hands on deck", would probably will be over our heads trying to review all of the articles in time. Might be a good idea to see if there are any more users we could promote to Editor status in the time before the contest, to give us more reviewing power.
Not sure if monetary prizes are the way to go, it does seem too close to paid editing. A small laptop or some other electronic gadget might be better - but those are still fairly expensive, we'll need a way to fund it.
Tempodivalse [talk] 15:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Scoring system

As basic, I propose:

  • +1 point per extra 768 char (I have concerns this may lead to encyclopedisation).

For original reporting:

Broadcast reports explicitly excluded.
Press releases permitted, minus a point for each 'standard' and current source building on the article.

So, where are we missing points issues, should these values be tweaked in any way? --Brian McNeil / talk 15:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

768 characters-per-point would be a headache to calculate, methinks. Could we use nice round numbers, like 2000 characters for the base article and 1000 characters for every additional point? Tempodivalse [talk] 15:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
As per my comments below (copied from Tempo's talk page), I think extra points should bw awarded for every third paragraph. --RockerballAustralia (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I disagree because there is too much variance in what a paragraph is; it can even be as short as a single-line sentence. This, I think, is an area that could be disputed if a copyedit merges paragraphs and the submitter is unhappy to get less points.
Per Tempo's point, I chose 768 as ¾ of a kilobyte. I'm happy to see the figures reworked; remember, though, a lot of submissions will be copyedited quite strictly. "Noise" words like "that", "the", "and", "or" should be trimmed out where appropriate; this is why I suggest an eligible submission limit and a publication limit - allow for copyedit. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Contest length/format

Then there's the question of how long to make the contest, and what sort of system we should use. Off the top of my head, a few ideas for this:

  1. The contest lasts a predetermined period of time, at the end of that, whoever has the most points wins.
  2. We have a set "goal" of a certain amount of points; when someone reaches that goal the contest is over and they win.
  3. We use a knockout system, eliminating contestants until there is only one left. We could do this by splitting the contest into rounds; after each round, we eliminate half of the contestants that have the least points.

Does anyone have other ideas? Open to thoughts. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

My choice has to be option 1. There is a fixed, known, period and definitive end-date. My suggestion is a three-month competition, and if done as two-tier for n00bs/veterans, that noobs be excluded from OR for an initial period. I'm easy if that's X articles, or Y weeks, or both expressed as 'whichever you reach first'.
Option 1 has no limit to the number of articles generated; 2 does and, 3 will see volume drop noticeably as the competition tails off. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. I too agree that option one is the best, just thought I'd throw some other ideas out there. Three months sounds like a reasonable time length. If, assuming conservatively, we have 30 total participants and each submits about one article per day, we're looking at 30x90 days = 2700 articles. That sounds almost too good to be true. Smile.png Tempodivalse [talk] 01:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions copied from Tempo's talk page (to centralise discussion)

When I read your original proposal, I immediatly thought of a single elimination tournament with weeklong one on one contests. A person who has the editor tool could look over each of said contest.
Also, count articles from the contests beginning--RockerballAustralia (talk) 04:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Some random suggestions:

  1. I would prefer two groups (newbies and established editors) as (i) it is unfair to lump them someone who has never written an article with someone who has 100+ articles published under their belt (ii) it would be a shame not to include 'established editors'. Don't ask me where the 'bright line' should be drawn though (I wrote 30+ in one month: does that make me a newbie as I recently joined or established because of the number of articles published?) NB: I will no longer be 'new' by any stretch of the imagination by the time the contest starts, but there could easily be someone else in a similar situation.
  2. I think that an uneven number of jurors should oversee the allocation of points (three seems a good number to me). I'd happily act as juror to whichever group I am not in.
  3. Concerning reviewing, editors who choose not to participate should be encouraged to make an extra effort to review articles. Editors from the 'established' group can naturally review the 'newbie' group.
  4. One point per article is a little unfair: a three paragraph article that just passes requirement for publication is not the same as an in-depth piece, let alone OR which takes much longer to prepare. I'd set up a points system (which the jury would apply), based on various criteria: length, bonus for particularly pertinent images, OR. I'd happily work with a group of you to write the rules.
  5. An elimination contest on points seems OK to me, maybe with number of weeks reducing as the contest progresses. The first round would allow more time, especially for the newbies, to get the hang of it. Maybe three rounds (3 weeks, 2 weeks, 1 final week—to be tweaked could be 2 weeks, 1.5 weeks, 1 week). Have a set limit of people passing to the next round with the jury able to select by vote one or two of those who didn't make it to continue (à la Eurovision Song Contest semi-finals). Being knocked out in the first week, especially in the 'newbie' category, is going to be very disheartening, and it only takes a contributor to be away for a long weekend to effectively scupper their chances. If I knew that I was likely to make it to the final, I'd make sure I was available, so fair's fair for the last week. Besides, the longer this goes on (but not eternally), the more articles Wikinews will have to publish!
  6. I'd prefer products and/or services rather than cash donated by companies as rewards for the winners (screams "paid editing!" a tad). That said, it's a preference and I'll not refuse $, € or dirhams.
  7. We could use the Wikipedia Signpost to publicise this. They recently advertised the results after announcing the start recent WikiCup and reporting on progress (can't be bothered to find the links for the latter).
  8. We should take note of the lessons learned at this year's WikiCup. The most important lesson I can see is the importance of getting the rules agreed upon from the start, and not changing them as the competition progresses.
  9. I'm not convinced that we should require OR in the final round, but if we adopt the points allocation system I suggest, it would de facto encourage it.
Voici my musings du jour. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 08:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
On the points side of it, I think there should be
  • a point per atricle
  • one and a half if it incorporates OR with referenced sources
  • two if it's all OR
  • half a point for every third paragraph from the sixth onwards.--RockerballAustralia (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we should have any elimination at all. Contributors, especially newbies, are likely to stop writing articles if their chances of winning the competition are lost. Also, receiving any kind of prize, whether it's cash, services, or products, seems to be paid editing to me. Perhaps we can allow the winner to donate the money to a charity of their choice??? Benny the mascot (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely nothing would stop someone from donating a prize to charity; and, yes, I know it smacks of "paid editing". However, a prize-pot of $500, on a 12 week competition, 20 competitors, minimum 3 articles/week; that's 720+ articles. If the prize is split to 1st, 2nd, 3rd..., and the winner does 8 articles/week to win $150, that's $0.64/article. (/me makes note to have this bit of the discussion deleted before starting the competition ;-P). --Brian McNeil / talk 00:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comp. Update and call to arms

It looks like I'm well on the way to landing some sponsorship.

Also Wiki UK (British chapter) responded today to news about "Papers behind Paywalls" highlighing Wikinews. So don't bite anyone using British spelling, mmkay?

Lastly, there should be a WikiVoices later this month (go dig it up, mostly Wikipedia, but just a glorified podcast). I'll be one Voice, Jimmy Wales will be another; I need one other Wikinewsie (would like skenmy (talk · contribs) as he's accredited and the WMUK VolCo), plus everyone else who can spare time reviewing and doing the Wal-Mart greeter shtick. Once I've dealt with some bureaucracy tomorrow I'll set up Wikinews:WikiVoices #1 Write Faster! — the idea is to have people start at a real story which interests them and make publishable articles. Would be between 22nd-24th, I want to bring in a UK audience and perhaps some, er, *paid* journalists. The chat would support around 5-6 key people and up to 15 "callers"/participants. They use Skype for WikiVoices, I'm sure we can do one better after we've seen if it is worth it. --Brian McNeil / talk 01:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Only UK? Anyway, I would be rather busy around those days. Will this be like that Wikipedia thing? --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 03:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Nononon! Not just the UK, but WMUK's press release is the most publicity we've had in ages. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Further, the WikiVoices thing is hopefully going to be end-December. The actual competition would be starting towards the end of January; give students time to get settled back in then have a go. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I should be active on Dec 22-24 thereabouts to help out with reviews, and I have my welcome widget at the ready for any red-linked talk pages. :-) Tempodivalse [talk] 21:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Count me in for reviewing and greeting, but I have to draw the line at Wal-Mart. I'm sorry, but I'm an entrenched Harvey Nichols afficionado. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Water_cooler/miscellaneous"
Navigation
Wikinews
Regions
Toolbox