Wikinews:Water cooler/miscellaneous/Archive/8

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search

Up to December 10[edit]

Searchable image repository[edit]

I can not locate a searchable image repository where the wikinews contributor can enter a keyword and find the list of possible images. I realize Wikimedia Commons is the image page but I find that site very cumbersome to navigate. In addition, it is often the case that an image found in wikipedia can not be used in wikinews (the graphic does not work). Suggestions appreciated. --Psusen 12:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding images stored on WP: If the image has a free license, you can upload it to the commons and then insert it into an article here simply by using [[Image:Filename.jpg]] . If it is usable under Fair Use (note that our criteria differ from WP here, see Wikinews:Fair_use) you can upload it here using Upload fair media located at the left of your screen under toolbox and then insert it the same way as described above. --Deprifry|+T+ 12:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
goto http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Special:Search?ns6=1&search=image&fulltext=Search change the search box (at the bottom) to what you want to search for. This seems to work for all local and some commons images. for commons you can generally find things by just doining a normal Search on commons. If your loooking for a specific image goto http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?ns0=1&ns6=1&ns9=1&ns11=1&ns12=1&ns14=1&search=breaking.png&fulltext=Search and change the box at the bottom to what your looking for.
Images on wikipedia don't automaticly work here because we're seperate from them. However if the image has a little box on the IDP (click on image) saying this is an image from wikimedia commons. see its description page... then you can automaticly use it. If it says A version of this image is avalible at commons under name image.png then you can use the image that is said in the image:image.png field. If it says something like This image has been uploaded to wikinews (en) under name: n:Image.png. you can use the named image minus the n: prefix.
If this doesn't have any one of those, you need to upload it as said above. Remember that free images goes to commons (i.e. Public domain, GFDL, CC-By ect.) and fair use images (ie Logos, Publicity photo's not released under another free license, money, ect) go to the local special:upload. If your not sure about where an image goes, don't be afraid to ask. Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 00:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

p.s. You need to be logged in to upload an image. accounts to commons are different then wikinews accounts (in that you need to make another one, otherwise their the same. ussually people use the same name. ) —Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 00:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Seeking and using opinions from experts in articles[edit]

I'm interested in comments from the community on this article, and specifically the quote at the bottom from Dr Lynch. I used the "Find An Expert database" on the University of New South Wales website to find an academic who was registered as willing to provide comments to the media, then emailed him the other quotes from the article and asked his opinion. What does everyone think about this type of original reporting? Does the opinion of experts/academics have a place in Wikinews articles? - Borofkin 23:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely! I totally encourage it. I think that this kind of reporting is what could give Wikinews an independent voice and create true citizen reporters — not just rehashers of other peoples' research. I've tried this approach before with Ethiopia plans to expand country's Internet access and I was really happy with the additional perspective it added to the story. -- IlyaHaykinson 06:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

blogs or wiki in printed newspaper[edit]

The blog post Collaborative Newspaper Column - Wiki-style? claims that "Tech editor of the International Herald Tribune seems open to publishing a column of blog-generated ideas."

Wouldn't that be interesting? --DavidCary 18:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Portals[edit]

What is the status of Portals? I have been maintaining a portal-like entity at Australia, and I've started to produce some associated documents such as Original reporting in Sydney. There is also the Australian discussion page, which is not used much but hopefully will be in the future. The problem is that if I create a page underneath Australia, it appears in the developing stories list. Should I move the whole thing to the Portal namespace? - Borofkin 03:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Any article in development should be listed in developing stories, even if it is focused in a local venue. There was a discussion earlier to use Category:Publish local for local-only type stories, as opposed to using Category:Local only and then excluding articles in that category from showing up on the main page. I'm still not sure what ended up happening with that.
On the other hand, a portal's subpages should not be showing up in the developing stories list. That's why portals should be placed in the Portal: namespace, so the subpage will be Portal:Australia/Some_subpage, and not show up in the developing list. Creating a redirect (to the portal or the subpage) in the main namespace will make sure people can find your page, and it will not be listed. Give it a try! - Amgine 09:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep in mind that I'm on neither side of the Neutralizer v. Amgine-and-crew dispute, and that this may incriminate you even further. :) —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Ok Messedrocker. Thanks. Neutralizer 05:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that those of us on either side of the Portals dispute ran out of energy (and it wasn't even half as long as the current dispute, which shows how weak we were!), but I was all for it, so please carry it on! Personally, I did come round to the view that Local only isn't necessary for local stories while Wikinews needs its content and that these help promote Portals, but I don't know if anyone else objected to that too. Guess it's probably up to the discretion of those running the portals in the end and they're not too hard to keep an eye on ClareWhite 11:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in creating "Local only" stories, because quite frankly Australia has been ignored for far too long, and it's time the rest of the world started paying attention to how damn good we are (government and evil corporations excepted). Seriously but, I'm just interested in the portal-specific administrative pages, and Amgine has answered this question, I believe. - Borofkin 00:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Does size matter?[edit]

The article Hundreds of thousands rally in Australia against IR legislation is now over 1600 words. Do we have any standards for how long an article should be? This strikes me as being far too long, and some of my non-Wiki friends said that they thought it was a great article, but confessed that they didn't read all of it. So, what to do? Try to trim it down, or split it into separate articles? Or something else? - Borofkin 00:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

My personal view is no (also, hi, haven't posted in awhile). I figure a well researched, well documented article is ALWAYS better than a short one. In essence, a article that's well done raises our credibility - we don't need to be a tabloid. Lyellin 19:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I definitely agree with you there. I suppose we just need to use appropriate sections and organise articles well, so readers can choose to skip bits that they aren't interested in. - Borofkin 22:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, there is a lot of information in that article. But it was an unprecedented event in Australian history. The article needs to be so large to cover the whole country. I too would prefer to see the article remain in its entirety. Each section's heading makes it easy to skip/read to the parts you want to consume. It was an exciting and successful collaboration. --elliot_k 12:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I do think huge articles can be intimidating to readers, but breaking them up into sections definitely helps. There is also a "cost/benefit" analysis that goes into the mind of the reader..."Do I care about that topic enough to read all this material ?"
So, for articles about very important items, more length is appropriate. However, a ten page article on Daylight Savings Time wouldn't be read by anyone. Also, in many cases of long articles, much of the material could be moved into Wikipedia and linked to from the article.
An example of how NOT to do things is the CNN model, where they seem to recycle old paragraphs from similar news stories again and again, whenever a similar story comes out. For example, an article on the latest bombing in Iraq will repeat all the info on bombings and other news from Iraq in the previous week. This is just annoying to those who have already read the material (back when it really was news). And for those who didn't care to read it when it was news, they certainly don't want to read it now. StuRat 16:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Yeah I agree with you Elliot. The sections make it easy for people to skip parts that they don't want to read, so I don't reckon the size is a problem. - Borofkin 23:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Amgine and Neutralizer Mediation is Complete[edit]

For any who are interested in reading; [1] Neutralizer 04:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikimedia on the BBC[edit]

BBC News Online has a nice piece in their technology section on Wikimedia, Wikinews even gets a mention as being part of the family. See here. Brian McNeil / talk 11:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Great article. And one paragraph is a quote by Jimbo about Wikinews. But, they didn't link to us. Damn. --Deprifry|+T+ 11:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I emailed them and asked if they'd put a link up next to the Wikipedia one. :-) Brian McNeil / talk 12:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Not sure if thats working, but thanks a lot for writing. --Deprifry|+T+ 12:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
It bloody worked! Wohoo! Great job. --Deprifry|+T+ 17:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
<MrBurns> Excellent! </MrBurns> Of course, it is a pity it went on the article a little late, but you can expect in the future that Wikinews will get links from the BBC if they mention us, or something like grassroots journalism. Brian McNeil / talk 18:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Vote on MrMiscellanious[edit]

He is having a vote on whether people want him to stay or go at his user space. Neutralizer 12:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

its goooonnneee hehe. good idea to remove it--Whywhywhy 08:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

And why is this a community issue? Like I said, the poll wasn't anything that concerned the community. So stop trying to make anything of it. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 12:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, just assumed you'd like a larger sample than just the people who go to your user page; my mistake. Neutralizer 15:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Do wikinews credentials have any career usage?[edit]

I have absolutely no idea so I thought I would ask to see if anyone knows whether wikinews accreditation or positions of authority and trust can be/are used on resumes? Neutralizer 15:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I assume by positions of trust you mean adminship/stewardship? I know from that regard I don't believe I've heard of any case, or been involved in any case that it would serve any purpose whatsoever outside the wikisphere. Although occasionally friends are impressed, but that's more cause we're all geeks. Lyellin 16:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I would say yes, but they would carry a relatively low weight, comparable to being an editor of a school newspaper, perhaps. If you were going for a job at a small local paper, that, with some samples of your work here, might actually get you an entry level job. StuRat 00:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Are we allowed to use Wikinews to promote something where we can make money?[edit]

Like this person's user page [2] refers people to the same person's personal project[3]; which asks for donations.

This may be perfectly legitimate; I don't know; that is why I am asking. Perhaps more of us have projects where we might get some donations that we might like to promote; although I,personally, don't think that would be good for Wikinews. Neutralizer 23:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how a link from a person's user page to a company where they work or another project they participate in is harmful. It's done quite frequently throughout the WMF projects. The user you linked to isn't asking for dontations on his user page on Wikinews (that would be bad), but rather, simply links to another project on which he's active. --Chiacomo (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Totally disagree. If somebody puts his Business phone # in the church bulletin then he's using the church bulletin to sell his stuff...he doesn't have to put his price list in the bulletin. Not to mention the attempt to pull people from wikinews is flagrant,imo. Are you saying we can all put links to our own businesses on our wikinews' user pages? Neutralizer 00:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I think its okay,as long as its just a small link, and they're an active contributer. If its a ten line addverstment for somebody who hasn't touched anything, thats different. By the way I like how Amgine did the layout on journawilki. Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 00:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Mmm. I've put my business phone in the church bulletin with the "(office)" following it -- 'cause that's where I can be found. If you wanna put a link to your business on your wikinews user page, feel free! I'm Neutralizer, I've been an editor since January 1, 1900 and have made more than 3,000 edits. I work at Internic. What's wrong with that? It helps us know more about you. You shouldn't however, advertise Internic all over the water cooler. If, in this particular case, the user wanted to draw editors from Wikinews, a simple link on his user page would be a poor attempt. Amgine has taken great pains to not advertise his project either here or in IRC. --Chiacomo (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Ohhh -- did you notice that the "Donation" link on the project to which you refer is a non-existent page. I think it's default text in the MediaWiki software. --Chiacomo (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I must say, that when I was in business; I wanted to steal customers AND EMPLOYEES from my competition and if there was anything legal I could do to hurt the competition, I did it. That's competition, folks. Now, perhaps this user is different but I think we should face a few facts like this is not just a contact link; it's a recruitment invitation and the place he is recruiting to appears to be his own enterprise! Online enterprises can translate into money at some point. "Great pains"??? Chiacomo, you have to be kidding! The continual use of journalwiki as his talk page was one hell of an advertisement. I certainly would have never heard of journalwiki otherwise. HA! Boy was I fooled; in going back through the old histories I noticed awhile back where someone named DV said that this user was trying to "break wikinews"...and I thought this DV must've been some kind of nut...well, whatdayaknow, I am stunned; I was really taken for a ride. Well, I've asked Eloquence and ILya to take this to the Stewards; we'll see if they think this is all peaches and cream. Neutralizer 00:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Neutralizer, keep in mind that I'm trying to be helpful... I'm not sure why the Stewards would care, really, as they are primarily concerned with permissions (admin, bots, etc). This is not a commercial link (any more than a link to Wikipedia or Comixpedia or anything else is). The user has previously kept his talk page on another project -- when I first joined Wikinews, I kept mine on a seperate project. Many users still do. The user has taken great pains not to advertise. He's not once mentioned it on a community discussion page, has not promoted it on user talk pages, has not promoted it on the #wikinews IRC channel. I don't know why we wouldn't want to establish a relationship with the project, however, as, unlike Wikipedia, the user's project's license is compatible with the license used here on Wikinews. This really does appear to be a non-issue -- it might also appear to some that you are attempting to discredit or attack this user in some way. Why not work on some articles instead of fostering conflict? --Chiacomo (talk) 06:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I think perhaps a lot of people are just naive about how advertising works. The fact that most of us now know the name "journalwiki" proves that it has been successfully advertised to the editors of this publication. Noone here knows the name of my other project because, unless I wanted them to know and advertized it in some way, why would they? No; the continual use of the journalwiki talk page even much AFTER two admins(Dan100 and Ilya) asked him during his own deadmin vote to stop it, shows that he actually has gone to great pains to continually advertise his personal project which is in direct competition to wikinews; and now his recruitment of wikinews editors has become blatant on his user page. Quite a successful launching strategy, I must say..using the primary competitor's resources and staff to facilitate the launch. In all sincerity I must say; "Congratulations; job well done." I would be taking a much more aggressive approach about this if it were anyone other than who it is; because I think if it were a new user; they'd be given an infinite block in a flash. It's only because I know how much the community trusts this user that I am being so timid in my remarks. Who of you can honestly say a new user that put the exact same statement on their user page[4] would be allowed to keep it there? Neutralizer 14:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC))
Not seeing an issue with it. As long as he's not soliciting money, then there shouldn't be any difference between this link and another user linking to any other site that has a 'donation' link. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 01:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I also don't have a problem with it. I haven't really been following what Amgine has been doing with this Journowiki thing, but it's under a CC license, so in my opinion it is not competition with Wikinews. Assuming that it does start to produce articles, we can just copy 'em over here if we like 'em. - Borofkin 01:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Erm, yes, I haven't gotten around to removing that. I really don't want any donations over there; it's my personal charity project. (It's also a rather different project in that the articles are supposed to be built by journalism students, and so we're *not* interested in recruiting authors from Wikinews.) But feel free to continue perusing it; maybe at some point it will be ready for the public. - Amgine 06:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't see what the problem could be. A lot of users, also here at Wikinews, post links to their personal webpage; and some of those pages include ads. Perfectly fine IMHO. Sadly, I do get the impression that you are only picking this particular case because it says "User:Amgine" at the top of the page. --Deprifry|+T+ 12:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I would be taking a much more aggressive approach about this if it were anyone other than who it is; because I think if it were a new user; they'd be given an infinite block in a flash; because it IS a commercial link. It's only because I know how much the community trusts this user that I am being so timid in my remarks. Who of you can honestly say a new user that put the exact same statement on their user page[5] would be allowed to keep it there? Neutralizer 14:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC))
I can. If a new user puts a link to his non-commercial site (and Amgine's page is nc) on his user page I, and I guess pretty much everyone else here, would have no problem with that. If a new user puts a link to a commercial site in his user space, and that would be that user's only contribution to Wikinews then I might get suspicious but not over some link to a personal webproject. --Deprifry|+T+ 14:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
How does the fact that i know what journiwiki is mean its being advertised. I also know what:

and the list goes on. None of these have really been advertised (ok, maybe weak point with sisterlinks at the bottom of the main page on wikimedia projects). still seing no issue. Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 07:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Please, can anyone explain this?[edit]

From Amgine's edit above he does not deny that he put the link on his user's page. Now the page has been reverted [6] and he's claiming a vandal had put the link to journalwiki???? rv user page vandalism Neutralizer 20:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I am responding to this personal attack to remind User:Neutralizer that during the time he has been on Wikinews I have never edited my user page except to revert vandalism done to it without my consent or agreement. - Amgine | talk 20:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Clarification please; so you are saying that link to journal wiki was put on your user page by a vandal yesterday?

cur) (last) 16:31, 23 November 2005 Amgine (rv user page vandalism)

(cur) (last) 17:15, 22 November 2005 216.139.111.44

If so, that begs 2 questions;

Why did you not mention yesterday the link was put there by a vandal? [7](discussion above)?
Why have you not blocked the vandal 216.139.111.44 [8]?
Please bear with me; I am truly trying to understand this. The community has such trust in Amgine; I just want to be clear;

1.A vandal had nothing better to do than try to help you promote your start-up

2.You responded to the situation by defending the link and not saying anything about your user page being vandalized.

3.You then reverted it (rv user page vandalism), but decided NOT to block the vandal.

Is that the truth of this? Neutralizer 20:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Many reasons (for me, at least) - one, most of the times the users only attack once, and they leave. Second, many times you forget. Third, unless it's a major form of vandalism, user page modifications only warrant a informal message on the talk page. However, I've discovered the item to be an open proxy, and according to the policy, it will be permanently banned from editing Wikinews. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 21:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes,I noticed you just blocked that user; still doesn't explain why it wasn't mentioned yesterday(the vandalism)by Amgine in the discussion above and also isn't this an odd "attack"?

"I'm most available on journowiki.org... so... if you need to talk to me, leave me a note there.I am attempting to organize a new English language edition of news, focused around open access to news creating and journalism education, and you can get involved at the Home page!"..especially since Amgine said in the above discussion that his new site is focused on students..how would the vandal know this and why would a vandal want to pretend to be Amgine to promote journalwiki? Neutralizer 22:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

There are many good reasons an anon would want to pretend to be an Admin. The text posted to Amgine's page was copied from his Meta user page. [9] --Cspurrier 16:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Let the Stewards decide[edit]

I will say no more on the matter; if the Stewards see nothing wrong with the link to his personal start-up, then so be it. But please assume good faith in terms of my intentions here; I had my own business and from my perspective; this is a common "raid" on the competitor's best employees and I truly am just concerned about the overall effect on Wikinews as well . I doubt that coke would allow a pepsi promoter (or new cola promoter) to be designing coke's policies....but if this is all ok with a wiki; then please excuse this old businessman; but don't accuse me of bringing this up because of who the promoter is; you'd be 100% wrong. Neutralizer 14:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with promoting a personal project in userspace. Unless you're linking to something that is illegal, or spam, Amgine is not violating any rules common to Wikimedia. You may note that the user page of Jimbo Wales on Wikipedia links to his personal, for-profit company. There's also no rule in Wikimedia about signatures needing to point to the current project. -- IlyaHaykinson 03:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

were now found by google when you search for cc-stuff[edit]

If you search for CC stuf on google, we now appear. [10] We didn't before. I added the metadata thing to Mediawiki:Copyright which I think should get us in that search. but its not in the cached version of this page yet. so i'm not sure if its that. But the important news is we're in.

Great! We are now #2 hit for the popular search string "News" and #4 for "London". Nice job. --Deprifry|+T+ 12:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

what? u on the the meat and potato page?[edit]

garsh darn meat and potato heads... freakin' virginians, i think they are gettin' to me. -Edbrown05 05:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


November 11[edit]

Wikinews statistics[edit]

User:BlankVerse has some interesting statistics. When I first typed the user in the 'search' box, the page came up blank with no history tab. After selecting last 500 edits on the 'Recent changes' page, and since there aren't too many edits around here lately, I was able to locate the post here. Suddenly, I now notice the BlankVerse user_page is no longer empty.

Anyway, over a 15 day period in October, there was an average of 7 stories published per day. There was an average of 10 new user_accounts created per day over the same time period.

Are these good numbers or bad numbers?

Personally, I fear for the 'Latest news' looking something like this --> ( ) <-- that was the news.

I found the wiki_User_Page of BlankVerse worth a look. -68.232.153.54 21:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Well were on the topic of statistics...[edit]

We now have over 150,692 edits Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 23:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Pre-November 11[edit]

Opportunity for some original reporting - United States[edit]

If anyone happens to be in the United States, there is an opportunity for some original reporting. Please see Talk:Rescuers Frustrated in LA. - Borofkin 05:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Just noticed we're being mirrored[edit]

Just noticed we're being mirrored: http://code0range.net/aggregator/categories/3 and http://code0range.net/aggregator/ . They screw up wiki formating, but they do give us credit. It looks like they also mirror recent changes diffs.Bawolff 18:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I tried to call on IRC but no response...[edit]

Hello,how can I tell the Wikinewsies about breaking news?I clicked on the contact's username and typed,but no reply came.Tdxiang 07:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Why not start an article yourself on the main page ? Others will likely finish it, if you provide enough info to go on. StuRat 11:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Eyewitness reports[edit]

What should we do with eyewitness reports posted anonymously, such as A first person account of what happened in New Orleans? We are going to see more and more of these as our profile increases. Should they be encouraged to turn their eyewitness report into an article, or should they be directed to an Eyewitness Report page, where their reports can then be used as source material for articles? - Borofkin 04:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I would support policy that lead to such reports becoming source material for articles rather than posting such accounts as articles themselves. Of course, if the eyewitness account can be edited to a story form, then publish away. --Chiacomo (talk) 04:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Note that I didn't say they should be posted as articles, I said "encouraged to turn their eyewitness report into an article". The question here is: what is the difference between a Wikinewsie doing original reporting, and an eyewitness who posts a report directly to the site? It's a fine line. An eyewitness who comes here with a story could tommorrow be a Wiki-convert. - Borofkin 04:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Indeed -- we could, of course, treat eyewitness accounts like interviews, and, as you suggested, include the content (where appropriate) in articles. --Chiacomo (talk) 04:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I suppose that's what I'm thinking. I think its appropriate to include submitted eyewitness reports in articles, as long as they are clearly identified as such. Consider Louisiana officials accused of blocking rescue volunteers, where an anonymous eyewitness report was submitted, second-hand, by a named person. Now there is no doubt that the information is unreliable, this is true of all eyewitness reports, anonymous or not. I think it is still article-worthy, as long as the source of the information is clearly identified. - Borofkin 05:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

We definitely should use these sort of articles as source material, with the old line, so-and-so told Wikinews. My suggestions is a template that could be added to the header of these stories, encouraging people to use it as a source for other stories, for example that particular one will be a valuable contribution to other stories. The source could then be copied to Portal namespace for the correct category and that could be the source link... i'll go and demonstrate... ClareWhite 09:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, I added an Eyewitness template to that story but decided not to move it out of the main namespace yet as that would take it out of developing stories where people are most likely to see it. The template makes it clear that it is a personal account and that it won't be published as a story and encourages other editors to use it and the author to add their personal details and answer questions if required.
It would be bad for people to use the source as the only source for a story, but where it adds to potentially many stories it will make a very useful additional source. I think it also fulfils Borofkin's aim of encouraging people to come to Wikinews rather than simply sticking on an unfriendly tag. As the workspaces/bureaus develop in portals, I think these sort of accounts will be a very useful source of material for collaborative writers. They so need to be viewed as potentially unreliable, but I think we need ways of soliciting the views of ordinary citizens and this is a good one. Thoughts? ClareWhite 09:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with you, ClareWhite. Eyewitness accounts tend to be highly biased. This makes them a good source for an article, so long as they are balanced with "the other side of the story". However, making an article with just a single eyewitness account (or all eyewitness accounts on just one side of the story) should be discouraged. StuRat 11:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
My inclination was to publish this particular story as is, because it is true citizen reporting. I don't see anything highly biased in the report. However, the fact that it is posted anonymously is very troublesome. I especially found intersting in this report the info. on the budget cut for levees and police stuff. (Edbrown05)-68.232.153.54 15:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC) siggy -Edbrown05 03:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I like the idea of tagging it as an eyewitness report and moving it out of the main namespace. I'm not sure that the Portal namespace is the right place, though. Has the debate over this namespace reached a conclusion? We should certainly be encouraging people to add contact information to their eyewitness reports. - Borofkin 00:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I remember well the debate here about a proposal to include Editorial articles. In the end, I believe that I am correct by saying the proposal died because the Editorial content of the article would be made by a sole contributor (except for grammar, punc, etc. collaboration), but that one-person writing approach is not the wiki way. Here we face a similar dilemma, an eyewitness report is a sole person contribution.
Currently, the most similar thing in existence here now to a one-person writing approach is {{Original reporting}}, but that is only appropriate for a trusted community contributor who can post a report with no confirming sources (an original report should not be required to have any confirming source; the author is the source with Wikinews backing).
When I first confronted the article being discussed here, my reaction was to put on the {{Original reporting}} tag and publish it. I do not think anyone has any serious objections to the content of this particular story, and I see the disclaimer NGerda added in a template. Part of my reasoning for the {{Original reporting}} tag is because there is no other satisfactory method for giving this story the attention that I feel it warrants. Yes, I am aware it lacks some polish, but I do feel it is unreasonable to expect a motivated contributor who is not a journalist to write content that lives up to the standard Wikinews seems to be striving for.
If there is a way around this conundrum, it sure was not found in the previous Editorial debate. Our editor base's best judgement may be the best answer, along with combining the best of all wording found on the {{Eyewitness}} and {{Editorial}} and {{Original reporting}} templates into one, tag the story, and go from there. -Edbrown05 03:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The Portal namespace didn't reach a proper conclusion no, but the proposal is sort of rolling on and some people have started using it. In this particular case, I would be against putting the Original Reporting tag on the story because, although it sounds very plausible, unless we had many more key details we just can't rely on it. That's why I would much rather see the bulk of it used as background and views from 'an evacuee from New Orleans' (in the absence of more detail like names) rather than being a published story in its own right. We could be on a slippery slope if we get madder 'eyewitness' reports that feel they can publish in that form. But yes, combining with other tags (I created a {{Community}} tag too for local-only reporting which might have only one source or none) and case-by-case judgments is definitely the best way to go ClareWhite 08:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Server speed[edit]

What's up with the slow server response time? It's been a real dog now for days. -Edbrown05 16:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah but it is a Wikimedia-wide problem. I just hope the new Yahoo servers that were promised go online soon. --Deprifry 16:49, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
What happened to the 210 000 some dollars they just got from the fundraiser? by the way supposably whats happening to the servers is supposed to be on open facts,(to my understanding) but nothing other then Slow has been reported their recently. Bawolff 23:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Sunday night, 11:00 pm EDT, and I can manicure a fistful of fingers (exageration) in the time it takes to get a page loaded on Wikinews. I NEVER contemplate a manicures! Whaa, whaa, blaa. A 'server' is just that, except here. -Edbrown05 02:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Streamlining New Orleans[edit]

We have got to have some serious editing and thinning out of all the developing New Orleans stories. I've made a start this morning but I've got no more time.

  • Stories that are simply representing one bit of info or point of view should be incorporated into other stories to give balance and synthesis
  • Eyewitness accounts should (if people are happy to do so) be moved rather than deleted: I've started a page for this at Portal:Disasters and accidents/Eyewitness accounts. These are valuable and useful accounts, though not news.

That's what I've been doing anyway :) ClareWhite 10:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Science of Champagne Bubbles Explained[edit]

We have Science of Champagne Bubbles Explained and Science of champagne bubbles explained. Can some one delete the first? -- user:zanimum

I listed it on WN:DR. Bawolff 22:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Another Mirror[edit]

we are being mirrored by http://www.brujula.net/english/noticias/wiki/ also. Bawolff 23:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

What's your motivation?[edit]

So, I'm curious - what draws people to start writing, and contributing to wikinews? Anybody want to start a conversation about this? Rainbird

Putting thoughts into words, into publication, is a leap. Do you wanna? -04:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, I find that when I start writing on the net, and I meet people - I'm drawn into things... Ed. Who knows? I just wondered - are most people here involved in a journalism career - or do they plan to be? What are the various ethics people have in regards to how they present their writing here? Is your goal to change your society, in some way, Ed? That's the inference I hear, when you speak about putting thoughts and words into publication. Rainbird
Who's Ed? - 17:48, 9 October 2005
I contribute because I have an area that I have spent a lot of time researching and the mass media often misunderstands it or makes errors in their reporting of it. So this is an opertunity to help make an accurate media outlet exist. It's also a step toward greater freedom of the press. 84.203.7.190 13:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Deleted Article on Iraqi Prisoner Abuse[edit]

There was an article on further allegations of Iraqi prisoner abuse that appeared in Wikinews on Monday or so. Due to a highly inflammatory and unsubstaniated quote, it was quickly moved to the "in progress" column, and then completely disappeared. Although the particular article probably should have been deleted, I was under the impression that the US government was attempting to block release of further documents. But I can find no mention of this on Wikinews. What happened to this issue?...Tim

I think admins need a more consistent policy on deletion. For instance I listed a speedy delete 2 days ago and it has yet to go. ישראל&UN and UNHCR are criminals and mafias. While an article I listed for copyvio was deleted that night.Police Investigate Mail and Guardian & Protesters storm Bali jail, demand death for bombers (which really isn't fair as it says in the text of the warning the person has 3 days from listing to change it or it would be deleted, this was deleted that day). I thought speeedy deletes were high priority deletes and deletion requests were left for a discussion. Another issue that I've noticed is no-one checks the copy vio page in 3 days when they're supposed to either delete it or replace it with the /temp page. I can't see if their is a system in place for admin's, maybe you guy's need a to-do list of article's to check and one's to delete. Another idea would be an automated message on the page of the user who created it telling them why it was deleted.Flying Canuck 15:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

All of our admins are volunteers so most things are done when they are gotten to :). I have deleted both of the pages you requested, the fastest way to get something like those deleted is ask in our IRC channel (the Real-time chat link at the top) myself or another admin are on there most of the time. The big reason the copyvio got deleted faster is without the dr or delete tags it gets displayed in the developing stories list on the main age so the admins see it sooner. Also our copyvio policy was recently revised allowing admins to now delete copy and paste copyvios on sight, most. The idea of an automated message while a good one, has been found to be technically impossible by our developers due to the large number of users who could have potentially edited a page. --Cspurrier 15:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, it would be helpful when marking articles for speedy deletion to put something in the edit summary saying "speedy delete" or even simply "speedy" -- that way an admin can simply scan Recent Changes for problems (which is what most of us do anyway, I think). Most people do this already. --Chiacomo (talk) 14:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

If I were a CIA agent[edit]

If I were a CIA agent, I would make angry left-wing stories about nothing in particular. There is no point surpressing the truth - this is the internet, but it is possible to discredit the truth. The best way to discredit somebody is to laugh at them. And satire is a pretty cheap laugh.

If wikinews looks like a 2nd rate blog, or is bogged down with flame wars then nobody but the conspiracy nuts will take it seriously. Especially not the average voter.

Just a thought. Wisty 12:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Totally wrong about the "truth" not being suppressed on the internet. Would you believe me if I said a CNN poll found that 97% of Americans do not feel that the elected politicians in Washington represent them? Doesn't that mean that the "truth" is that the US government has been effectively hijacked? Where will you find that simple truth in a credible internet location? If the only voting choices are tweedle dee and tweedle dumb..then,what does it matter what the voter thinks? Neutralizer 21:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Media polls? Eck. Online polls? Eck, eck. For all who say that FOX is followed by a certain group of people, they seem to be ignoring CNN's base completely. --Mrmiscellanious 21:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying anyone is wrong as such. The sad fact is that the wiki model doesn't work very well for news. You can't always get people with massively different points of views agree on an article in a newsworthy timeframe. To get it to work, you need to get the article ~80% NPOV (as in agreed upon by the right-wing and left-wing editors) in the first edit. That may mean you sacrifice the truth a little, but it is better to give a bit away then not have the article printed. That is the price of writing on wikinews. Wikipedia can have a better look at the issue, because they don't have time constraints. That is why wikipedia ends up printing conspiracy theories (see their Conflicting Theories on Katirina page), while wikinews does not. And the CIA would rather rig wikipedia than wikinews ;-)

You don't have to leave anything out, just relax the statements a bit. For example "Republicans suspected of rigging vote machines" is just not NPOV. "Republican supporter supplied faulty polling machines" is better. I don't like it, you don't like it and MrM doesn't like it, so it must be fair ... and people are more likely to believe the second statement. Get the article printed first, with the bare facts. The readers should be smart enough to make up their own minds.

And there is usually better news to be found than scandals in the Republican party. Wisty 03:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

"Conspiracy Nuts"[edit]

Where/when I grew up; one of the labels that was popular to throw around was " n_gg_r lover". It was quite an effective strawman term to use to discount the points made be anyone who challenged our government's segregation rules and laws. And, in fact, usually the use of the label was accompanied by laughter and ridicule; something like; "Oh, don't pay no attention to Jack, he ain't nothin' but a stupid n_gg_r lover". In fact an elected governor of Georgia, Lester Maddox made quite a lot of money selling pick handles known colloquially as "n_gg_r beaters" to use against any black person who tried to get service in a "white" location. As an aside, Zell Miller was Maddox's chief of staff. Anyway, the point is, negative labels about a person or group have never been thrown around by people who help improve the world, in my opinion. Someone who acknowledges the role of conspiracies in history and within today's events is simply not an ostrich. Plus, to be consistent, one would have to think that only a "conspiracy nut" would believe that the 9/11 attack was carried out by a gang of conspirators who secretly conspired to hijack airplanes and fly them into the WTC, Pentagon and White House....now that's what I call a "conspiracy theory"; but that doesn't make it funny or false. Neutralizer 23:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this message says, including why there is an unnecessary use of vulgar terms. --Mrmiscellanious 00:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm saying that negative slurs against individuals or groups are always a bad thing to do; slurs like n_gg_r lover, or conspiracy nut, or commie liberal or redneck conservative ...they are all offensive and divisive. The less offensive but equally as divisive approach is to categorize someone's point of view with a discountive strawman term such as "Conspiracy theory" or "liberal agenda" or "conservative agenda". Neutralizer 02:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
So how does indirectly accusing editors of being "government agents" (which the community seems to think is a bad characterization -- a slur) differ from these other slurs? --Chiacomo (talk) 03:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Good point,Chiacomo, I don't know why the community thinks "government agent" is a slur; I don't. I think it's a perfectly acceptable line of work. They have been embraced at Defcon and , if there are any around, should be embraced here as well like Borofkin and Amgine have said. My only concern is that ifsomeone is (or in the future comes)on the job here (with the task of delaying/suppressing any stories which may report western government misdeeds) and is putting in 40 hours per week and is an administrator to boot; that puts a lot of pressure on the volunteers to counterbalance that amount of effort. But I truly do think its naive to think our government would not be looking at citizen journalism very,very hard. Once troops and other "insiders" begin writing stories on Wikinews complete with embarassing video/documents; people who are doing and condoning bad actions will be exposed on an hourly basis...and governments who thrive on secrecy and fear will be in trouble. Neutralizer 13:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Your hometown sounds to have been a pretty nasty environment at times. Having grown up with people who openly talked about supporting the BNP, I can sympathise. I agree that that there's nothing intrinsically "nutty" about acknowledging the existence of conspiracies - and that in any case we shouldn't be calling anyone a "nut" here. And I agree that if you want to be strict about these things, it's true that any allegation of conspiracy is a "conspiracy theory".
To pick up the example of 9/11 - I guess you're right that we are, strictly speaking, accepting a "conspiracy theory" when we believe that the attacks were pre-planned in secret. But given the facts it's also, in my view, the simplest explanation. The contra-thesis - ie. that despite all the reports in the media, 911 was either some kind of accident or a completely spontaneous act, or that they didn't happen at all, seems to imply an even more complicated conspiracy. In fact, I can't think of any explanation of 9/11 that wouldn't involve some kind of "conspiracy", somewhere along the line!
Where there's a problem is where people start alleging a conspiracy without good evidence - and/or where a much simpler explanation (Occam's razor) would explain things equally well. There's an interesting article on the issue here: http://www.hyperhistory.org/index.php?option=displaypage&Itemid=718&op=page. Wikipedia also does a good analysis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory. And I do think it's ok to laugh at some of these things (my particular favourite is the one about the British royal family secretly being a race of alien lizards who run the world from windsor castle and eat babies...)

-- Rcameronw 08:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

My personal favorite is that there is a radical fundamentalist moslem movement to take over much of the world [11](put forth in Bush's last major speech)"from Indonesia to Spain"; and in second place is the "axis of evil" theory...which brings in a spiritual element("evil") to the fray. Neutralizer 13:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree, and sometimes feel that the "global Islamic conspiracy" theory has elements in common with earlier alleged conspiracies about another major monotheistic group of people, but I still think the one about the lizards is funnier... - Rcameronw 20:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

DeLay article deleted?[edit]

I just found a copy of the DeLay arrest warrant that I wanted to link to the article reporting on it. The article needed some work and more sources. But now I cannot find the article any more. Is it possible that it has been deleted? If so, where do delted articles go and how can I view the history of deleted articles?--vonbergm 05:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

moving your request to new section. Looking for your answer. - Amgine / talk 05:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Found it. Article Arrest warrant issued for Tom DeLay - Amgine / talk 05:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)