Wikinews:Water cooler/policy
From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
|
|
Policies and guidelines and the Style guide contain or link to most of the current en.Wikinews policies and guidelines, however policy is based on the accepted practices of the day on Wikinews, often these might not be written down. This section of the Water cooler focuses on discussions regarding policy issues.
You may wish to check the archives to see if a subject has been raised previously.
Contents |
[edit] Strategic Planning
The Wikimedia Foundation has begun a year long phase of strategic planning. During this time of planning, members of the community have the opportunity to propose ideas, ask questions, and help to chart the future of the Foundation. In order to create as centralized an area as possible for these discussions, the Strategy Wiki has been launched. This wiki will provide an overview of the strategic planning process and ways to get involved, including just a few questions that everyone can answer. All ideas are welcome, and everyone is invited to participate.
Please take a few moments to check out the strategy wiki. It is being translated into as many languages as possible now; feel free to leave your messages in your native language and we will have them translated (but, in case of any doubt, let us know what language it is, if not english!).
All proposals for the Wikimedia Foundation may be left in any language as well.
Please, take the time to join in this exciting process. The importance of your participation can not be overstated.
(please cross-post widely and forgive those who do)
[edit] Wikinews:Featured article candidates - should not be nominated until they are archived
 Please discuss your poll ideas with the community before polling, and don't vote on everything as voting is evil. |
- Wikinews:Featured article candidates - Candidates should not be nominated for consideration until after they have been archived. In this manner, the actual article being considered will not be one that is itself subject to change, perhaps rapidly in the case of a breaking story, but rather is a page that is complete and finished, and has afterwards been archived and fully-protected as per WN:ARCHIVE policy. It is only a wait time of Seven Days. Cirt (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This would only apply for future nominations, not retroactively. Current noms would of course be grandfathered in. Cirt (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Comments
Neutral does it really matter that much? If it makes a difference, why not just have the article stay on WN:FAC an extra week. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- It's kind of silly to debate the merits of giving something this consideration while it is still being edited, especially if it is a breaking story, and such an easy change to make, and would make things a lot more appropriate, IMHO. Cirt (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't really care all that much either way, although there is a certain logic to this. One point - after 24 hours an article shouldn't be edited for content, so perhaps we should make the limit 24 hours instead of the full week? Tempodivalse [talk] 21:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- The full week is best to make this more in line with the already existing policy of WN:ARCHIVE, and this way, when the article is being considered as a candidate, it will already conveniently be fully-protected. Cirt (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- But really, what difference would it make? If someone alters the article for content after 24 hours, it's going to be reverted per WN:ARCHIVE. That's almost the same thing as locking up the article so no one can edit it in the first place. *shrugs* Tempodivalse [talk] 21:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. There are cases where things could be changed, or at least where people could argue that things could (or perhaps should) be changed or tweaked. There have been situations at WN:FAC where people have proposed changing parts of articles specifically so that they could be better candidates. Making this seven days, would effectively remove all those arguments as a possibility from the WN:FAC page, and help to better focus FAC discussions in the future. :) Cirt (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but those sort of suggestions can be made after archiving, as well as before, you said so yourself below. I still don't see much of a difference between a 24 hour and 1 week limit, and i like the former because I think it's more practical (e.g. allows an article to be nominated quicker while it's still reasonably fresh). Tempodivalse [talk]
- Better not to nominate an article quicker, rather per Brian McNeil (talk · contribs), below, it is better to take the time to reflect on the article prior to proposing. Cirt (talk) 02:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but those sort of suggestions can be made after archiving, as well as before, you said so yourself below. I still don't see much of a difference between a 24 hour and 1 week limit, and i like the former because I think it's more practical (e.g. allows an article to be nominated quicker while it's still reasonably fresh). Tempodivalse [talk]
- Not necessarily. There are cases where things could be changed, or at least where people could argue that things could (or perhaps should) be changed or tweaked. There have been situations at WN:FAC where people have proposed changing parts of articles specifically so that they could be better candidates. Making this seven days, would effectively remove all those arguments as a possibility from the WN:FAC page, and help to better focus FAC discussions in the future. :) Cirt (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- But really, what difference would it make? If someone alters the article for content after 24 hours, it's going to be reverted per WN:ARCHIVE. That's almost the same thing as locking up the article so no one can edit it in the first place. *shrugs* Tempodivalse [talk] 21:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Support
Support, as proposed above. Cirt (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)- Support Verily. No point to FAC'ing something that's been published for 2 hours. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 21:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yep. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support—sounds like a good idea to me. Dendodge T\C 22:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support because this is much better than not taking time to reflect on the article prior to proposing. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support although I would rather see either 24 or 48 hours, since it is quite possible to say, for example, 'could we budge that image a bit, its messing the formating up? Thats better' and then support. True, most or all of these things can be done post-archiving, but not everyone is an admin. We in the
cabalcloakroom must bear that in mind. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)- I would agree with you that those are minor things that can be done post archiving, per WN:ARCHIVE. Cirt (talk) 23:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support I think a week is just fine, though, I don't think we need to mold this as per archive. I think at the least, 72 hours may suffice. Though if its any number lower than archive period, I say we make a separate policy regarding FAC/FA. If not, then just go by archive. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I just don't think it is worth the bother to do that, it is simpler to just modify it as per existing policy of WN:ARCHIVE. Cirt (talk) 03:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Logical idea, although I still prefer a shorter limit, like 24 or 48 hours. Tempodivalse [talk] 03:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- I just don't see the overwhelming urgent need for an emergent desire to nominate articles to become FAs faster than waiting seven days. Cirt (talk) 03:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- And I don't see the need to have to wait an entire week before being able to nominate an article.
I really don't have a strong opinion on it either way, as this is a relatively minor issue, wiki-wise, and won't significantly impact anything. I won't object to it regardless of which time limit is agreed upon, that's just my preference. It might be best to agree to disagree. :-) Tempodivalse [talk] 03:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, no worries. :) Cirt (talk) 03:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- And I don't see the need to have to wait an entire week before being able to nominate an article.
- I just don't see the overwhelming urgent need for an emergent desire to nominate articles to become FAs faster than waiting seven days. Cirt (talk) 03:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Yeah. No reason to FAC a recent news. Pmlineditor ∞ 09:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
Oppose Articles that later become featured articles are going to become archived anyway, so what's the point? After all, we should be getting things done quickly, not waiting impatiently for about a week while the article that could become featured just lies there doing nothing. Rayboy8 (my talk) 07:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Newsworthiness - how to define it?
I've recently noticed that, while we frequently mention newsworthiness and have a {{newsworthy}} template, we don't have a policy on it, or anything in the help/policy/guideline pages that describes how much newsworthiness a story needs before it can be published. This was especially brought to my attention when a new user created Benet Academy students raise money for leukemia patient, a very local news article, and was a bit confused as to why it wasn't newsworthy enough for publication. See also the thread on my talk page. The closest we have to newsworthiness criteria is at WN:CG as far as I can tell: "News must be relevant", which is very vague and subjective. I'd like to suggest we create a policy page (or at least guideline) that gives pointers on what our minimum standards for "newsworthiness" is. Thoughts? Tempodivalse [talk] 03:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
