Wikinews:Water cooler/policy

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



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.

Terms of use change[edit]

As you're probably aware due to the giant global notice, the Wikimedia Foundation has added another section to the wmf:Terms of Use for Wikimedia projects. It is now a violation of the terms of use if you edit a Wikimedia project in exchange for money, goods or services, without disclosure. You can read the FAQ, blog post and the diff for more information. English Wikinews has the ability to strengthen or reduce those terms by creating a new policy, discussing it, and adding it to meta. Personally, I don't think this change affects anyone on Wikinews (or any non-Wikipedia site, really), so we'd be safe to keep it as-is. Thoughts? Microchip08 (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hm. Perhaps. I've a suspicion people of dubious faith are using accusations of "paid editing" to drive people of good faith out of the wikimedian community, so we may want to consider what we might do to protect ourselves. Given that Wikinewsies are already targeted by people of dubious faith. --Pi zero (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • To the best of my knowledge, we're far more-alert on conflict-of-interest than any other project. However, as Pi zero notes, I doubt that would deter Wikinews' detractors from throwing shit around for more than a second. You just need to look at Adam Cuerden's completely over-the-top reaction on the Glasgow 420 article BRS and I wrote to see how low some will stoop. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Sporting Events Sources[edit]

Having recently attended the 2014 Women's World Wheelchair Basketball Championship, I thought that there might be some interest in how these things work behind the scenes. This was a medium-sized sporting event, so it had all the aspects of a large one, just on a smaller scale. From the organization chart you can see how the number of people working on it tops 100 when each of the line items represents a team of people.

The Broadcast team is worthy of special note. There were three full-time commentators, who called every game, Rob Snoek, Tim Frick and Marni Abbott-Peter. There was also Adrienne South, who was on-court reporter. She conducted interviews after every match and was the face of the event, just as Rob, Tim and Marni were its voice. She must have changed clothes five times a day, and her hair always looked like it she had just stepped out of the salon. There was also an official photographer. Pictures were uploaded to Flickr, which say "all rights reserved" but actually they were CC-NC. Blanket permission was given to use them, but that restriction meant they can only be used on Wikinews.

One Canadian athlete is very proud of the fact that she is the youngest person from Donkin, Nova Scotia, with a biography on the Wikipedia. The article now has a photograph of her as well. (She also now has a world championship gold medal.)

The officials sat at a long desk alongside the court, between the areas where the two competing teams would sit. They had special consoles with buttons with basketball-related terms on them that they used to keep score and compile the statistics. They also had a laser printer that could provide the teams and the media with a quick print at a break. These were in what is now a familiar for (at least to me), with the players and their basketball stats. When they officially end the game, the results are automatically uploaded to the FIBA website. This is the primary source of game results.

Print outs were made available in trays at the Media Centre, which was located elsewhere in the Mattamy Athletic Centre building. In fact, on the same floor as the court and the athlete changing rooms. The public had no access to this area. The event facilities were excellent. There were practice courts and a fine gymnasium on the second floor, below the event arena (an ice hockey pitch converted to a basketball court with the addition of a false wooden floor). The public were on the fourth floor. The only drawback was that there was only one pair of elevators, so the athletes caused traffic jams on the third floor.

After the game the media group would write it up in the Media Centre, which was like a conference room seating about 20, with the game showing on one wall. Because the first game was at 0800 and the last went until 2200, the Media team worked very long hours. The mainstream television media would drop in occasionally, and there were a few journalists, including a couple from Germany. After midnight the media would have a quick game on the court in the sponsor's wheelchairs. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections[edit]

I propose mostly the same dates, rules, procedures as last year. This is coming just a bit late, so I've adjusted the date of agreeing on election procedures; but I haven't changed and of the other dates. (See WN:Water cooler/policy/archives/2013/July#ArbCom elections.)

The community must agree on all election procedures by July 6, and election committee members by July 10.
The deadline for nominations is 2000 UTC July 17.
Voting will take place from 2000 UTC July 18 to 2000 UTC July 30. Questions and comments may be made during that time period.
Since the incumbent members' seats expire on August 3, the election committee will declare the winners on about July 31, and the new term begins after declaration. Should any case be before the ArbCom at election time, the current committee continues to sit after turnover on cases that started under the current committee. Any new case after turnover is for the new committee.

As worked well for the past three years, I strongly recommend the committee not create a page for "questions for all candidates"; questions for each candidate should be located under that candidate. This is the way things have been done in all but two previous elections; once there was no place for questions at all (the undesirability of this is obvious, I hope), and once, four years ago, we had a page for questions for all candidates, and it turned into a political circus and an ordeal for the nominees (en.wn ArbCom is a judicial body, so should be scrupulously apolitical). I'm not the only one who experienced the circus four years ago and came away from it with a powerful conviction it should not be allowed to happen again.

We need at least two people for the election committee. Volunteers? --Pi zero (talk) 12:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I've created Wikinews:Arbitration Committee/2014 election. --Pi zero (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good. -- Cirt (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with keeping it as always. Since I dont want to run, I'll serve on the election committee. --Bddpaux (talk) 02:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll serve on the committee that monitors the election committee committee. -- Cirt (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree to these terms. -RockerballAustralia c 20:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for Autochecked?[edit]

Hi. Is there a page to add requests to become Autochecked? All my edits currently have to be checked by other users, which I think takes up their time unnecessarily, as I have a clean block log here, and am trusted on other projects (en.wp Sysop). Thanks, It Is Me Here t / c 14:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, in theory you'd request it at WN:RFP; but frankly, I don't think we want that here. Even the most trusted reviewers don't want their edits autochecked, because the review bit is a very big deal here (think global impact, with no exaggeration in the term). If there were a way to autocheck everywhere except in mainspace, I imagine we'd all go for it, because the review bit has a different meaning on the other spaces; but as long as autocheck includes mainspace, we'd want to limit it to very highly circumscribed cases (i.e., bots approved by the community — and we're pretty cautious about granting the bot flag). --Pi zero (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)