Wikinews:Water cooler/proposals

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!

Jump to: navigation, search

Refresh

Archive

Contents

[edit] Private OR wiki

This has been proposed on IRC, but I haven't seen it on Wikinews yet. There has been a proposal for a private wiki for accredited reporters to write and manage stories. This has been proposed because of the controversy over the Benoit story, where FOX claimed it as thier own story, but they may have gotten it before it was formally published. This would essentially eliminate that possibility. The wiki could, perhaps, be http://original.wikinews.org? Thunderhead - (talk - email - contributions) 12:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I brought this issue up on one of the mailing lists, there is a general acceptance that the project may need to do some work in secret and thus something like https://embargoed.wikinews.org may be required. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Dosen't seem like there are any objections, I'll go ahead and request on Bugzilla. Thunderhead - (talk - email - contributions) 07:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Vote for bug 12528! Thunderhead - (talk - email - contributions) 08:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I have voted. :-) Greeves (talk • contribs) 19:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Quote
As per consensus reached on

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Water_cooler/proposals#Private_OR_wiki and on mailing lists, I would like to ask the developers to set up a private Wikinews website so that certain editors (perhaps accredited users) can collaborate privatley on stories before they are released to the public. This would only be for ongoing projects, or OR that could be easily copied by other news sources (as our Benoit story was in July by FOX News).

Can this be created on the domain:

http://embargoed.wikinews.org


Perhaps we should decide precisely what we want to use it for and who gets to look at it before we request it. Theres a lot of maybes in that request and its not really clear. What does OR that could be easily copied by others mean? Fox copied the published benoit article, they didn't spy on the talk page while it was being written. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The bugzilla request was closed - something about having to go through committee. --SVTCobra 14:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Which committee? Greeves (talk • contribs) 16:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
language committee? but its not really a new lang. perhaps asking on foundation-l would be a good idea. Bawolff ☺☻ 17:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I am against a private OR Wiki for the following reasons

  1. .Wikinews should be open to the public not closed to the public.
  2. .Collaboration should be encouraged
  3. . We are a news source, we should want other news sites to copy news, even pre-publication.
  4. . We want the news to be easily copied by others. --User:Anonymous101 Talk 12:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the proposal is neccesary conflicting with your statements, as long as we have clear policy on what it can and can't be used for. I don't think using it for the benoit story would be appropriate, but there are other things it could be used for. (examples seem to be sliping my mind). In any case I think we should have very clear strict policies governing such a private wiki if we get one. Bawolff ☺☻ 05:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that every story should be open to everyone in every circumstance as Wikinews is supposed to be freely editable. Wikimedia was designed to make all its content publicly accessible not to block of its content. I also quote the following from Jimbo Wales' talk page on Wikipedia "Wikipedia's success to date is entirely a function of our open community."--User:Anonymous101 Talk 19:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
In some cases, there is very sensitive material that mainstream media can pick up. If we have an excellent story that we are going to break, and we know that is going to get attention from the media, then we need something to keep away from them. We have had it happen before with benoit, and personally, I would not like it to happen again. As we grow and become more and more accepted, then MSM will want to spy on us even more. Otherwise I would agree with you. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
As a side note, wikipedia has admin only mailing list and other closed things (although they aren't for content), so they aren't perfectly open. Bawolff ☺☻ 19:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I know that Wikipedia's ArbCom has had a couple such private Wikis set up - I don't know if they went through some sort of committee though - seeing as this would be a same-language extension to a project which already exists, I can't see that it would be relevant to the Committee for New Wikis (can't remember the exact name!). Might be worth either reopening the bug, or asking on IRC for guidance from the devs. Martinp23 - (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

As you are all painfully aware, we have hundreds of old, unarchived articles. At our present rate of progress, the problem is getting worse, not better. What I propose is that we have a '10 a day' drive - our regular admins archive ten old articles a day when we can. If we can get ten admins onto this, that's 100 articles most days - then we might actually get somewhere. Any takers? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure! --Jcart1534 00:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, there are two ways to look at the to-do list. This one, on Skemmy's sub-page is a DPL of all unarchived articles. This one on the WN:AAA is a smaller, less daunting DPL of the oldest articles needing to be archived. Please read the Archive Conventions first and ask any questions here. --Jcart1534 00:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Historic news

On February 21, 1808, the war started between Russia and Sweden, known as the w:Finnish War. This lasted for one year and resulted in handing over Finland to Russia. Would it be appropriate to use Wikinews to report, day by day, the events exactly 200 years later? Have "historic news" been reported before on Wikinews? Reporting from this war could be an exercise in NPOV, since it would involve participants from Sweden, Finland and Russia. --LA2 23:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This has been proposed before, and the result was that any reporting done now would not be neutral as cultural values shift. Wikipedia has a on this day section sort of similiar to what you're proposing. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you're most probably right. This proposal is withdrawn and turned into a miniature WikiProject within Wikipedia on w:talk:Finnish War. --LA2 13:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikinews:Picture of the Year

Check it out, and tell me what you think please. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Attracting more readers + contributors: some ideas from a WN newbie

Hey, I've been lurcking around WN for a few days now and have written a few articles and am really getting into the spirit. However, I have a few concerns. Firstly, the frontpage is not very reader-friendly for people who are not familiar with Wikis in general and it can be kind of hard to navigate in my opinion. A lot of the space could be used more efficiently in my opinion. Is there any current discusion on changing the layout? If not, how about starting it and inviting people to submit mockups of their ideas - I must admit that I have a few of my own. Secondly, the current amount of covered news is quite little. How do we attract more editors, especially regular ones? Thirdly, the process from develop to ready and publish to frontpage needs to become more efficient. Would it be possible to have hourly editor-in-chiefs possibly who check the current contributions?

Just a few ideas, maybe a discussion will develop. Poeloq 05:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to wikinews. As far as main page redesign goes, its been suggested time and time again, but the only thing that ever seems to be agreed upon is the current incarnation sucks (although its a bit better now then it used to be). If your intrested, theres redesigns scattered all over the place - Wikinews:Custom skin, m:International Wikinews Design Contest, category:Sandbox. Feel free to try and make something in that regards (or ideas for what the ideal main page would look like, or anything in that regard). If you're are using Firefox or Opera, you can also try some different CSS (view→ Page style). If you're not using a browser that supports alt style sheets, you can do it manually, see Wikinews:Skins. Happy editing. Bawolff ☺☻ 05:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
So if this has been brought up before, why has nobody acted? Poeloq 07:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
First off, welcome to Wikinews, I hope you like it and decide to stay, just let us know if you need help or something. We really have learned a lot already in the past and can learn a lot more from newbies experiences.
Because people haven't been bold enough, imho. I've seen some great designs but Wikinews can be very slow especially for consensus things... I've made some minor adjustments with just a "revert me if you disagree" summary and these changes have lasted. But anyway, can you explain what exactly you mean when you're talking bout the frontpage?
If we knew the answer to your second question, we would be implementing the answer right now. But we are slowly but steadily getting there. Any suggestions from your part are welcome basically. I think our next step should be to push to get onto Google News. Maybe we should have another writing contest.
I dislike {{ready}} because indeed it is slow. Unless you are particularly unsure about something or somebodies English is just not good enough, and unless you are prepared to hang around for a few hours to let someone publish it, you should just publish yourself. It attracts more attention once published. I thought there were some ideas on having a bot to message IRC when there is something ready? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the problem is that our front page is very lo-fi. And of course, the inside articles still look terrible. I still think this redesign should be instituted, or something similar for better internal navigation. The problem is, Wikinews is a site that is slow to change. Whatever happened to flagged revs, Google News, etc.? --David Shankbone 22:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

And now some ideas from a new old user - has the idea of reddit/digg buttons been discussed? That might be a way to increase our readership. Wikipedia articles and news articles frequently make it to the front page of reddit so wikinews articles should too. As for the front page, the design that David linked to above was better than what we've got at the moment, though I think it should probably just be the first paragraph of the main story, rather than the whole main story. ~The bellman | Smile 05:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually that was just discussed recently on either irc or the mailing list (or both;can't wuite remember where) I think. Personally I'm a fan of the share this extention. (see for example the wikileaks wiki), but we could also have a cheap version via a template. (Images with image maps). Bawolff ☺☻ 06:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, while I'm sure some free content junkies will object to outside logos being on every page, I'm sure that even the Foundation would agree that they're a good idea, as long as they're limited to the most popular (digg/reddit/...). -- Zanimum - (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The ready template was mentioned above. You can get notifications for ready stuff by enabling a gadget in special:preferences. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] US election category duplication

There is Category:2008 United States presidential election and then there is Category:2008 United States federal elections. There is much duplication regarding presidential race articles. The wording of former category suggests it is a subset of the latter (the federal elections are presumably about more than who becomes US President). However, there will be more articles about the presidential race than for the other contests. Obviously some recategorisation will be needed - any ideas on how best to proceed? DL+1613 16:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

--User:Anonymous101 Talk 06:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)== Suggestion for main page ==

I suggest that we have market data on the front page (in a box like the crude oil price box) like they do on the Spanish Wikinews. I designed an example of a template like this at User:Anonymous101/Sandbox/Template:Economy as an exmple of what the template would look likie. --User:Anonymous101 Talk 18:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I would love that, if it was automated... DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure it could be, the weather is (but I know nothing about bots). --User:Anonymous101 Talk 06:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] When we should archive

I think we should start archiving articles at 36 hours after publish. We have admins/bots which can protect articles and we have AWB to check for typos and such. In a continued effort to get on WP as a source, we should do this.

News is on a as it happens basis. IMHO after 12-24 hours a story is generally old, of course depending on the circumstances and situation of the news. I would rather have 24 hours to archive, but I think that's pushing it.

So with that said, I would like to open a poll on this and attempt to implement it into policy. It would cut back on unnecessary vandalism and less work for us to get behind on too. We need to be writing more and doing less admin work. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Please use voting section for votes...not comments. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

  • As the originator of the current archiving guidelines I don't have a problem with this. I'd be happy to see archiving fully automated at 3 days post-publish. It fits with what we want to do. My only proviso would be that any bot doing this uses a different template from {{archived}} to denote that a human review hasn't been done. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This is the perfect application for ArchiveBot. Should this reach consensus, and after we have tested ArchiveBot on the massive backlog, this seems like it could be done once a day to protect articles. It won't be so processor intensive, either! (that's human OR mechanical processor!) --Skenmy(t•c•w) 21:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Whilst this may cut down on the amount of vandalism etc to deal with, it will increase the number of {{editprotected}} requests as mistakes are spotted so it isn't perfect but I recognise no solution is. I'm sure some users wouldn't go through that hassle of highlighting a problem either. I'm not sure whether I feel that 36 hours is okay though and I'd also note that from a practical point of view using an odd number of days will make it more difficult to spot articles which should be archived. I think 48 or 72 hours would be more appropriate and by leaving an article open whilst many people are going to be reading it will help address typos or other mistakes which people can find. Additionally, any automated protection by bot should not take place on whatever deadline is agreed. Once the backlog is cleared it will be feasible for human editors to archive articles and so clean up and catch errors. A bot is limited in its ability to do this and so should only archive once a certain time period after the initial deadline has passed. Adambro 21:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I think 48 hours would be a suitable amount of time. And if a human is doing the archiving for the 48-hour-old articles, there should be a reduced need for {{editprotected}} requests. --Jcart1534 21:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm with Jcart on both points: 48 hours seems apropriate and I reckon now that we've given up on the backlog (although we will still gradualy go through it) humans will manage to stay up-to-date, so no bot please. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, for the sake of moving this along, please add your preferred time frame for protecting/archiving an article: 24, 36, 48, or 72 hours (all of which were mentioned above). --Jcart1534 22:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't support 48 hours. 36 is more than enough time I think, depending on the news situation. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The policy is currently 7 days. Changing it to anything less than 2 days, I feel, is too short a time period. I also agree with Adambro that a round number is easiest to work with (i.e. 2 or 3 days) - not that I can't count 1 1/2 days! --Jcart1534 22:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The originator of the policy seems to have agreed. Point is the more time we wait the less our sources matter on WP and such. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
And plus we don't have enough active admins to deal with the vandalism, that gets found in articles archived sometimes. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I've seen articles stay on lead for more then 36 hours (no one really notices, then someone mentions on irc, and then everyone goes oh crap and quickly changes it). In any case, I feel articles should be archived only after they leave the main page. (4-5 days depending on timezone they're published in for the main visible part, + 6 more days in the collasped boxes, but I only mean the non-collasped boxes). I don't really have any strong feelings about this. Bawolff ☺☻ 05:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • p.s. instead of a new template, why don't we just make the bot use a pram on the template such as frombot or something, that could be later removed by reviewers. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd say go for 4 days, so that an article is archived when it goes into the "Older News" section of Template:Latest news, which is also probably the point at which it starts to get less scrutiny. I could also probably argue for 72, since an article published at 11:59 pm would presumably hit "Older news" at 72 hours 1 minute. That said, I have no huge opposition to other suggested times. Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 01:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Can someoen explain to me what benefit we gain from reducing the time? It isn't clear to me what the advantage is. JoshuaZ - (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The most immediately obvious benefit is there are less targets for vandalism. --Brian McNeil / talk 05:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

  • Support For 48 then. Also support use of bot. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support 48 hours preferred. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 21:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support --MarkTalk to me 21:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support —FellowWiki Newsie 21:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support 36 hours seems like enough time for any major changes. (→Zachary) 21:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. 48 hours preferred. --Jcart1534 22:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support providing it is no less than 48 hours. I don't fancy having to keep working out whether an article is published one and a half days ago. Whole days is much easier. Support archiving by bot after seven days from published date. Adambro 22:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • SupportI 2 days after date of publication for the same reason as Adambro --User:Anonymous101 Talk 06:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support 48 hours, only support bot use if we manage to miss it for seven days. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 10:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Go for 48 hours. Still on the front page thus easy to do - get up in the morning and archive some stuff. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Movies

I think we should start creating articles on movie releases and box office performances, like Yahoo! Movies and MSNBC's "At the movies". What does everyone think? --Boricuæddie 03:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. As long as they're neutral. (So no I give this movie 1 out of 5 stars 'cause it sucked type articles), but feel free to create articles on new movies. (We have a couple already, but they're mostly from a while back. see portal:Television and portal:Film). Bawolff ☺☻ 05:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I remember when I did one, I quoted a variety of different outlets, with varying views on the movies. It was quickly derided. Good luck. -- Zanimum - (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Press releases

Many news agencies collect their information from press releases. All of the candidates are issuing press releases and many of those are not being covered in the news (one way or another). That goes for many other areas as well. College research outlets are issuing press releases. Businesses are issuing press releases. With cited sources there is a wealth of news information that is collected this way. Let me know what you think. --Charles Sauer / talk 20:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Press releases are totally one-sided and difficult to use for an article unless there are other sources. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Good point. So you would suggest that all articles that use press releases should cite additional sources for verification? --Charles Sauer / talk 20:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes - but be careful to try and find something that wasn't just written from the press release itself. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Book Review and Other Reviews

I would like to propose subsections for entertainment: Book Reviews, Movie Reviews, Music Reviews, etc. This could attract a larger readership. There are over 100,000 new books published per year in the U.S.A., and many of them never are reviewed simply because of the volume. Attracting a larger readership would also attract more contributors. Reviews, of course, might call into question certain policies. I've posted a call for opinions and suggestions in the policy section of this site. Let me know what you think. --Charles Sauer / talk 20:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have written a Book Review as an example that provides a neutral point of view. You can find the news here,
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Book_Review:_Swallow_Wahweap:_Drink_Bitter_Water
I believe that this news brief is complete without further addition and can be moved to the entertainment section, but do let me know if there is anything further I need to do before proceeding to that stage. Thank you :Charlessauer 22:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


I think a better decision might be to try and compile a series of such book reviews at WikiBooks - they don't really fit the standard of "news", and unfortunately present a large NPOV problem. But WikiBooks would be ideal. Sherurcij 08:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April Fools Day

Every year google has an april fool's hoax (see w:Google's hoaxes ). Should wikinews have something like this? It would be a great publicity stunt (like the google hoaxes) and increase the circulation of the wikinews brand (and before anyone bags the idea, consider the advantages over the disadvantages) Symode09 12:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This has been done the past few years: see Wikinews:Community allegedly deletes main page (2007) and Wikinews announces partnership with CNN (2006). Previous discussion is at Wikinews:Water_cooler/policy/Archive/16#April_fool.27s_stuff. However, these stories have not led to the effects you are hoping for... --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
If we have one which is outrageous, I can assure you it will (not this extreme but something like "jimmy wales comes out of the closet") xD Symode09 14:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Or maybe the WMF will do something with us? Thunderhead - (talk - email - contributions) 01:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Not to be a wet-blanket, but I think while WikiNews is struggling to defend itself against a general bias that "Wikis aren't reliable, anybody can put anything on them", having "hoax" stories isn't a great idea in securing a foothold in the world of "half-respected media" Sherurcij 07:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
April Fools stunts are a great way to start wheel wars, so no thanks. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Brian and Sher. --David Shankbone 17:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The correct solution for commemorating April Fools Day is to look for the wackiest stories you can find and write them up. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Pffffft, I hate the way people on wiki's can be soo conservative. We should not change the way we behave because of misconceptions or because people misunderstand the way wiki's work Symode09 08:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I have started an April fools stunt here. Please be sure to take it down at midnight on April 2! 69.140.152.55

[edit] Enable email for user talk page changes

I would like to be emailed every time I receive a change to my talk page. I would not only get new messages faster, but I would also not have to watch my talk page history as an RSS feed to get these types of notifications. It's currently disabled (if it was enabled, there would be a checkbox in Special:Preferences labeled "E-mail me when my user talk page is changed"). It would be an opt-in option, so if somebody doesn't want these emails, they don't have to do anything. It would only be available to registered users that have validated their email address. Also, if you make an edit to your own talk page you will not be notified. The only drawback I can see is that you will be notified of vandalism, and reverts of vandalism, but you would be notified if that happened next time you visit the site anyways.

Technical details: This option is controlled by a MediaWiki variable $wgEnotifUserTalk, which is set to false on all but a small number of Wikimedia wikis (it's enabled on Commons, Meta, Wikimania2008, among others). Setting this to true would allow users to receive email when their talk page changes.

If there is consensus to enable this on here, then the developers will probably do so. (→Zachary) 15:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Support better than watching my talk page as an RSS feed. (→Zachary) 15:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I personally wouldn't set the option but I believe we should offer it. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support :-) --MarkTalk to me 16:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support , we have several low-active contributors for whom this might be very interesting. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support —FellowWiki Newsie 00:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Greeves (talk • contribs) 00:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 00:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Similar to Brianmc (talk · contribs), may or may not set this option myself, but it would be neat to have it available on the project. Cirt 13:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support (Assuming there is no technical reason not to do this). Bawolff ☺☻ 01:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support If I ever became inactive or low-active I would want this. Doubtless others will too. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 07:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support --Skenmy(t•c•w) 07:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Sounds good to me. I'd only use it when I'm "sleep mode" from Wikinews. --TUFKAAP 21:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Especially useful for our less active users so would it be possible to enable this for all users by default? Adambro 13:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think thats a good idea. Most people would call that spam. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Being notified when your personal talk page is changed is spam now? Christ. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 08:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - though I believe is was originally disabled by default to reduce server load (on Wikipedia, presumably). Hopefully the devs will be willing to switch it back on Martinp23 - (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Gangleri was nice enough to file a bugzilla request: bugzilla:13042. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks as if it is now enabled. Bawolff ☺☻ 07:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Press pass for Accredited Reporters

As part of the accreditation process, Wikinews reporters could receive a fringe benefit of endorsement to obtain a press pass for certain events. For instance, in Washington journalists must obtain a press pass from the White House to be allowed to take part in certain announcements or releases. The accreditation process would then mean that editors, users, and administrators endorse the "accredited" journalist as a representative for Wikinews at these public events. Charlessauer 16:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That happens from time to time. For example Sean Heron represented wikinews at the G8. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I've written two letters for Sean Heron to get official passes into events, as Bawolff says one was the G8 conference. These are (perhaps a little naughtily) decorated with the Wikinews logo and signed by me with "Wikinews Administrator" under my name. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Main page redesign

I believe the current main page design has some shortcommings, especially that the second and third lead isn't visible. So I propose an redesign, either full, or just some movements; I've made an idea of minor adjustements at User:AzaToth/Main Page redesign, where I have also included a "fourth" lead. AzaToth 00:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

there's also this in the works. –Doldrums(talk) 06:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
That's a little too distracting. AzaToth hit a sweet spot that is difficult to achieve. Is it the best we could want? No. But it is a vast improvement over the current. --David Shankbone 06:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I like AzaToth's one, but the featured pic needs to be higher up. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Doldrums' one is pretty neat with the tabs, can we somehow incorporate the Category/Region/Date feature into AzaToth's design? --Brian McNeil / talk 08:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Starts out well, gets very messy down below. Put the stories in dev and disputed back into their own box. I think you can also get rid of the "Featured Story" headers unless you are going to make them something more specific. Otherwise, it's a great start to something we do need to change. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 08:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I have issues with how AzaZoth's one appears in Safari - the RSS section is thin, and as a result becomes too tall, pushing the "Recent News" down too much - at my current window size, I have an entire page of blank with just the RSS on the right. I would suggest either removing the RSS listing, or letting the Recent News section come up to be directly below the featured sections (and let the RSS go down the side of Recent News as well). Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 07:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I like the AzaToth's leads part a lot. It is a major improvement over what we have now. The rest of it is a bit cluttered. --Cspurrier - (talk) 03:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to propose scrapping this vote and starting afresh in the Wikinews: namespace. We need a defined set of candidates on which people can vote, at the moment this is just a mess. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 11:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redesign "Votes"

  • Support over current design. I like this layout better, with a more developed "front page" at the top. --David Shankbone 01:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral until design is in a state to be voted upon --David Shankbone - (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support as well. TheCustomOfLife 06:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support any change over current design (both Doldrums or AzaToth), we need some bold changes because we've been debating this for months now with little result. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 11:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. The pages are still obviously in heavy development. I think what we need to do is hold some sort of meeting over this - invite all contributors to it to have a say in how we shape our new Main Page. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 09:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, we've been discussing this for six months, and what we are doing right here in this section is inviting "all contributors...to have a say..." Your response is exactly why we never get anything done - we always put things off because it is easier than actually making a decision. Any change that is made can be unmade. --David Shankbone - (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
We can't just change the Main Page, then decide a week later we don't like it again. That is downright unprofessional. What we have now is by no means ideal but it does the job. We need to get a good discussion going - it's all well and good everyone presenting their ideas but not everyone agrees with them. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 13:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Nobody is making such a ridiculous wholesale accept and revert on a redesign. I think everyone who has voted to change thinks the new design is good and acceptable, indeed preferable over the current design. We should be voting with, "Do I like this design better than what we have now?" instead of "Is this the best design and what does everyone else think?" Just vote whether you like it or not - otherwise nothing gets accomplished when we feel we have to be Mothers to everyone else and fret whether they have had a chance to make their voices heard, etc. We have some issues on this site, one of which is design, and we have been talking about it for too long - if anyone doesn't know that we have been discussing design issues then it is because they haven't been active, not because the discussion hasn't been very public and the time to make some decisions has come. This is a good one. WE can tweak problems. --David Shankbone - (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The new design (specifically AzaTht's) is good. But it's not ready to be used - I don't know why such a major change was made to it. It was much better before. Until I see a design that I think will work then my vote remains an oppose. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 13:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support AzaToth's design. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 17:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It's good, I just don't think it is an improvement on the current main page. Take a look at the Portuguese main page, I think we could get some ideas from it. Also, I think there should be a collaborative page where the community improve the current build a new main page design. This way we can get the best of everyones skills. --Anonymous101 Talk RfA 16:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Do you oppose a redesign of the main page, or do you oppose my workshop? I havn't made up an final design proposal yet, just some tinkering and ideas, so I wonder why we are "voting". AzaToth - (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Because on the "Proposals" page we vote on...proposals. --David Shankbone - (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, then the proposal is to redesign the main page. (and votes are evil!!!)AzaToth - (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • If we are voting then I'll vote Oppose. I can't currently see how dramatically changing the main page design is justified. If we decide to change it just because we fancy something new then how long will it be before we end up changing again. Let's consider any issues with the current design before launching straight into coming up with something from scratch. Adambro - (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Surprise, surprise, you vote no. The issue with the current design? It's underwhelming, though I'm sure an improvement over the previous design. As is this one. --David Shankbone - (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose until further developed. I think the top half is excellent, a definite improvement, but the lower portion of the page descends into amateur quality layout (so does Wikinews in general, so it's not specific to your front page), I'd rather see some more collaboration on redesigning the lower sections (which might mean redesigning specific templates first), and then update our main page. But updating to a new design that changes a dozen things, of which half are improvements and half are "just changes, neither better nor worse" isn't in our best interests...imho. Sherurcij 21:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Still we are not finish, and I didn't propose my design, but I proposed a redesign of the main page. the lower part of my workshop is atm just junk.AzaToth - (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
      • You proposed User:AzaToth/Main Page redesign, right? That is the page I am referring to, that I believe needs to have some further work done to the "bottom" half of the page. Notably, the "This day in history" needs to be moved so it's not competing with current news (perhaps a sub/sup tag would also be in order) and the development/disputed are still not ideally placed. Those would be my two main issues. In addition, probably just buggy, but I get a huge amount of whitespace before the news briefs start repeating at 800/600 FF. Sherurcij 22:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
        • No, I meant more that I've started tinkering on that page, as an example, the proposal doesn't have much to do with that page, but that the main page should be redesigned. AzaToth - (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
          • I think your doing great Aza and what is clear is that your design is liked, but we all would love for your fix the bottom half to look as good as the top so that we can get more support to implementing your design. Great job. --David Shankbone - (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment It seems inappropriate to vote to accept a redesign when the proposal is in flux. AzaToth is still changing User:AzaToth/Main Page redesign. Before people can evaluate the proposal it needs to stop changing. --SVTCobra 23:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The proposal isn't limited to my workspace, but the general idea to make an redesign (as I stated in the proposal).AzaToth - (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, then, I don't think you will find a whole lot of opposition, if all we are voting on is "should it be changed". There have been many proposals to change the main page layout, the problems always arise when choosing the new one. Usually we end up with no consensus and, by default, sticking to the original. Therefore, before reintroducing a vote such as this—which in the end means nothing—that there be a galvanized, slick, and functional redesign that could sway people's opinions into adopting it straight-away. (imho) --SVTCobra 01:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know where you get "votes mean nothing" but that's clearly not true. If there is a 70/30 breakdown for a particular design, the main page is going to change. --David Shankbone - (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it is a hard concept. You voted above, saying I like this layout better (time stamp: 01:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)). However, the layout that is currently presented is vastly different now from that which you voted on. Perhaps you like the changes that have happened since, but it is unfair to vote on a redesign that it is in flux. By "means nothing", I am merely saying that a vast majority wants change, as has been established in many discussions in the past, but picking a new one is the problem. And as AzoToth said (which is what I was replying to) this vote is on the general idea to make an redesign and thus even if the vote is unanimous it just means we should talk further about a redesign. OK, maybe that is not something that means nothing (as I said). But really ... --SVTCobra 03:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
But then go talk. Seriously, this Wiki moves so slow getting anything done. Anytime you find yourself talking about talking about something, just talk about it. Why do we talk about talking about thing? It's such a waste of your time to type about talking about talking about things, instead of just saying what you want to say. Do you have a problem yourself? No? Then don't feel the need to speak on behalf of the "silent masses" to make sure every voice gets heard. Really...just make your opinion known, but a lot of you use the excuse of "discussion is needed" to drag your feet and do nothing. Stop acting like a bunch of old women; we're supposed to be part of the fast-moving tech generation, trying new things and innovating, and we are scared to do anything on this wiki. --David Shankbone - (talk) 03:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The usual result of these sort of discussions is that we incorporate elements from a proposed design into the existing layout and incrementally improve. AzoToth's top half seems to have consensus as an improvement for our "above the fold" section. Someone just be bold and stick that on the main page, that's usually the only way to move things forward. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Its long overdue. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: Create Wikinews:Wikipedia News Bureau

Often there is something going on at Wikipedia--at ArbCom for instance--that I would like to know about but don't want to take the time to read through all the diffs. We should have a Wikipedia News Bureau with reporters who follow what is happening at ANI, or at COI, what new interesting articles were created, and dramatic issues that are being hashed out. This is an appropriate role for Wikinews as a sister project of Wikipedia where our contributors are often more familiar with the personalities and bureaucratic structure. It will also create a situation where more contributors will migrate to our site to take on a watchdog role (indeed, we'd have to keep an eye on the disgruntled for POV). Wikipedia needs this. We will attract far more readers of Wikipedia, its critics and depending on the story (e.g. Essjay) the broader public alike, and there is an incredible need for NPOV news about what is going on in the Talk pages, policy discussions and ArbCom proceedings. Creating this news force should be a priority. Indeed, I think they will end up our most-read articles.--David Shankbone - (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This proposal is part of a broader vision to expand our scope and coverage. There are several websites that are already tracking Wikipedia news--always with POV--that this is something we should undertake. I think a small front page re-design would be warranted so that "Wikipedia stories" have their own separate box. I don't think the mainstream news stories should mingle with the Wikipedia coverage (for obvious reasons), but have something like the "Original Reporting" box we now have, but for WP articles.--David Shankbone - (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree and have long supported more Wikipedia coverage on Wikinews. As long as the stories remain newsworthy and have a significant new side to them, I think this is indeed an area were we can provide priviliged coverage. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. That's why we need to be careful of disgruntled ex-users. I would like to see stories that examine the big issue, but also the life and times of editing Wikipedia (one story: "What happens when a Wikipedian vanishes?"). The idea I have is that "newsworthy" = "what a Wikipedian would want to read". --David Shankbone - (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

Support as proposer. --David Shankbone - (talk) 12:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Support - keep it newsworthy! --Skenmy(t•c•w) 14:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Support A brilliant idea. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral - change of heart. I'm not sure why, but I don't feel I can support it. Not an oppose, though. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 19:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Really, I'm surprised? I think it will bring the most contributors over from Wikipedia, we already cover their issues, this just makes it more organized, and there is a need for NPOV reporting about ArbCom proceedings and decisions, reactions, and general human interest stories. I'm surprised this doesn't grab you. I think it is needed, should already be being done, and will help mitigate some of our structural problems. --David Shankbone - (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I really think we should stick to the amount of output about WMF that we're doing right now, not any more. TheCustomOfLife - (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • abstain I don't think its a good idea to be to close to wikipedia. We don't want to become known as Wikinews, the free wikimedia press release machine. In addition, other people already do this, and do a better job at it then I think we would be able to. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't find that comment applicable to the discussion because we aren't talking about re-hashing Wikimedai press releases, we're talking about investigative journalism. And Bawolff, there are people who do a better job at reporting and aggregating the news, and boiling it down to the facts--including Wikipedia. Should we also stop doing that reporting since there are other people who do it, and far better than us? --David Shankbone - (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose —FellowWiki Newsie 00:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd like to support this but I'm not sure I can completely at this time. I'm a little worried because having an entire bureau dedicated to stuff that would need a big fat template noticing our possible conflicts gets me concerned. I'm also concerned that with editors who are prominent on multiple proects (such as David and myself) we would need to be very careful about possible conflicts of interest. Finally, some Wikipedians may take negatively to such a systematic entity since they dislike airing of their dirty laundry (understandably, it generally often creates more grief and drama). But the general idea might be a good one and is at least worth thinking about further. JoshuaZ - (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose although I {{support]} a Wikimedia News Bureau --Anonymous101 Talk 15:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Is what you are proposing not already covered by the Wikipedia Signpost? --Skenmy(t•c•w) 13:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

1) Everything we do exists somewhere else, the idea is to do it better; 2)I do not think the Wikipedia signpost is as open or comprehensive; 3) the signpost is not daily. --David Shankbone - (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Would it not be better to take a broader view of WMF projects and have a Wikimedia News Bureau? Adambro - (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
That's a really great suggestion to improve upon the idea, Adam. Sure. --David Shankbone - (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
How will we decide what is considered to be internal news, covered by this proposal, or suitable for a wider audience as an article in the main namespace? Will we be looking to maintain a NPOV on these stories so noting any negative issues of WMF news as well as the positive. As has already been noted, there are apparently already a number of websites out their reporting on WMF goings on from their perspective, will our coverage attempt to present a more balanced view? Adambro - (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes. The idea is to follow the same format as our news articles and present Wikimedia news, the good, the bad, the ugly, in an NPOV. Essentially, I want to take what the off-wiki critic sites do and make it NPOV. I want Wikinews to become "the Fourth Estate of Wikimedia, doing investigative journalism, community-interest pieces, etc. The reason for keeping these things separate is that these items speak to different audiences, who would find it annoying to have their news items mixed; it wouldn't make sense anyway. We are in a position to attract "whistle-blowers" and people who are familiar with Wikipedia/Wikimedia, the personalities, and the forums. AzaToth's new page design with the three columns will help to keep them separate. I see having a section, "Wikimedia Bureau News" that lists some of its top stories, the way our "Original Reporting" section looks now. When someone clicks on the headline it will take them to a portal that will having a fuller "Section" of Wikimeda-related news. New tools, ArbCom proceedings, controversies, upcoming conferences, etc. I think this will create a lot of synergy between Wikinews and Wikipedia, and create a needed bridge. It also will be a good NPOV watchdog on Wikipedia. --David Shankbone - (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: Only Accredited Reporters can conduct Original Research

Part of me hates to propose this, because I think it hurts our ability to attract more contributors, but it's important in terms of quality control. We simply can't let anyone state that something is a fact when they have little reputation in the community that is using its credibility to publish them; indeed, when we don't know their name. I think this is standard. It makes accreditation mean something. We should not be publishing OR. --David Shankbone - (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

  • Support as proposer. --David Shankbone - (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now in favour of discussing alternate ways of keeping OR reliable first. I fear this may be the only option, but accredation itself may need overhaul as suggested below. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose see my comment below. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm concerned that Accredited reporters are being over used. just because they are accredited doesn't mean they can't lie cheat or steal. Any original reporting should be verified. Someone who just registered should obviously not be doing original reporting either. However accredited reporters should not get a free pass to do original reporting. (p.s. voting is evil). Bawolff ☺☻ 23:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose —FellowWiki Newsie 00:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose I am currently trying to carry out interviews for Wikinews (One is already in progress). If this policy passes I won't be able to continue doing this without becoming an accredited reporter. Also, how can you judge the reliability of someone's interviews/OR (to decide if they can become an accredited reporter) if they are banned from writing any interviews/OR. Point 3- The recent coverage of the Scientology would not have been as detailed with only Accredited reporters. --Anonymous101 Talk 18:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: OR needs NOTES. Extensive notes,. That can include audio, images, photos or scans of your hand written notes etc. A sentence, especially from new users, is not OR notes. We have a policy to follow with OR. It is up to the editors and admins to enforce those policies. If we are not doing so, then it is us who are failing. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

  • Do you have specific instances of OR that this policy would prevent? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
With those lousy softball questions, it should never have gotton past WN:NPOV. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I had my doubts about the interview to begin with... DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

  • I dunno. It would lock me out, as right now I don't wanna reveal my real name etc. and I've just started looking at the possibility of doing OR, testing the water with a couple of interviews I couldn't have done were this in place. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I understand your concern. Can I ask: you what is the concern with having your name known? I am not disparaging the concern, and feel free not to answer, but it seems like in this age of YouTube, MySpace and FaceBook, it seems like people are more willing to unmask themselves on-line. --David Shankbone - (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I simply want to keep the real me seperated from the wiki me. Perhaps one day, long-term, I may decide the time to open up has come, but not for the forseeable future. One other possibility: Can one become accredated on an alternate name? It's perfectly legal here in the UK to get a driving liscence, credit card etc. under a name other than your legal name, so long as you don't do anything dodgy with it e.g. impersonate someone, or get a driving liscence under a new name because you're about to be banned on the current one. Is that possible? I don't need my mug on a press card or anything. I doubt people would be comfortable with that anyway, but does policy even allow it? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think David raises an important issue here. If we're going to publish OR stories then we need to be careful that we make attempts to try to ensure their credibility. I do of course though not wish to have to restrict OR to accredited users if it can be avoided although I think perhaps it is justified. Perhaps we should be looking at other ways to verify OR content or the credibility of the source. There has been suggestions that WP should be able to use WN article as a source. Whilst I am strongly opposed to this, if this is ever to be properly achieved then the issue of OR will need to be addressed. I've expressed concerns about the whole accreditation process and if this is used to permit OR then it will have to be robust. Currently I'm concerned that we're accrediting too many users which we know too little about. The first priority should be to tighten up accreditation to increase its value. Adambro - (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you explain why you are opposed to Wikipedia using us as a source? --Brian McNeil / talk 19:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think both accredited reporters and anybody else should really read our original reporting policy: we need proof to verify original reporting, be it from a trusted community member or from an anonymous user without a name. We need pictures, audio, transcripts, anything to verify OR. It's the only way to match OR with a wiki. I don't mind OR from an anon if they provide sufficient proof; if they don't, it won't get published. Knowing your real name doesn't make me trust you more: we need hard proof. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Related: Commons has the "permissions" section of OTRS for archiving documents confirming things are indeed released under a free license. Could Wikinews have the same sort of thing, for archiving source material for OR? -- Zanimum - (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
That is an excellant idea, and has my full support. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Whats wrong with a talk page? Bawolff ☺☻ 00:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, when one of us established Wikinewsies publishes an article, nothing at all. But when user:JoeNewbie publishes an article, how do we know that what he put on the talk page is legit? It's ea