Wikinews:Water cooler/proposals

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!

Jump to:navigation, search

Refresh

Archive

Contents


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

[edit] WN redirecting to Wikinews

Result

100%

In wikipedia, if you type WP:Article, it will automatically redirect to Wikipedia:Article. That means WP is an alternative name Wikipedia namespace. It is not so in Wikinews. E.g. WN:WC which redirects to Wikinews:Water cooler. The shortcut exists in article namespace and not Wikinews namespace. Suppose if we have the facility that Wikipedia has, we can create Wikinews:WC which will redirect to Wikinews:Water cooler and assume that WN:WC doesn't exist. Then also WN:WC will redirect to Wikinews:Water cooler. This will happen because WN is an alternative of Wikinews namespace and automatically all WNs will redirect to Wikinews. Please vote for the proposal below. Srinivas 15:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikinews major contributors

I had cause to fiddle with my user page some today, and I have some degree of pride in the number of articles I've done, and length of time working on the project. There are others have done far more articles that I, and most of the core contributors who do Original Reporting and similar have a fair list of contributions.

I would like to propose a user-related category structure. Yes, it serves very little towards the project's goals, but it is - to me - a better recognition than your username in the page history. All proposed categories would be hidden, but users would be able to construct DPLs on their user pages to highlight articles where they were major contributors.

  1. A top-level category Category:Major contributors
  2. User-specific categories, eg Category:Contributor Brian McNeil, Category:Contributor Jason Safoutin, Category:Contributor Jon Davis, &c.

To stress, these would be hidden and for use by contributors. It would be great for people involved in things like the London bombing article to get their name on it in a discreet way, and where they've worked elsewhere build lists of such - for example, to me it would be really good to have a list of all the South Thailand insurgency articles I worked on; I spent a lot of time on that topic. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this a good idea. It would be easier than manually adding articles to my user subpage --RockerballAustralia (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Interesting idea. One question though, wouldn't this involve having to edit lots of archived pages just to add a category for an article one has written? For instance, i've written 300 articles. It'd take a lot of effort and time to add Category:Contributor Tempodivalse to all of them. Or are you suggesting we should only implement this for articles created in the future (i.e. don't bother adding them to archived articles)? Tempodivalse [talk] 01:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I might suggest a bot of some sort to add such categories to archived pages--RockerballAustralia (talk) 01:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Great idea! Commons has a similar system including user-specific hidden cats and it has worked quite well there. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Will this be opt in or opt out? Cirt (talk) 07:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say opt in --RockerballAustralia (talk) 07:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I like the idea, but what would be the criteria for adding the category? Does a user just have to consider themselves a major contributor, or would consensus be needed? Dendodge T\C 22:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Obtaining and determining consensus on hundreds of articles would be too time-consuming, I think. I'd say we should have a "3 medium-sized paragraph" limit to consider oneself a "major contributor" (the same amount as the minimum size for an article). Tempodivalse [talk] 22:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. Dendodge T\C 22:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd like it to be far less formal. I say we trust people to do it; after all, you can add a list to your userpage by yourself. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: Abolish the Portal: namespace

I was randomly browsing through some Wikinews pages today, and I came across Portal:New Zealand. I was quite surprised to discover that all the lead articles on the portal were way out of date - the most recent story listed was half a year old. A look through several other portal pages indicated that this was the case for many other portals. I got to thinking: the portal namespace is, for all practical purposes, an exact duplicate of the corresponding category namespace, except with a (usually out-of date) lead article and without the category lists at the bottom. IMHO, the portal does not have any additional benefits to the category: to the contrary, it's just another page that requires maintenance, and it takes a lot of effort to keep all the leads on them up to date (given that there are what, over 100 of them?). Take a look at Portal:Africa and Category:Africa. They're practically the same except for the topic boxes (which could easily be copied).

In short it seems like unnecessary effort to keep the portals around. As such, I propose to completely get rid of the namespace. Some ideas for how we could go about this:

  1. All portal redirects (i.e. UK, Russia, etc.) will be pointed at the corresponding category instead, possibly with the help of a bot.
  2. The different topic sections/boxes on portals (i.e. "Crime and law", "Politics and conflicts") can be copied to the corresponding category pages. We could have a bot do this as well, I don't think it should be terribly difficult to program.
  3. The "lead article" part will be completely removed, and will instead be replaced by a DPL, which would automatically keep everything up-to-date with the latest articles, instead of having to do it manually.

I understand that this might require a bit of effort, but my overall feeling is that removing the portal pages will be better for us in the long run. Thoughts? Tempodivalse [talk] 17:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. I once promised (was it Shakataganai? Bawolff?) that I would bring this up myself, but never did. I didn't know the future I predicted this morning was going to be set in motion by this afternoon! Seriously, these are far too much work to maintain and are a distraction from the main newswriting process. Sprucing up the category system is a much better aproach. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
On the English Wikipedia, the portal namespace works. It uses encylopedic content, which rarely goes out of date, and is more regularly updated. On a news site, however, especially one with such a small user base (in comparison), it fails due to the excessive speed at which news stories become no longer relevant. I think we should abolish the namespace, as it can never serve any purpose here. Dendodge T\C 18:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg kill kill kill Portal namespace is, and always was, a solution in need of problem imho. Historically we seemed to have some people with a rampant hatred of the alphabetical category listing (edits like this come to mind). Personally i don't see anything wrong with having both a DPL as well as the alphabetical list. Well we're at it, I strongly suggest we shoot {{geo-portal}} repeatedly. This template is used on all sorts of portals of extremely small places, that have roughly 10 articles, and then tries to split them up into different categories + a lead template, and just generally doesn't do a good job. Bawolff ☺☻ 18:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Has any thought been given on how to handle portal:Australia. To date, it is effectivly the only portal that has actually been used as a portal, and such has all sorts of interesting subpages - ex: Portal:Australia/in depth header among others, that do not fit into the category namespace. Bawolff ☺☻ 18:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
In regards to the issue i mentioned above, here is how I think we should proceede. Declare the portal namespace deprected, redirect all the portals to their respective category pages (we can do this slowly as we see links, or we can get a bot). Leave all the portal subpages (mostly stuff for wikinews importer bot and a couple of other odd pages, such as the various Australia subpages) intact. Slowly move any link to the portal namespace thats not to a subpage, to the equivelent category page, and just not create any new pages in the portal namespace. We will also have to move some subpages of mediawiki:Common.css and mediawiki:Common.js. We will also have to figure out how to deal with portal pages that don't have a specific category associated with them (Portal:North Korea nuclear proliferation and some of the weather pages) We could probably leave them where they are. (In case of the weather portals, some of them should probably be deleted) Bawolff ☺☻ 02:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. In the two years I spent on Wikinews as an active contributor, they never really got much use. And for the things that are there, a good majority of them are no longer maintained. --Thunderhead 21:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Kiwi and Auzzie contributors kept their respective portals going for quite a long time. Right now, that's a distraction; but, not a chance we should here and now deny to people. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikinews private fund

We have several times floated the idea of having our own little private fund for OR, advertising etc. My understanding of what the Foundation will require from us is very limited, but assuming someone is willing to negotiate with them I'm willing to draw up the actual proposal in my userspace.

My basic idea is that the Foundation agrees to give us up to $500-1,000 per anum, on the understanding we likely won't use anything like that much but it is there for a big project. Whatever amount we agree upon is the cap for our fund. At year's end, anything we haven't spent is rolled over into next year's fund, and the Foundation tops it off back to the agreed total.

The community would have to individually approve each request for funding before it was doled out. You can either spend first and run the risk we won't pay out later, or get advanced approval. Records should be obtained of all costs (i.e. get a receipt). I'd imagine the Foundation would want them.

There is a lot to be worked out, such as axactly when and how much we should pay as a guidance, and how to deal with foreign currencies, but how does this asic proposal strike people? Bearing in mind there is plenty of oppertunity to play around with the idea if I do start it up. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea and would be useful. I wasn't aware that the wmf allowed projects to set up their own funds? If it's possible, though, I say do it. US$500 thereabouts seems like a reasonable sum annually. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
There is, indeed, a lot to be worked out.
  • Any "general" fund will be a potential source of contention
  • Is use, for advertising, ever going to be appropriate - and effective?
  • If for reporter expenses, what is acceptable?
Any proposal to the Foundation is going to get seriously looked at such that it might seem under attack. There are some important issues to consider. The third point above could be a real can of worms for the WMF; imagine Wikipedians looking for expenses to do research, imagin how a community as small as ours could be overwhelmed. This last point might not be worth any general vested interest scheming for a mere $1000/year, but arguments over use of such could be "great copy" for more mainstream media - or those such as the wiki-watchers who log IRC channels and publish logs on the web. Yes, I have found #wikinews transcripts online. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Us having money isn't a bad idea, but more importantly, how would we (the community) approve the spending? We cannot have a group vote for every item, every time. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I actually don't see why not. It's not like we do vast amounts of stuff that might warrant it. That said, we might do much more if the money was there. Perhaps we should agree that accredited reporters are allowed to spend up to $15 travel/parking/entrance expenses per article without individual approval? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
This is the sort of thing that concerns me; set a point like this and you have to backtrack the process of getting to WN:AR so we know everyone is working to certain standards, performing due diligence, and working within a code of ethics.
We've had our 'visitors' in the past who've pushed that point because it supported their goals; so I would say there is more of a priority to have that framework before we have an expenses budget. There is — for Wikinews — a probable need to seek outside guidance on drawing up - say - Wikinews:Journalists' code of conduct, Wikinews:Legitimate claims for expenses, and others. The $15 guestimate does seem reasonable, but it has to be overseen in some way; this is less-contentious if there is a clear route to being a qualifying recipient, and specific standards that must be worked to, and apparent, to continue holding that privilege. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable and, more importantly, do-able if challenging. I'm happy to mock those up if we move ahead with this. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
<- IMHO, I still think the vote thing needs to be considered. If I were to apply for money from Wikinews, it'd be small amounts, for say paying admissions to some event I'm covering. Lets say we've got $1000usd a year and a pricey admission is $50. That's 20 votes a year. Personally, I think the votes should be left to 'crats only, allowing for comments from admins. I'm not suggesting this because I'm a 'crat, because frankly I don't want 20 more votes a year... but that is neither here nor there. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 21:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
How active are we crat-wise? If it's not too bad - and they actually do it - then I wouldn't have an issue with that. We can afford to take time about this, but something sitting around for weeks because there ain't many crats could kill the system. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Well I know there are 3 or 4 of us that are regularly active list --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 21:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

A lot of talk has been on how to make this whole process accountable. How about, if there is serious concern about misuse in breach of the future proposed stuff up there, we let Arbcom decide? Arbcom would have the power to ban someone from using the fund again. We could also perhaps order people to pay stuff back if they don't want barred altogether, and lose their autoprivilage. Instead, from then on they would just be expected to absorb most travel etc. expenses. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I think putting any disputes/concerns through ArbCom is the best idea, as we have more arbs than active bureaucrats (six versus about four). We'd be able to reach consensus much more effectively and quickly, as BRS points out above. Tempodivalse [talk] 22:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • My raising of a code of conduct, and an "expenses policy" was what I consider a precondition to asking for money. And, that we should have advice on that. As in, some of that 'discretionary sister-project spending' drawing up these policies based on professional journalistic experience and our input. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's what I said at the start. If we wanna go ahead I'd get to drafting stuff up. Pro help would be good though. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 00:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Then, what would be required is a summary of the points to be covered in each, plus considerations that have to be taken in light of the all-volunteer nature of contributions. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] iPhone version

I've just come across this site-www.intersquash.com, which makes an iPhone enabled page from any RSS feed. This is what results from our RSS feed for any iPhone/iPod Touch users-[1]. What do people think about redirecting iPhone users to the iPhone friendly version of the site, with a link back to the normal version?    Tris   09:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
personally i'd prefer if such mobile versions were done in house. Bawolff ☺☻ 18:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree, if someone can and will do. Any volunteers?    Tris   08:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Reboot of Print Edition

` I also came across this website-www.feedjournal.com, which makes print newspapers from an RSS feed. Their basic, trial version results in this for Wikinews-[2]. Unfortunately, in order to use it, it cost $59 a month. I asked the owner and he said he would do it for half price for non-profits etc. Implementing something like this would rejuvenate the print edition, as it could be automatically created every day/every week for people to download. So, thoughts?    Tris   09:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

All that produces is what's contained in the feed. It doesn't reproduce entire articles. And he seriously expects us to pay anything for that?! No thanks. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 11:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Meh. I tend to agree with BRS, all it does is produce little blurbs that don't provide much info - and it doesn't have any more info than the feed. If it made entire articles, i think that would be something to look into, but not when it copies the first few sentences only. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
The fact that it is only a section is because that is how the RSS feed is. I'm sure it would be pretty easy to get a full article RSS feed and only use it for the Print Edition. Yes, it's only doing what's in the feed but it's putting it into a nice format, it would all be Wikinews branded and we would have a daily paper without anymore extra effort. If you read the archives on the Print Edition, the problem is that it takes ages to compile and even then, in my opinion, didn't look as good as this. Also, if you read the archives you'll see that it can and does act as a very good marketing tool-if everyone left a few of PE's a day in their local library, reception etc.    Tris   16:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


What's to stop us creating our own autoversion, based off of Category:Published? Set up a DPL and get some code to follow the links. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

lack of people contributing code. Otherwise we definitly could have something crawl cat published, feed it through latex or something, and auto make pretty output. (The idea was tossed arround in the talk page of the print eddition a couple times). The only thing stopping us, is that no one has done it. Bawolff ☺☻ 18:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This is all looking good. One suggestion, Brian: You might as well delink everything. Some (most/all?) printers will reproduce the blue link, which looks crap on a paper version. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to mention that, but decided that this was probably intended to be a demonstration of the layout, rather than the content, and that it went without saying that the links would be removed in the real versions. Another complaint I have, albeit a minor one, is the large amount of whitespace on the last page. Could this be filled with something else, perhaps? I would also like it if the bottoms of the boxes were correctly lined up, but that makes virtually no difference and is hardly worth the effort involved. Dendodge T\C 22:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll see what I can do to delink stuff. For the last page, there is a real problem getting a balance. Anyone ideas on how to put as much of this on a page as possible ready to quickly cut and paste in? The latest version took about 10-15 minutes tops. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] V2 hackery

I'm working from the template I've got Z(just sending you updated copy DenDodge). Plus Main Page/PrintEd. From that page I cut and paste leads into the template. You select from the end of the text up until the picture is included in the section. Then, move on to the list of recently published, view each story, cut/paste headline, cut/paste text sections excluding IBs/imgs/quoteboxes. The WP FA is from their main page, as are the Wikiquote, Commons, and Wiktionary snippets.

If there's some way to change the template to allow the hyperlinks without blue & underline, let me know - I've done very little with OOo. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You can highlight all the text, then change the colour to black and turn off underline (I think you may have to click the underline button twice, since the first click underlines everything, then the second turns it off for everything). That's the quickest way, I think.
As for filling in the last page, I don't really have any ideas. Maybe we could just shove some request for donations or something there, if we can't think of anything else. At least it's better than whitespace. Dendodge T\C 23:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
So, we work on taking a number of days articles (for current uploaded version, 2). Add up to 1 story to fill whitespace, and have a column's worth of deletable filler to neaten up. That filler including fundraiser stuff. Does anyone know how to set OOo documents to "track changes"? This could be done a lot faster on the wikinews-l mailing list. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Water_cooler/proposals"
Navigation
Wikinews
Regions
Toolbox