Wikinews:Water cooler/proposals

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

Refresh

Archive


Decision time[edit]

It's time to make some decisions on accreditation requests that are (apparently) languishing in some sort of purgatory. (and, as a random aside: I cant for the life of me figure out why in the heck the ticker shows '4' pending accred. requests, when I can only seemingly find '3').....but, anyhoo........ --Bddpaux (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The {{votings}} template uses the number of pages in Category:Open accreditation requests; one open request wasn't properly transcluded onto the requests page; traced it from the category and transcluded it. --Pi zero (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Research reporting[edit]

I'm struggling to get a handle on where synthesis starts to transition over into data-mining. The immediate occasion is two articles we've published today (UTC), on the European deaf swimming championships and the world wheelchair basketball championships. There's limited secondary sourcing on this stuff, and significant effort goes into extracting the information... is it OR? Is it single-source synthesis? Is it something halfway between — and if so, how should we treat it (and what should we call it)?

I'd welcome others' thoughts on this. --Pi zero (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

As a minimum I'd be inclined to need further notes explaining how the reporter is analyzing the data for it to be called OR. Below that, I'd call it single source synthesis.--RockerballAustralia c 10:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
We both had the same thought about the first submission of world wheelchair basketball championships article. I allowed the second submission; would you have made the same call? --Pi zero (talk) 11:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
On quick perusal I probably would have. --RockerballAustralia c 03:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Just tossing out an idea[edit]

I've really had audio boxes on my mind lately.....thus I created this little sandbox bit. Who says/what says we couldn't have an article that's essentially 98% spoken audio? I'm not talking the text of an article read aloud to augment the article one can read right there on the screen.....I mean one or two photos, a headline and then just an audio bit....? We've had photo essays that only had 10-15 words of text attached.....so whey couldn't we do audio, where the audio is the article? .....like a radio news brief? --Bddpaux (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

A few thoughts.
  • Our existing review process works best with text. We struggle to apply it to audio news briefs — that's why we have the script: so a reviewer can do a preliminary review of the script, drastically reducing the likelihood of a problem that might cause a reviewer to awkwardly not-ready after recording. I think I've twice not-ready'd an audio after recording; it puts the reporter in the nasty position of doctoring the audio and puts the reviewer in the nasty position of putting the reporter in that position. An actual live broadcast is, as has been pointed out, another creature entirely, with nothing to be done except issue corrections after the fact. You want (it's been remarked, iirc) news anchors for that sort of thing — which is to say, people who have frankly experience with it, and who regularly get feedback on what glitches occurred and what could be done better; the whole feedback cycle works differently for that sort of thing and we'd need to put careful thought into how best to handle it (keeping in mind, it's already been a major challenge devising our existing feedback cycle to work on a wiki).
  • That's with stuff we compose ourselves, though. There's also stuff where you're carrying a live feed of an event taking place, and then you get to mix the two when you've got on-the-scene coverage with a reporter. These are really interesting questions, to which I for one have few-to-no answers yet (but I'm very much in favor of asking the questions, because we need to not stagnate on any front).
  • As a matter of accessibility, we want to provide a transcript of audio content. At its simplest, this is because we can more safely assume that all our readers can read than that they can all hear. (Also, text is way lower bandwidth, and can be consumed in any number of situations where playing sound is out of the question.)
--Pi zero (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Very salient points. I cant stop thinking that providing different models/formats on articles help to keep things fresh. Maintaining a true multi media experience can only be a plus, IMO. --Bddpaux (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Transcripts of Wikipedia Signpost interviews?[edit]

Please feel free to take part in the discussion at wikipedia:Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost#Transcripts of audio interviews. John Carter (talk) 00:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

John Carter, that's a kind invitation. Truly it is. Perhaps you're not aware of the politics involved, though. I suspect any known Wikinewsie getting involved in that conversation would give Tony1 apoplexy; he's despised Wikinews, and openly plotted its destruction, for years (ever since he humiliated himself here). Using dishonest tactics often involving Signpost. --Pi zero (talk) 01:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)