Talk:Mozilla, Creative Commons, Wikimedia Foundation announce Bassel Khartabil Free Culture fellowship following execution of open culture activist

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

@Ymnes: please use date format like "August 13, 2017". And I would not advise subsections. Plus, the focus should be on Wikimania and Mozilla paying tribute and launching (whatever they have), so should be the headlines. Remember, the primary focus of the article becomes what those two communities are doing, then the tone be why and for whom they are doing, following his death and the obituary material.
103.254.128.118 (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I corrected where I could. Please feel free to change whatever you feel is necessary, to fit it into a text structure with a new focus. Ymnes (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Focus[edit]

@Ymnes: (Sorry I wasn't able to get involved for most of the water cooler discussion.) Some thoughts on this; I realize it's under development.

An en.wn article should be built around a focal event; the headline and lede should be about the focal event, with the headline telling the most important and unique thing about the focal event, and the lede succinctly answering most (as many as reasonably possible) of the five Ws and an H about it. The selection of a suitable focal event is important. Usually, the focal event needs to be something that very recently happened at the time the article is published here. If I'm reading the article correctly, the execution cannot actually be the focus, such it apparently happened two years ago. I'm under the impression the revelation of the execution took place more than a week ago; if so, that wouldn't be a suitable focus either. If neither of those two things is the focus, then something else, something more recent will need to be the focus, and the headline will need to be changed to refer to the new focus. --Pi zero (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

It is stll under development. See in the water cooler and over here. Ymnes (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
@Ymnes: and @Pi zero: TL;DR I have mentioned it above, and I would be working on that part after I wake up. (If it is not done by then)
103.254.128.118 (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Review of revision 4338430 [Passed][edit]

Attribution[edit]

Considering this, I have decided to keep the complete attribution unlike "courtesy". (Ironic, isn't it how Wikinews instructs others how to copy them, but when Wikinews has to use a file, the license requirement is a courtesy.)
acagastya PING ME! 11:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

We discussed this off-wiki (you were part of that discussion, acagastya), and it seemed clear, from my understanding of the discussion, that it's not necessary to do this, i.e., that if not for courtesy credit (which does not always mention the copyright holder, but rather is a courtesy to the photographer) linking to the file page is sufficient. --Pi zero (talk) 11:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Note, however, that that is in general. This article is explicitly about Creative Commons, amongst other things, which does give it a different social status. --Pi zero (talk) 11:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I had sent a mail to CC asking about it. They advised to follow the link, and attribution can not be overlooked. It is a personal choice for how I want to, so until it doesn't violate any of the two licenses, I hope you stop reverting, and stick by the requirements of free content. Funny, that Wikinews' article, if copied, MUST stick to CC license but it hurts to maintain the free spirit.
103.254.128.118 (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
It's obviously not that big a deal either way since there are plenty of examples either way in our archives. However, since we've discussed this seriously and established that attribution is not neglected either way, I admit I find it rather distasteful that you've repeatedly falsely accused me of disregarding that concern. (Btw, on a separate note: The response of CC to your query, if I'm understanding rightly what you asked, is kind of predetermined; they pretty much couldn't afford to answer differently. It's a bit like various situations, here in the US, where doctors cannot afford to admit certain sorts of obvious truths because it could leave them open to obnoxious expensive litigation whose outcome may have nothing to do with its merits.) --Pi zero (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)