User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 1

Misc

If you are here to request administrator action, dispute resolution, or you have a question:

Feel free to ask any one of the active administrators listed on Wikinews:Administrators, or post a request on Wikinews:Admin action alerts. For dispute resolution, see Wikinews:Dispute resolution.

WikiVoices #51

I'm here for that. Yay. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Flagged Revisions

I tried to read through the full discussion on your enWP talk page; it mostly reminded me why I dislike The Other Place - you're talked to death before any work gets done. The one, perhaps non-obvious, point I vehemently agree with is that the WMF needs to take a much more active role as toolmakers.

I'll bug a couple of local people for info on what Huggle is; it seems there is a huge focus on RC patrol and vandalism reversion. On the flip-side, deWP have shown that being unable to admire your handiwork makes IP vandals walk away. That is a definite win. If not already in place, here's an initial point that might gain a percent or two more support:

• If an IP edits a page marked with Flagged Revs they're invited to register, or sign into their account and claim the edit. Invite them to become a project contributor, establish a reputation, and improve project content.

This also solves the headache some contributors have who're paranoid about their IP being visible in logs.

Now, our EzPR gadget is more like what I'd expect on a GA, or FA - in most cases, that'd be using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. The need is for a flexibility to vary between completely open, anyone's edit instantly visible to the world, and a full-blown formal review. We have that headache here too; once an article passes initial EzPR how do we decide if subsequent updates require a full-blown re-review, or simply click 'fine' because it's a grammar or spelling fix?

For us, that'd ideally be getting the diff of an unreviewed change and being able to push it in several possible directions:

1. This is fine, thanks for making that correction.
2. This is nonsense, I've reverted it.
3. This is unsourced, I'm not sighting it, but it'll be reverted in x hours if it isn't backed up with a source.
4. This is a really substantial change, seemingly within policy, I'm moving to do a review of it, or flagging it for a fellow reviewer who has more time.

I was also highly amused that you snagged one of my troubleshooter catchphrases; "what is the problem you are trying to solve?" That is usually reserved for utterly non-technical people who've been telling me, "make simple change x" which is, in reality, 2-3 man-years of development. [Example: I once had a client ask me to change an ERP system to include the last 2 digits of the year as a prefix in invoice numbers. The problem he wished to solve was starting invoice numbering from 1 every financial year. Archiving all invoices at year-end was unacceptable to him, and he was adamant,... Until after 3 days analysis I listed 500+ programs needing changed to accomodate him. You can imagine what that would've cost; he quickly settled for a tweak to a half-dozen programs to display and print numbers with a year prefix.]

Now, anecdote out the way, can you precis what the nay-sayers to Flagged Revs in The Other Place have? Ignore those utterly ideologically opposed to it, those you think would never accept any type of implementation. What, as bullet points, are the primary gripes? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

RfdR

Wikinews:Flagged_revisions/Requests_for_permissions#Jimbo_Wales_.28talk_.C2.B7_contribs.29 — μ 09:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikinews:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions‎

Hi Jimbo. Your last edit to the above appears to have been made to an old revision by mistake, accidentally cutting out a lot of comments posted since. I'd fix it myself, but I'm preoccupied in mainspace right now. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Edgar181 (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Accidental removal of other editors' comments?

[1] = was this an accidental removal of other editors' comments? -- Cirt (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I'll fix it now, if it hasn't been fixed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Apologies

I apologize for this. I felt you were trying to ... have some special treatment for being... dunno, the founder of Wikimedia or something like that. I'm really sorry. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 01:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer, trust versus knowledge, and seeing eye-to-eye

Jimbo,

Regardless of what problems there have previously been on Wikinews, I do feel that this is actually a communications failure and not hostility. I'm hoping here to salvage things before both sides get permanently wrong views of what the other side was up to.

I'm pro-inactivity-removal, but not strongly so, and I take the view users should be notified first. That, however, is a general view not really relevant here. Reviewer is a special tool in that mere trust is not sufficient; if it were, I doubt the nomination would be made. Half the problem is I don't think anyone has properly explained to you how we view the tool — partly because it was doled out to you before we properly worked out what we were doing with it and then, frankly, forgotten about.

The present attitude and consensus on Wikinews is that users should first display basic knowledge of our style guide, as well as avoidance of copyvio, factual accuracy and NPOV. In your case, I think the last three can be safely considered things you know already(!) — I'll touch back on that point later.

I think a very fair question from someone not active on Wikinews is "why on Earth would you do that?!" (or less polite versions of the same). That seems to be your view; and why, indeed, do we make users learn first? The reason is that Wikinews has decided to set itself up so that articles have a phenominally high standard before they are published — i.e. no content should go out until everything has been checked out, including news-style. (There is a discussion underway about the future of this model, such as cutting it back or even scrapping it, but for the time being that's how it is.)

So, in this case there's something greater at stake than mere minor security - there's quality. A fundamental difference between WN and almost any other wiki is that elsewhere, no matter how badly you mess something up with literally any tool (except, perhaps, highly specialist things like CU and Oversight) it can be fixed. So don't worry and get stuck in. Because of how we have set ourselves up, once something's out there it's out there. It goes out on Twitter, into Google News etc. We've decided that we want these to be the best we possibly can — a very high ideal (and, as hinted above, one which we may yet abandon). Policy has continued to evolve over the last few years, such that an inactive reviewer could easily miss changing standards — though my opinion is people should be informed of such changes.

So, my interpretation of things is that you've come here thinking of this as a mere trust issue. Coming into it with that attitude - which is a reasonable view for you to take, given a) nobody has ever properly explained things to you b) every other tool everywhere else is mainly or entirely about trust — then cutting out inactive peoples looks hostile. Your responses then in turn wrongly appear hostile to the community and Bad Things happen needlessly. Oh, which reminds me: it's strongly implied by my other comments there, but I am satisfied you meant no 'emotional blackmail'; I withdraw that. It seems I too have contributed to the communications breakdown.

One thing that has not helped is that you've been nommed individually when in fact there are a number of users it could have been; and that discussion on what our policy should be has only happened after the nom — perhaps not the best judgement (ah, the pleasures of retrospective thought). That comes accross as targetting you — I genuinely believe it was never specifically about you.

Part of my reason for writing all this is that you and I are actually in-tune in our lines of thought. While we can't hand bits straight out to trustowrthy people from other wikis, like en.wp, it is fair to say that the learning curve for them consists entirely of getting used to two things: The local style guide, and proper verification of Original Reporting. As mentioned above, copyvio, NPOV, proper sourcing &c are hardly new concepts for active Wikimedians. As I've mentioned at the nom, WP admins etc could be informed they'd very quickly be ready for the tool.

I also like the mention you made on Diego's talk — " wonder if you'd like to come on IRC sometime and get a tutorial and see what we're doing with it..." — spot on. The other night, following on from this, I'd wondered about forming ourselves some sort of crash course to quickly work experienced Wikimedians into reviewers. I'd been thinking text-based on-wiki, but informal IRC-work also sounds good to me.

These are exciting ideas, though pace is currently so slow I worry about getting them to stay. In any event, I'd love to see how present discussions on our future go and how they might impact active recruitment of established people from The Other Place.

In closing, I thank you for reading this massive spiel — in particular since writing it has left me with no stamina for the daunting task of proofreading what I just wrote, which probably means it's Pleonasm Central - a small breakaway dictatorship with it's capital city on Mt. Typo (elevation: over 9,000 ft). So well done on getting through it. I hope this goes some way to clearing things up and to making clear what should have been explained long ago - and I also look forward to seeing what comes from the positives generated tangentially to all the arguments. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it is still 100% a trust issue. All you need is a notice in the right place to tell trusted users the steps, and to please not review something if they aren't sure of the steps. And if they do it anyway, non maliciously, you just thank them for the effort, fix what needs fixing, and give them some tips for next time.

Anything that is not irreversible, anything that is fixable with minimal effort, ought to be available to as many people as possible. That's what makes wikis work.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Publishing to Google News is not reversible. The review process uses various gadgets to automate doing so; someone with the relevant right can do so with about a half-dozen mouseclicks. Within the last week, several UK papers have been found guilty of contempt of court for use of an inappropriate photo which appeared online for less than an hour. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 08:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Right. We don't want our editors in court. Further, publish is neither reversible nor fixable with any amount of effort. It's done, we've published something, and the best we can do if needed is issue a notice in its place that the article content has been withdrawn. Englsih libel law is infamous and iirc Carter-Fuck have rulings which make the entire Internet fair game before a British court (they've certainly tried it); meanwhile, libel is a criminal offence in Italy and the European Arrest Warrant lurks in the shadows. As Amanda Knox will tell you, there's only one verdict when foreigners are prominantly tried over there - and I'll take my chances with an extradtion request on that one. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The legal argument is not compelling at all; you might as well argue against open editing altogether. There is no particular reason to suppose that Wikinews editors are at any more risk than editors at any of our projects, and a fair amount of reason to suppose that they are at less risk, since Wikinews is not nearly as popular as Wikipedia. Additionally, we are talking about the right as extended to known members of the wider community - me for example, or Wikipedia administators - all of whom can be trusted not to go through a process with a half-dozen mouseclicks (with suitable warnings along the way about what is about to happen) and publish something without first learning what to do.

I can't think of any reason why Wikinews should subject itself to more stringent fears about libel than any other Wikimedia project. Individual contributors who do the wrong thing are always at risk in any project.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

While I entirely agree with you, Jimbo, about the legal paranoia, there is a fundamental difference between en.WN articles and en.WP articles: en.WN articles have a very limited time to get it right, after which the article is frozen and never substantively changed even where the published article is wrong. To exemplify this, see Category:Corrected articles. In some respects publishing en.WN articles without knowing or caring about our publishing policies would be like arbitrarily deleting articles on en.WP without knowing w:WP:PROD - it would piss off the locals, and shows a serious lack of civility. Yes, en.WN is tiny compared to en.WP (I've suggested it be closed), but it is no less, and no more, territorial than its bigger sister. - Amgine | t 17:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Now, Amgine, I prefer 'cynicism' to 'paranoia'. At any rate, I'm not going to cary on with this conversation; I've done what I set out to do - explain. This is morphing into a debate on the wider model currently employed on Wikinews - which is fine, but we've already got one of those and I'd rather have the discussion there, and not on any individual's talkpage. For your benefit specifically, Jimbo, lest you are unaware: I'm pointing at Wikinews:Water cooler/policy#Re-opening worm of cans: Radically alter or dump the develop-review-publish process when I say that. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit late to this discussion, but I was on vacation when it happened, so I hope you'll all forgive me;).

There are a few reasons why reviewer isn't handed out to every admin from every project Jimbo, and, contrary to what some people here have been denying, trust is indeed part of the reason. Here's an incomplete list:

1) Every project has different standards for raising someone to admin. On some projects (en.wikipedia), the standards are high (waaaaay too high). On others (such as the Strategic Planning wiki or Arabic Wikinews, when those projects were active) the standards are low enough that essentially anyone could become an admin simply by asking politely. Those projects don't meet our standards.

2) Due to the inherent nature of the reviewer flag and the powers it grants, people with it have the potential to cause just as much harm to the project as people with an admin flag on en.wikipedia. Does the fact that I'm an admin on this wiki and a bureaucrat on another mean that I automatically get an admin flag on en.wikipedia? No. Should it? No. Just because I'm an admin here doesn't mean I understand all the relevant policies (and project needs!) on the various wikipedias. The same principle applies here. I don't see how you can ask us to allow Wikipedians full access to a fundamental process on Wikinews that they don't understand (it takes most people a week or three to pick it up... there is quite a bit to learn), while you would never consider asking them to extend the same (unnecessary, counterproductive) courtesy to us.

3) Right now en.wikinews is listed on Google News... barely. We had to fight with them to get listed, and we had to make significant concessions (implement flagged revisions, implement a mandatory peer review process, and, using those two systems, implement a "trusted editors" program). It took a long time, and it was a lot of work. What you're suggesting would open us up to getting delisted. (Of course, Google News is perfectly willing to list conspiracy theorist blogs, and random rambles from any idiot with a press badge and web access with No Questions Asked. Personally I think they have something against wikis, which ticks me off >:(. )

All that said, I agree with you that we should be trying (harder) to recruit admins from other projects. In spite of the reservations about their lack of knowledge about our necessary practises, they're by-and-large a more trustworthy and knowledgeable group than any random person who we recruit off the 'tubes. We just shouldn't give them a reviewer flag *immediately*. After three weeks of contributions with no significant problems? Sure, why not. No reason not to at that point. Furthermore we should be trying to partner up with journalism schools, getting students to write articles for us. Unfortunately that latter is easier said than done. We've made initial inquires, and most journalism profs seem to be firmly stuck in the mid-20th century:(. Gopher65_talk 16:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion migration

I copied your comments to Microchip08 to the ongoing WC discussion, and responded to them there. I hope you don't mind. - Amgine | t 21:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

privs

Busy elsewhere? We understand, but this is a notice of privilege expiry!

Note! Your privileges on English Wikinews have been reduced.

Under the Privilege expiry policy (enacted October 13, 2012) the rights held by your user account have been reduced due to inactivity, or lack of privilege use. You can view your user rights log here.

The privilege reduction is in no way intended as a reflection on your past work, or to imply you are unwelcome. The aim in curtailing privileges is to address security risks, and concern that a long period of inactivity means you may not be up-to-date with current policy and practices.

--Pi zero (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Quality of today's journalism

Hi Wikinewsies. Best to talk to me at en.wikipedia, I don't check my userpage here often. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jimbo Wales (talk • contribs)

That was December 25, 2007, Jimmy. The below was your initial promise to the project; so, I really am unhappy you're being critical of Jason's sporadic editing via twitter.

You are going to see me here and editing far more than you're used to seeing me on Wikipedia, at least in these very early days, because I want to really deeply understand issues that arise. My edits to articles should be treated no differently than anyone else's, of course. :-) Jimbo Wales 12:58, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've not had time to watch your Wikimania keynote - which tends to end-up the case if you end up doing 50+ hours per-week, as one of only two product specialists in the UK (the other here on a visa); and, working on the early days of a five-million pound contract.

All I can comment on there, would be your 'reported concerns' over technical cluelessness amongst the mainstream press. Those, as reported by the Wall Street Journal, told me one thing; you likely never glance beyond the front page of the project.

Take a look at our Featured Articles; read the Water Cooler; and — this is the important bit — if you think we don't know how to do journalism properly, you are quite mistaken. I do the 'hardcore tech reporting, a 'touch' of GLAM; and, the odd "political" piece where I hold "strong opinions". I even have an open invite for tea, with this man - which I am most-welcome to cart my recording kit along to.

The world's hardest-working Wikinewsie? That'd be this guy, not me.

Meet our Iain, who covers disasters when not swamped with his studies. Or, does his homework so well, he's mistaken for someone highly-qualified in the field he chose, at that time, to report upon. You already know Laura Hale, she's a quite prolific contributor who did the sensible thing. She read all the policies, and listened to feedback on her efforts to contribute.

Journalism is a craft, not a trade. Absolutely every single dedicated contributor to this project would agree wholeheartedly with the remarks you made, in a WikiVoices session, when questioning the possible lift of the "Balloon Boy Drama".

We've had several semesters of university students assigned to contribute to the project; and, it has opened the eyes of those prepared to accept Wikinewsies know "The Craft".

The problem? The one we've not worked out — yet — is retaining them until we trust them to review the work of others.

Your page has been reverted many, many, times to a "please dial 1-800-WIKIPEDIA for Jimbo Wales". I would ask one of my fellow Wikinewsies to pick up where I'm leaving off. That, since I'm getting picked up and taken to the airport in under an hour.

Ask people in Wikimedia UK about what else I'm trying to make happen; but, bear in mind that the absolute last thing Wikinews needs is a huge influx of new contributors who are not prepared to concede mainstream media has probably, and in a quite fundamental manner, corrupted their ability to simply 'read' the news. Even, sadly, encyclopaedists.

Our critics within the WMF movement would have you believe we're "useless" because we've not built the same sausage-making machine as the big wire agencies. That, they fail to see, would be completely and utterly pointless.

Wikinews does need help. But, it needs well-understood first. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 03:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• Before adding a notice on Jimmy's talk page over in The Other Place, I'd like to invite the other, current contributors — or past authors of OR — to counter-sign my remarks; perhaps contributing a few words of their own on where they believe Wikinews needs help. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Supporting Wikinewsies

• --Gryllida 21:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
• News contribution isn't something you do for a couple of minutes in the evening while microwaving a frozen dinner. News writing comes in big increments of labor, ranging up to really big increments of labor for high-end original reporting. Many of our valued veteran contributors are gone for months at a time; judging who's "active" that way fails to understand the nature of the project. Just like reporter activity doesn't necessarily create much of a blip in edit count; a big article might be created in one edit, submitted for review in a second edit, and then a reviewer spends twenty edits or so on copyedits during review on a high-quality submission, so that the reviewer comes out of it with ten times the edit count of the reporter. --Pi zero (talk) 21:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
• Wikinews needed to figure out what it could do that was new. Wikipedia was a new concept. Commons was a new concept. A news site isn't. There's lots of news sites, so Wikinews decided to focus intensely on quality. It's a logical expansion on the NPOV policy. That's what everyone here fundamentally believes is worth pursuing: Extremely high standards. Otherwise, we produce something of little value compared to the endless piles of advertising-driven material in national publications. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

[restoring Tony's comment to its original position in the thread, after it was moved and placed under an insulting heading by Brian McNeil in this edit, taking Jimbo's comments out of their original context. –Neotarf (talk) 06:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)]

• Sorry, this thread can't go unanswered. The English Wikinews is of such poor quality in nearly every respect that I can't begin to imagine the leap of faith required to accept these claims. [Warning: they really don't like being criticised, but I have steel armour against the torchings. Someone has to speak the truth.] Tony1 (talk) 09:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Brian's hostility is unfortunately all too familiar and, all too familiarly, violates even the most basic standard of decent journalism or decent conversation, and that's to get the simple facts right. "I really am unhappy you're being critical of Jason's sporadic editing via twitter" is to be unhappy about something that is completely and utterly false. I have not been in any way critical of Jason, nor his sporadic editing here. I did note it to him, in a private conversation, as a suggestion that he might agree with me that a new approach is worth trying. As to the rest of Brian's remarks - they are entirely beside the point. I am well aware of and admire the good work done by good Wikinewsies. The hostility towards me is entirely unwarranted.

One of the things I said to Jason in our private conversation is this: "Imagine if wikinews were your job." Pi zero is right - "News contribution isn't something you do for a couple of minutes in the evening while microwaving a frozen dinner." It seems abundantly clear to me that to get citizen journalism from where it is today to having hundreds of quality reporters doing good work, is going to require something more and something new.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Jason has it you directly juxtaposed the concept of a new idea with Jason's present inactivity. Given the amount that user has contributed to making WN what it is xe was justifiably upset.

Your last para implies you have ideas rumbling around about this much-discussed but rarely-elaborated 'new direction'. Pray tell, I for one am intrigued. Provided they don't sacrifice the high standards we have decided to strive for they may well be of interest to the community. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Not only was there nothing that I said that anyone could possibly be justifiably upset about, there is no evidence that he actually was upset. Indeed, we had a lovely conversation in which he expressed support for new innovations and agreed that maybe we do need a big change. He can weigh in here and I welcome the publication of our private conversation in full. The idea that I was somehow nasty to Jason and Brian is taking me to task for it is incorrect.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────┘
I said Jason was "unhappy"; largely because he'd bite your fingers off at the armpit if he could work on Wikinews as a full-time job. You made him feel guilty for putting food on the table, and keeping a roof over his head, rather than doing something he loves; was that your intent? No, nor did I think such. If I won the lottery, I'd put him on a living wage, equip him, and ask where in the world he wanted to go and report from. I'd probably strongly disapprove of where he'd pick, because I really do not want to see him killed because of his sexuality.

Anyway, following your keynote, which raised concerns with me that you've been seriously misled about Wikinews, via The Signpost, I thought it would be foolhardy to attempt opening a discussion anywhere else. No hostility intended, criticism of not being "situationally aware", but that all comes down to choice of news sources.

So, please do not mistake brevity — or curt remarks — as someone being actively hostile. As others note, every WMF project has that problem somewhere. I was not being hostile, nor was such my intent. I apologise if this has, ironically, found you feeling a similar 'twinge of guilt' to Jason's.

Here, on Wikinews, people are far, far, less-tolerant because: we do not have time to discuss things to death. For example, when we say "No" to blindly importing "US Government propaganda" (courtesy of Voice of America) we have very good reasons for saying that. Searching the WN:WC archives is then left as an exercise for the student.

Importing Serbian-language, US State-Department funded, propaganda has seen srWN shoot past English Wikinews article-count wise, but killed contribution and readership.

And, I state that I intend to ignore Tony1, because xe has yet to offer a single point of constructive criticism. Xe has even edited grammatical errors into our Style Guide! And, xe makes no secret whatsoever that xe is sitting down-under going: "Wikinews! Die! Die! Die!" Why? Because xe wants to replicate the Associated Press' "sausage machine".

Writing for The Signpost doesn't make you a journalist. Never will. Merely a, "Commentator with a Conflict of Interest".

As to my hostility? I was at Wikimania, in 2008, to ask for what Wikinews needed; not only did I feel hugely let-down that I got nods, and naught more; I then returned to Belgium, was rushed to hospital, underwent emergency surgery to remove a blood-clot from upper-right thigh whilst fully conscious. (FYI, I really appreciated the Interflora from the WMF — because my partner left for six weeks in Thailand the day after my operation). Now, fast-forward to when I moved back to Scotland; when at my most-irascible, it just-so happened I was homeless and working my way through that horrific system. Ten Months In Hell. I ended up in hostels that'd seen nothing more than a lick of paint in the last 30-40 years. They were, mostly, owned by a family the local paper once-described as "The modern-day Rachmans". I reported ongoing, and pretty damn serious, criminal activity to the police; it was not acted-up in a way that led to any 'real' investigation, the police simply had me moved to another hostel because of death-threats from a couple of junkies (who would've been happier in prison where they could score smack more-easily).

I'm really sorry Tempodivalse got it in the neck; but, he was expecting Wikipedia-style discussion when the Wikinews contributor-pool cannot support that. Whilst homeless, I suffered a Transient ischemic attack when out for a walk with a girlfriend, but I was in a position where English Wikinews would've been the news project that died, not the TOG fork, had the Wikipediaization gone anywhere. AGF, as a perfect example of an utterly inappropriate policy to import, could be wikilawyered into "take, at face value, the lies spewed by some convicted criminal celebrity's publicist." Personally, I really wish more of the fork contributors would come back — we lost some good people there.

I've worked very, very, hard not to go off-the-deep-end at anyone in such a foul-mouthed manner since. But, and this is a big part of the problem, Journalists can't "Assume Good Faith", and trust must be earned.

Now as you know better than most, Jimmy, if you expect hostility, you will automatically see it in critical language where there is no intention to have remarks taken in way.

The precise point in starting this discussion? It rests on one, pretty simple question to yourself:

From the links I provided, and reading some of the highlighted articles: Would you say it appears we know what we're doing?

There's a lot of reading there, and I know you're kept busy, so just try this one. From the 3rd-hand relaying of what you said in your keynote, I believe it addresses all the hot points you bemoaned. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a log of what Jason told me, but from memory the opening was closely along the lines of "I see you have been inactive for some time. Perhaps you agree a new approach is required." The strong implication in that is Jason isn't editing because he feels the current approach is wrong. I'll go poke User talk:DragonFire1024 and see what comes of it. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

"I see you haven't edited since May. Perhaps you agree with me that a new approach is worth trying." That wasn't an approach but in the midst of a conversation. His response to me was favorable. He indicated that he hasn't edited because work interferes with his time (a concern that others in this thread on this page have indicated) and I responded "Imagine if wikinews were your job." He responded very favorably to that and ended up agreeing with me that perhaps a new approach is warranted. There was no suggestion or indication from him that he was in any way insulted or offended by the conversation. (And if he was, he would be unreasonable, since if it isn't even possible to talk about new models without offending, then real progress is not possible.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I see you have elevated 'upset' to 'insulted or offended'. The lack of comment on any of myriad other points raised suggests to me carrying on this conversation is unlikely to be constructive, especially since I'm trying to ease in fairly gently after a yearlong absence of my own (studies, illness). I shall leave it to others to continue if and as they see fit. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Was I upset? No. Was I Insulted? Maybe just a little bit, but not offended. I guess disappointed is the word I'm looking for. I have gone above and beyond 'writing' news in my time. Whether I'm paid for it or not is no big deal to be, but would be pretty awesome. My disappointment comes because with the contributions I've made, I'm surprised I had gotten the response of "I see you haven't edited since May. Perhaps you agree with me that a new approach is worth trying." As I said before, my real life job stops me from doing the work I love to do: writing OR pieces. I don't have a lot of time to research the items I would love to research. Me not contributing has nothing to do with the way WN or any other project is going. I am not a developer. I am not a technical expert. My main goal on WN has always been reporting the news or writing in depth pieces. So anything relating to the technical aspect of WN is not my cup of tea and often I feel like a deer in headlights. I guess when we had the conversation we had Jimbo, I was hoping you actually had some ideas. At least by the sound of the conversation I thought that's where it was going...but after I replied to you regarding "what if WN was my job..." and I said "I wish it was," the conversation stopped. I am more than willing to brainstorm ideas for WN as best as I can. But it's not a one man job and if anyone has good ideas, they should be presented instead of ignoring it altogether. As I said I write articles and any technical ideas are not my cup of tea. I guess I got excited over nothing. With that said, I would advise anyone who thinks shutting us down is a good idea, to actually take the time and look at our past works and accomplishments. In my opinion, those who have tried to shut us down, have failed to do so.

Hostility exists on every WMF project. I would even go as far as saying it is most so on Wikipedia. If anything, the project as a whole has nothing but hatred for us and would rather they be the only project to exist. I will also say, and i have before, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a new site or a blog. I grow tired of hearing the POV pushing signpost bad mouth us and anyone else they can get their hands on. Wikipedia needs to get their priorities straight as an encyclopedia before Wikipedians/Wikimedians decide to take their frustration out on WN...which is almost a constant thing. And maybe they need to practice what they preach such as not using WMF projects for their own personal theater of war. So lets not point fingers at who...because it takes two to tango and Wikipedia is hardly innocent. Writing news isn't something that's easy. If you don't have it in you, then you don't have it. If you aren't willing to follow policies or take criticism, then writing news is not for you. Taking all those things into account, and then some, doesn't mean every contributor on Wikinews is hostile and mean and it certainly doesn't mean the project is a failure. Just because you don't get your way, doesn't make Wikinewsies bad people. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Despite the many Wikipedians of good will, it's sadly true Wikipedia has a very unfriendly vein in its atmosphere. I often wish I knew how to help Wikipedia, which was after all my first love amongst wikimedian projects. Alas, the only measure I've identified that might help if adopted would more likely, if I named it here, be mistaken for trolling (which I fear is already a rampant problem in this thread). --Pi zero (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe this thread lost the thought about something new, and got distracted by Jason things. --Gryllida 21:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Critics with no 'Wikinews track record'

[I have restored the comment that Brian McNeil "refactored" here with this edit and restored it to its original position in the above thread, to keep Jimbo's comments in their original context.–Neotarf (talk) 06:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)]

Our interaction ban, Tony1, was over on Wikipedia. I did expect you to comment here, but you're not here to listen — nor have you ever come here willing to do so, and to learn — so, I will ignore you. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Ignore me? That would be a gift. But there has never been an "interaction ban" that you speak of.

Jimbo, if you can do something to end the serious embarrassment this broken model is causing, that would be great. Ending en.WN and starting up something vaguely professional at your own site would be worth considering. Anything to stop the WMF's trademark being tarnished in this way. Tony1 (talk) 03:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo's point about McNeil's hostility (above) is amply demonstrated by McNeil's attempt to deceive everyone by moving my comment down here, under an uncivil title, too. So he thought he'd make it look as though Jimbo was not directly answering my critical comment. He was. Why is McNeil still in a position of authority at en.WN? To answer one of McNeil's rebuttals to me, above, I have indeed offered helpful comments to a regular here when she approached me by email about how to get en.WN out of its malaise. There was a triple exchange of messages, from memory. But I wasn't willing to give much more, since I see no evidence that the WN model is viable as currently structured.

Just one last point: since you falsified the title here when deceptively relocating my comment, you might answer to it—why is a WN "track record" necessary if a member of the Wikimedia movement is to provide input here? More calculated, self-serving xenophobia? Tony1 (talk) 06:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec) But I don't understand this hostility to the Signpost. It's not like we're in competition for readers; our focus is completely different. And the quality of Wikinews speaks for itself. All you have to do is look at today's front page to get an idea: international news alongside "original reports" on...Australian rugby? –Neotarf (talk) 07:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Neotarf, I don't know you, so I'll suppose you aren't trolling. (This whole thread btw, I'm painfully aware, is likely to be mistaken as Wikinews trolling Jimmy. Knowing Brian as well as I do, I can tell you for sure, that's not the case. Wikinews culture can mislead Wikipedians, and vice versa. And I'm pretty sure Jimmy, even though I don't know him nearly as well, isn't trolling either even though some of his comments could easily look that way to Wikinewsies — though both of them might be better off not engaging each other directly because they just don't tend to get on well with each other however much they might try.)

I'm willing to believe someone could contribute to the Signpost and yet not be aware it functions as an anti-Wikinews propaganda outlet. If you only hear one voice, day in and day out for months and years, trashing Wikinews — and if you don't come to Wikinews with an open mind to find the truth, you can be misled. The insidious trap is that with enough anti-Wikinews indoctrination it becomes increasingly difficult for you to have an open mind. Signpost has refused to post stories that expose major Wikinews successes, such as our access to the London Paralympics, and what they do publish is generally anti-Wikinews propaganda.

Perhaps you've been misled about the core mission of Wikinews. If you mistakenly thought we were here to provide a precis of the "big" international stories of the day, then you'd see what the more rabid sororicidal faction want you to see when you look at the main page. But that isn't what we're here for. Making that our priority would be doing a disservice to the world. What the world needs is high journalistic standards in an open wiki. It's a tall order requiring deep insight into both journalism and wikis. We've conceived a fusion of the wikimedian ideal of achieving neutrality through a nonprofit open wiki with journalistic principles; it's a really marvelous thing, and day by day, month by month, year by year, we look for, and find, ways to do it better. We're in this for the long haul; creating something new under the sun takes patience. And we look at the main page and are proud of the fine work we're doing. --Pi zero (talk) 12:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Patience indeed. It looks like the same criticisms that were leveled at Wikinews back in April are still valid. Maybe someone should have given some thought to answering those criticisms, instead the Signpost editor-in-chief is called a "shithead". –Neotarf (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Mine is nearing an end; in the face of a sustained campaign to have the project closed, I shall ask someone from Wikimedia UK to pick up where I simply cannot spare the time to deal with certain individuals. And, despite Pi zero's good-faith efforts to engage, Neotarf, it is patently obvious you're a meatpuppet — or unwittingly being manipulated — into repeating what suits the agenda of this project's most-shrill critics. Thankfully, they "don't do content". --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Brian, I'm saddened to admit you're right. Responding to reasonable comments with non-sequitur talking points is a sign of someone who isn't listening. --Pi zero (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
"Meatpuppet"? Is that the best you can do? Your epithets are getting less colorful. But I think Pi zero has got one thing right: we're not going to see a response from Mr. McNeil to either to the question of why anyone would need a "Wikinews track record" in order to be taken seriously in this forum, or to the more overarching questions about the Wikinews project. Ironically, the thread Mr. McNeil links to on Tony's talk page from three years ago spotlights the same problems as this one: removing text from a user page, a negative, personalized, attack-oriented discussion, and biting newcomers.

I may be a newbie, but meatpuppet? No. No one asked me to come here. I saw Mr. McNeil's post on Jimbo's talk page, and was interested because of news coverage of the Wikimania keynote speech. I would note that Tony's comment there is a bit more pessimistic than his comment of three years ago (linked above), where he says, "I see the rise of non-commercial Internet news as an exciting part of the Foundation's work". –Neotarf (talk) 04:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Neotarf, people who understand something are more qualified to have an opinion about it than people who don't. Wikinewsies tend to think this is obvious, as we're very fact-oriented here, but one of the subtlest flaws in the —in some ways obviously quite successful, for its purpose— Wikipedian workflow is that it often fails to effectively encourage a fact-based mindset.

There's a long history of a small, highly vocal minority of Wikipedians harassing Wikinews and trying to shut it down, and the pattern that's emerged in their strategy over time is not just lack of understanding Wikinews, but evident lack of caring whether they understand Wikinews. This is clearly visible in, for example, the incident in April where they didn't inform English Wikinewsies of the discussion — and didn't see anything wrong with that. That's typical of what we've come to expect; not 'valid criticisms', but inventing bad things to say about us without regard to whether they're true, and then inventing new bad things to say whenever they figure the old bad things weren't producing the desired result. There's an obvious contrast between that, and the principle of vetting before publication that is core to English Wikinews workflow. --Pi zero (talk) 12:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I guess Tony1 failed to read my reply. This project, and any other WMF project is not here for your personal theater of war. If you don't want to listen, take some real time to actually learn what it takes to write some OR, then your voice here is nothing more than a hate speech. Wikinews isn't going anywhere and you and your friend's (wikipedia's) constant attempt to gain control of all WMF sites like you are the only ones out there doing anything, constructive or not, will not work. So unless you actually have something to contribute to this project to improve it, stop bringing your personal hate for whoever it is you have a problem with, to our site. Like my mom used to say, "if you don't have anything good to say, shut your f***ing mouth." DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

<giggle> Tony1 (talk) 03:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This question. While I see it is not technically 'solved', please don't boom it, it would be handled in due time. It is already old. Gryllida 09:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Away for a few days

My wife and I have just had a baby, so I won't be able to respond in as much detail as I would like for several more days. At least, that's the most likely. But who knows, if I get a surprise afternoon with the baby sleeping calmly, I may be back sooner. I just wanted to let people know that I'm not ignoring this discussion.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations, Jimmy!

(In my humble opinion, there isn't any discussion here to ignore; I'd say it's dead, no hope of recovery. Seems to me to have started out with good intentions all around, but the signal has gotten lost in the noise.) --Pi zero (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know...and congratulations. That was an interesting censorship tale from the hospital. I will continue to try to follow this discussion as well, after the Signpost publication deadline. –Neotarf (talk) 05:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Wiki things should not burden you, I hope; it's a light, interactive and transparent atmosphere.

Congratulations, Jimbo. You all be healthy. :-) Gryllida 10:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Congratulations, Jimmy! I hope you, your wife, and baby, are all doing well.

Unfortunately, this discussion degenerated when I had to alert you to my post via Wikipedia. No intent to troll, and I take it for-granted the same on your side. Most-telling that there is zero denial of meatpuppetting from The Signpost contributors; and, I hold them largely-responsible for further-lowering your opinion of the project.

I have not read the full discussion; simply because it has a maliciously-motivated thread of hatred for this project running through it. Local admins cannot, realistically, do anything about that — unless it were to carry out administrative acts (such as blocks/bans) under-advisement from Stewards.

Most-amusing is the preposterous assumption that any of us might consider The Signpost any sort of 'credible' competitor. But, I'll not give them more ammunition to troll with by critiquing their efforts. I do, however, suspect Wikimedia UK might benefit from having you visit Edinburgh for some PR-work at some point in the not-too-distant future. ;-) --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

@Brian McNeil. Re your statement: "there is zero denial of meatpuppetting". Is that some kind of a joke? Did you even bother to read my response to your post [2], or are you ignoring it deliberately. First "meat puppet", now "troll". But our first interaction didn't go too smoothly either, did it. Although the writing in this caseis far from clear, I seem to stand accused of "fratricide", "personal vendettas" and "yellow journalism". —Neotarf (talk) 07:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Previous discussion of Wikinews

There probably isn't anything I could say about Wikinews here that hasn't already been said better, and with greater insight, by someone else. Here are some links to previous discussions.

Discussions on Meta:

• Critique of Wikinews front page: “Example of failed model: internationally significant stories mixed with stealing toilet parts, postman killed in collision”, initiated by Tony, April 2013 [3]

• On closing Wikinews: “Close Wikinews completely, all languages?”, initiated by Gestumblindi, 29 March 2013 [4]

• Analysis: “English Wikinews has serious community problems in addition to the failure of its website model”, initiated by Tony, March 2013 [5]

• Rejected proposal : "Proposals for closing projects/Closure of English Wikinews" initiated by Adam Cuerdan , November 2012 [6]

Signpost discussions:

• Op-ed: “It's time to stop pretending the English-language Wikinews is a viable project,” by Adam Cuerden, 10 July 2013 [7] Wikinews editors are invited to contribute to the article in advance, on behalf of Wikinews, but ignore the offer: [8]

• News and Notes, “German-language Wikipedians spearhead another effort to close Wikinews”, by The ed17, 25 March 2013 [9]

–Neotarf (talk) 06:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps why the University of Wollongong has it's journalism students contributing here? --RockerballAustralia c 08:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oh I'll gladly reinsert that nice link that was removed from here: "Wikinews - a safe haven for learning journalism, free of the usual suspects of spin and commercial agendas." DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 00:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)