Wikinews:Accreditation requests/JJLiu112

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closed as successful.
•–• 03:37, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JJLiu112 (talk)

Name: J.J. Liu (刘家辉)

Location: Plano, Texas, United States of America

Areas of interest: Matters of political and cultural significance in the United States

Reason: Supporting my claims as a genuine, trustworthy reporter would be greatly benefitted with a proper accreditation and e-mail address; I would also like to preserve my gmail account for more personal, non-Wikinews endeavours.

Accomplishments: In addition to writing nearly 30 published articles (five OR), including the eighth longest on the web site, I am a columnist for Dialogue & Discourse and Logos News. I have written multiple articles for English Wikipedia.

Contact information: dadoufu123

gmail ● com

User ID: 2,780,319

Applied on: 02:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments/Questions

Good to see you nominating yourself, @JJLiu112:, because I had been thinking "if it is time to nominate him or not?" I hope you would not mind answering the following questions. (It should be noted, these aren't test questions, this is purely to see what you genuinely know, how others can benefit from your experience, and how others can help/guide you.)
•–• 14:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question Right now, I see you have two interviews published, which is great! Tell me what are the things you have learned when working on those interviews, JJ? (I write this reciting it in your voice "it is an open-ended question" :P)
•–• 05:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking, Acagastya. What I've learned from my two interviews (with hopefully more on the way) can be summarised as three items: how to communicate respectfully but effectively, several technical and conflict resolution skills that prove equally invaluable (YouTube captioning, sending files from recorder to computer, editing precise wording on the spot as the situation evolves, handling potential and actualised conflict) and, in general, how to facilitate and maintain the momentum of a professional interview such as that I get my answers, while the interviewee is able to mention all their points. --JJLiu112 (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question What are some of the things you wish you had done differently, for these interviews?
•–• 14:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I could have allocated my time more wisely. I scheduled both calls to begin roughly forty-five minutes from each other; thankfully, my first interviewee (Adrian Mizher) finished under that time, though Ms Chatham seemed unwilling to reciprocate. In addition, I could have worked faster and more diligently on the transcription process, which have hindered efforts more than I would have anticipated. I have learned my lessons and will not repeat them in the future. --JJLiu112 (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question Doing too many audio interviews, in my experience, have been extremely frustrating at times since it causes fatigue. Have you considered it, and how do you plan to maintain a balance?
•–• 14:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As proven from my first inquisitive e-mail, I have been able and willing to do interviews by text from the beginning. Since the first two have been published, I've been actively seeking new interviewees, including from non-US countries, though all falling through for one reason or another (I asked many candidates in the May UK elections the day before Prince Philip's passing, for example, when all parties stopped campaigning); in short, I have considered the possibility of excessive strain from the beginning and am able to adapt to multiple mediums as appropriate and requested. --JJLiu112 (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question What do you expect from the AR Wikinewsies, if your requested is accepted?
•–• 14:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As explained in the request, I'm hoping for increased credibility in requesting interviews and permissions to attend events (post-COVID, obviously), in addition to having real identifiers that prove my legitimacy. I plan to print and laminate my press pass, for example, and conduct interviews by my wikinewsie e-mail, if accreditation is approved. --JJLiu112 (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do you plan on using the press pass and the email? And are those the only two things you are expecting? Or are there more? Please note -- this is genuinely important question for us, to be able to provide for the needs of the 'newsies.
•–• 15:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to use it as a supplement to my existing credentials when interviewing people of note or entering events of note to legitimise my request. I do not intend on exploiting this privilege. --JJLiu112 (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase, this is genuinely important question for us, to be able to provide for the needs of the 'newsies. What are the things you expect? Is a press pass and email sufficient? Or do you require any additional things? Please provide precise answer so I can provide precise help with the tools. And while we are at it (since you brought this up), tell me, how would exploiting the privs, if (in some circumstance) you don't even know you are exploiting them?
•–• 17:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I would like a Press ID card and a wikinewsie e-mail, and no more. I would expect that, and no more. As for exploiting the 'privs', I will not knowingly and maliciously misconstrue the privileges and opportunities (if) granted to me by the community, nor will I desecrate the names of Wikinews or the Wikimedia Foundation in the process. I will accept all liability in case of any incident, and I will personally ensure the reputation of Wikinews remains untarnished throughout. Hopefully this answer is sufficient. I realise granting accreditation has its own natural risks, and have my own rational doubts on my infallibility as a contributor and journalist. Therefore, I will refrain from any extraneous request (once again, Press ID card and e-mail only), and avoid, to the best of my ability, the misuse of Wikinews as an organisation. --JJLiu112 (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since you don't need new tools, I don't have to install new tools on the server. In your opinion, what are the things you can use the wn-reporters.org (wnr from now on) email, and what are some of the things you should not be using the email for? (Actually, this is something I tell newsies right before granting the email, but if you already understand, I wouldn't have to repeat, and even better: I know you understand this)
•–• 03:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
If I am not mistaken, surely standard etiquette applies. DO: Send e-mails for interviews through wnr. DON'T: Send anything unrelated. DO: Respond to any queries by Wikinews users on wnr, if received there. DON'T: Chat about today's homework to a school friend. DO: Keep up to date and informed on the news, and be proactive in requests for a quick chat. DON'T: Sign up for e-mail newsletters, or enter oneself in raffles, contests, political parties, etc. DO: Ask oneself before every e-mail sent whether it represents the organisation in a good light. DON'T: Hesitate to ask on IRC for any help. DO: Be respectful, courteous and succinct. DON'T: Be a dick. DO: Provide status updates to interviewees. DON'T: Be a dick. Did I get it all? --JJLiu112 (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you are just slightly off. You can sign up for newsletters if you would like. I could not stop you or even know if you were subscribed to some. Though you should not put scoop in the subscriber's list. If you find something that scoop will benefit from, feel free to share the resource, but don't subject others to the mailing list they did not want to see -- I WILL block any unsolicited emails that were sent to scoop. I won't say misuse, but an ill-use would be forwarding large files to scoop via the email -- we have files. for that purpose. Scoop is a mailing list, so if you forward a 5 MB file and there are five people using the scoop, 30 MB (5 for your inbox, 5*5 for scoop) will be wasted. Instead, consider putting it on files. (that is like self-hosted Google Drive/dropbox) and enable sharing the file with the scoop. One more ill-use would be to forward emails that you have received to wnr to outside domains (notable exception is when the reviewer does not have access to scoop). Space needs to be treated as a resource. Hosting the servers cost us ~ USD5.9/month, and we are funding it from our pocket. We want ARs to benefit from wnr, and ideally we would not want the monetary burden be upon the ARs. Donations are welcome, and using the email service is gratis.

Question Given the space is a resource, what do you propose we should do, if you receive spam email? I want your suggestion -- we have a mechanism in place, but I want to find best solution to keep things running smoothly.
103.48.105.191 (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete them. Not a concern of mine. --JJLiu112 (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, the mechanism is to forward any spam or unnecessary unwanted email to spam@wnr before your delete them. If someone spams you once, they will spam us again. So best to forward it to spam@wnr, where it will be blocked.
•–• 05:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. --JJLiu112 (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question What do you know about scoop and are you convinced you should be granted scoop access? (This seems like a trick question, but no, this is yet another opportunity to formally document on-wiki, the knowledge, that is usually passed orally for many years.)
103.48.105.191 (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have inferred scoop is controlled by you (or a joint group of admins/bureaucrats), and is where one forwards all evidence for the benefit of verifiable collection and entry of information upon the completion of an interview, facilitated or instigated in part by e-mail. --JJLiu112 (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not quite correct, though not entirely wrong. Scoop is a mailing list, which forwards emails to people who are a part of that mailing list. I add/remove people from the list upon request, and I make sure the server is running -- that is all that I control. I think if you re-read your explanation, you might get the correct answer for who is a part of this group -- if one forwards evidence for the purpose of verification, that group is...? (Also, should you be granted scoop access?)
•–• 05:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Admins? --JJLiu112 (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Reviewers, JJ. Reviewers are the ones who will review the ORs and they require scoop access.
•–• 20:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC) Question Your first interview is published and archived. Which makes it eligible to be nominated for a wn:featured article. What are the things, in your opinion, that interview has, so it can be a featured article? What are some of the things, in your opinion, it lacks, so it might not be one? (Again, this is not a trick question)[reply]
•–• 05:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think my interviews had the scrutiny and composition which would fulfil its criteria of informativeness; its relevance to the current political climate also cannot be denied. Both, in fact, involved mentions of very current events which prove themselves almost a time-capsule of sorts for the future; the effects of Donald Trump in polarisation, COVID-19 as an impact factor. It certainly features original content and not better, but incomparable coverage to mainstream news outlets, not one of which have, to my knowledge, regarded the election any more than superficially. The benefit of a small organisation, I suppose. That being said, original photos were not absent, unless you count the photos of the interviewees lifted from Twitter or their web site, and I wouldn't say evdence of collaboration was particularly present. --JJLiu112 (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will add my points in the morning, and run pwb and nominate GG and RbAus once i get some time.
•–• 20:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will just put it on the nomination page instead.
•–• 08:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One last Question, and this is the most important one of all: what are some of the things the reviewer reviewing your articles (for those who don't know, it was me) could have done better? What should have been done differently? And what should have been avoided? You do not need to worry about saying something unpleasant. I am learning from experience just like anyone else. And cent per cent honesty would be appreciated. And so that you don't worry about your answer, I will cast my vote before you answer.
•–• 20:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a difficult question to answer. I suppose the most pressing grievance is also the one you have the least control of: time. It's quite disappointing when every article is forced to near stale before finally getting reviewed, but of course your time is your own and I don't blame you for anything, just a general annoyance. I do wonder what the Twitter followers think when we post something President Biden did three days after he did it... Not many other active reviewers, you know yourself with your own articles 'ready to be reviewed' for a good year. I am generally frustrated with some of the editorial decisions yourself and pi made, and while arguable I'm still left disappointed at the outcome. The whole 'France Prime Minister' 'French Prime Minister' débâcle, or the decision to start every sentence not immediately obvious with "As reported in..." "According to..." The addition and removal of wikilinks is another, in that I don't think that every remotely unfamiliar phrase deserves a Wiktionary mention, and I do think things which can be reasonably implied...should be done so. Overall, pretty standard complaints I'd wager, you've done an overall lovely job. Pi was a bit more hands-off, though. --JJLiu112 (talk) 02:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The question was about reviewing interviews. Reviewing interviews is very different from reviewing a synthesis. The whole France-French thing -- we are supposed to control how our RSS feed looks like. I asked for a solution on the talk page, and got no answer. As far as attribution is concerned, I have stated in the last few review comments, JJ, either find the original source, the statement, where it was put; and if we can't we need to attribute where the info came from. If say the BBC reports a quote, and if we publish in our own words, we are taking away their hard work to earn that quote; and if they incorrectly report something, we are doing the same. Attribution helps in both ways. If you don't want to attribute, carry out the investigative journalism, find every opportunity the governor had a chance to veto, but didn't, and say he never once veto'd. Otherwise, it is unethical to take someone's research, state it, and not give the credit where it is due. A word which is not commonly used in a normal conversation, which has some importance to the context and the interpretation of the source is linked -- though we don't have to; anyone who is curious can open a dictionary if they want; but then, the similar argument can be applied to the encyclopædia links -- anyone who is interested will do their own research. The problem being the links were way too encyclopædic; hard to verify that is precisely what it was, and even had bias from omission. There is indeed a difference between an editorial piece of journalism and a news report. Suggested reading works well for the former, not for the latter. Do we have multiple forms of journalism on-wiki, yes. But should we treat news report just the same? No.

I have only one question: why did you randomly decide to quit for a day? Leaderboard (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I troubled you. I had a bit of a nervous breakdown there, hasn't happened for a while but stress got to me. Apologies. --JJLiu112 (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have had fair share of such experiences; don't apologise -- we are all volunteers. Just take things slow, and if needed, take a few days off-wiki. Some things can wait, but don't act impulsively which you might later regret. Good to have you back, JJ.
•–• 15:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Life has been difficult, sure you know yourself. --JJLiu112 (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment JJ, for non-cyclic aperiodic articles, it is important for the interviewer to explain the circumstances of, and methods and procedures used to do, the interview. You have not been doing that, and that is something expected from both ARs and non-ARs alike.
•–• 04:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I have continued to contribute (and having recently passed six months since my first article), I would like to renew this effort, with an unchanged purpose but revitalised vigour. While uncertain of the next steps ordinarily taken in this situation, I would hope some evidence could reveal itself in this regard. --JJLiu112 (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's give it a bit for community input. So far so good!--Bddpaux (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

I'm not sure why Agastya is dumping questions to the nominee, but I'll Support this nomination, for obvious reasons in terms of experience and work. Leaderboard (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why the heck not? Original reporting is one of the most important things on enwn; and accumulated knowledge which we can share is crucial. We don't have pi or brian to pass on the information to JJ, and these questions will enable other AR's like @Bddpaux, Gryllida, Mikemoral, RockerballAustralia, William S. Saturn: to help JJ, if they can advice something or share from their experience. If you haven't read my message above, @Leaderboard: "It should be noted, these aren't test questions, this is purely to see what you genuinely know, how others can benefit from your experience, and how others can help/guide you." I have to look after the server and meet the demands of the newsies, so I need to better understand their requirements. I am the one who designs the cards now, so I need to know what is needed. I am the one reviewing the articles these days, and I need to understand how the reporter is tackling the problems, if I can guide them with the knowledge I have gathered; so we can, as a reporter and reviewer, work efficiently.
103.48.105.191 (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks, I'm glad I earned your trust

--JJLiu112 (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support. I have personally enjoyed reviewing the articles. It was breath of fresh air and something @Pi zero, Blood Red Sandman, William S. Saturn: will be proud to have read. Such a misfortune pi could not see your brilliant work. I was wondering to nominate JJ for the past two weeks, just the commitments got in the way. JJ can learn and improve, no doubt, but as a newbie to interviews; he outdid most of the people who joined within the last six years. Now that I notice, this is my first wikinews anniversary when I was no longer in college.
•–• 20:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - based on answers to the above questions and the excellent recent articles including several interviews. The only thing I would say on top of the above is to exercise patience before, during and after the review process. --Green Giant (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well -- he has shown plenty of tenacity and grit.....well done.--Bddpaux (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seeing the work you've been producing, I definitely must support —chaetodipus (talk · contribs) 05:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Gryllida (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.