Wikinews:Water cooler/miscellaneous

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

Refresh

Archive


Participation of Wikinews declining?[edit]

In the past, there were plentiful of administrators. Now there 21 remaining, including nine bureaucrats. Not only that, according to the active users list, two users are the top active at the moment. Ones at the hundreds range, including me right now, seems several or not plentiful. Any ideas? --George Ho (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikinews activity is a subject we're very aware of, and I do have a long-range plan I've invested several years of volunteer time into and continue to work on. Much could, in principle, be said on it, but... well, what time I don't put into day-to-day news production I've tended to prefer to put into implementing long-term vision rather that describing it, because an implementation is both more useful and more convincing than vaporware.

That said, and acknowledging there certainly is an activity deficit, it's also possible to misinterpret some statistics. For example,

  • We imposed a privilege expiry policy a few years ago, after which we suspended admin rights of some folks who had actually been inactive for quite some time. So that decline in number of admins is more distributed in time that it might appear.
  • It's true BRS and I are the most active folks here; we're doing review and admin stuff. Even when little admin stuff is being done (though there's a background level of it, archiving articles and deleting abandoned articles as well as spam/vandalism), review is edit-intensive and inevitably concentrated at the active reviewers who are, also inevitably, a fraction of the active contributors. Straight edit count may create the deceptive appearance that the reviewers are doing most of everything; if a reporter slaves away at an article for hours, splats it down on a page and submits it for review (two edits), then a reviewer makes twenty small copyedits (deliberately small, so as to explain exactly what they're doing and provide clear diffs) and publishes, does it follow that the reviewer put ten times as much labor into it? Not just 'no'; hell no.
Basically we've got three kinds of activity going on: reporting-and-review, day-to-day administrative stuff, and long-term infrastructure (which is mostly admin). --Pi zero (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
A couple of links: (1) Help:Dialog; (2) User:Pi zero/essays/vision/sisters. (I still haven't gotten to writing a companion essay specifically about en.wn.) --Pi zero (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

All right... I see your point about administering. If the stats of active editors and administrators are not enough, at least I found archives of published articles. Examples: Wikinews:2004/December (from Wikinews:2004), Wikinews:2007/December (from Wikinews:2007), Wikinews:2010/December, Wikinews:2013/December (from Wikinews:2013), and Wikinews:2016/December (from Wikinews:2016). --George Ho (talk) 05:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Going back years is a little misleading; over the last few months I've actually noticed participation gradually increasing. (More reviewers would help improve workflow considerably.) BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 20:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
You mean Wikinews:2016/October and Wikinews:2016/November? I did see some increase... but that much? Also, I can see a list of reviewers. Must I notify them all? By the way, what about template:Lead article 5? This needs checking. --George Ho (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
No, I don't mean 2016. I mean recent months. I'm not sure why you want to contact reviewers; if I was, I could maybe answer that. I don't ever (as a rule) touch the leads, so you'd be better asking somebody else about that. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 23:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't plan to contact them all. I can contact just one or two. Would that suffice? --George Ho (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Again, what about? Do mean a sort of friendly "Hey, you haven't edited in a while..." type thing? I'm all for that. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 23:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay... I don't know who Aaron Schulz is. What about Developer Socks One, Two, and Three? None of the accounts have done contributions... or what? Brion VIBBER says at his user talk page to allow removal of his reviewer rights as he is currently inactive in both Wikinews and Wikipedia. Can you do that? --George Ho (talk) 01:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Contacted several by email. Hope they respond soon. If not, I thought about taking the issue to Meta-wiki. --George Ho (talk) 03:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@George Ho:, what is your beef here? Pardon my bluntness. It sounds like harassing users by email. Taking what issue to meta-wiki? I see no problem here, and you seem determined to invent/cause/will-into-existence some sort of problem. Your contributions are welcome, but this looks a lot like gratuitous trouble-making. You've named some accounts we have chosen not to de-priv (the developer accounts are obviously provided for the devs, for example), and our privilege-expiry-policy allows us to do this. Chill. --Pi zero (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, I want to recruit or other promising wiki-journalists. However, I don't think Wikipedia is a suitable venue. I thought about Meta-wiki, but I don't know how many people go there. I can't go to any other sister projects and ask people to join Wikinews. --George Ho (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... look at New Year's Day stats. Many viewers went for one of articles from 2007. Newer ones had views ranging in hundreds, especially from yesterday's stats. --George Ho (talk) 04:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I know both of you are very hard-working on Wikinews, and I applaud your accomplishments. However, I looked at 2016 election of the ArbCom, and... I'm speechless about... low voting count on every nominee. This isn't to criticize the action but to question how useful ArbCom is nowadays. Explain? --George Ho (talk) 07:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, I'm reading recently archived nominations at Wikinews:Featured article candidates/archive/9. Seems that... usually vote count has been low, and one or two participated in the same discussions. --George Ho (talk) 08:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom serves two essential purposes for us. One is that it stands ready in case it's needed. The other is that it allows us to be a news site, which we can't do if we're subject to being screwed over by bullshit from folks outside who don't care about, and don't understand, news.

You seem to be under some misapprehension that news archives are somehow not part of the value of a news site. Our archives are a major asset. --Pi zero (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm not undervaluing news. And I don't jump to conclusions like that. In fact, I just pointed out low participation in most venues of this Wikinews. That's all. If you want to discuss ArbCom and WN:Dispute resolution, we can take that issue to Policy subpage. In Wikipedia, I have used newspaper archives to cite anything. When you mention news archives, I hope you mean ones in WN:2016, WN:2008 and other pages. And one of articles, like the one that had most hits on New Year's Day. I can propose showing again "On This Day" as English Wikinews used to back then. --George Ho (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm kind of baffled, here. I have no particular desire to discuss ArbCom; you brought it up, I addressed your remarks, and now you're talking about how I should go to another forum if I want to discuss it. It seems we're failing to communicate, in some that I don't understand. It's no longer clear to me what the topic of this discussion is meant to be (as I also remarked above, where you talked about going to Meta; perhaps you overlooked that remark since I made it in the same edit with the remark down here). --Pi zero (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
All right... I guess we are discussing so many things at once, which I used as examples of lower participation. However, I didn't mean to go off-topic and talk things at once. Initially, I was discussing low participation in general, but I went into specifics. When I mentioned "Meta", I was going to ask for recruitments and increasing participation. I thought you'd be familiar with affairs of other sister projects. It's not easy being clear when I assumed people are familiar with other issues. --George Ho (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh... I also overlooked your response to Meta above. My apologies for overlooking that response. --George Ho (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Heh. I thought you might have loverlooked it. Making a note-to-self to separate multiple comments like that into multiple edits, so they're more visible.

History has encouraged us to treat most non-Wikinews venues in the sisterhood as hostile territory. When we receive attention from Wikipedia or meta, it has usually been with sororicidal intent. Before the adoption of a policy that inactivity is not, in itself, a valid reason to propose closure, there were so many proposals to close en.wn, one of the wikimedians who participates in such discussions started using an image of, iirc, an undead creature rising from a coffin, to symbolize the Wikinews-closure effort that keeps coming back every time it seems like it was finally put to rest. Since that policy, the sororicidal faction has devised other tactics to promote their agenda.

Imo, the biggest obstacle to growing en.wn — the obvious long-term goal — is the review bottleneck. The strategy I've chosen for redressing that bottleneck — wiki-based semi-automated assistance — is still in development, and without that redress of the bottleneck, it seems likely that a major writing recruitment drive would simply create more submissions than we could handle. --Pi zero (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

  • This thread got very convoluted, and went awry, so I don't intend to feed a monster nobody intended to create. Suffice to say, we're very much aware of the issues with participation. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 19:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-04[edit]

20:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-05[edit]

18:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-06[edit]

19:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Mozilla's OpenNews now independent[edit]

See here Just an FYI for the community. For more background: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/02/09/launching-an-independent-opennews-program/. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

De-Recognition of Wikimedia Hong Kong[edit]

This is an update from the Wikimedia Affiliations Committee. Translations are available.

Recognition as a Wikimedia movement affiliate — a chapter, thematic organization, or user group — is a privilege that allows an independent group to officially use the Wikimedia trademarks to further the Wikimedia mission.

The principal Wikimedia movement affiliate in the Hong Kong region is Wikimedia Hong Kong, a Wikimedia chapter recognized in 2008. As a result of Wikimedia Hong Kong’s long-standing non-compliance with reporting requirements, the Wikimedia Foundation and the Affiliations Committee have determined that Wikimedia Hong Kong’s status as a Wikimedia chapter will not be renewed after February 1, 2017.

If you have questions about what this means for the community members in your region or language areas, we have put together a basic FAQ. We also invite you to visit the main Wikimedia movement affiliates page for more information on currently active movement affiliates and more information on the Wikimedia movement affiliates system.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Affiliations Committee, 16:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help

Tech News: 2017-07[edit]

18:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Review of initial updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process[edit]

Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English. Message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

The Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. For 15 years, Wikimedians have worked together to build the largest free knowledge resource in human history. During this time, we've grown from a small group of editors to a diverse network of editors, developers, affiliates, readers, donors, and partners. Today, we are more than a group of websites. We are a movement rooted in values and a powerful vision: all knowledge for all people. As a movement, we have an opportunity to decide where we go from here.

This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve. We hope to design an inclusive process that makes space for everyone: editors, community leaders, affiliates, developers, readers, donors, technology platforms, institutional partners, and people we have yet to reach. There will be multiple ways to participate including on-wiki, in private spaces, and in-person meetings. You are warmly invited to join and make your voice heard.

The immediate goal is to have a strategic direction by Wikimania 2017 to help frame a discussion on how we work together toward that strategic direction.

Regular updates are being sent to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and posted on Meta-Wiki. Beginning with this message, monthly reviews of these updates will be sent to this page as well. Sign up to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.

Here is a review of the updates that have been sent so far:

More information about the movement strategy is available on the Meta-Wiki 2017 Wikimedia movement strategy portal.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, 20:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help