Anyone seen/heard from User:Bjornengelhardt? Xe shows up in Cat:Accredited Reporters, but doesn't appear to've contributed in about 7 years here. Just curious...... --Bddpaux (talk) 15:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- This user is not listed at WN:Credential verification, so they're not current accredited. It appears the account was created in 2008, contributed only to English Wikinews and Commons, and stopped editing in 2009. --Pi zero (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
19:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
20:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
1-800 still active?
- Brian McNeil is the admin of the Facebook page, please ping him if it is not working.
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 15:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- AGastya: The page has several admins. Zanimum has been doing the updating for quite a while. (Please update your signature.)
- @Zanimum: Afaik it was literally never once used and eventually turned off. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 16:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks @Blood Red Sandman:! Does anyone ever check the email@example.com account for messages?
- (Is the signature update directed to me, or AGastya?) -- Zanimum (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yep. It's not a singular account; it redistributes copies to a bunch of people. So there should in theory always be somebody to notice. At least one person also has access for review purposes; care needs taken, but in principle it makes sense.
- Um. AGastya, whose signature doesn't match their username. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 17:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Is there any point to the OTRS templates and categories?
- Template:ConfirmationOTRS, actually refers to the Wikipedia OTRS system.
- Template:ConfirmationImageOTRS, I know it's popular for projects to hate each other but let's be fair, such cases are for Commons; local exceptions are likely to be dealt with on rare occasions by an admin or reviewer.
- Category:Images with permission confirmed and Category:Articles with permission confirmed are empty.
I'm unfamiliar with OTRS except as a tool for Commons images. Is there a good reason to keep these hanging about? (Much like Arbcom sits idle but appreciated, like a fire extinguisher in the corner.) BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 08:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- The only case I can think of where these might matter is if Commons hosted something that used them, and we locally uploaded it because despite the OTRS stuff we didn't trust Commons to not delete it; the templates would still work. Not impossible, also maybe there's another use I'm not thinking of. --Pi zero (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Blood Red Sandman:, @Pi zero: Or maybe users woudl want to submit directly to us since we have a different license than the other WMF projects? Does that seem plausible? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
19:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
And here's a valuable lesson to be learned!!
Offering no comments pro or con regarding her side of the political aisle, I just can't believe a person in 2012 would write an economics/political book and have NO BIBLIOGRAPHY! .....and it was published, by Harper Collins for pete's sake! --Bddmagic (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
23:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Print Edition revived
Participation of Wikinews declining?
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)
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)