Wikinews:Water cooler/miscellaneous

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

Refresh

Archive


Support request with team editing experiment project[edit]

Dear tech ambassadors, instead of spamming the Village Pump of each Wikipedia about my tiny project proposal for researching team editing (see here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Research_team_editing), I have decided to leave to your own discretion if the matter is relevant enough to inform a wider audience already. I would appreciate if you could appraise if the Wikipedia community you are more familiar with could have interest in testing group editing "on their own grounds" and with their own guidance. In a nutshell: it consists in editing pages as a group instead of as an individual. This social experiment might involve redefining some aspects of the workflow we are all used to, with the hope of creating a more friendly and collaborative environment since editing under a group umbrella creates less social exposure than traditional "individual editing". I send you this message also as a proof that the Inspire Campaign is already gearing up. As said I would appreciate of *you* just a comment on the talk page/endorsement of my project noting your general perception about the idea. Nothing else. Your contribution helps to shape the future! (which I hope it will be very bright, with colors, and Wikipedia everywhere) Regards from User:Micru on meta. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MediaWiki message delivery (talkcontribs) 9:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-51[edit]

17:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-02[edit]

16:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-03[edit]

17:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-04[edit]

16:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-05[edit]

21:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Frustrated by work not being accepted[edit]

I helped collaborate on a news article, but because of a glut of articles in the queue, it wasn't reviewed quickly enough and thus lost its newsworthiness. I still think the article should be added to the archive of stories, even if its not breaking news. Otherwise I feel like all of that work was for nothing. This was my first experience writing for Wikinews and I'm not sure I'll do it again. Link to story's collaboration page. Any thoughts? Lugevas (talk) 05:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Lugevas: I do hope you'll consider contributing again. Your efforts are appreciated, though things didn't work out as well as any of us would have liked. First attempts at Wikinews, whatever their specific outcome, are pretty much guaranteed to be learning experiences, and I encourage you to learn all you can from the edits Brian McNeil made to the article, and whatever small insight there is to be had from the review comments, and apply the knowledge to future contribution. The more you know going in to an article, the more smoothly things are likely to work.

Although we don't publish-to-archive — freshness has to hold at the time of publication, as a matter of policy — we do sometimes move an unsuccessful article to userspace. Since in this case there's more than one author involved, I expect we could move it to your userspace and let the earlier author know what we're doing, then if they'd rather a different arrangement we could discuss how to sort it out from there. --Pi zero (talk) 07:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Lugevas: That is a real shame and I'm sorry to see your hard work end up tacitly rejected. I agree with Pi that one consolation is that this story will probably have a further development, so at the very least you have some background for a follow-up. Please do stay with this project. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, project policy doesn't cover/allow putting something in the archive that hasn't been through review and published.
I share your frustration, since I put in work to try and rescue the article. I felt the additional material made it fresh, but that the amount of work I'd done on it disqualified me from reviewing. Having had some negative feedback regarding sports articles on Facebook — that they're not news, an opinion close to my own — I would certainly prefer to have seen this given priority for review. "Easy to write", which is one comment I've seen in relation to sports articles, does not translate into easy to review. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@Brian McNeil: There are so many events going on in the sporting world. Since December 12, we' ve been covering many of the big news taking place. Six articles during this time period were deleted just because there were actually so many articles to be reviewed that we could not avoid them getting stale. (Yes, it is easy to write a sport article: but distancing it from the sources isn't that easy. Over the time, the same structure I used for the first article I wrote (and was published) and it hasn't changed much). As of today, I read that Messi would not be in the Argentine squad for Rio Olympics 2016, and I feel this event would be important in the articles to be written six months later.
AGastya (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
But, i should add, it is two days old news, and I don't have free time today to cover it. x_X
AGastya (talk) 13:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Priority was a tough call at the time. (A person can only make so many decisions in a day; reviews are decision-heavy and it's awkward to have to make tough decisions about the review queue as a prelude to doing a review. Reducing clutter of trivial mechanical decisions is something I particularly want to do with a souped-up review tool; but I digress.) It seemed plausible to provide coherence of coverage by pursuing the thread of articles about the Aus Open, but even so there were more of them that I could keep up with. --Pi zero (talk) 17:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
There's a reason mainstream publications relegate Sport coverage to the back pages. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Not a rebel, but I start from the end. A good reason of it is advertisement. Can you believe it. Times Of India (ToI) has more advertisement than news. Front page is wasted with a page full of commercial. And I moved to hindustantimes. Same story is being repeated there. And I can't feel more pissed off.
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 20:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
In the case of ToI, that's what pays for the newspaper. The need for money has, and likely always will be, a detrimental force in journalism. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
If there are no commercials, the price of newspaper would suddenly rise. But from being one of the best dailies in India, it became AdChoce in printed form. Have a look here.
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 02:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)