Jump to content

Wikinews:Water cooler/miscellaneous/Archive/10

Add links
From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!

Miscellany

See also the archives.

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad drawings

I've uploaded Image:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad drawings.jpg, which is a scan of the newspaper article that sparked the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, with the intention of adding it to Danish and Norwegian embassies set on fire, and perhaps future articles on this issue. Since republishing of this image has been controversial for other news sources, I thought I'd invite some comments from the community. Um, so comment away. - Borofkin 04:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Don't think we should display image or text with the intention to ofend people. However information about an event should be as easily obtainable as possible, and not censored. So I'm divided. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"... display images or text with the intention to offend people"? I think you may mean ".. display images or text that we can safely assume will offend people". I don't think any Wikinews contributor has the intention of offending people, however it is an unfortunate result of reporting on events that unintentional offence may occur. - Borofkin 05:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we could more or less safely assume beyond a shadow of a doubt, it will offend someone, I would call that intentional. Bawolff ☺☻ 05:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, intentional offence. It's not relevant anyway, because the reason we are displaying the image is not to cause offence, but because it contributes to the accuracy and neutrality of the article. - Borofkin 05:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking more about it, I agree with you. Bawolff ☺☻ 05:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that wikipedia does display the image. Bawolff ☺☻ 05:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking more about, our disclaimers say that we may contain offensive material. I vote for the picture to stay. Bawolff ☺☻ 05:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point is to convey the news. (knee-jerk reaction) -Edbrown05 07:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even a judgement call, it's a matter of whether or not it happened. -Edbrown05 07:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely difficult ethical connundrum,for me. I would not insert it myself but I do support anyone else's right to insert the images. It should certainly be "allowed" in a free news publication, I think. Neutralizer 12:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion: Some of its funny some of its not. I understand where someone can be offended...But as to whether or not it should be displayed, I think it SHOULD be. It is what is causing the violence and is the DIRECT cause. It is very relevant. As to offensive, in reality, any image on any article can offend anyone for any reason, whether that reason is justified or stupid. If we ban this image because of "offense" then why use images at all? I think the fact that it is offensive to SOME people, not to others and some are neutral/divided, shows just how NEUTRAL the image really is. Keep Jason Safoutin 13:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Display the cartoons, we don't want to be in the buisness of not stepping on people's toes. What would you do if someone claimed that displaying pictures of American coffins was offensive? Nyarlathotep 14:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the stepping on peoples toes. see also Wikinews:Content disclaimer. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am NOT accusings any one individual of anything...but it seems that someone finds this cartoon offensive, possibly, and thats the reason that its NOT displayed. I thought we here at Wikinews are siupposed to put or "personal opinions (POV)" aside when reporting? I see o copyvio, no ads are in it, no sigs, nothing. If it can be printed everywhere else in the world, then why not here? Its in papers, on websites, even in university papers here in the U.S.. So tell me how this is NOT fair use (without out personal feelings/opinions). Jason Safoutin 23:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely, most such issues are just someone getting a bug up their a** about being overly legalistic. We all, especially we Americans, have our little overly legalistic tendencies which must be combatted. Anyway, we can still use the individual comics under fair use, just not the whole thing. Nyarlathotep 00:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad cartoons deleted

The image has been deleted. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how the cartoons can be included on the Wikinews as fair use? There is significant public interest in the cartoons. - Borofkin 22:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of fair use is very bad but, its not fair use to use images from a competing news source. But shouldn't it be allowed if the the article (image) itself is the subject of our story. This i would think is different then stealing a picture from a competing news article about another event, as the event where reporting is the news article, and the news article (image) is not about the vent where reporting. Maybe we should ask someone who knows about this stuff. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is my understanding. In this case, the publishing of the cartoons is the news, and therefore it is fair use to use a scan of the newspaper in our articles. - Borofkin 00:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems fine. If the owner's objected, we'd probably delete them, but something tells me we arn't going to get an objection. I'm going to undelete on the grounds that, whatever the fari use situation, the reason Craig gave seems to clearly be an overly strict interpretation of that particular rule, and it should have gone through more normal process. At minimum, this is clearly not the original picture, but a tumbnail, big big diffrence! BTW, we could also use full size version of the particularly offensive ones without any fear. I'm less sure about a full size version of the full spread. Nyarlathotep 21:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have spoken with the WMF legal team regarding this issue. The Arab League images are presented for publicity; this falls within the Wiknews Fair Use policy. The Danish Muhammad, however, were not presented for publicity but as an element of news reporting from a commercial news source, and we would be in competition with that news source and therefore not protected by the Fair Use defense. - Amgine | talk en.WN 04:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the bbc has an article [1] on this debate and lists some reasons for its decision on showing the cartoons (which was to show only a "thumbnail" view of the cartoon, such that details are not visible).

reg. fair use, i thought using a low resolution image of an artwork for the purpose of criticism or comment on the work comes under fair use. Doldrums 07:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I see the distinction Amgine makes, but its simply insane to imagine that real thumbnails *ever* fail fair use. So our only question is: Is the image small enough? Here the obvious test would be: Can you read the text? Seems like no here. BTW, text & layout are all the paper owns here anyway. Also, this is all a moot point if editors descide that the article is best served by including only the full size image of the most offensive comics, as only the original anonymous author holds that copyright. Nyarlathotep 09:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my above comment in the other section of the cartoon discussion on here. Jason Safoutin 23:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I put it into commons again Image:Muhammad drawings.jpg , hopefully I didn't break any rules in doing so. Neutralizer 14:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, its been "speedy" deleted twice on the basis that we compete with JP and so recieve no fair use protections here, and hence it has gone through no VfD process.. but I wasn't going to upload it again. Anyway, Amgine contacted a WMF lawyer who made this decission, but he didn't say if the lawyer understood that it was a thumbnail or not, or knew what thumbnail means. But, assuming the lawyer understood maters completely, it means we should switch all articles using it to using one or two the individual comics instead. We don't compete with the individual artists and JP who hold copyright on the individual comics. This might be a benifitial change anyway, since wikipedia already can and does use the full image, so maybe we should focus on the most offensive images. Nyarlathotep 15:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting because I had used the least offensive(imo) individual comic Image:Doesn't God have a sense of humour?.jpgwhich was just the face with the crescent and the star in 1 eye; in an article and that image was deleted [2] within a day ,even though I protested.Reason given for speedy was "Cartoon from Jyllands-Posten, unfree. Kjetil r 03:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)" Neutralizer 01:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its probably more NPOV to use the most offensive. :P Individual comics are probably fair use since the magazine does not own the copyright on them and we don't compete with comic artists. Nyarlathotep 03:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Domain names again - how about australia.wikinews.org?

Okay, it appears as though it will be a long time before I can register www.wikinews.org.au ..... how about australia.wikinews.org? Any tips on how I could go about getting that address to point to a multilingual portal page? - Borofkin 22:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk to Wikimedia dvelopers. Maybe try asking someone at #Wikimedia-tech . Bawolff ☺☻ 00:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could probally start making it using similiar methods as meta:Wikinews design contest/Portal design contest

Spelling error(s)

On the main page, in the Bill Gates TB story tease, the word should be spelled "occurence", not "occurance." You should also pay attention to the difference between "its" and "it's" -- common error, thus should be caught by somebody. Preferably the poster.

Many of us here unfourtanatly arn't the greatest spellers. We try and catch mistaakes we make, but sometimes we just don't see them (sorry). If you see an error, would you please fix it. (Wikinews is a wiki that anyone can edit). Bawolff ☺☻ 23:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accountability of Administrators

I am not trying to tread on anybody's toes here but I just want to remind the administration team (and not singling anybody out, because without the admin team WN would descend into anarchy) that they should set an example for other users to follow. The primary function of admins on the wiki is to uphold policy - failing to follow policy themselves opens up a massive can of worms. If Administrators are seen not following policy then should users follow policy as well?

If the rules are in place, we can not change them as we go along to suit ourselves. There are procedures in place for changing the rules and these should be followed - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 09:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of accountability, is there an audit trail of actions brought against administrators? StrangerInParadise 21:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting question there SIP :) - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 03:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See special:log (for logs of admin stuff and others). for blocks only see special:log/block, special:log/delete, special:log/protect etc. Any other type of acountability you want? Bawolff ☺☻ 23:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, the aforementioned audit trail of of actions brought against administrators, such as RfDA's. How do I know to review the past actions that have been brought against a given Admin? For that matter, how do I find disputes, etc? StrangerInParadise 00:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RfDA's against administrators are preserved in the page history of WN:A. Some archives are kept as well (but may not be entirely accurate -- page histories are). Archives of activity on WN:A can be found at Wikinews:Administrators/Archive. Disputes are archived as they are closed. See the page history of WN:DISPUTE for those links. Is this helpful? --Chiacomo (talk) 00:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As always. =) Forensically reassembling from deleted versions of WN:A is a bit onerous, but I am not really surprised that this would be the case- better things to do and all. I may make a proposal on this in future. StrangerInParadise 03:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed cartoons infobox

Although we'd all like this story to fade away; it might not. I have begun an infobox at [3] but in view of the sensitivity of the issue(as well as my technical limitations) I hope others will join in to select an appropriate image and get the infobox in play. Neutralizer 17:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly discourage the creation of categories for every news event which has a long term effect. Please create infoboxes with manually updated lists of related articles because we do not adequately use the categories we have now. - Amgine | talk en.WN 17:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an area(category usage) I know little about; so if categorization is not appropriate, that's fine with me. Neutralizer 17:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Amgine, if a category is only going to be used temporarily (say for a few articles and then for nothing) it is a waste to create it. Surely there is some other category it fits into. The number of categories on here is massive - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 21:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do this the same as the Chili_Finger_Incident/Infobox, that is maintain the list of articles in the infobox manually. This has advantages and disadvantages, main advantage is you get to pick the best stories for the infobox. Main disadvantage is the same, you need to juggle the related news links to catch articles that drop off the infobox. The goal being to maintain a "circle" of articles so that between the infoboxes and related news links you can get to every article we have on the issue. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see whats wrong with lots of categories? Wikipedia has alot more then we do. (they are also a good number of magnitudes bigger then us, but thats besides the point) Isn't this the purpose of categories, to catergorize articles? Bawolff ☺☻ 23:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The cartoons story has specific articles that should always be present in the infobox, such as the initial boycott one. There's a million and one categories we could go back and start adding to articles, but then we start to look like an encyclopedia, it will be a nightmare to keep everything categorised, and there will be POV disputes about things like Category:George W.Bush and how much of a mention he needs in an article to justify adding the category. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some media attention

These articles mention Wikinews:

ARGH! "...Wikinews, the affiliated news site about Wikipedia,...", I swear I have yet to read a mainstream news article that gets everything right about wikipedia/wikinews. -Ravedave 00:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quote of note: "Wikipedia discourages points of view being expressed in entries, but in the online discussion covering the article written by Wikinews, there was some debate among contributors over whether there had been a Republican bias in the reporting, with the indiscretions of Democrats receiving more attention." - Borofkin 04:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-Ravedave 00:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC) - Borofkin 04:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. The Washington Post. That's just amazing. O.K., it's only page 21 but Wikinews is making national headlines. Congratulations to all involved in the article. --Deprifry|+T+ 06:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another article

Well, it's not really the Post but they got a sentence which saved my day:

Quote
Wikinews -- Wikipedia's fact-checking service

--Deprifry|+T+ 13:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, as a new comer, I am VERY Impressed. I think EVERYONE needs to keep up the good work. I have seen some very good work form all of you and everyone in the past week or so...KEEP IT UP! :) Jason Safoutin 13:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another, complete with a link to our story, a copy of our logo, and an image of part of the main page when the appropriate article was first lead.

Quote
Hot on their trail, the meticulous volunteers at Wikinews collected every Senate IP which had ever been edited on Wikipedia (up to February 3) and examined where the IPs came, what was edited and what the edits comprised of.

As you can guess, there is no edit link on that page to copyedit this bit :-) --Brian McNeil / talk 14:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated some of the tables at Wikinews:Awareness_statistics. Our profile is definitely increasing. - Borofkin 23:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quote
Wikinews -- This crime-scene-style investigation...
The Washington Post :) Wikipedia's Help From the Hill Jason Safoutin 00:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also Wikinews:In the news. /me goes YIPEE! The only annoying thing is the stupid "Wikinews, the affiliated news site about Wikipedia,". Bawolff ☺☻ 00:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Includes a deep link to us :) . And is linked from their front page at the time of this writing--Deprifry|+T+ 06:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message for all photographers at Torino 2006 Olympics

Ciao everybody :-) I would like to inform you that we posted instructions on both Italian Wikipedia and Wikinews to upload all personal photos of Torino 2006 Olympics directly on Commons, under a free license and with the Commons:Category:2006 Winter Olympics in the summary. Contributions from all other photographers (or spectators/participants with a camera :-) are of course very welcome! Grazie :-) ary29

i am copying this message in fr too Jacques Divol 13:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just what MrM needs

War Zone Travel Insurance a new requirement for all administrators who strictly enforce policy. :-) --Brian McNeil / talk 00:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol. how true. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Insurance void for claims arrising from breaches of policy. Breaches of policy where claimant benefits cancels policy. For acceptance into the program, applicant must show a reasonably clean record of service (where are those records kept, BTW?). No assigned-risk pool available. StrangerInParadise 21:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hrmn... are you guys proposing to send me to Baghdad? Get the Foundation to pay for it, and I'll go! :P --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 01:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews chat

Hi, I must be missing something,, I chanced upon your "real time chat" link, i tried it, there was lots of people listed as there, but i got no reponse. Not to be deterred, since I think the idea of chatting about the news is a real good one, I went to same chat site using an IRC chat client, same thing,, lots of people, but no response? I type only in English, ? any suggestions? pls

Many of the people in there are usually signed in the room 24/7 and not necessarly at the computer. All of them do speak english so its not that. If you go back in the room and wait a little then I am sure someone will be there. I am suprised to see that no one answered you actually. Jason Safoutin 14:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try typing someones name, Most IRC clients ding when someone types your name. Also depends what time you hit it at. But trust me people are there and they speak english. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another issue is patience. The cgi:irc client is not quick, and what you type may not get to the channel for a couple minutes when the client is first starting up. During that time, what is said in the channel might not get to the client for a couple minutes. So, be patient and wait at least 3 minutes before assuming no one is talking to you. - Amgine | talk en.WN 07:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Man Steals Cop Car makes WikiNews. Man SHOOTS Cop doesn't. Mmmm.

I am a freelance reporter. This morning, while working on another news story for someone, a piece popped up on Sky News about a policewoman getting shot. I filed it as soon as I could. At the time of writng this (11.47 GMT) it languishes in "development" and the only questins asked about are: What is a probationary police woman and what has Sky News as a source got to do with anything. As this was my first outing, I have to admit to being stunned that Man Steals Police Car makes news while Man SHOOTS Policewoman languishes in development. Am now wondering why I bothered in the first place.

The story finally made it into the "latest" news section - some FIVE HOURS after it was originally filed.

Didn't want to go ahead and just delete all of the above but I'd like to suggest gettng rid of this discussion article simply because it's pointless wasting any more time on this issue - unless somebody can speak to the newsdesk and suggest a way of speeding things up when it cmes to latest news! Neil Michael

Hi Neil, thanks for your contributions. Your observations are quite valid: sometimes on Wikinews stories that are important don't get reported, while others that seem trivial are covered in depth. Wikinews doesn't function like other news services - there is no "newsdesk". A story is published when a Wikinews contributor (such as yourself) adds a {{publish}} tag to an article, and you may do this at any time. Stories are written and published through collaboration and consensus, there is no single person who makes editorial decisions. - Borofkin 22:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that was my handiwork referred to on the talk page. I'm afraid as a non-British news reader I misunderstood the context of the source. It was so surprising to me, yet written intimately. As a world, not local citizen, I missed on that. Sorry. -Edbrown05 09:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on actionable objections

When the {{npov}} tag is placed, it is a requirement that the tagger list their concerns on the talk page, and their concerns must be "actionable", i.e. it must be possible to do something about. Examples of actionable objections:

  • "This article only presents one governments point of view - please try to find something that presents the point of view of the other government"
  • "This article contains criticism of Israel by Hamas, but does not contain any response from Israel"
  • "This article presents such-and-such an opinion as though it is a fact. Not everyone agrees that it is a fact, therefore it must be represented in the article as an opinion."

Examples of objections that are not actionable:

  • "This article is POV, please fix it"
  • "This article is anti-US" - while this appears to be actionable, it isn't really - whether it is anti-US or not is a matter of your own point of view, and making a statement such as this is just going to annoy people. A better way to word this objection might be: "this article represents criticism of the US (i.e. opinion) as fact, and also does not represent the point of view of the US government. Please provide the origin of opinions (who said what), and please try to find a quote or something that shows the US government point of view, or some kind of defense of US actions."

An article may be obvious POV to you, but the bias may not be so obvious to other people. Think about the term "point of view" - it's the way a person sees the world, the way the world appears to them. We need to be specific about how the world as they see it may not be the world as other people see it. - Borofkin 00:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you suggest an editor handle a situation when another editor do just what you describe and then start to make some kind of inconcistent policyclaims? International 00:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I write a lengthy and thought-provoking treatise on the complex relationship between a contributor and a wiki, and post it to the water-cooler. I find it very calming. - Borofkin 01:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New article count statistics and Wikinews growth

I've updated the New article count on the awareness statistics page. We published 350 articles in January, which was the highest since September last year. The most we have ever produced in a single month was 430, in April last year. The count for this month, up to the 15th, is 137, putting us on track to produce less than 300 articles this month. The 6 month average up to January this year is 285. The previous 6 month average is 322, however that would have been influenced by article-a-day competitions. Would it be fair to say that this shows very little growth, in terms of published articles, over the past 12 months? - Borofkin 06:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be Bold

Borofkin; I LUV ya! Realism is delicious; Bullshit sucks!My woman told me just today that Wikinews is BORING; because it's OLD NEWS...nothing but source material. I said : what about more al-jezzera and Hamas stuff to blend with the BUSH/bLAIR POV (scuse me; i've been drinkin agin); she said "maybe; but still NOT ENOUGH" I said " what about THIS! (the so-called "TERRORIST POV blended with the Bush/Blair POV??? PLUS A wide open op-ed section on the talk page where readers/contributors could REALLY LET LOOSE!" sHE said....now yar talkin!" and I said; yeah baby...there IS something I gotta get off of my chest[4]Neutralizer 21:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Uhmmm, ??? Bawolff ☺☻ 23:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry; just the spaced out ramblings of cuban rum mixed with Canadian snow and red Georgia clay(Amgine threw me a alka seltzer). Neutralizer 03:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of my username from WN:A

I do not wish to be listed on WN:A anymore, and have removed my name from the list due to recent developments. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 20:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is my opinion that this is decitful, and shouldn't be allowed (as long as he's an admin). (notwitshstanding that Special:Listusers/sysop exsists, but most people wouldn't check it). Bawolff ☺☻ 23:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with bawolff, if the user wants to remove his name, he will have to request deadminship. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 23:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. StrangerInParadise 23:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. The issue is one of transparency - contributors need to know who the admins are. Also, if the community were to allow admins to un-list themselves, a much better explanation than a reference to "recent developments" would be required. Note that MrM is currently blocked and unable to participate in this discussion. - Borofkin 23:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that the list of admins should be truthful and list all current admins. -- IlyaHaykinson 01:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sorry that you all feel that way, because as I see it, the MediaWiki page listed above does list all the admins, and that is sufficient enough for me. I do not wish to be listed on the page anymore, and I hope users would respect that privacy. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but if you want to be an admin, you'll have to be in the list. I don't see a privacy issue. This list is more useful than the automatically generated one because it allows us to distinguish between active and inactive admins, therefore giving community members an indication who they can turn to in case of problems. And being kind and responsive in case of problems -- if you are available --, is part of the whole admin thing, you know?--Eloquence 22:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And distinguishes between comunity voted in admins and others (ie Jimbo, and Brion Vibber) Bawolff ☺☻ 23:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last word from me on this issue is that there is already a MediaWiki page, and since it is an extraneous list anyways, I do not believe there is great reasoning to prevent myself from removing my own username for reasons I do not need to disclose. I do not believe it is a disservice or anything like that; and am shocked, if not frightened, that other users think that. As since privacy cannot be enacted upon in this case, I am hereby requesting a note on the page that specially notifies that I am against the listing on that particular page, and that I wish users to check the MediaWiki page for more a more accurate listing. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 19:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, are you an admin, or not MrMiscellanious? -Edbrown05 09:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could save everyone the time, trouble and you the crap by simply resigning for a while. Admin-ship is not a difficult, nor should it be, a sought assignment. I think you tried to introduce some sort of authority into the role, that by personality has back-fired. I understand your efforts to make Wikinews more complete, rounded and comprehensive. But the style of your approach is not working. -Edbrown05 09:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking times

This is not a policy proposal. Its just a note for other admins to think about.

First, I often feel our block times are too long for non-vandals. I suspect these long block times are little more than habit, passed on from one admin to another. A shorter block causes less conflict, requires less oversight, gets other admins watching the user, and can always be lengthened if the behavior persists. I have no specific suggestions here, but I'd be good if admins thought about it; save 24 hours for the more serious stuff.

Second, I'm pretty sure our block times for new users are too long, again assuming no vandalism. We'd prefer to keep newbies, even feisty ones, involved in the site; blocking isn't meant to be a hazing ritual. How about trying to keep first blocks of feisty newbies down to 30 minutes (with a note that blocks are generall significantly longer)? 30-60 minutes is maybe enough time for many people to cool off, but not enough time to lose interest. Second and third blocks should also be kept "shortish" (again with a note saying why they were kept short). A series of 30 minutes, 4-6 hours, 12 hours, and 24 hours nicely shows that admins have the power to keep people in line.

Third, we should generally unblock people who understand the reason for the block, and promises not to edit the involved pages for the block duration. Such a "self imposed" block may be more effective at controlling future behavior. It also reduces the need for review, focusing other people's attention back on the article under contention.

In general, I suspect that long & absolute blocks only drive away moderate people. A real zealot, newbie or not, won't be deterred by long blocks. Nyarlathotep 12:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

agree. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

email user not working?

IRC was "down" for the average wikinewsie for weeks before it was fixed. Now the "email this user" function has been down for days. Please advise what I can do to to facilitate the reliability of these functions. Neutralizer 22:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this message on the technical board. Everyone must confirm their email address. If you need more information on this new development, I can dig around and find something on the mailing lists. --Chiacomo (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

next date

I'd like to ask people who publish articles near the end of the day to set the day to tomarrow's date, or actually I'd encourage doing this at any time. It looks more professional if we start the day with stories. Wikinews is not a blog. Oh, it also gives people who read recent changes more time to fix things. Nyarlathotep 21:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews interview with Katelyn Tarver

Just to let you know, I'm doing an interview with a young pop starlette who tours on a Radio Disney tour. I've promoted the interview on various related sites, asking people to submit questions. So, if hundreds of people acting like 8-year-old girls come to this page, and start adding questions, please let them, that's my intent. Zanimum 20:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright! which websites? Bawolff ☺☻ 21:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just her Myspace for now. Sadly, as a former contestant on American Juniors, an Idol spin-off, most of the fan sites and clubs for her and the show have died. If anyone can post any questions, no matter how random or ambiguous, please do so. I would have never thought of interviewing her, if not for the fact two friends forced me into getting Myspace, leading me to a "befriending binge". BTW, I've also got Imagination Movers lined up; they're one of the top new kids' bands in the US, in terms of radio play. Plus as New Orleaners, they were displaced via Katrina. They actually claim to be the first recording artists to professionally record in the music town after the Hurricane, bar none. -- Zanimum 23:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technorati: Popular Blogs - Borofkin 23:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm? We're not anywhere on that list. -- Zanimum 14:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Babel restored

I've undeleted all the babel boxes I found, as Amgine has yet to make any sane arguments against them. I'm not undeleting any other user boxes since I'm not interested in making any decissions about them being POV or not. At present, I also feel that wikipedia/wikinews should not be a social networking site, and that boxes should suport the project, here babel booxes clearly support the project. No wikipedia admin has gone so far as to delete babel boxes. AFAIK, not one person on wikipedia has advocated deleting babel boxes. Nyarlathotep 07:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you should refrain from restoring anything while the arbitration process is ongoing. They were deleted 8 days ago, there is no need to fight over it now while the discussion/arbitration has not completed. - Borofkin 07:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nyarlathotep's thoughts on userboxes

Here are my thoughts on the userbox issue. I'm very confident that

  1. gross ballot stuffing should be prevented (see SIP's wikipedia shenanigans).
  2. userspace restrictions of MediaWiki functionality (i.e. transclusion, colors, boxes, layout, images, etc.) should be minimized.
  3. userspace pseudo "free speech" is an essential relief valve, but userspace should not be myspace, although our existing rules are fine.
  4. all foundation projects should have more-or-less compatible methods of declaring qualifications, skills, langauges, achievements, etc.

So here is a minimalist proposal for resolving the userbox issue:

add a form of page locking which did not lock the page/file, but instead prevents "what links here" from displaying User: or User_talk: namespace links. Admins should delete POV user categories and block "What links here" for POV user templates or images.

In addition, I feel that user pages should partially seperate their objectively useful and expressive components. One might reserve the "look and feel" of userboxes for qualifications, skills, langauges, achievements, etc., but this is obviously extremely controversial. One can equally well claim that user categories ought to provide the objectively useful information. Or that new styles of userboxes should be created for the objectively useful information. No opinion here myself. Nyarlathotep 20:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other than sandbox pages, the primary userpage itself, and discussion pages Admins should eliminate POV. Preventing "what links here" hinders research efforts. We have several, barely used, methods for requesting help, which is why we would even need to know of another user's qualifications, or skills. What we should have is a directory of directories. I know I, right at this moment, don't have a clue as to how I would find a wikinewsie who is bilingual in both spanish and english. It would be nice if I had a directory in which I could find the directory of spanish/english speakers. --Sfullenwider 02:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, languages are quite easy under wikipedia's babel system, which Amgine deleted here. Just look up the two letter langauge abbreviation on the babel page, and look at the people listed in the user category as native speakers (or 4 if you want a native english speaker). Nyarlathotep 02:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I object to this description of my actions as gross ballot stuffing, though shenanigans amuses me. Nyarlathotep's reasoning fails on several levels.

  • UPP was a Wikipedia-wide straw poll, of which notice was given only to those likely to support it (I provide an analysis of how the poll was announced below). The vote was stacked from the beginning.
  • The 43 UN Wikipedians whom I contacted were directly affected by the policy, urging they vote oppose, most were unaware of it, many thanked me for letting them know. Thousands had been similarly disrupted, and would have had their templates and categories (again) summarily deleted. I contacted 43.
  • There was a strong likelihood that had this poll passed, the policy would have been slammed into effect immediately as the result of "community consensus". As it was, admins attempted to do this even before and during the poll, just as Amgine later did here, so as to create a fait accompli- how is this not
  • Nyarlathotep's suggestion that functionality be disabled to prevent people from associating in groups is misguided on so many levels,
    • It only masks the problem. The vulnerability exists, these proposals (UPP and Nyarlathotep's) only mask it. It is a defect in process, simple to correct.
    • It frutrates internal consensus of factions. Instead of moderate leaders reaching out to one another, you have thousands of isolated POV warriors who think that they are alone with a compelling truth, and must fight for its recognition.
    • Banning userboxes and usercategories creates a false sense of homogeneity. This is dangerous particularly in a time where so few attempt to speak for so many. If people can quickly form into groups, take positions, etc, coalitions against crusading insiders can be formed and made visible, belying false claims that "the community deems it so". In many ways, userboxes are far more reliable that obscure straw polls.

What we need is more means of declaration, notification, and association, not less!

In principle, one should be able to lift Main, Help, Category and Template and get a complete NPOV encyclopedia out of it. Because of the ways in which categories and templates are currently used, this is not the case today. I think we agree that this is a fundamental problem which compromises the product. This is a simple matter to correct technically by creating four new namespaces— User template, User category, User template talk, User category talk— and asking people to migrate. Few will fight to keep POV items in the encyclopedic namespaces. These namespaces are the door at which we should leave our biases, not the site as a whole.

New namespaces, easy. Culture war, dumb. It is that simple.

StrangerInParadise 04:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Association should only be banned for groups which are counter productive, many feel this includes all POV groups, others feel this only includes groups engaging in worse activities. People should debate a groups helpfulness via a CfD for its user category. But once a user category has been deleted, association via "What links here" should clearly be surpressed. My technical proposal is a minimally invasive approach.
As for preventing ballot stuffing, I'd suggest creating a Category: Interesting Votes and/or Wikipedia:Interesting Votes where votes could be listed for various reasons, such as attracting the attention of an outside blog, effected people not being informed, due frequent votes (i.e. GNAA), etc. Here you could also request that people notify other effected people via talk page (thus preventing spamming), but the instructions should say that notifying many other people is considered improper. Nyarlathotep 05:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finding ways to publish polls and discussions is good. Things requiring a group decision require process for inclusion, dialog and and balance such that spamming is irrelevant. Hair-splitting about Wikipedia's true culture and the dangers of factions only postpones this goal.

As for the rest, why approach this backwards?

  1. Add the new namespaces, ask people to move POV/User content
  2. Consistent with current policy, helpfulness should be very broadly construed
  3. In the very unlikely event content in the new namespaces becomes a problem and current policy is not adequate, then spend time worrying about how to delete it

StrangerInParadise 06:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why add namespaces at all? Why move anything? Just allow admins to block "What links here" and use CfD votes to determine when its used. If people think there are tooo many user templates for other reasons, they are free to list them for deletion on TfD. For the mass deletions, they should be listed in large blocks.
Spamming will never be irrelevant. But its not as bad if you post a notice when you do it. Nyarlathotep 10:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new namespaces are needed to have a set of encyclopedic NPOV namespaces (Main, Help, Category and Template), but preserve user templates and user categories, thus avoiding the waste of energy of deciding what is to be deleted (note that they would contain Babel and many casual process semiotics as well, e.g. the Wikistress Meter, talk page conventions, etc.). There would be zero need to block What links here. The whole idea of spamming as a negative thing is a symptom of immature process. Coming up with new technical patches to cope with that symptom is the wrong approach. StrangerInParadise 11:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have here is a desire to turn wikiwhatever into a webhost via triple user spaces. Phishing immediately comes to mind as another problem that this would cause. Don't start with "well, we just have to train them to know the difference between user space and NPOV space." The encyclopedia Britannica doesn't come with a training manual neither should Wikipedia. If anyone feels the need to write novels on the wonderful healing powers of tinfoil hats let them write it on a page hosted by one of the many free webhosts.
Hiding "what links here" is ripe with potential conspiracy theories. StrangerInParadise is right as to the workload and perpentual wars deleting NPOV stuff would cause. Asking people to mark their spam? There is an entire branch of engineering forming simply because no one does, or will ever, mark spam as spam.
Just don't allow any NPOV stuff beyond the simple single userpage. --Sfullenwider 03:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who really stuffed the UPP?

...let's consider the publication of the poll: how did anybody know about it?

For my part, I read about it in the Jimbo interview in Wikinews. At the time, I had little interest in userboxes except that I rather liked them and thought I would consider them— if I ever bothered with a homepage. I have been editing since late 2001, and did not bother with either a homepage or even an account for much of that time.

When you look at the non-individual announcements of UPP, you see inherent biases.

  • (on WP:Userboxes) A proposed policy on userboxes has been created to help decide what should be considered acceptable for userboxes. Your input is appreciated. It has also been proposed to migrate some userbox templates to the user namespace. Some have already begun this process and you may wish to do the same for your userboxes. [only intermittent mention of the poll itself!]
    • (on WP:Proposed policy on userboxes)There is an ongoing poll about an almost identical policy in Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll
  • (on WP:Current Surveys) An attempt to end the userbox wars.
  • (on Template:Cent) Userbox policy (voting)
  • (on WP:PUMP (policy)) Userbox policy This is a policy proposal on userboxes, developed by Pathoschild from an original by Doc glasgow. It picked up quite a lot of favorable comments in Pathoschild's userspace and so after discussion I've moved it to WP:UBP (which believe it or not hasn't actually had any concrete proposals on the main page for weeks)
  • (on WP:PUMP (policy)) An End to the Userbox Wars? In case anyone missed it, a poll opened at Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll which, I think, stands a chance at ending the bloodshed. Current tally is 26 yay and 4 nay (not that it is a vote or anything).
  • (on #wikipedia header) [generic announcement, text now gone]
  • (on six principal cannabis-related talk pages, main,drug,health,medical,cultivation,legal and on the deliriants project) I announced my new Pro-cannabis userbox along with a mention that there was a poll on userbox policy and that they might consider weighing in. These are well-established pages, habituated by both experieced users and newbies.

All but the last two bear the explicit and/or implicit message, "this is a good and right thing to support", all say nothing of adverse consequences to userboxes. Especially on WP:Userboxes, this is misleading: the subtext is, nothing to be done, Jimbo's weighed in, accept the inevitable by userifying your homepages. Further, these were the primary means of bringing people to the poll, apart from word-of-mouth.

In other words, this "majority" was largely self-selected. Even at that, it was never a 75-80% super-majority for so radical a policy change. How sad is it that so many (from their comments) were willing to support the proposal just to end the userbox wars, which was fought largely by a handful of rogue admins abusing policy and power, and wrongly in Jimbo's name?

StrangerInParadise 04:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello StrangerInParadise. Isn't your current block on WP up yet? - Amgine | talk en.WN 04:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was blocked for about 2 hrs, though I didn't know for an hour forty-five, that is, I was unblocked within minutes of asking. I do think it ironic that admins can wrongly delete large quantities of material in templates and userpages without being blocked, but for suggesting that such behavior bore a resemblence to that of the Taliban (who went about burning books and smashing televisions, radios and artwork in public buildings and the homes of others) was enough to get me blocked. Why do you ask? StrangerInParadise 05:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dull, boring, but needed... Date-based Categories

While going through the date-related categories such as Category:January 1, 2005 for 2005 I've come across an issue that I'd like some input on. Some articles have Category:2005 while others do not. Category:2006 lists the months, plus things like hurricane season 2006. What's the consensus on how we should deal with things like this? I suspect that the sub-categorisation that goes on here needs to be more encyclopedic, but I'm not sure how much so. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<nod> Yes, all the date categories should at least be added to the appropriate year. (I'm not sure if "January" is a reasonable news category, but I would guess it is, so all date categories should be added to both their year and their month.)
For articles this could be modified if we implemented Ilya's suggestions for the date template. His model for the date template is to use {{date|DD|Month|YYYY}}. With the elements of the dates separately it is easy to add articles to separate categories (I don't suggest this) and to add links to the article archive pages (I do suggest this.) - Amgine | talk en.WN 15:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with categories

I think that the whole idea of pre-set categories will of necessity fail where the categories are not obvious, long lived, and preferably, exhaustive. For example, a language category is ok: every article has one, and pretty much only one. But even a "year" category will be defective since some topics cross year or, like "Mars", don't have a time attribute at all, or, like "dinosaur", have a time attribute of a different size than year.

I believe that what is needed is to associate keyword text to an article (in some way), and requests to find articles do a full text search on all the keyword data.

I expect that this is not a new idea, and I welcome being made aware of past discussion on this topic.

The "category" approach is Yahoo-like, in that the structure is determine beforehand. The alternative approach is Google-like, where full text search is done (in this case on keywords), and there is no structure.

I also realize that my response is not what you were requesting exactly. MartinGugino 02:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some people on commons: want keywords. I'm not really sure what you mean. We don't use language categorys on articles. WE use year categorys on articles very rarely, its mostly for internal use.What I mean to say is I don't understand what you're saying with categories. Could you rephrase it please.

Original article about demonstation in Paris last saturday

Can be found here (in french) :

http://fr.wikinews.org/wiki/Manifestation_contre_le_CPE_%C3%A0_Paris

Pictures :

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Manifestation_anti-CPE_Paris_18032006

Traroth

Template to use on Commons for images in Wikinews articles

Hello, I'm not sure where to put this, so please move it/repeat it elsewhere if appropriate. Just wanted to make it widely known that if you upload an image to the commons: that is used in a Wikinews article (or any older picture that is likewise), you can tag it with commons:Template:Used on Wikinews. This is preferable to putting an image in Category:Wikinews, since categories should describe the contents of the image, not things like where it is used. Thanks! (Also: I am an admin on Commons and am interested in working more closely with users of local projects. So if anyone from en.wn has any questions about Commons policies or how it works, please feel free to ask me on my Commons talk page.) commons:User:pfctdayelise 08:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interview questions needed: Chris Cerf

Christopher Cerf has agreed to an interview, co-organized and published by Wikinews and Muppet Wiki (a Wikicities project).

Chris' achievements throughout the years include:

  • composer and lyricist for Sesame Street (three Emmys, two Grammys).
  • founded and served as original editor-in-chief of Sesame Workshop's books, records, and toys division, critical in funding the series.
  • co-creating Between the Lions.
  • senior editor at Random House for eight years. There he worked with writers George Plimpton, Andy Warhol, Abbie Hoffman, Ray Bradbury, and Dr. Seuss.
  • editor and producer of Marlo Thomas & Friends' Free To Be... A Family book, album and TV special. The book was a NYT #1 bestseller within a week of publication.
  • Contributing Editor of National Lampoon magazine
  • involved in Not the New York Times, The Experts Speak, The Pentagon Catalog: Ordinary Products at Extraordinary Prices, The Official Politically Correct Dictionary, The Gulf War Reader, The Iraq War Reader
  • his songs have been sung by Paul Simon, Ray Charles, Johnny Cash, R.E.M., James Taylor, Tony Bennett, The Dixie Chicks, Tracy Chapman, Carol Channing, Randy Travis, The Four Tops, Melissa Etheridge, Smokey Robinson, Bonnie Raitt, Wynton Marsalis, Little Richard, B.B. King, Jimmy Buffett, Bart Simpson, and the Metropolitan Opera's José Carreras
  • Cerf’s musical material has appeared on Saturday Night Live, The National Lampoon Radio Hour, The Electric Company, Square One Television, Between the Lions, and in numerous Muppet productions
  • Son of Bennett Cerf (publisher, editor, and TV panelist, co-founder of Random House)

Got a question about Chris, his writings, his compositions, his productions, etc? -- Zanimum 18:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel article

I just wanted to mention something. I live in Buffalo NY and have been covering the Hotel proposal here extensively. I was out covering the most recent protest of the hotel on Saturday March 25, 2006 when a man walked up to me and handed me a printout. I looked at it and it happened to be this article No hotel previously on site of proposed Buffalo, N.Y. hotel location. I then told him that I was the main contributer to the article and he said he was "very impressed." He said that he had been following the story closely and was disappointed to see a lot of the stuff NOT covered in our local news. When he first approached me, he had NO idea that I had written the articles. I unfortunately did not interview him as he was not around very long :( But I was suprised to see another person from Buffalo rwead the articles. I myself am quite impressed that more people in my area read Wikinews than I thought :) Jason Safoutin 02:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I mean that. Hmmm. -Edbrown05 02:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
cool. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request received on "Request an interview" page

We have received an interview request on the Request an interview page. Interested contributors may wish to take a look, as it is a test of a new process. Note that statements such as the one received may previously have been created as articles. Request an interview allows us to redirect opinions/editorials/statements to a more appropriate place. - Borofkin 01:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IOTM for April

I'm pleased to announce that [[w:Ethan Zuckermant|] has accepted a request for an Interview with wikinews.

We will be doing research and developing questions at: meta:Wikinews/Interview_of_the_month/April_2006_Questions


Time and date: TBA

Suggestions are being taken for May, please make your May suggestions now. (meta:Wikinews/Interview_of_the_month )


Questions on methods and tactics for policy proposal and adoption

What are the official requirements for submitting policy proposals? What are the requirements for submitting policy page formatting proposals? Are there unofficial but practical requirements of length of activity or anything of that sort? Is it necessary to proceed according to a particular procedure such suggestions? Are there any particular considerations that must be made or aspects that must be accounted for so that a proposal has a genuine chance at approval and adoption? Opalus 07:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

some guidelines can be found here. Doldrums 07:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just tell us what you think. If you really feel like it, make a new page in the wikinews: namespace, and possibly put {{Fresh idea}} and {{flag}}. Bawolff ☺☻ 18:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question on past discussion and proposal to write authoritative procedures

Has there been any discussion on the formulation of a guide or perhaps even a rule book for, for lack of a more appropriate word, professionalism in the common administrative actions? Are there any particular formal procedures outside of the policy declarations that have ever been discussed for setting standards of behavior or presentation for the smooth operation of the site? This I believe could be a method to reduce the personal work required of administrators and by that to allow them to operate with greater efficiency as it might serve to prevent some quantity of site disruption.

I have seen instances of comments made to calm down and recently since its inception referrals to the arbitration committee, but to preclude a bit of traffic on these channels I believe there may be even a further course for community action in new policy-backed administrative procedures. I propose that we the community establish some formal procedures for common activities to prevent the typical problems of questions of sincerity and fairness from arising. Perhaps some of it could be prevented by the establishment of particular procedures for the identification, communication, and sanction or resolution for an administrative action, for example NPOV violation or other actionable offense? There are methods used now, they function, but overall, would it not be worth a bit of effort to attempt establishing a formal and authoritative procedure that is perhaps beyond normal complaints outside of its discussion page but adequately strict so that adhering to it precludes some situations to be determined by consensus in its formation that cause the type of complaints frequently made presently? Opalus 08:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki projects tend to work most productively when there are fewer rules set in stone, and the community is given the flexibility to respond to needs. Working on methods of communication and dispute resolution, rather than prescriptions and proscriptions, engages members of the community in working toward the goals of the community. In contrast, creating a "legal code" distracts the community from its purpose and moves its focus to regulating itself rather than doing whatever it was originally formed to do: in our case, writing timely, accurate news articles. - Amgine | talk en.WN 09:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions on administrator declaration conflicts

In instances where different administrators have interpreted the same rule to allow or refuse various specific and limited actions, what is the method for determining the priority of the interpretations of different administrators? How can it be determined which administrator's declaration has priority over another's, is there a system of rank practiced amongst administrators that is not formally delineated or some other system where an issue may be brought to an official administrative vote on determining the appropriate interpretation of specific policies? Is there any method presently decided on or has this situation not been brought to any attention before? Opalus 00:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like anything on a Wiki, consensus rules. It is my hope that administrators will discuss any differing interpretations of policy -- this is how it should work if there is any dispute among administrators. --Chiacomo (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the practice for the treatment of matters subject to such varied interpretations in the time before the difference is discussed between administrators? No modifications to the subject? If such then how is the point after which modification is not to be made determined? At the initiation of the conflict? Is there a specific method to identify situations where this type of divergent administrative interpretation has occurred for its treatment in the appropriate manner for this practice if there is one? Opalus 00:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, though this is simply a matter of etiquette, the action of the first administrator stands until some discussion can take place unless it is an obvious violation of policy or egregious harm has been done. All of this, of course, is my own opinion and my observation of current practice. Administrators are freely able to reverse the actions of other administrators at any time, if they wish, without consulting the original actor. Of course, if an article is deleted per community action on WN:DR and another administrator comes along and undeletes it, that's probably a violation of policy as it is contrary to the will of the community. I'm rambling.... Someone else might make more sense than I am... --Chiacomo (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Generally its the first person to do it. If someone else doesn't like it they talk about it, or if they really hate it, they reverse it. Older administrators are sometimes less likely to have their decessions reversed, because more people respect them, but ussually its just first come first serve. Bawolff ☺☻ 18:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music

Could someone tell me what the theme tune of Audio Wikinews' Wikinews Full report is? IS it PD? --195.188.51.11 08:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so, Let me look it up. Bawolff ☺☻ 18:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
no Its copyright by the wikimedia foundation. see File:WikinewsOpenerTheme2.ogg. If you want to use it for something you could contact the foundation and see if they'll let you. see → [5] . Bawolff ☺☻ 18:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the many theme tunes used, some of which are PD --Cspurrier 18:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bawolff, that is wrong. Not everything used by a WMF project is copyrighted by the foundation. For instance, unless Malfidus released the copyright to the foundation, it isn't copyright by them. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we(should we) identify and not re-distribute PSYOPS messages?

[6] "Information used in psychological operations ' will often be replayed by the news media for much larger audiences, including the American public,' it stated."

"'The likelihood that PSYOP messages will be replayed to a much broader audience, including the American public, requires specific boundaries be established,' the document stated."

Imo, since the document in question comes from Rumsfeld, the U.S. Secretary of Defence,and it is that document that is saying that news media are re-distributing PSYOPS in a big way; then

A; it is likely that Wikinews is re-distributing PSYOPS too; and

B; considering the source, we certainly can't put this allegation into the category of "theory" and ignore it.

That's the topic I think we have to address,whether it's comfortable to address it or not. If we determine there is no solution or that our model already deals with this possibility or that we don't really care if we redistribute PSYOPS, then that's fine; but I do feel it's worth discussing.

Well I would assume that type of message would have some neutrality issues, so I think wN:NPOV answers that. Bawolff ☺☻ 18:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just put on my talk page[7] what I suspect may be a recent example of "Information used in psychological operations will often be replayed by the news media"; but whether that story was an example or not is not so important,imo, as what, if anything we do to address this issue. Neutralizer 12:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without an admission by the administration or an uncovering of internal documents, it'll be too difficult to determine what is propaganda or not since the media is so P.R. laden already (and an esteem for "facts" seems to be at an all-time low in recent American history anyway). AND, even with facts to back up that some articles are indeed blow-back propaganda, I'm sure there are "elements" here at wikinews that would stop the effort, no? Should we do this? Yes. Can we do this? Doubtful. Cowicide 03:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cowerdice,Cowicide (sorry) that name sounds familiar. were you banned for a very long time at one point? Just curious. Bawolff ☺☻ 20:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for the insulting play on my name. Did you come up with that insult yourself? Just curious. No, I haven't been banned. I'm new here. Nice to see you too. Cowicide 05:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Bawolff is correct. Cowicide vandalized an article back in September of last year, and used numerous sockpuppets to vandalize the rest of Wikinews. Comparing this to the messages on the Senate article's talk page, these are similar styles of writing and similar attitudes on issues that the previous Cowicide has been known to comment on. Undoubtedly, this is the same user as the permabanned Cowicide. The use of sockpuppets alone, the showcase of the number being itself reasoning, should be enforced on this account as well. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

permabanned? Cowicide 02:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't imagine why the user would use the same name if he/she intends to vandalize the project. I think we are bound to Assume good faith at this time (although I don't like the combativeness with Bawolff who is a really great contrib.). I also appreciate his/her responding to this topic because I think it's a very important topic for all media to consider. Neutralizer 13:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As seen in the Utah rave article, you were sympathetic to the first rounds of blockings on him and his sockpuppets, Neutralizer. Therefore, I would request to see more reasoning for your proposal to assume good faith, whereas we have already seen a highly destructive nature of the username in hindsight. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's impossible to identify well formed PSYOPS messages. But we need to be aware and to write somewhere CLEARLY that this kind of governmental action exists. (Iraq's Massive destruction Weapon could be a good example for my side of Atlantic Sea ) of course no hurt intended. Remember Opium War in China or Soviet racists actions against UE building in the 50s just found AFTER the fall of Berlin's Wall Jacques Divol 13:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neut, I think Bawolff's contributions appear great too... I just think the play on my name right off the bat was a bit rude, but I'm over it. No big deal. Anyway, I think Jacques idea is about all anyone can do at this point unless solid evidence comes out after the fact that some news is propaganda. Of course, by that point, the propaganda (for better or for worse) will have already served its purpose. At least if enough Americans know there truly IS propaganda out there they might not get as bloodthirsty and take more news with a grain of salt when it's presented to them by the major media. Cowicide 20:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to apoligize for misspelling your name. It was 100% unententional. I really don't know how I managed to do it, but I'm very sorry. (/me needs more sleep :) Bawolff ☺☻ 01:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh by the way, I agree with Neutralizer, Cowicide could of done alot of damage by now if he was intending to, so I think he should assume good faith unless proven otherwise. (It was along time ago, lets forgive and forget) Bawolff ☺☻ 01:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought you were making a play on my name calling me a "coward" for some reason. I did think it seemed out of character for you and I should have just ignored it and realized it was just a misspelling.  :) Cowicide 02:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to support core policy over particular interpretations of current policy

As specific procedures may not be in line with the site function, what of a specific modification to facilitate a larger pool of administrators by imposing on each a limit to the number of invocations of administrative power per day, month, or other time frame? That more administrators may be required for daily operations is not a flaw as much as an opportunity. By these limitations, perhaps a maximum of 5 or so user bans for any length of time per day, and similar limitations on other administrative powers that I am not aware of, the influence of any one administrator is minimized and the result of the collective administration is closer to the result of community interpretation of policy rather than particular interpretations of policy. The effects of such limitation as far as would occur seem slight, perhaps the doubling of the number of administrators. The site has grown immensely, there are certainly adequate candidates and it is inevitable that enough adequate candidates will appear in the future. Hold an election of sorts where for each proposed, subject to simple majority of votes given on each user, they are discussed to determine whether they would be supported as an administrator by the community? I believe this is necessary as misinterpretations of policy are possible. If this expansion is not possible now, let us set a period to return to this consideration, perhaps in July? Opalus 20:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well that sounds good in theroy, I don't think it will work in reality. What if 200 Willey on wheels sockpuppets come on at once. To me this sounds like Instruction creep that no one will remember to follow. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dealing with mass vandalism could be detailed as a special exception, but that might lead to the instruction creep that is often mentioned. Bluntly, I had not thought on it previously and I admit my former limit example would be too low to control such problems without a special exception. Alternatively, what could be done to encourage a greater pool of administrators without the frequently warned of instruction creep? Hold discussions setting some informal goal for increasing the numbers of administrators at different rates over different periods of time? Perhaps a campaign to check the overlap of the different aspects of all policies regularly to make a uniform body that would allow users to become familiar with it more quickly would ease the process of obtaining administrative capabilities and let their numbers increase more quickly? Opalus 06:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update on Jimbo Wales interview

An interview with Jimbo Wales in conjunction with the Wikipedia Signpost is scheduled for this Wednesday, February 15th, at 15:00 UTC (10:00 a.m. EST). It will be held in the #wikipedia-signpost IRC channel on Freenode. Wikinews contributors are welcome to observe the interview, and to submit questions here. It will be dual-licensed, and will be posted next week around Tuesday or so. Thanks, Ral315 04:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is IRC no longer available? If so, please advise the access procedures. I tried irc://irc.freenode.net/#wikinews with no success. Many thanks, Neutralizer 13:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has the link changed from the cgi irc client to a straight irc:/hostname/channelname link? You may need to download an IRC client, which you will be grateful to have done, as IRC is much better that way. The link does work, though my client (ICE) doesn't go straight to the channel, which it should. StrangerInParadise 13:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When I click on the "real time chat" I get this url irc://irc.freenode.net/wikinews and a "cannot find server" page. Please give me a link to your client for download,if possible. Neutralizer 14:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here, IceChat Homepage StrangerInParadise 14:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Neutralizer 14:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is the CGI client no longer available? I preferred it to a stand alone IRC client. --Wolfrider 03:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the 'real-time chat' link isn't going to work, then remove it from the Main Page. -Edbrown05 03:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The link works in browsers which are irc-aware. IRC is a recognized internet communications protocol, and well-behaved browsers will intialize an IRC client when it is clicked on. - Amgine | talk en.WN 03:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but originally it used to host a stand alone client. Any idea why that was removed? --138.73.34.196 03:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The server which was hosting the standalone CGI is being reconfigured. --Chiacomo (talk) 03:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, its not real good that these things happen without any posting on the water cooler or somewhere,imo. Somehow a journalwiki link(I assume Amgine's server) got involved last time I got on and then it was gone...I agree with Ed; if its not going to work without individual contributors downloading something, just remove the link and we should stop advising users to go to IRC for help. Neutralizer 04:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chiacomo , are you talking about Amgine's journalwiki server that was doing it for the past few months? Neutralizer 04:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chat is not transparent. Don't get me wrong. But it is not transparent. -Edbrown05 04:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen quote stuff come out of Chat that has made it into an article, but it ranks lower than the water cooler (headline stuff huh?). -Edbrown05 04:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can the server that hosts the IRC client see into our harddrives? 67.71.120.34 04:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the server cannot see into your hard drive -- it can see into your soul (joking!). I've popped the script onto another server and will host it until such time as it becomes a burden on my resouces or until someone comes up with something better. The problem with the script is apparently that it leaks memory or something. I've put apache on a graceful restart (on cron) every morning at about 2:00, we'll see if that helps any. I've been amazed at how many people actually do use the web based client -- I've noticed them missing from channel. --Chiacomo (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For Professionalism

There are many problems caused by the poor interactions between users here. Baseless accusations are frequently made and the extent of recourse has yet been only more discussion only to return to the same. A more profound action is required. A mass protest by every contributor who has met problems with the overly unprofessional and obstinate users here. It will more effectively demonstrate the frequency and severity of the errors that those inept users make than endless epic discussions. If all who have so far been content to make such corrections instead fight against the tide of sheer ineptitude that has become prevalent here by stopping, the reality of its prevalence will become apparent to all when the quality of the site falls sharply. It might allow a change for professionalism or at least professional detachment to be adopted here. Simply stop editing as soon as possible and for as long as possible, it will do more to enlighten the ambivalent to this necessity than other option available. 65.1.149.41 04:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are assuming the "ambivalent" would then become able and willing to do something about what you see as a problem. You may also consider that friction creates energy and ,that left to itself, pasture overtakes weeds. I believe assume good faith is warranted , effective (love conquers hate), and also necessary for a culturally advanced project such as this. We do have a serious problem with selective and preferential rule enforcement (by our administrators) but that is systemic throughout all humanity and we have improved in that regard,I think. Unfortunately we do lose some (many?) good contributors but that may be a healthy "survival of the fitest" naturality in play. There have been some Chinese people on St. George St. in Toronto for about 10 years holding a 24/7/365 sit-down demonstration against something going on in China....it is admirable and maybe healthy for the demonstrators; but I don't think many people even notice them much anymore, much less know what their cause is. The silent,hunger strike type demonstrations might work in some cultures; but in an English based, mostly western society like this; I doubt it would be effective at all. Martin Luther King (and others) showed us how to demonstrate effectively in western culture. Don't drop out or be quiet; drop in, sit in, march in and take over the joint; and when they come to haul you off to jail; serve your time and then go right back at it again. Raise hell and say exactly what's on your mind but always peacefully and with love in your heart. Neutralizer 13:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, boycotts won't help you. Drawing more editors into wikinews will help you. Nyarlathotep 13:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting my reform proposals (unambiguously and unanonymously) will also help. Encouraging others to leave (or <ahem> yielding to others' encouragement to leave) only makes the problem worse. Among the most powerful things the falun gong have done, pace Neutralizer, is to be a powerful, quiet presence. StrangerInParadise 14:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
wow; that IS the name of that group,I think; how did you know ,SIP? Neutralizer 17:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
/me smiles inscrutably as mysterious Asian music plays in background.... StrangerInParadise 00:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Front page local

How is it that category:Local only pages make the front page? -- user:zanimum

Oh, they do? cool, I can start marking artilces as local only. sounds like a great idea to keep them on th frtont page for now. Nyarlathotep 10:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't "Local" too much. The more articles that are tagged as "Local only", the less shows on the main page, and the less active we look. But yeah, does anyone know how to make it so "Local only" articles don't show on the main page? Even if they were sequestered to the bottom of the page, that would be kinda cool. -- user:zanimum
Repeat after me:Local only supresses them from the development list. We want all stories on the main page regardless of their locality. Only way to get them off the front page is Category:No publish or {{SpecialPublish}}. (Please don't use thoose) Bawolff ☺☻ 01:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Local only use to stop articles from appering from the mainpage, when was it desided to stop this? Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 01:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's never been used to suppress articles from the main page. The thought was that at some point, it might be used for that, but it was never implemented. I oppose its implementation now (though when our article count increases, it'd be okay probably). --Chiacomo (talk) 06:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet, a user could now use "nopublish" to do the same Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 06:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I must say the first Buffalo development story was great; the second was ok and now I just hate to see them on the front page because it makes the publication look like a telephone pole poster. This last story is actually technically libelous,imo, quoting some "concerned citizen" calling Mobius a "slumlord" with no attempt to get a response from Mobius to that slurr. I agree with user:zanimum. Also, the Local Only category is now up for deletion Neutralizer 06:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree most stories should show on the front page. I'd love a day when we have enough articles to not even have multiple days' worth on the front. Articles like the Buffalo stuff are great, they deserve to be on the front page. But Brampton MPP to hold community barbeque and Events cancelled at Humber due to college strike are totally irrelevant to 99% of the world. For such extreme cases only, this cat should be kept. -- user:zanimum

Why is Humber less important that Buffalo? Why do either matter? Both are stories of only local interest. Both should be included or supressed together. If you want a productive conversation, talk about how many stories teh front page needs to start supressing anything. Don't just call other people stories name.
The Humber comedy performances, for example, usually attract 200-300 people or so, from Humber Lakeshore's community of 6000 fulltime students. Once they're over, they're over. They're not even reviewed in the school newspaper (partly because it's Humber North-centric). Something that would physically change Buffalo affects its 292,648 citizens, plus the rest of Western New York for 50+ years, presuming the hotel won't be gone before then. So, news that will affect 300000 people for 18250 days, or 300 people for 1 day. It could be subjective to introduce something that blocks stories from the frontpage, but it's clear there's a contrast between these two stories. -- Zanimum 13:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zanimum; I live in Toronto; a city of 3 million people with another 5 million close by. Our entire city is very interested in what goes on in our universities so our 8 million overwhelms Buffalo's 300,000,imo. Also, unless you live near Buffalo you wouldn't know that shady Buffalo developments are about as much news as the geese flying south in the winter. Neutralizer 14:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I'll take your word for it. But what about the barbecque article I wrote? It wasn't even a report from the event, which I never went to. -- user:zanimum

is anglo/american centric point of view terminology systemic in English news?

Cartman02au brought up a good point about pov perhaps being ingrained in news reporting terminology. Then I saw this Tribune op-ed titled "One man's terrorist Another man's freedom fighter". The question is whether Wikinews should be using "loaded" terminology at all. The conundrum is that our dedication to non-censorship may preclude us from even trying to stay away from certain phraseology. The other problem is that a search of exact phrases with Yahoo's "advanced news" format shows that our source material includes so much of this terminology perhaps we have no right to not use it ourselves? I have posted some comparisons below of how many references there are to certain phrases among english news sites;

  • RADICAL ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALIST 5
  • Radical CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALIST 0
  • ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALIST 108
  • CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALIST 25
  • Iraqi insurgency 6,120
  • Iraqi resistance 241

while conversely;

  • Iranian insurgency 127
  • Iranian resistance 72,100


  • terrorist 5,084
  • freedom fighter 363


Also, another thing is that the various US led "operations" in Iraq are given various brand names which, I think, automatically creates a POV of "rightness" about the operations, and also is an attempt to enlist citizen support for those operations,I think. Since the "enemy" either does not have operation "brand" names or we don't know what their terminology is for their various "operations", I wonder if we should be advertising the various operation "brand names" the Coalition uses for their operations? Here are just a few I rounded up;

This month's brand name; "Operation Swarmer".

Some previous names;

  • "Operation Iron Fist"
  • "Operation Matador"
  • "Operation Scimitar"
  • "Operation Lightning"
  • "Operation Sword"
  • "OPERATION COBWEB"
  • "Operation Thunder"

and of course :"Operation Iraqi Freedom"

Just wondered if anyone felt "terminology" is something worth discussing or not. Neutralizer 19:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That brings up an intreasting point. I really don't know. Bawolff ☺☻ 20:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will be blunt, then expansive...
  • This is a crock of shit.
  • Yes, the English language has evolved in ways that mean certain language is loaded, it has them promptly routed around the loading associated with words like "terrorist" by adopting terms such as "insurgent". Trying to claim we should discount certain sources on the basis of some sort of language use bias is something I'd add to a list of attempts to disrupt the wiki, not treat with any credibility and try to integrate into my worldview. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment; Why is Brian being so combative and disruptive? If I may be blunt,and expansive; you have entirely missed the point or else do not understand the meaning of the English words written above. Noone is saying we should definitely change anything at all; this Water Cooler is a place for open and free discussion and I would say any attempt to suppress that open and free discussion is something I'd add (if I had a "gotcha" list) to a list of attempts to disrupt the wiki. Having said that, the point raised is not whether to be selective about sources but whether to be selective about terminology. Also, since Brian made an overt snipe above, I will challenge him right now to explain why there is this paradox in Yahoo's"advanced news" search for these simple "exact phrase" comparisons;

and what, if anything, does it mean about the nature of English news reporting today? Neutralizer 22:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is very interesting. I didnt think much about these word in the last article [8] I contributed to. In fact its not wrong to use word like 'Iraqi freedom fighter' and 'US led occupants' but i guess it will be a war here. But is it right not to use them just to keep Wikinewsies with anglo/american centric point of view happy, not to mention that some of us supporting U.S. Iraq polisy. Im going to try to use more npow terminology in next article and see whats happen. International 21:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this is a- not surprising and b- silly. Yes, of course terms have one slant or another. EVERY SINGLE WORD HAS A SLANT. Neutralizer, if the site used terms like the ones you very unscientifically show to be less used, we could be labeled as fundamentalist hack-job just as easily as English-centric. The goal here is get as NPOV as we can - sometimes that means using one term, or the other, but even more importantly is working to ensure that our information and details are actually balanced. I will repeat again, ANY TERM HAS A SLANT. Our job is to keep the news as neutral as possible - neither set of terms you list does this extremely well. Lyellin 19:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Lyellin; we use the word "insurgents" too often, I think. But doesn't anyone think the # of references to "Iranian resistance" seems off the chart? I'm wondering how much that term has increased over the past 5 years; is there a way to find out? Neutralizer 02:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion of anglo-american NPOV

here Neutralizer 12:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've issued myself a personal challenge, join me

Hey all, Having just recently come back from Wikinews after one of my college related wikibreaks, I've noticed trends that depress me. A rise in users with a drop in article count, virtually no collaboration, virtually no community. To combat this I've decided to do what little I can to work on fixing those issues. I've issuing myself a personal challenge of writing at least one article a day, and collaborating on one article a day. I outlined this challenge in depth on User:Lyellin/Personal Challenge. I invite everyone else to comment/suggust things regarding this, and to join me with your own challenge if you agree. Post here, leave a message on my talk page, whatever you like, and I'll add you to my list, and the date you are starting. Happy writing. Lyellin 19:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggust to both of you to keep a record of you challenge on your talk page so we can all see what this may be developing. Lyellin 20:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in, starting next Monday. Great idea, Lyellin. - Borofkin 01:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who decides what shows up on the front page?

Hello, I'm very new here, and I've got a very simple question: Who decides what shows up on the front page? Do we have some journalist-editor hierarchy, or just how does it work? I couldn't find that info. Thanks! :-) Puck 00:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, no hierarchy really. Please see WN:SG and WN:CG for guidance on article content. Beyond that, any article that has the {{Publish}} tag and is not disputed in some other way is automagically included on the front page. Please let me know if I can help you in some way! Welcome! --Chiacomo (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I understand. And anything that has the "breaking" tag on it will appear front and centeron the first page, like "Captors release American journalist Jill Carroll" right now, right? Puck 00:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no.. The lead stories are updated manually. If you visit Wikinews:Workspace there are links for the three "top stories". There is a defined template that stuff fits into. Have a look and see how it works -- you can change it if there's another story that's appropriate. We probably should rotate our top stories more. --Chiacomo (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I get it now. Lead article is editable by anyone by editing Template:Lead_article, right? Wow, that's "power to the people" :-) So, what are the plans for the future, when 800 stories fight for a top placement everyday, like in a ordinary newsroom? Puck 00:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed! Every element of the frontpage can be edited by any user (except some of the system messages). The basic layout itself is protected (there are ongoing discussions to change that basic layout). One of the tenets of the Wiki way is that anyone can change anything -- though you should probably think about it before you make a huge change. Plans for 800 stories?!?!?! Heaven help us -- that day will come, though, won't it? Plans? Who needs plans? We pretty much wing it here... Have you got a plan? :D I suppose we'll cross that bridge (very slowly) as we get there. --Chiacomo (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Just wing it", I like that :-) I guess there would be the need for a "virtual news conference" every hour or so to weight articles, because some stories might be more important, and you don't want readers to read 800 stories to get to the meat. Another question: Why aren't the articles more connected? Is wikinews the right place for "always updated stories with lots of background" (like "french youth protests", which has been going on for several weeks now), or is it only for single news stories, (like "50 cars damaged tonight in protests")? Because with background articles, one could jump from the current event to the bigger picture and back. Puck 00:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that we have built in are categories, which allow you to peg articles as a specific topic, or a specific region. There are both regional and topical portals which will help refine a search - you can see the regional ones on the left of the screen. Regarding your question the articles connection. Really, you can have both. We try to write an article and "Protect" it, so it can't be edited after a few days, but we can very easily write a new article and link it to old ones (we can this related news), so you can have a constantly evolving story going on. One good example of this are the buffalo hotel articles, the first of which can be found here: Buffalo, N.Y. hotel proposal gets final approval by city Planning Board. Welcome to wikinews! Lyellin 03:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sabatoge involving Requests for Administrators.

What a nice link I came across. http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2161/30747

Notice the "IMPORTANT RECRUITMENT DRIVE" under the article...This is my favorite quote:

  • Quote
Eventually, with enough of us in there we can become the admins there and change the balance of power!!! TIP: Some of us should act like we are conservatives so they will let their guard down and allow us to become admins. Then our proxy admins can vote in other admins, get it? Getting FACTS out about our govt. is something YOU can do to TRULY help America right now. Been frustrated? This can be your outlet: Take over wikinews from the conservatives! http://en.wikinews.org/

Posted by Anonymous.

Just thought this was very interesting. Jason Safoutin 12:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. We dont have a problem with to many articles yet and a previous discussion about US Gov infiltrators who are welcome if they contributes stands (?) I guess. international 08:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More info here http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/User_talk:Cowicide

Also more here. I only pasted my "favorite quote". Jason Safoutin 11:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, here are the rest:
Neutralizer really needs our help. Keep in mind, be civil... and when conservatives like Mrmiscellanious attack you with insults.. be polite and try to get around his agendas slowly or he and others will ban you.


Eventually, with enough of us in there we can become the admins there and change the balance of power!!! TIP: Some of us should act like we are conservatives so they will let their guard down and allow us to become admins. Then our proxy admins can vote in other admins, get it?

Posted by Cowicide...wonder if its Wikinews's same Cowicide?? hmm.

Wikinews has been inflitrated by a crazed little clique of militaristic neo-con Bush nuts. Please help us take it back! There's a struggle going on to preserve the independence of Wikinews, the collaborative current affairs version of Wikipedia. Stories that make America look bad either get watered down or completely stopped. Please help us reclaim Wikinews! Cowicide, 25.10.2005 00:51

Even has a link directly to the water cooler.

All other "quotes" are posted by "anonymous". Jason Safoutin 11:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


"TIP: Some of us should act like we are conservatives so they will let their guard down and allow us to become admins. Then our proxy admins can vote in other admins, get it?}}"
Fits quite good for you. Dragonfire, are you an infiltrator from Indymedia that going to turn 180 after gaining administrative status? Then you fooled me, must change my vote immediatly. international 15:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, I never knew what a proxy was until I asked around yesterday. Jason Safoutin 11:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is absolutly great (: . They'll welcome to try. All the more contributations. Bawolff ☺☻ 20:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
<heavy, heavy sigh>. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 20:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews2 on IRC

There is a new IRC channel on irc.freenode.net and its called wikinews2. Its purpose is simple: This channel is for non-news related chat and for Wikinewsies to talk about everyday life with other Wikinewsies. I am hoping this channel will allow us to get along better and encourage people to be more friendly. Everyone is encouraged to come on in :)

Just log onto the IRC freenode server and type: /j wikinews2 :) Jason Safoutin 13:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. How about a more descriptive name, such as #wikinews-chatter?--Eloquence 23:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree...how can I change the name? I registered the channel and such so all I need to know is how to change it :) Jason Safoutin 17:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Writing Contest

I've considered another Writing contest...anyone interested in participating if I do it? Ral315 (talk) 01:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely :) Just let me know the details :) Jason Safoutin 17:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the link. Ral315 (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Water_cooler/miscellaneous/Archive/10&oldid=1624267"