Wikinews:Water cooler/miscellaneous/Archive/15

Shimon Peres

This interview is now set. They are running us around 12 hours a day--literally, sometimes 14--to different tech companies, universities, etc. I have to figure out the next story to write. I'm very very tired. Supposedly Ehud Olmert is a go, but no time has been set. --David Shankbone 19:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Will the interview be published here yet? —FellowWiki Newsie 17:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I am aiming for Monday. It is going to be a very, very challenging interview to transcribe b/c he spoke really softly and, although his English was excellent, he also has an accent that doesn't help translating his soft-spokeness on complicated issues. I am going to vet it for accuracy to David Saranga, who was there and took notes.

Audio will be made available.--David Shankbone 02:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews on Wikipedia

We are up again for not being used anywhere on Wikipedia. If it is decided that Wikinews can not be used on Wikipedia, I plan to retire from both projects and concentrate on other things I have been developing. If it is important for this project not to be shunted off Wikipedia, then I suggest you make your views known here, and about the Verifiability of the interviews here. I personally feel that if this is an important project to WIkinewsies, then it is important we are part of this discussion. All of us. --David Shankbone 22:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Quick comment: unless the audio is posted in the OR notes for the interviews, they (wikipedians) are essentially right to say that the quotes are unverifiable. As it is now, anyone can change the quotes without anyone (except you) being able to change it back to what is verifiably correct. --SVTCobra 22:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews cannot and should not be used as a source on Wikipedia. It simply does not make sense. Wikipedia articles have to have sources. If anyone can write an article on Wikinews then use it as a source then that effectively means that anyone can write anything on Wikipedia and this goes against the whole concept of building an encyclopedia. It doesn't make any difference as to the actual nature of the Wikinews article, this is as much of a problem with interviews. The whole idea of Wikinews is that anyone can contribute, this makes it an inappropriate source for Wikipedia.

This isn't Wikipedia shunning Wikinews, rather it is Wikipedia recognising there are some limitations to the Wikinews project. Please don't make threats as this will only serve to annoy people rather than actually persuading them to agree with your opinion. If you cannot accept the consensus about reliable sources on Wikipedia then I'd wish you good luck with your other activities as this isn't going to change.

In response to SVT's comments, including audio with interviews is not really going to address the issue. Adambro 22:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Adambro, WP should not have a news section...your point? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Adambro, not anyone can write an article with anything in it here, you know that.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

What would you call original reporting then? Adambro 23:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Read the guidelines: verifiability is required through notes or audio / video tapes, if there are any questions or doubt we need hard proof. We are just being to lax on accredited reporters to write anything and trust them. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Adambro, I believe that we should be citeable (if using permalink and i an appropriate context), however I believe this is an internal wikipedia issue. If we at wikinews, for example, decided Wikipedia isn't good enough, and a load of wikipedians started yelling at us, I would promptly ignore them. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my comment on Wikipedia. Were they saying that David should never insert material from interviews he had conducted I would be agreeing with them. But they're saying you can never <ref> to a Wikinews article, permalink to a version or not. They are blissfully unaware of our archiving procedures. If a fully protected article isn't a credible source, or an interview can be dismissed because no mainstream news source has carried it, what are we doing here? I can see David has good reason to take this personally. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

(aside) I don't see the comment you stand by in the two Wikipedia discussions linked by David Shankbone. Is it elsewhere? --SVTCobra 23:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC). Nevermind, I found it. It is a good deal further up the page than the anchor to which was linked. --SVTCobra 00:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not about credibility but about verifiability; if there's no proof, then WP should ignore it. They could <ref> Reggie Bibbs, even the Bali stuff, there's notes.

You should never take things like this personally, although they might be intended that way. We all realise how incredible DS's stuff is, just make sure you tell him from time to time, everyone for that matter.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Why does us being a wiki automatically shut us off from the west of the world? Pilotguy roger that 00:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Adambro remains the Jesse Helms of Wikinews. One of the problems we have on here is that we are not archiving our stories the way we are supposed to; this is especially a necessity with interviews. Of course, we don't have enough admins... --David Shankbone 01:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

David, Wikipedia wishes to be a credible source of knowledge. To that end, we have a policy that all claims made in articles must be capable of being attributed to a published reliable source. We can not state a claim and say that David Shankbone says so. We can state a claim and say that book so and so said it, or this New York Times article says it. For us to be able to use a wikinews article as a source, that article needs on-line evidence backing up the claim to be used in wikipedia. As of now, Wikinews is not a reliable source for claims in the way that New York Times is. To get there wikinews must earn credibility with editorial processes and procedures and on-line archival of evidence. Earn credibility, don't demand it to be assumed. 4.250.132.52 02:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

That's crap. Do you see the NY Times publishing their sources and or revealing them? No. We do (unless they request not to be). And again its not the Wikinews author...stories belong to Wikinews not a Wikinewsie. But I also agree that we need, and have been saying we need, an editorial process. But again this is just another excuse. OR notes are the source. They are supposed to be detailed. And I don't get to read the NY Times sources...DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

No that is not crap. The New York Times has an established reputation. When a reader reads a claim in wikipedia and sees that the source is a New York Times article he can (1) read that article and (2) verify that the New York Times is considered to be a reliable source by many people. Show me evidence that Wikinews is considered to be a reliable source by third parties. Who is willing to stake their reputation on that claim? Not Wikipedia. Not yet. Get your act together and create a reputation. That reputation does not yet exist. You want to use Wikipedia to jump start that reputation and we are telling you to put evidence online or else we can't. 4.250.132.2 10:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to register a username instead of making IP edits? I don't have CheckUser on Wikipedia and it would be inappropriate to use the privilege to establish what your username there is. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 10:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Why should this person reveal their WP username? Adambro 11:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that should be perfectly obvious; a number of the Wikipedians who object to use of Wikinews material as source have indicated prior conflicts with David Shankbone. This is including one with a promise not to revert his insertions following a prior dispute. If someone wants to dismiss Wikinews out of hand, and gives every indication of doing so in their capacity as a Wikipedian, I think it is unfair that their opinions elsewhere are masked by use of an IP address. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 11:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I am User:WAS 4.250 - The name was adopted because I contributed a lot under the IP 4.250.* and received just this kind of paranoia/personal attacks at wikipedia. Care to reveal your real world name, address, phone number, and enough details about your personal life to rule out conflict of interest? This line of questioning is used to attack the person rather than to respond to the substance of what was said. 4.250.138.140 19:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• I post under my real name, and have done ever since I figured out how to set up a sig. I have disclosed considerably more details to the Foundation to meet the requirements for OTRS, Checkuser and oversight access and to join the Communications Committee. I would say it is a big stretch to call my request "paranoia" and would ask you to retract your amateur medical diagnosis. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Well, the IP's charges fall flat. First, one only has to go the New York Times or Fox News articles to see many examples where their reporting is biased, wrong or "made up". Although there are many people who think both those organizations have good reputations for believability, there are certainly many who do not believe much they report to be a basis for forming an opinion on a topic. I actually think we have a stronger code of ethics on here. Second, it is pointless to say we need to earn some kind of reputation because such things are not exactly measured. After all, we are cited, talked about, our interviews with people are held up by them proudly, we are invited to go with other journalists to foreign and local events, our material is carried by other news sites, etc. Any charge one could make about us, has been made about virtually every Mainstream Media source (with real life examples); every measure one could use to show we are taken seriously we can provide. --David Shankbone 13:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

David, no source is perfect. Even the smartest man in the world can publish something later discovered to be false and thus not a reliable source because it is out of date. Claiming you have credibility and reputability because no one else is perfect either is poor reasoning. If that is the sort of logic you use to write articles, maybe you are less credible than I had previously believed. Seriously, help make Wikinews widely trusted for accuracy and lack of bias. And further, arguments that your policies are good but you lack the manpower to enforce them is an admission of lack of credibility for wikinews. You say :"we are cited, talked about, our interviews with people are held up by them proudly, we are invited to go with other journalists to foreign and local events, our material is carried by other news sites, etc." Where at wikinews do you document this? This is part of the process of achieving reputation. Where was a third party academic study done evaluating your site? Write an unbiased sourced wikinews article documenting your accuracy and trustworthiness and get it (re)published elsewhere. 4.250.138.140 19:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I think one of the key concerns is that there is no editor or other process for deciding what is worth Wikinews covering. Coverage of a subject in the press is considered a way of defining the notability and determining whether or not a Wikipedia article is merited. If anyone can write about anything then use this to backup a claim for notability then it would allow for anything to be on Wikipedia. It should be clear on this basis that Wikinews cannot be considered to be on the same level as the mainstream press when writing Wikipedia articles. Adambro 15:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

What you consider a negative, I consider a positive. News media aren't necessarily covering things that are "newsworthy and notable" but what sells and what people will read. Thus, we are treated to endless Amy Winehouse, Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, etc. escapades that mean nothing to nobody. Meanwhile, here we can examine issues that may be notable, but have limited broad appeal. I think your view of the news media needs serious re-examination. The last thing we want to do is follow their lead. We're here to break ground, not recover the well-tread abyss that is news coverage of the corporate rags. --David Shankbone 15:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

You've got to realise that when we're discussing policy it is no good to take a rosy view of the world, we've got to consider how the policy will be tested and for this we have to take look at negative aspects. In this respect, we have to consider that anyone can create an article which makes it difficult to treat Wikinews as a reliable source. Adambro 17:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Adambro, Sure anyone can write an article. But 1) will it be published 2) will it follow policy 3) who wrote it and if its OR are there notes...etc...So I grow tired of saying that this excuse is old. Not every article that is created on Wikinews is published. And you know that. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

My point is that providing an article complies with policy, there is no verification of the content. So yes, anyone can get an article published and say anything. Adambro 19:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide me an example of this? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Come on DragonFire1024, think about it, if I was aware of such an article I'd have proposed it be deleted. Of course I can't give you an example. The point is exactly this, we can't be sure that what is written is true, accurate, or worthy of note. Adambro 19:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure we can. Unless its OR, we need sources. Those sources verify what we wrote. In terms of OR, users such as myself take extensive notes. I photograph mine if possible. But your point makes no sense because we don't allow such rubbish to be published. If there is no sources, no OR notes, no publish. We all know that. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

applies to most of the above discussion. This isn't a school or college debate where you take the most extreme opposing viewpoint and consider anyone who disagrees with you an "enemy". There is an effort below this to work to consensus. Acting out The Argument Sketch is just a waste of bits and bytes. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

(restart indentation) DF, so you are saying it is impossible for someone to make misleading or inaccurate OR notes? I'm not saying we allow rubbish to be published but we can only judge on the information the editor responsible for the OR supplies. Adambro 19:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

No I never said anything of the nature. But thats called credential abuse. That's ethics. And you as well as I and anyone else know we take that very seriously. And if you can provide evidence of such inaccurate or misleading notes, be my guest. To this moment, I see no instance where anyone on Wikinews has attempted such a thing. And again, we would not allow that to pass the publish stage. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Accreditation, for what it's worth, is not a prerequisite for writing OR articles. Again, don't ask for an example since I've already said I can't provide one and explained why. On this basis, I'd again suggest that an article will be published if it complies with policies even if the OR notes are a waste of space simply because they aren't verified, we rely on that user being honest. Adambro 19:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a waste of time. If you want to argue into the night please use another form of communication. Otherwise engage constructively. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Not entirely convinced there is any justification for this statement. The exchange between myself and DragonFire1024 has been relevant and remained civil. I see no reason to not continue such a discussion. Adambro 20:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I see little more than a collection of adjectives dressing up little details to justify blanket exclusion. Or the opposite, a religiously held belief that we are notable and anything should be citeable. Jimmy Wales has commented below and I see no effort to work on his proposal to reach a set of guidelines that has a consensus basis.

I'll also note that you did not respond when I gave my justification for requesting the IP editor identify themselves. Were a Wikinewsie to edit the corresponding discussion on Wikipedia as an IP their contributions would be utterly dismissed. If the IP editor has held a consistent position on Wikipedia that we can never be cited then that has a bearing on their remarks here and beyond acknowledging they have asserted that position it is pointless to engage with them. If you are also beholden to that ideology then I'd advise DragonFire1024 to cease responding as he's wasting his time. From past experience you should already know you're wasting yours trying to convince him of the validity of your position. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I want to help; how you can help me help

I am arguing strongly for appropriately limited use of Wikinews as a source at Wikipedia. The key bullet points that I think wikinewsies can help with would be by creating a page of "best practices" and some quick explanations for Wikipedians about those "best practices". For example, WP:V can be best satisfied for interview articles when the full audio is posted alongside the edited interview. That more or less answers any plausible objections as to verifiability.

Some at Wikipedia seem to be imagining a straw man position in which Wikinewsies would argue for citability of everything on wikinews, but we are not talking about that, but talking about citing a very narrow range of work that conforms to "best practices". I am sure that both Wikinewsies and Wikipedians share a feeling of horror at the notion that we might have an embarassing situation where a Wikinewsie is posting fake interviews and Wikipedians trust it... and so everyone needs to think hard about best practices to minimize the odds of that happening.--Jimbo Wales 00:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

First off, Merry Christmas Jimbo! Back on subject, I think that Wikipedia should include Wikinews articles, but I understand that Wikinews is not automatically considered verifiable, and I do understand your concerns. I do think that, however, stories could be appropriatly cited in current events stories, and stories about past news events. I think that, perhaps, the "current events" template on 'Pedia could be modified to say "You can also view detailed news about this event on Wikinews", with a link to Special:Search here. I think that Wikipedia has, in essence, dissolved into a seperate community, and that it should keep linking to Wikinews, Wikiversity, and the other projects. If you will look at the Wikipedia to Wikinews inter-project links, there is probably a ratio of at least 10:1. I think that Wikipedians, and Wikinewsies alike could converge on Meta to discuss these things. We all share a feeling of horror at incorrect information on our site, as both projects strive to be the best and most verifiable that they can be. We want to be the largest free news source in the world, as Wikipedia wants to be the largest free encyclopedia in the world. To do this, we have to work together. Thunderhead - (talk - email - contributions) 01:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thunderhead, have you thouroughly read this here? Because the core of it is not whether to link to Wikinews, but whether it can be included in Wikipedia content. I may be wrong, but it seems that you have missed the core question of verifiability in this discussion. Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I've not read that, I was going on my past knowledge of the subject, my apologies. :-) Thunderhead - (talk - email - contributions) 01:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobody challenged my inclusion of a substantial quote from a Wikinews interview in this article. In addition I recall a short exchange following my interview with Tony Benn. I was told that with there being an audio version on Commons it was citeable. I linked to the part I transcribed into the Wikipedia article but I don't know if anyone read it for any salient details to add. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability

Below I've broken down our types of articles and detailed what I think are criteria most Wikinewsies would agree on for WP inclusion. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

For people who want to dismiss Wikinews on the basis of "its a Wiki", please start by referring to our Archiving conventions. If you don't want to link to a specific version of an article you can wait until it is archived (i.e. fully protected) and then use it.

On a related note, and my personal efforts to get enough of an editorial control process in place I have looked at Flagged Revisions, discussed this on foundation-l, and had general agreement from Eloquence that Wikinews should be among the first projects to try this. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Synthesis articles

Synthesis articles cannot be referenced in Wikipedia. They can be linked to from articles using the {{wikinews}} template. This is actually only appropriate when we have a good article that draws from several sources and - ideally - has multiple contributors. In such cases where material from the Wikinews article is appropriate for the Wikipedia article it should be traced back to the source(s) we cite.

Yes, wikipedia needs to reference original sources whenever possible. But this doesn't apply to those cross linking boxes that say "wikinews has an article on ..." because those are not sources. Just say'n Nyarlathotep 10:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

OR Interviews

These should be citeable. There may be a requirement that associated audio has been uploaded, or that the IRC log is available. Interviews conducted by email may be a different matter, but there should be some mechanism to allow verification of the emails without revealing things like the interviewee's email address. This may require involvement of OTRS volunteers.

Other OR

Notes and photos should give these sufficient credibility that they can be cited.

I agree that notes and photos make the OR verifiable. However that is still a step away from it actually being verified and thus credible (and I think I have to agree if Wikipedians say that it can't be their editors job to make sure that the info in our articles is correct). I do think that OR articles need to have gone through a sort of editorial process, to make them in line with what WP requires for sources. I can see the reality as well though, which is that that would require a considerable effort. Seeing that one: you state that "just" archiving is already lacking in manpower; And two, a similiar guideline for editorial review on the german WN (for all articles though) has not been effected much (example), I'm not sure we're up to managing this. On the other hand... it just came to me that it needn't be for all articles but, at least for use in WP, would only be necessary in OR articles. I guess as of now there are perhaps not so many as it not to be managable. Hmm.

I agree with your statements made elsewhere that the current archiving policy is headed in this direction anyway (which I think is good news), and flagged revs might ease the process (allowing editors to "vet" articles that are only a few hours old, without freezing the article in place). On a side note I do also believe that far more extensive notes would be/ are required than what is usual at the moment; I have to admit to being guilty of not living up to my own standard in this in recent times though... it is a big time effort to write an article, and then make extensive notes on what all the info you got was, or transcribing paper notes) Regards Sean Heron 05:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The breakdown of the german guideline checks might be of interest: the non bolded ones amount to more or less what is policy for archiving here. The other (top) three are:

• Copyright infringements (I realize this is constantly checked, so perhaps not necessary)
• Neutrality
• Correlation with sources

I reckon these last two would be two important parts of an editorial process for OR articles.

Examples where OR is used and could be cited

• Grand Central Railway launches direct train service linking London with north east England

The number of the first train appears to be the OR in this as well as the accompanying photograph. It may be contentious whether or not the train number is notable enough for WP, but in other instances such details may be important.

Examples where OR is used and is cited

• The Wikipedia article on Wikinews cites Interview with Sue Gardner of the Wikimedia Foundation with a detailed rebuttal of Robert McHenry's criticism of the project. This does not employ a <ref> tag, but a interproject wikilink directly to the Wikinews interview. Wikinews article was archived November 23, 2007 ([1]) and is not editable by non-administrators.

Addressing Jimbo's request

What are some ideas we have to make articles more palatable to those concerned about their veracity on Wikipedia? I have mainly argued on behalf of interviews because I find them to be no-brainers in terms of their ability to be included on Wikipedia. I think there are several things we need to consider:

1. What are necessities for our interviews to have their veracity unchallenged?
2. Can we come up with criteria for FA status that makes any article promoted to FA that would be archived and worth including as a source in Wikipedia? In other words, an FA article is "Wikipedia-worthy". If we want to create a "WA" category instead of using FA, that's fine. We can join with some WP admins and editors to construct this idea about how to make them such, which would also help people get more involved with us.

I think these two issues will go a long way toward helping us. Ideas? Suggestions? --David Shankbone 21:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Everybody, please read WN:OR: verifiability is already a prerogative for OR, we simply have been lazy not applying it. Basicly, for interviews, it would be proof, either by audio/video/emails for email interviews/IRC logs for IRC interviews/... If sensitive info is in there (eg email addresses for email interviews) we can use OTRS. Audio/video can be posted on commons (although the 20K limit for video is really annoying).
2. I'd rather suggest a verifiability label, something like a green check sign () in the right-upper corner . This could go on articles that are fully verifiable e.g. because they have audio available and have been checked and archived.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean "prerequisite" instead of "perogative". --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Note thats a 20 megabyte, not kilobyte. For proof, since all you really need is audio, and it doesn't neccesarily need to be high quality for proof, I think thats plenty (but would love for it to be more). Bawolff ☺☻ 03:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that notes, by whatever means should be put on talk pages. Take photos, type them out, scan them, etc etc...I wish people would understand that we are talking about OR articles and articles that ARE verifiable. I wish that we could have an editorial process or protect articles in 24 hours. Most of our OR comes from users who DO follow the guidelines. These are TRUSTED users and TRUSTED reporters. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 04:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

What we COULD do...

We have practices and guidelines etc throughout Welcome messages, policies, guidelines etc etc. If we need "practices," we need to gather up all those and put them in a centralized location. Sort of a Wikinews handbook or a Journalists Handbook. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 04:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

An audio recording assumes a face-to-face interview, which is *not* a method the community commonly choses to reach out to subjects of news interest.

What about email? Where was the Foundation on that issue? WN needs the help and support of a transparent WIKINEWS mail service where content is open to fact checking?

What's a WIKINEWSIE mail address? A rough workaround established by this community because the Foundation chose not to provide services. -74.228.126.242 06:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The e-mail system we set up, well mostly brianmc has worked wonders and has improved our OR dramatically. But I do agree...but we do still need a centralized area of practices. And I think a handbook or something similar based on what I said above is perfect. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 11:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• There have been a whole host of ideas being tossed around to try and improve the credibility and perceived authority of reports on Wikinews. Among these is a proposal for a closed wiki where we can work on embargoed/sensitive material for later publication on the main Wikinews site. This would be an ideal place to host raw emails and the unadulterated recordings of interviews. In many cases an interviewee will grill the Wikinewsie conducting the interview and (a) this is not relevant to the story and (b) may contain material the interviewer does not want revealed to the world at large. This can't always be restricted to prior to when the interviewer hits record. As an aside, telephone interviews may also be recorded. my interview with Tony Benn was conducted using Skype and an add-on called Hotrecord. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 11:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

LEts not forget...We used to have a successful Interview Of The Month. Maybe we should do that again...and put it to every season. IRC is a great place to document OR (assuming logging is allowed) DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 11:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts on best practices for interviews:

1. real world named editors with a reputation to lose
   1. reviewing and approving questions to avoid leading questions
   2. verifying answers for accuracy with other sources
   3. applying conflict of interest considerations (be appropriately skeptical)
   4. verifying article matches raw data
2. real world named editor checks off on grammar, spelling, locking article from change
3. these steps are signed, dated, public, and not subject to alteration
4. raw data publicly archived (for admins at least) and not subject to alteration

4.250.138.159 13:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Number 1 have no issue with and is already done; however, "pen names" must be allowed. I use a pen name, which is a common journalistic practice.

Number 2 I have a problem with for a few reasons: 1. Most people we interview are very smart politicos and intellectuals, and a "leading question" is a subjective notion. I personally feel "a question is a question." My amateurism has created a few leading questions at the beginning, but are rare now. However, those leading questions were deftly handled by the interview Bat for Lashes plays the Bowery Ballroom contained one of the more well-known leading questions I've asked, and the answer was completely "not lead" by anything I said.

Number 3 is reasonable only if it is defined.

Number 4 is a good idea, keeping in mind some minor changes to grammar and "bunching together" topics out of chronological order is commons, as long as the meaning and context remain true.

Number 5 is desperately needed - volunteers please!

Number 6 is a good idea, assuming Number 5 is undertaken

Number 7 is also a good idea, with a rare exception agreed upon by an admin.

--David Shankbone 02:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. I think we need two or three more people who are familiar with policy and procedure. two more should be Wikinews and one more should be WP. A tie we would request from Jimbo that he break it. I would like to ask that I have a non-voting, senior advisory position, if that is okay. --David Shankbone 05:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Citing a flagged revision

Is there a way we could institute the Flagged revisions feature, once (if?) this is implemented? Developers are writing code for this right now for MediaWiki, and it seems to me that a version that has been flagged as a "Quality Version" on Wikinews could be citable in Wikipedia. (I would think that a "sighted version" might only be used for current events, if at all.) I'm heavily involved with the Wikipedia 1.0 project, and so this sort of thing is of great interest to me on Wikipedia; hopefully some of the same methods developed there can work here too. It seems to me that a transcribed interview with Tony Benn, etc, should be citable, as long as there is some sort of tag that says "this has been verified as an accurate transcript of the interview". Walkerma 06:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Changes to Shankbone's interviews

I plan to make it standard to include the audio files in the OR notes, unless there is an important reason not to do so; for instance, Augusten Burroughs will not be available. Such cases will be rare, though. --David Shankbone 02:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to ask that three or four editors began to draw up guidelines for Interviews on Wikinews. I would like two/three or three out of four to come from Wikinews, with remaining seat a Wikipedia editor. I know it is a strange request, but please e-mail me my reasoning on e-mail before before railing against it here. I am happy to explain my reasoning here, but I would prefer to first explain it one-on-one if possible because I my reasoning isn't "solid" and I'd like solid feedback privately first, and then publicly. Dave--David Shankbone 02:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Although my time is limited given my involvement in WP-en, I could help for a while with initial drafts. Jossi 02:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

David's key issue here (as I understand from the comment and other background I know of) is to have a Wikipedia involvement in verifying articles meet a standard for citation on Wikipedia. Thia is - in all likelyhood - easiest to achieve with interviews where we have audio or logs. The idea, at least as I would adopt it, is to have someone with a Wikipedia focus say what is missing to make an item citeable. You never know - it might encourage mainstream sources to disclose more too; partly to show openness, partly to limit liability. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

To my fellow Wikinewsies

First, despite my at times strident and strongly-worded complaints (which I promise is more a function of my inability to type with an "inside voice" than any real anger), I really have a lot of respect for the people on this site. That includes Adambro and SVTCobra. When I left law school in 2006 I was a very disillusioned person with a cynical outlook on humanity (post-GWB re-election; post-Katrina; post-9/11; post Abu Ghraib; and post witnessing the corporate automatons in law school). Wiki was almost solely responsible for helping me realize that there are people out there who passionate care about knowledge free of the Frank Luntz deceptive use of language.

That was a year and a half ago. I recognize I have quite a few talents, and I loved the Wiki projects and their reasons for existing that I committed to investing my creativity, energy, intelligence and money into doing what I could to improve them. It was only meant to be a year's worth of work, and that was July 2006. When I was getting ready to quietly retire, a few in the Wikimedia Foundation asked me to come over here to see if I can help out; after Wikipedia, I think this is one of the coolest projects on the Internet.

I am not retiring or leaving, but my contributions will significantly decrease. Not out of anger or frustration, but simply because there are other things I want to achieve personally. As you can all see from my output, I have invested a lot of time here.

I will still be around, and still produce the odd interview here and there, but what I most hope you will all think about is moving Wikinews to the next level. By all means, keep NPOV; but NPOV does not mean we can't have other content that is interesting and perhaps something of an editorial. These are some suggestions I have, which I think will greatly increase readership and influence on this site:

1. Create a system where certain articles are so researched and of such high quality, and unable to be altered, that they pass Wikipedia's sniff test. In this vein, perhaps having an editorial/publishing board not for the whole site but for the sole purpose of article review would solve WP-related issues.
2. Interviews are wholly different from OR stories, especially if they are transcribed. The argument that "the interviewer chooses the questions" is one of the weakest points that has been made to me to say that an interview is the work of an interviewer. The only thing notable in an interview is what the interviewee says. If the interviewee is Shimon Peres, Wikipedia would be derelict to not include the information we learn; especially since we tend to have Wikipedia articles in mind when we interview.
3. Adding quotes of an interviewee is not COI on WP. The interviewer does not have an interest in repeating what Shimon Peres says about Iran; this hardly counts as OR, even. Interviews are simply getting someone on the record, and this is amazing role for Wikinews to play, and there is no other Wiki project that can play that role.
4. Equally important is to not have the site simply turn into Interview Central. We need more OR.
5. I think we should invite people to write guest editorials that are clearly marked as just that, with disclaimers. Imagine Bono writing an editorial on our site, with a red box placed around it clearly marking it an editorial. Almost every news site out there has editorials; but our news articles should still stick to NPOV.
6. Although complaining and picking apart stories or things a person does not like on this site does serve a useful purpose, we should all AGF in each other that we are *all* trying to improve Wikinews and expand its readership and influence. Instead of attacking of criticizing attempts to do something new or daring (which may or may not work) try to suggest ways to improve it in the future unless it is hopelessly a piece of propaganda.
7. NPOV should not mean only bland, boring information should be published. Two of our more popular pieces, WebComics and my first Israel Journal, were also highly criticized, but also drew many readers to the site. We should learn from these types of stories, and improve on their model.
8. We must must must get on Google News. Wikimedia should use any influence it has to aid us in this endeavor.
9. It is important that when we discuss the people we have interviewed on Wikinews, we do not chalk it up to one person (such as me) but talk in generalities both in our advertising/marketing, and when we individually approach people. If you want to know how to do this, send me an e-mail. I guarantee you it will help you and it is not deceptive.

Like I said, I really think you guys are great, and I apologize about those moments when I "exploded" or ranted--partly, I have a lot of things going on in my personal life; partly, it was that I had put too much pressure on myself with these interviews. That simply is my nature. I am more than willing to help with anything, from teaching you how to get an interview, to the problems and pitfalls in conducting one. I'm also willing to help with any of the things I mention above. I think if we make a united push for many of the things I listed, you will all find yourselves sitting on a very, very influential site that will actually mean something if you try to shop it for jobs in the real world. I don't doubt that.--David Shankbone 21:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I hope that you still come around. We will miss you and you have been an incredibele help. I hope that you find what you are looking for...speaking of which, have you seen mine? ;-) DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Dragon, I'll be around, but just not so much. But to give you an example of the editorial idea, imagine this: We ask someone in the Israeli government to write a 1000 word piece explaining the official Israel government position on the Palestinian issue, including what they consider are problems; and we run it right along side an editorial on exactly the same issue written by someone from Fatah or Hamas. We'd clearly make these as editorials, perhaps create a specific "editorial page". Maybe we could vote ahead of time on topics...I think it would be really interesting and would attract readers. --David Shankbone 21:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. But might need to change policy a little or something. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sincerely sorry if my comments have influenced your decision to reduce your contributions. Whilst I regret if these have upset you I maintain my position that I don't think it is appropriate to cite Wikinews articles on Wikipedia and hope you can respect this opinion. David has made a number of important points in his above comment and I hope we can move forward as a community and look to address the issues he has raised. I wish you luck in your other pursuits. Adambro 22:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, Adam. I actually feel you play an important role here, although I wish your criticism was more directed at how to improve and advance the site. Although I am not saying you are trying to hurt it, I read your comments more as if you want us to stay the way we are. But you are important on here, as is Cobra, because although I think it is imperative for us to wake this sleeping giant into something bigger and better, it is also imperative we stick to our core principles. So, I'm glad you are here...my issue with you was more that I feel you don't express your vision more; and I apologize that I am not skilled in diplomatic discourse when I type. I know I have this problem. In truth, I'm quite worn out and need to slow down. But if we can start to make some cool changes here, I think my fire will get reignited. --David Shankbone 22:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

New discussion about Wikipedia/Wikinews

I started a sub page to begin hammering out what is needed for us to be used as credible sources on Wikipedia. Keep tempers calm, and I also said that none of us should worry if a policy already exists; we just want to workshop and by the end of it maybe everything is already in place that they want and we can show them. It's more a place to brainstorm - come join User:David Shankbone/Wikinews as a Source--David Shankbone 22:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Become a Fan of Wikinews on Facebook

Those of you on Facebook, someone (probably User:Zanimum, I think) has created a product page for Wikinews, so now you can become a fan! If you're on facebook, try searching for Wikinews in the left-hand search box, and then "become a fan". --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Strangely, the group disappeared. I've started it again, and you can access it directly with this link. -- Zanimum 23:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Second Top Model interview

I've started my second interview, this time over e-mail due to conflicting schedules, with Furonda Brasfield. Furonda was a contestant on America's Next Top Model, Cycle 6. She is currently owner of an ABA team, the Arkansas Fantastics, and has started production on her own television series, Model Me TV. I'm pushing for the interview to be published this weekend.

My interview with Keenyah has stalled at the moment, but I'm hoping for that one to be published after Furonda's. From there I will consider the responses at Wikinews Reports and pick the winner of the Name Your Own Top Model contest. Keep it fierce, Wikinewsies! TheCustomOfLife 09:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The Wikinews Importer Bot

See the Wikinews Importer Bot for how to implement importing Wikinews items into Wikipedia portals. For example, Portal:Science and technology/Wikipedia updates Wikipedia:Portal:Science and Portal:Education/Wikipedia updates Wikipedia:Portal:Education. Today's list of topics imported to Wikipedia portals includes at least the following:

Portal:Belgium/Wikipedia Portal:Bermuda/Wikipedia Portal:Canada/Wikipedia Portal:Education/Wikipedia Portal:Environment/Wikipedia

Portal:Film/Wikipedia Portal:Internet/Wikipedia Portal:Netherlands/Wikipedia Portal:Saskatchewan/Wikipedia

Portal:Science and technology/Wikipedia‎ Portal:Spirituality/Wikipedia Portal:Sweden/Wikipedia Portal:Television/Wikipedia

The bot will get a few adjustments to show dates more like they typically appear in Wikipedia portal news boxes. The suggested DynamicPageList coding probably could use some touch-ups as well, like using the story posting date rather than the most recent edit date. What are your thoughts and suggestions about how to best use this bot from here on out? RichardF 04:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

neat! appreciate the effort, RichardF. highlighting Wikinews on Wikipedia articles that document important current events (the 2008 US elections, for instance) would be a great way to attract contributors interested in current events and looking for an opportunity to report on them more extensively than an encyclopaedic entry allows. –Doldrums(talk) 09:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Doldrums, when you say "articles," do you really mean articles? Right now, the bot's daddy has banned it from posting to any Wikipedia namespace beyond "Portal:". For example, anything in Wikipedia:Category:Future elections in the United States is off limits to the bot. However, something could be added to pages like Wikipedia:Portal:Government of the United States. I really do like the idea of an imported "See also" box in articles that links directly to specific, current news items here, but that probably would take some pursuading from folks here of Wikipedia:User talk:Misza13 to loosen the leash a bit (hint, hint ;-). RichardF 19:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

considering that w:Template:Wikinews is acceptable on WP articles, i can't imagine why a box with a couple of links to Wikinews articles should a problem. but since it apparently is a problem, we can always use it on talk pages, similar to the Wikiproject boxes. the key is to let WP users interested in current events, who usually do an excellent job of keeping its articles uptodate, know that they have an opportunity to do an even more comprehensive job here. –Doldrums(talk) 20:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Restricting the use of the bot was just an arbitrary decision by Misza13. I really do recommend you drop him a note on his talk page about other legitimate uses of the bot you see for it outside of portal space. What it does or doesn't do now isn't etched in stone. :-) RichardF 20:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Misza13 has reformatted the dates for typical Wikipedia portal styles and fixed a bug I didn't really understand! I also broached the subject of letting the bot update current events-related articles at their "See also" section. I heartily recommend anyone who appreciates Misza13's outstanding efforts on this project send him a little note of appreciation! :-) RichardF 16:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Haha, so this is how you all found your way to my talk page with barnstars! :)

Now more seriously, I could of course let the bot edit into other namespaces, the only reservation I had was a scenario (however quite improbable) that a vandal adds the bot's template to an article. Then the bot would replace it with different content. I just figured another way, however. I'll let the bot edit any page whose name ends with /Wikinews - this way any page can have it's "sandbox" for the bot (even an article). Misza13 22:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Boy, it's a good thing these guys are quicker on the trigger than you! ;-) The /Wikinews gambit sounds like a plan. Thanks! RichardF 22:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here goes... Category:2008 United States presidential election/Wikipedia now updates w:United States presidential election, 2008#See also. Imaging all the possibilities! >;-o) RichardF 23:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should put them in {{wikinewshas|articles on [[n:United States presidential election|]]|{{United States presidential election, 2008/Wikinews}}}} for articles, but that would require a change in the double indentation format. Bawolff ☺☻ 16:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Misza13 has been busily fixing up stuff for using the bot with articles. Now Wikipedia:Template:wikinewshas works with subpages for the bot. That should head off the "Not in article space!" argument that was developing. And you can specify single bullets with a parameter. Let us know if the documentation at the bot and/or template pages is clear as mud! ;-) RichardF 00:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I simplified your example DPL code, as it had some historical stuff in it that does not do anything. I also removed supresserrors=true as if there is an error it won't work, so its a lot less confusing if it tells you whats wrong. Supresserrors is on many dpls here because DPL used to give very scary, ugly error messages if there is no articles. (which happened with the old portal template did the intersection of some obscure topic and Africa). We eventually realized that modifying the mediawiki: page for it with a friendly message works well, many dpls still supresserrors. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! I was just in a monkey-see, monkey-do mode anyway. ;-) RichardF 04:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I must say, I feel very happy about how sucessful this whole thing is. Wikinews has a bit of a history of getting in disagreements with other projects, or at the least sort of ignoring them, so the fact this is working is very nice. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Wikinews Importer Botism

See w:Talk:Deaths in 2008#Competition? for the first instance I'm aware of for Anti-Wikinews Importer Botism! :-) RichardF 13:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It's become an edit war with the "owner" of the page. If anyone else want to support this use of the bot, now would be a good time. Otherwise, I'm just going to move on. RichardF 13:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I was confused when I posted there (must still be cross-eyed from watching laundry go round in the driers), I posted a WTF? on the page before I realised it was on WP. I suspect everyone on Wikinews supports the project to transfer news from WN to WP, so we need the discussion to be here. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

A discussion here is fine with me, but in the meantime, don't be surprised if the bot keeps getting banned from w:Deaths in 2008. RichardF 14:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: It looks like Wikinews is alive and well at Wikipedia's Deaths in 2008! ;-) Thanks to everyone who stepped in and helped work out a viable compromise, the Wikinews Importer Bot: Setup for articles. :-) RichardF 03:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Help!

Can someone figure out what went wrong with my w:Sesame Street trial? Portal:Sesame Street/Wikipedia, w:Template:Wikinewshas/Sesame Street... -- Zanimum 17:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait until about 18:25 before you panic too much. The bot only checks for new stuff once an hour. :-) RichardF 17:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, works now! -- Zanimum 20:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out! Apparently, the mystery had something to do with an expired fishing license! ;-) By the way, I'm going to make a couple of link fixes. RichardF 20:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Import Wikinews to the Wikipedia regional current events subportals

A discussion is underway to delete the Wikipedia regional current events subportals. I made a counter proposal to import news from here via the Wikinews Importer Bot. This looks like another opportunity for Wikinewsies to weigh in on how the bot can help spread the wikilove! :-) RichardF 03:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

MyWikinews

I posted the following message at the Wikipedia Community Portal.

• Need Wikinews? Learn how you can add templates to your user page that post the latest Wikinews.

RichardF 03:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Something worth looking @?

216.54.14.84 (talk • contribs (logs) • block (block log)) seems to be posting a load of VERY questionable excessively incoherent text in articel comment pages. 68.39.174.238 23:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

New regional portal footers?

I noticed Portal:Europe had a color-coordinated footer available, Template:Europe/Subdivisions, so I replaced the collapsible footer, Template:Europe, with it. Would anyone object if I created comparable footers for the other regional portals and replaced the other existing collapsible footers? RichardF 22:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews goes to Rio de Janeiro

Hey everybody. I have been invited by the tourism board in Rio de Janeiro to join a press junket to Brazil in March. Details will be forthcoming. If anyone has a Rio-based person they want me to request to interview, please let me know. --David Shankbone 19:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The dates for the Rio de Janeiro trip are confirmed for March 5 through March 11. --David Shankbone 16:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Prolific POV-pusher moving from Wikipedia to Wikinews

Hi. I really need some good advice here from experienced users. A prolific POV-pusher has made a move from Wikipedia to WikiNews and there do not appear to be mechanisms in place there to check him. I am referring to Wikipedia User Cirt. Cirt runs an incredible 5000+ edits per month with the main effect of his efforts being to bring articles critical of (primarily) Scientology to featured and front page status. And you know what, I have no objection to that. Wikipedia is a community and featured articles are the most scrutinized of all and I am comfortable with the community holding him in check so if he can make a Scientology-critical piece into a featured article then more power to him. Of course in areas that are not scrutinized he has more "freedom of expression" as in the article on Bowfinger where the only "Theme", according to Cirt was that Scientology is a cult, see this. He expanded it a bit after I pulled his little piece though it is still unduly weighted. Or perhaps Curt's recent spat of AfDing and prodding Scientology-series articles that are, IDK, not sufficiently critical? I am not going to play around with words here, I respect this community too much. I, for one, am 100% certain that Cirt is a reincarnation of Smee (formerly Smeelgova) who disappeared just before Cirt appeared. Their interests, article for article, are identical, as is their editing style and Modus operandi, with Smee famous for bringing material critical of Scientology to the front page under WP:DYK.

So what does this have to do with WikiNews? Well, we were discussing a recent DDOS attack on the CofS on the talk page and whether it was notable (consensus seeming to be no, not notable) and I saw a reference to a WikiNews article so I went over there. I found that someone had been very busy indeed! Not only an article on Jan 20, Hackers attack Church of Scientology website but another today, "Anonymous" releases statements outlining "War on Scientology" and the first raised to FEATURED STORY status. So today, a release by some bunch of anonymous haters is front page news along with Gaza and Iraq. Who would think that? Who would benefit from that thought? Of course, I find that both were essentially written by the same person, Wilhelm. And I happen to know that Cirt's original name on Wikipedia was Curt Wilhelm Von Savage, an alias once used by Werner Erhard, the founder of EST, another of Cirt's targets, see the little treatment at Semi-Tough, similar to the treatment at Bowfinger (you may need to go back a bit as recent GA review may have toned it down). I also recognize Cirt's style in the WikiNews articles but then I am very familiar with it.

So you see my dilemma? So long as Cirt was not repeating Smee's more offensive errors and working within the community, I had no huge problem with his efforts to push his agenda. I knew that the community was large enough and the structure strong enough to hold him in check and meanwhile the project gets a prolific editor. But this WikiNews thing is a dealbreaker for me. He is using the power of Wikpedia (via WikiNews) to push the ill intentions of a small group of ne'er-do-wells (and read their page if you do not know what they are about) and he is doing it with no regard for the project or for anything other than his agenda. And there do not appear to be mechanisms in place at WikiNews to hold him in check. I really do not know where to go with this. This is a big thing and, if Cirt/Wilhelm is left unchecked, it will only get worse. Help. Please. Thanks in advance. (This is posted on Wikipedia but I am bringing it here as suggested by an admin there.) --JustaHulk 20:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

One, this is all speculation with no proof to back it up. 2) Anything he has published, so far, has gone above and beyond the call of duty, regarding our Wikinews:Style Guide and other policies in order to publish articles. 3) That attack on Scientology is true. I backed that up before I let it go anywhere, and if you look on the edit history, I started and published the article on the attack, and he jumped in and helped, again according to policy and such. 4) What he has done, assuming this is the same person, on WP, really has nothing to do with Wikinews, because he has not broken policy. 5) Whether he is Anti Scientology or for it, makes no difference to me when someone can go through extensive lengths to put out a damn good article.

So before we start accusing anyone of anything, please show me documented proof, that these are the same people. A CU could confirm it, but so far as I see, on WN, there is absolutely no reason to perform one at this time. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You could start by asking him, it is not in his best interest to lie. He has done nothing "wrong" except use this project for his own purposes. If you are OK with the misuse of this project to heavily promote what amounts to cyberterrorism to forward someone's POV then that is you. --JustaHulk 00:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, I will ask for proof. You have provided none. He has followed policy. So until you can back up your claims with proof then please stop using this board for you personal agenda.

If it is the same person, so what? Again...he has done nothing wrong. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A few featured articles are not "cyberterroism". Indeed, maybe wikinews is a more harmless venue for such a person. We don't attempt to "get the whole story" like an encyclopedia. Our NPOV only means that the whole *relevant* story should be told within each article.

For a dramatic example : Imagine Joe Evangelical writes an article about every pedophile catholic priest and ignores the evangelical pedophile priests. Well, there is research backing up that these occur in more or less equal proportions. So eventually people will see his game, and start sticking that fact in all the articles, which totally soils the Joe's desired effect.

I wouldn't worry about it, scientology is in a lot of news sources today, so it seems fine, but I'll read those articles a bit more carefully. Nyarlathotep 01:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your consideration. You misunderstand me, I do not say that Wilhelm is engaging in cyberterrorism. The Anon group is engaging in cyberterrorism, just read their site to see what they have done to terrorize others and what they intend to do to the CofS. Wilhelm/Cirt/Smee is just doing what he does - attempting to use WikiMedia to promote his POV. In this case it is by giving undue weight and promotion to a group of cyberterrorists. As I said, I am very familiar with this cat. He is a good researcher and excels at making a little source go a long way. His articles may look "OK" but they are, in my experience, one-sided and cherry-picked. Not much to cherry-pick in this case, of course, "just" trying to play this for all it is worth. All I ask of you is to be aware of where he comes from and what his agenda is and realize that his work does not come without a price. There is an agenda. Obviously, I am not an active editor here and have little credibility perhaps. I have a certain amount of credibility, I think, on Wikipedia, FWIW. But I rely on the good admins and editors here that do not want their project misused to keep an eye on an editor that, with 5000+ edits per month has made quite a career of his mission. --JustaHulk 04:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've not edited lots recently, but we've delt successfully with far more POV pushing than you know here. So long as his POV *only* influences what stories he writes, well more articles about *distinct* news events are always good.

Anyway, we've found that POV issues within stories are fairly easy to correct. News stories just ain't as long & complex as encyclopedia entries. Otoh, the only serious ArbCom case wikinews has ever faced was an admin who edited tenuously to harass & prevent stories he disagreed with.

Also, our standards for sources are intentionally far less serious than wikipedia's, heck you can just visit some important speech and write about it, but we make up for that with the newsworthiness restriction. Wilhelm has written several of Scientology news stories now partly because they exist. So many stories may simply not exist in 3 months.

Indeed, that's really the whole point, there are different limits on POV pushing here, necessarily so, and ours do work for our purposes. Nyarlathotep 14:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• The latest article on the Internet versus Scientology has me wondering if that is the one that should go to featured status. It is painfully obvious to anyone here that Wilhelm has an interest in promoting stories that cast the "Church" in a negative light. Can he do that within our guidelines? Seems so.

In any case, this discussion doesn't belong here. It is the responsibility of the entire community to keep someone's biases in check. In Wilhelm's case I believe he tries to do that himself and should be given credit for doing so. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to try to shed some light on the issue at hand from the POV of JustaHulk. He is obviously concerned that Wilhelm is using Wikinews to push his own agenda, and only write about what he believes in. What he clearly doesn't understand is that is just the way that a site like this has to work - otherwise we'd be left with no stories! People will only write about what they are most interested in, and Wilhelm has so far contributed some very informative and newsworthy articles - whether is his anti-scientologist or not himself is a different matter entirely, and not something that I personally care about. I don't think any of you care about my religious beliefs - and I know that they don't affect my writing style. But if someone is truly anti- or pro- a subject, and that is what interests them and makes them write good articles, then it is something that we at Wikinews should be embracing so that we can get more articles of the calibre currently being written. --Skenmy^(t•c•w) 18:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Your point is well-taken but I think it applies more to Wikipedia than WikiNews. To state the obvious, Wikipedia is a collection of articles and a good article is a good article; WikiNews is NEWS and should have a concern for what is news and what is not news. Wilhelm/Cirt and I go waay back and I think that we have a grudging respect for one another. When Cirt last reinvented himself he devoted himself to taking articles critical of Scientology to featured status and has had some success. Again, that is not a problem for me. My problem is letting him dictate "front page news" as the announcement of a bunch of cyberterrorists, effectively setting up WikiNews as a promotional outlet for that group. That is just plain wrong. One article, the first one, was news; the second was abuse. --JustaHulk 20:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

He followed policy and guidelines. So there is no "abuse" anywhere so far as I can see. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

So what you are telling me, DragonFire1024, is that as far as you are concerned, y'all exercise little editorial control and that Wilhelm/Cirt is free to turn this site into "The Anti-Scientology News". In that case you do not run a news outlet here; you run an open blog. And to once again make my case clear. I do not object to the first article on the Anon group. I do not object to today's article on the book (though I would think that there was other news in the world but I guess you make do with what editors will provide and Wilhelm will certainly fill your void for you). I objected to the second article trumpeting an "announcement" by a cyberterrorism group. Any responsible news organization would have left that on the floor. I can only hope that others here take a more responsible attitude. --JustaHulk 06:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, JustaHulk, Skenmy's point applies more to wikinews than to wikipedia. Wikinews articles are just news that passes by and is based on present sources. Wikinews' POV concerns are within articles. Otoh, Wikipedia must deal with surprisingly subtle global POV issues involving POV forks. Here a POV fork gets smacked back almost immediately because the issues are just not as complex.

Also, our leed articles are generally more based upon "importance" than wikipedia's. I still remember getting pissed off that a Gwen Stefani song got front page at wikipedia.  :) But here if you see a scientology article as leed, when there is obviously more important news, fine just change it, most editors agree about what is important news. Oh, fyi, our features article lists are pretty much unimportant since they don't relate to being a leed. Nyarlathotep 12:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews is not the anti-Scientology press, and we have to take the rough with the smooth when we get a contributor who wants to push their POV on a subject. Wilhelm may well have a bias in the material he chooses to cover, but that isn't Wikinews' concern. As long as he follows project guidelines he'll be welcome. Why not join us rather than attack someone who has figured out how to use the project?

Personally I'd love to see us land a couple more contributors as dedicated as Wilhelm. We could do with someone damning/exposing the Christian church, and the same for Islam. Then we want the people who believe in these ideologies. What you seem to be missing is that Wikinews wants everyone to be a journalist. Really. No kidding... Everyone. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this discussion becoming more suitable for the Water Cooler? --SVTCobra 02:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to move it. I guess that my desire that there be "editors over the editors" and that those "super-editors" be the administrators is kinda unrealistic. I guess that the prolificness (I dare not say prolixity; kettle-black and all that), the prolificness and number of the editors from any one POV will determine the POV of this medium. And we all know where Scientology stands on the internet. --JustaHulk 04:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought the newsworthy aspect was that Scientology isn't standing on the Internet. :-P When the Wikinews project was started I believe people like Jimmy Wales expected it to be far more geeky/technical in the coverage. I think the worst accusation you could put against Wilhelm is he doesn't seem to have contacted the CoS for a statement. Xenu forgive him. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That's cute but no, "the worst accusation you could put against Wilhelm" is that he is misusing this project to promote cyberterrorism and it is my very educated guess that he will continue to do so so long as you allow him to. The subject was deserving of an article as in one article. Wilhelm will most happily write you a new article every time the "group" makes another YouTube announcement and/or every time another two or three media outlets make a brief mention, ignoring the fact that the media outlets are different each time and are not each one overplaying this and ignoring the fact that each media outlet is pretty much repeating the same info you have already covered. Let's see if Xenu is guiding my ouija board --JustaHulk 12:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Willhelms contributions get us noticed on slashdot and digg and get us higher readership, also there is nothing in our policy which prevents users from writing about this (we write about al-qae whatever it is, whats different there??). basically you are the only one who is objecting to one users very good article contributions, there have been no other complaints and our readership is going up because of it so basically i see no problem at all with these contributions --MarkTalk to me 12:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• I have reserved commenting until now. But with (5) other users having responded so far to JustaHulk/Justanother, he continually seemingly keeps drawing this issue out further and attacking me and the work I and others have contributed to on this project. I do not think that this thread is constructive to this project. This user's continual posting here is a form of disruption to the project in general, and a form of cross-project harassment to me personally. And yes, I am Cirt on Wikipedia. Wilhelm 00:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see similar thread on Wikipedia

• Note

Please see w:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Prolific_POV-pusher_moving_from_Wikipedia_to_WikiNews on Wikipedia. Permanent link to version as of this timestamp is here . Wilhelm 14:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

And please see my response there that I will not bore you with by repeating here. I hope that you find the below more interesting. I did. --JustaHulk 22:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment on cyberterrorism

I sometimes get a raised eyebrow when I accuse POV-pushers of using this project to promote cyberterrorism to forward their POV. Let's just take a look at who we are elevating to a level where their attacks and announcements are worthy of featured coverage even before they prove to be anything. See the first hit on this search (I will not link directly to a copyright violation but this is worth seeing).

"Cyber-terrorism is the leveraging of a target's computers and information technology, particularly via the Internet, to cause physical, real-world harm or severe disruption of infrastructure."

Does that sound like anything that Anonymous might be involved with. Watch the Fox11 video if you have any doubts. --JustaHulk 22:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Can we say disruptive spamming cross-projects, again? Does this report mention Project Chanology? Does it once use the word "cyberterrorism" ? Is this word used anywhere to describe Project Chanology? Or are you just trying to post to as many Wikimedia projects as possible in order to try to get this word used somewhere? Hm? Cirt 23:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: The FOX 11 report is not news - it is over 10 months old. Therefore it is also speculation and conjecture that this has anything to do with any of the same individuals involved in Project Chanology, of which this loaded term used by JustaHulk (talk · contribs) has not been used to describe these recent incidents, ever, except several times now, by JustaHulk (talk · contribs), on the English Wikipedia and now here on Wikinews. These are the only times this term has been used to describe Project Chanology - by this disruptive user. Cirt 23:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    • "Therefore it is also speculation and conjecture that this has anything to do with any of the same individuals involved in Project Chanology," cough whitewash cough. --JustaHulk 00:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
      • cough POV disruptive editor spamming cross-projects, harassing, and generally not contributing anything constructive and pushing his own POV in a feeble attempt to try to get "Cyberterrorism" to show up in Google searches related to this incident. cough. Cirt 00:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This thread is going nowhere. To me it looks like no one is agreeing with JustaHulk (talk · contribs) except for himself (someone correct me if I'm wrong). If user:Cirt is really an evil whatever the heck you're accusing him of, and that is a problem, time will tell and appropriate action will be taken. However it certainly seems like he isn't, so lets stop yelling at each other and accusing each other. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Note to Admins/editors watching this thread

No matter how much feedback JustaHulk (talk · contribs) gets from both Admins and editors from both Wikipedia and Wikinews, he continues to disruptively/abusively push this issue regarding me. Please take a look at his recent post to Jimbo Wales's talk page on Wikipedia. He started a new subsection on Jimbo's talk page called "WikiNews is a crack whore". If any of you also have accounts on Wikipedia, it would be much appreciated if you could provide comment over there about what you feel about my recent spate of article writing here - please, whether you feel I have been a positive, or a negative or something else, contribution to Wikinews, I'd appreciate your feedback at Jimbo's talk page on Wikipedia. If this harassment keeps up, I will try to keep writing good articles and contributing here, because I really like the work you all are doing on this project - but suffice it to say it is difficult not to get frustrated by the bull-baiting. Cirt 16:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ignore him. no good comes from feeding the trolls. Bawolff ☺☻ 17:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, You're right - but when those trolls are also experts at "bull-baiting" and "wikilawyering", it's frustrating and very, very difficult to ignore. A skill I have to work on more. Cirt 17:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Highest ratings EVER

I want to thank every single Wikinewsie and everyone who reads Wikinews for giving us the opportunity to announce a milestone for Wikinews.

Since our debut in November of 2004, we have just received our highest ratings EVER. According to Alexa, which to be a little POV, is generally our enemy in ratings, has given us a rank as of January 24, 2008 of 3,538.

The graph, when clicking on MAX, shows the blue line far above any rank we've ever had on the project.

This makes me incredibly happy to see that all of us are putting forth dedicated work to form the best news agency on the internet. Keep up the excellent work! DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like there was a very drastic spike, between January 23 and January 24... Wilhelm 04:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed...but nonetheless still the highest ratings...to whom everyone is a part of. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 06:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Wilhelm 06:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

also see a comparison of different projects. thanks everyone and lets keep it up :-) --MarkTalk to me 12:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet. Wilhelm 12:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this because of Scientology coverage or what? What happened on January 24? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 01:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I am dumbfounded. That has been continously going downward since, while always. This is really cool. Yipee. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Is the Wikinews Importer Bot bringing in more readers from Wikipedia? :-) RichardF 15:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now that some time has passed, I'm calling this the Scientology Spike with a concurrent but more sustained and modest impact from the Wikinews Importer Bot Effect. :-) This is the largest spike since June-July 2007 probably due to the Car driven into Glasgow International Airport. RichardF 04:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Please close

Who closes Accreditation requests? --Boricuæddie 23:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Any admin. I've closed it and added your name to WN:CV. You can Special:Emailuser/Messedrocker to request a press pass. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 11:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

radio station

I work for a radio station, and we are considering creating a new local, national, and world news morning show. As an avid Wikipedian, and regular visitor to Wikinews.org, I think WikiNews and WikiNews Audio has some great news articles that we could use for this show on a regular basis. I was wondering whether anyone has any suggestions, or whether anyone thinks this is a good idea or not. Sobar 11:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

this is exactly the kind of thing Wikinews was started for and we'd be more than happy to see it happen! our free license means you can use our articles or audio recordings in your reports with or without changes. all you need to do is to attribute any material taken from Wikinews. best, –Doldrums(talk) 12:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There has been some discussion about starting a Wikinews podcast but WNN radio has failed thus far. I suppose you want to use your own voices, but this could rekindle interest in Audio Wikinews. Would this be a daily or weekly show? I'm sure there are several interested contributors who might provide you with some specific content (like summaries or audio) if you want to. What area is your radio station in? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I will have a daily weekday show that features local news, as well as a roundup of national and world news. I noticed that the Audio Wikinews seems to be updated frequently, although it's not exactly very active. Our radio station serves the suburbs of Providence, Rhode Island and Boston, Massachusetts USA. For now, I can use some of the audio from Wikinews Audio, but it would be great for Wikinews contributors to let me know which stories I should include on the show, or even record audio articles for the show. Definitely I will mention Wikinews as our source, and I will refer people to Wikinews on our station's website. Sobar 21:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikimania 2008

The Wikimania 2008 Call for Participation has started.

Discussion moved to WN:WM2008 --Brian McNeil / ^talk 11:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Two Top Model interviews done and to be published

This week, we were able to secure through Elite Model Management interviews with two former America's Next Top Model winners. Newcomer Sandy Ordonez (WMF's former Communications Manager) interviewed Jaslene Gonzalez, and I interviewed CariDee English. Expect the CariDee interview to be up tomorrow and the Jaslene interview soon after. Keep it fierce, Wikinewsies! TheCustomOfLife 20:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews:Browse

have boldly renamed this page and its associates as Archives, and changed the navigation link thingy in the left-hand tab accordingly. awaiting comments, meh's or frothing-at-the-mouth opposition. –Doldrums(talk) 09:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't really call it archives, as it serveres primarily as a list of portals, but on second thought, it sounds good. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

partly true, but i don't like "browse articles". –Doldrums(talk) 05:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Michael Lucas, New York's King of Porn and outspoken social critic

I am interviewing Michael Lucas on Saturday. In addition to owning the largest adult entertainment production company in New York, he is outspoken on topics ranging from crystal meth use, unprotected sex, Hasidic Judaism, Islam, love, etc. He has recently been invited to speak at Stanford University by their student union.

Michael Lucas invited to speak at Stanford University

New York, NY (February 7th, 2007) -- Lucas Entertainment President and CEO Michael Lucas will speak at Stanford University in California on Thursday, February 14th. The event, entitled "An Evening with Michael Lucas," will take place at the Cubberley Auditorium (485 Lasuen Mall) starting at 7pm.

Organized by the Associated Students of Stanford University (ASSU) Speakers Bureau (http://speakers.stanford.edu), the event will include a lecture by Lucas, a Q&A session, and a reception. Admission is on a first come, first serve basis.

"The ASSU Speakers Bureau is thrilled to welcome Michael Lucas to Stanford University," said T. Patrick Cordova, spokesperson for the ASSU. "We are excited to bring together Stanford's commitment for academic excellence with Mr. Lucas' cultural and social perspective."

Lucas has previously spoken at Yale University, New York University, and Rutgers, about topics as diverse as the adult industry, politics, safe sex, relationships, and Israel.

"I appreciate that I am not limited to speak just about pornography when invited to Stanford or other universities," said Lucas. "Porn is my main job, but there are other fields in which I became expert in and feel confident and comfortable talking about."

Located between San Francisco and San Jose in the heart of Silicon Valley, Stanford University is recognized as one of the world's leading research and teaching institutions. Stanford's current community of scholars includes 16 Nobel laureates, four Pulitzer Prize winners and 24 MacArthur Fellows.

--David Shankbone 19:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Jessica Sierra

I got bored a couple of nights back, and in a moment of extreme madness (I'm one of those people who does stupid things without having to get drunk if the wrong mood takes hold) looked out and contacted Jessica Sierra's promotional people. Before anyone asks "Who?" (or several less polite varients of the same question), see this and the preceding related stories linked to it. Now, it seems as though we have an interview with her to sort out.

As I sent the email, I will sort out the questions etc. If anyone takes pity and would like to submit something to help out, feel free to use the email feature to send them to me. One high note: the previous coverage by that strange account received a lot of unsurprising 'this is ****' type comments aimed more at the contributer than the admitantly unimportant stuff s/he was covering; I could enjoy tht being aimed at me; I am a perverse sort who likes knowing that he's on the edge of what people find acceptable. That's maybe unsurprising, as I'm a fan of, amongst other 'heavy' genres, shock rock. So bring it! Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I like! Do it! --David Shankbone 20:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If you need me to take a picture of her, she lives in my town. Hopefully I won't have to go down to the jail to do it or anything. TheCustomOfLife 20:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be great! To arrange it contact nancy@vergenashville.com - I got my reply from there, and was told to send anything further there if I needed anything else. Just say your another Wikinews journalist and you'd like to take a picture of Sierra to go with the interview. Thanks, I really apreciate that! Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I've got the story in prep, those who hadn't noticed. Please look over Wikinews:story preparation/Wikinews interviews: Jessica Sierra, and at least note on the talk page if you think the list looks ok, as i would like to send it off on Monday, for publication midweek. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

COI

[2] via [3] Nyarlathotep 22:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It's an article by the Register and, well, it's an article by the Register. --+Deprifry+ 22:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

van Canto

I've got my van Canto interview sorted and the questions will be sent any second. However, I've been advised on IRC just now about an NPOV issue with the lead. Can someone please copyedit the lead at Wikinews:Story preparation/Wikinews interviews: van Canto for NPOV? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

LACROSSE!!

I created a lacrosse portal in the sports portal. I'm going to need help keeping up with it. Is anyone willing to help? I can't be the only lacrosse fan on wikinews, can I?

Visit at Lacrosse

(Twiggslaxfpc 19:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC))

Brian Pink interview

I've managed to secure an interview with the Australian Statistician, Brian Pink, and have begun to set things up at Wikinews:Story preparation/Wikinews interviews Australian Statistician Brian Pink. Because I have a strong conflict of interest (he's effectively my boss), I am inviting close scrutiny of my handling of the interview. I'd also like to get some more ideas for questions. If you have no idea who this guy is or why he should be interviewed, feel free to ask me on my or the article's talk page and I'll try to explain anything you'd like to know. Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 11:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting comment

see [4]. The sources for this article are in Spanish, I can't read that language unfortunately. Can anybody check whether the article is "overdone"? Thanks, Theo Assen - (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Petition against EU copyright extension

With things moving at a glacial pace in terms of getting the Foundation to condemn the proposals to extend performers' copyright terms Veropedia has been bold and installed petition software for the issue. I personally have signed the petition and left a comment. There's not many signatures yet, I think I signed about 10-15 minutes after the petition went up.

I'd urge everyone to sign this, if you don't know what is at stake ask here, I'll likely have a lot more on that after tomorrow's meeting with the EFF. The petition can be found here. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

done Theo Assen - (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• The EFF themselves are planning to set up a petition about this issue, when I get the link I'll post it here. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Inauguration of the Research Desk

If I was to tell a disaffected Wikipedian to go to Wikinews, I would tell them they have more ability to grow as a writer and explore topics Wikipedia may deem not "notable" for encyclopedia, but are "notable" as a news item. If that person washed up on our shores, what then? They have so many questions: how do I write an article that's news and not like Wikipedia? What do I care about? What is news? What does Wikinews want me to write about? How do I do it? These were questions I had. I think what scares most new contributors is an insecurity in their ideas to contribute: do we want them? Can they write them? How do they do that?

The Wikinews:Research Desk, which has also usurped Wikinews:Reference, is a place to tell people who feel stuck to go and chill out for awhile. There, you can see what is going on in the world of activism, government, financial markets. You can formulate ideas, check notions, and get lost in international intrigue over murder in the art market and and an out-of-wedlock birth that is rocking County Cork.

This page is not meant to be a comprehensive guide to links on the Internet for whatever. If we become large enough to require a Lexis-type research system I can develop that for us. Until then, where we are now, we are trying to birth ideas and create them, and the Research Desk is more an art than a library: It hits the sweet spot between coming up with ideas, and being able to test them a little. It does not overwhelm, and it does not underwhelm. Please add, subtract to the links with good cause and consideration. As of this writing, they can use expansion, and an AzaToth-esque change in formating the page may be needed. One day...that would show huge maturation in our site, needing to reorganize a more complex reference library as a necessity. On can hope. --David Shankbone - (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Local publicity for wikis, Wikipedia

Out here in Oregon, we have a very active WikiProject on Wikipedia, and an active WikiWednesday group as well. Recently, the local Historical Society and a university history department launched a encyclopedia project of their own.

This adds up, we feel, to an excellent opportunity to do some outreach to the public, to educate about the benefits of Wikipedia and of wikis in general. We're working on a press release about some recent successes, among other things. At least one reporter for one of the bigger Portland papers is interested in a story.

One of our project members suggested that we should seek input from WikiNews folks, since y'all presumably have more experience in the world of news and publicity than us. So please take a look if you have a moment, and help us improve it! Shooting to get the press release out Monday.

There's more discussion about all this on the wikiproject's talk page, if you want to dig deeper. -Peteforsyth - (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

There goes the neighborhood

Looks like we're no longer "cornering" the market on citizen journalism. Look here. It's been up for about a week or two, it seems people can write stories but it seems more like they take pictures and leave OR notes. Though I will admit, it's got a big vandal/spam problem at the moment, various patent nonsense or fake stories. --TUFKAAP - (talk) 06:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope that April Fool's story about us merging with CNN doesn't become real. --TUFKAAP - (talk) 06:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

/me coughs ohmynews, Indymedia... Bawolff ☺☻ 07:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

As I am sure they are learning from us, we can learn from them. Let's take note of how they do format, features, etc. and consider replicating what we like. --David Shankbone - (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with david, but regardless, CNN still chooses what goes on there. Also under 1,000 reports posted out of almost 90,000? Seems like they been around a while if so, then why so much not published? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Good questions. The site may light a fire under those who have been wanting to do Wikinews Video. --David Shankbone - (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like web 2.0/youtube like thing waiting for something good to come along so cnn can steal it. 03:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Totally. This is one of the things that some good-natured person at CNN thought would be a great, creative project that would involve users of CNN to contribute and get involved. I can envision the hippy-skippy proposal meeting. I can also envision the suits looking at it and saying, "This is a great way to get free content for the Time-Warner empire while we take from some people who want to say they got their photo on CNN." --David Shankbone - (talk) 03:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

David Shankbone goes to Rio de Janeiro for Wikinews/Commons

Hi guys - I mentioned this before. The Rio Convention and Visitors Bureau has invited me down to Rio to do some photos of Rio for Wikipedia articles, some Wikinews articles, and I have requested several interviews with some very well-known Rio-based Brazilians. If anyone has suggestions for what to photograph, or who to interview, I welcome them on my Talk page. I look forward to exploring Rio for Wikimedia. I will be there March 5 through March 11. Dave --David Shankbone - (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• I should hopefully have some clarity on interviews by Tuesday. I can confirm that João Gilberto does not give interviews, and Paulo Coelho will be in Paris when I am in Rio. The challenge in arranging interviews on this trip is that many of the political leaders of Brazil are based in the capital, Brasilia. The commercial center is Sao Paulo. There are some things in the works, though. --David Shankbone - (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I can't really think of a person you should interview, but if time (and courage) allows, perhaps a photo-essay about the favelas could be possible. The tremendous social contrasts that arise from these neighborhoods being in such close proximity to the richests neighborhoods have always stood out in my mind, whenever I hear about Rio. --SVTCobra 01:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

David has told me in an e-mail that he has cancelled his trip. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Aww...why? :-( DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

He didn't tell me, but it seems logical that this would accompany his retirement. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Tribeca Film Festival

Is anyone interested in attending with a press pass to cover for Wikinews? Let me know if you do. --David Shankbone - (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It would certainly be possible for me to cover some of the weekend and evening events. So, consider me interested. --SVTCobra 01:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Go here and register. If there is a question you have difficulty answering, e-mail me. E-mail me once you finish it, and I will alert my contact to your registration so that it is smooth. Once registered, I will e-mail and give you the low-down on what to expect, what it's like, etc. --David Shankbone - (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would have loved to do it, but this week has brought some unforeseen circumstances at my place of employment. A reservist colleague has been called up for active duty. And then our largest client has announced that they will be coming in for a due dillegence meeting, which means that my otherwise absentee boss will be in town for the weeks leading up to it, which in turn means lots of overtime for yours truly. I hate to pass on this, --SVTCobra 22:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Blatant copyright infringement

Mister-info.com has republished on of our stories (late, very late, too) with the claim "Copyright Mister-Info.com". I don't know if that's the only one they've stolen. See http://www.mister-info.com/?cmd=displaystory&story_id=10077&format=html Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow. More copyvio's: [5] [6]. They have copied all our stories in all their categories. —FellowWiki Newsie 21:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

How did last night's IRC discussion go? Did we get anywhere with this? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 07:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Guys, the "Copyright Mister-Info.com" was a mistake, will be removed immediatly, please advice the best way to give credit concerning your articles. (mister-info admin)

Hi. Thanks for taking it down so quickly; we all seriously thought we had a major problem on our hands. You may re-use our content unless stated otherwise under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License. Essentialy, providing you credit the copyright to Wikinews (including a link to the main page - not sure if this is required, so to be on the safe side) and so long as you say the info is released under that license and link to it, then there shouldn't be any problems. Thanks, Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

A link to the original version of the article you reproduced is also preferred. (We should really make a page - how to reuse wikinews). Bawolff ☺☻ 03:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Story suggestion

• (2008) 'Nanoparticles could make hydrogen cheaper than gasoline' from the article:

"the coatings can be used to retrofit existing electrolysers to increase their efficiency to 85 percent--exceeding the Department of Energy's goal for 2010 by 10 percent"

"Instead of switching 170,000 gas stations over to hydrogen, using our electrodes could enable consumers to make their own hydrogen, either in the garage or right on the vehicle"

--Remi - (talk) 07:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Accredited Reporter business cards

It seriously sucks giving out your email address on a scrap of paper when you are interviewing or otherwise meeting up with people. To that end it has been proposed we have business cards we can hand out. As it is unlikely the Foundation would pay for professional printing it will be down to us to print our own cards. I bought pre-perforated card for that purpose today, the size of cards on this is 90mm x 50mm.

If you can, design a version, upload it to Wikinews, and put it in its own section below. Feel free to comment on the various proposed designs. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

After the Anonymous protest in Buffalo, NY I attended, I would most definitely support this move. It was 5 degrees F with with wind chills -20 and lower. So for me to have to get out my pad of paper, a pen, take my gloves off to write the info and not to mention doing all that without freezing first. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea, has the proposed use of the logo in this way been okayed by the WMF? Adambro - (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Aaaaaargh! Yes, I mailed Mike before I did any designs! --Brian McNeil / ^talk 00:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• I emailed Mike a link to here to check out the designs. I was looking to get approval of the text on these. Mike said to run it past Jay Walsh, so I've passed the link on to him for comment.

Oh, and anyone can comment on this or try their hand at a new design - even if not accredited. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 08:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Required text

As I noted below, it is important to stress people are a "Community Accredited Reporter". Its probably also a good idea to slip "freelance" in there somewhere too.

The "Wikinews is a project of the Wikimedia Foundation, a 501(c) registered non-profit" is likely another bit we want to keep. It'd be good to slip "organization" on the end of that, but most of the designs don't have the space to keep that all on one line. [Aside, US non-profit=US spelling of organization.] --Brian McNeil / ^talk 08:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

As some have seen from a forwarded email, Jay Walsh has said the word he wants to see in there is "volunteer". I'm not sure how to phrase any of the texts we already have to work that in. Any suggestions? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment, Disclaimer is better used to "Press Badge (in Taiwan, often named it as 'Press Card')" than business card if you want to enter some commercial place. Brock ^contact... 14:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Design 1

Design 1

This is a fairly "quick 'n' dirty" design simply using the logo and what looks fairly close to the font in use on the front page. The logo may be too close to the top to allow for minor slippage as the printer grabs the paper, but it is basic and, I think, effective. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Note! On all designs it must somewhere say "Community Accredited reporter" (or "reporters"). --Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Okay but I personally think that the "Wikinews" text should be replaced the with text from the Wikinews logo. I know that requires spliting, but we're already in an image editor (GIMP!!!!) terinjokes | Talk 19:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• I like this design best so far because of the bold Wikinews name. Yes we have the logo, but IMHO the 'Wikinews' on the logo is too dull for at least a business card. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Also should emphasize more on the disclaimer on this one. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Design 2

Design 2

Uses the logo with text this time. Also devotes a great deal more space to this on the card. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

There is space on this design for additional contact methods, eg jabber or AIM. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• This one is ok...but the text is too small. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Design 3

Design 3

A more bold disclaimer in this one, and a slightly smaller version of the labelled logo. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Too much going on...a lot of info for a business card...and not enough emphasis on the Wikinews portion. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Design 4

Design 4

Logo, logo text per front page, wide space down bottom for people who have long usernames. Note assumes accredited reporters would get a redirect in main namespace to avoid the "User:" section. Uses the word freelance. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• This is a much better style. So far, I think this one and design one are the best. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Out of the five so far, I like this one the best. I feel it has the cleanest design, information outlay, and aesthetics. Not accredited, but thought I would put my two cents in anyway. --Jcart1534 - (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why non-accredited people shouldn't comment. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 08:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• This one wins for me! —DanielWinter - (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

  ...and me. I don't think we should spend too much time debating the design really because minor changes aren't really going to matter to much. The key thing is getting the information across. I suggest we try to settle on a design as soon as possible to avoid this becoming a distraction. Not too keen on creating redirects for accredited users from the main to the user namespace. I don't think it is worth doing this just to avoid "User:". Adambro - (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

  It is sort-of required to save enough space to get some of the longer usernames in, as well as to make it less typing for people who've been handed the cards. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

  We shouldn't be using any design which compels us to start making cross-namespace redirects. Changing the design, fonts used, or dropping the "http://" part should be considered. Adambro - (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I object to the various suggestions here. (a) font: all text is a single font, it would be inappropriate to resize the one line to fit in people who pick overly long usernames. (b) dropping http:// : This would be fine if the address started www, but it doesn't. (c) Changing the design: have a go at a new one. In any case we already have cross-namespace redirects for notable figures such as Tony Blair redirecting to Category:Tony Blair. I don't see the problem with doing this and protecting the redirect pages. The odds of us actually needing the main namespace page for an article are so remote as to not even enter into the equation. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Design 5

Design 5

Using a two column design with the logo and wikinews stuff on a gray background, the personal information on the right. AzaToth - (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Text on the WIKINEWS bit is misaligned, NEWS is sat higher up. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • fixed AzaToth - (talk) 01:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• I'm not accredited, but in the "Wikinews is a project of Wikimedia" section, could we make it say "501(c) non-profit organization." so that the adjective has a subject? Also, I'm not sure on whether to have it say organization or organisation; Wikimedia has its headquarters in San Francisco, but Wikinews is both global and local. Mouse among men 05:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Wrong font style? Wikimedia Foundation often used project-related font face as "Gill Sans". Brock ^contact... 09:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't have access to Gill Sans. AzaToth - (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• This one is quote nice as well...hmmm DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 12:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• I think this is the most suitable design so far, but I like Brian's use of reporter, location, e-mail, userpage ... I hope Jabber and AIM etc are optional. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Fix the URL to your userpage. Cary Bass - (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Design 6

Design 6

not so much a design, as indicating text to be used. users with 70 character usernames, have fun. –Doldrums(talk) 20:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Nice. However, I would change contributor to "freelance reporter, English Wikinews" or something like that. I'd like a "Location:" tag. Should have http://en.wikinews.org below the logo, and a full disclaimer about Wikimedia Foundation. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• We've lost "The free news source you can write". --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• I like the appearance of this one best, although there are some kinks to be worked out. I agree with the statement Userpage url. On the new Foundation business cards, those of us who have chosen to have simply put wikicode to our user names as in, [[User:Bastique]]. This might not make a lot of sense to outsiders, however. We like it :) Cary Bass - (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Design 7

Design 7

similar to design 5, but with an horizontal orientation. AzaToth - (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

It looks like the Wikinews logo is sinking. :P --Brian McNeil / ^talk 10:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Same comment as above... Userpage URL :) Cary Bass - (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Design 8

Design 8

Per feedback from Jay Walsh this version includes the specific terms he wants, "Volunteer" and "Freelance". Apart from that it is mainly based on Design 4. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 10:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I've printed out a sheet of 10 of these and they look really good. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Design 9

Design 9

Sorry, I wanted to submit this before, but things are quite busy here! This design is based on the official Wikimedia business cards for the French chapter. I think it must be kept in mind that a business card shouldn't be overloaded (as I feel the other proposals are) otherwise the really relevant info (name, position and contact info) is lost among the rest.

The software I regularly use for desktop publishing is Scribus and it's free software, so anyone can edit the files provided that one has the Gill sans fonts. guillom - (talk) 09:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

edit: I tweaked colors a bit to match those on the logo with text. The previous version is here. guillom 09:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Voting

Vote for as many designs as you wish, but ideally only one or two. Vote will be closed on March 12. [Extended due to late addition of Design 9] I recommend printing these out for review as the impact when cut to size is quite different from what you get here on-wiki.

Design5

• Support Off course!!!! AzaToth - (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support I think there are good things to keep in this one. guillom 09:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support I like both this and 8. Really both are nice. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 10:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Design8

• Support Best one so far. The white space on the right could be used for things like skype etc. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Other designs should be revised to reflect the disclaimer text on this one. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support. --Jcart1534 - (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The text is too close to the logo. AzaToth - (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support as this seems to allow enough space to avoid us having to create cross-namespace redirects for user pages but I'd suggest moving the text under "Wikinews" further to the right as it is currently quite tight on the left with plenty of white space on the right. Adambro - (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This is actually a good thing for people who have to settle for ISO-sized cards which aren't quite as wide. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

But they would have problems with the disclaimer width. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support I like 6 best, but I'll yield to 8 to reach consensus.
• Support 6 is better (per above) but this is fine - something I'd be pleased to make use of. :) --Skenmy^(t•c•w) 19:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 09:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I think this one tries to say too many things and ends cluttered. guillom 09:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Design9

• Support well, I prefer a business card to look professional :) guillom 09:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support A nice clean look for it. Very nice. --Cspurrier - (talk) 01:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support --Anonymous101 (talk · contribs) 07:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Looks very professional and gives all the relevant details without looking cluttered.

Reliability of Prensa Latina

In this talk page, we're discussing whether a Cuban referendum received 97.7% support. One user has cited an article from w:Prensa Latina. I'm worried that the news organisation may be affiliated with the Cuban government. I tend to worry about the reliability of official news organisations associated with governments, of any flavour, that lack a free press. Does Prensa Latina qualify as a reliable source? Thanks, Andjam - (talk) 03:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether it is affiliated or not to the Comandante's government is irrelevant. I remind you that we use and directly copy information from Voice of America, which is the official radio and television service of the US federal government. Furthermore, VOA explicitly states that its mission is to "present a balanced and comprehensive projection of significant American thought and institutions." As far as I know, Prensa Latina does not claim to officially represent or defend the Cuban government or its actions; the Granma does that. So I personally trust Prensa Latina more than VOA, and I think it's ridiculous to not accept it as a reliable source here. --Boricuæddie 23:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Umm, don't most poll numbers come from the government anyways? In an election, the news people regardless of there affiliations, get the poll totals from the election agency of whatever government the election is for. Therefor I don't see how the paper could be any more controlled or anything else, then any other paper or thing, as the Cuban government is the one counting the ballots and giving the numbers out regardless. As for VoA, the articles aren't blindly copied, they are checked and edited as appropriate before republishing here (+there is discussion on stopping copying VoA). Bawolff ☺☻ 04:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Rachel Marsden / Jimbo Wales / Wikipedia story

Note

Discussion moved to Wikinews talk:Story preparation/Wikipedia founder's involvement with Rachel Marsden article. Cirt - (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI

See the preparation page itself which is temporarily at Wikinews:Story preparation/Wikipedia founder's involvement with Rachel Marsden article as the story develops/more sources become available. Cirt - (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Scientology protests

Hi,
Some of you may be aware that “Anonymous” are planning more protests against scientology. Please be aware that preparation for the protest is being coordinated at this page. If you think you could report on the article for Wikinews add your name to the list.
Anonymous101 Talk 18:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfree images

According to notices on the image page all the images described at this page will be deleted by March 28. Is this still going to happen? --Anonymous101 (talk · contribs) 07:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As per the resolution, we do indeed have to delete those images. We should probably start doing it now so we can do it in a more controlled manner rather than simply having to delete them when the date comes round. Adambro - (talk) 12:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how realistic that is: there's no consensus towards this policy, and I wonder what would happen if an admin started deleting images that are used in archived articles. We don't "have to", the foundation never asked our opinion. I would personally be very resistant towards any deletions by outsiders (e.g. stewards). The community needs to solve this. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews is a Wikimedia Foundation project. We are free to make decisions only within the limits set out by the WMF as the host of the project. The WMF board has passed the resolution, we have to comply with it. This is not for us to discuss and there is no point in even suggesting it is. Rather we should work to minimise any impact on our project by discussing how we are best to comply.

Opposition of the Foundation resolution is certainly nothing new and this deadline has been known for a very long time. People have had plenty of time to petition the board to revise the resolution but this doesn't seem to have occurred or been effective. Adambro - (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately Steven we have no choice, unless we pursuade the foundation to adjust the policy or make Wikinews exempt from it. This is a quote from the foundation policy page -" The content of this page is an official policy approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. This policy may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects."--Anonymous101 (talk · contribs) 06:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll start a deletion request as no admin will delete without consensus. --Anonymous101 (talk · contribs) 06:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The March 2008 date doesn't seem to apply does us since we've had an EDP since before the resolution so we should have dealt with these images a year ago. I'm not entirely convinced that you won't find an admin that would delete these images, per the WMF resolution, without seeking local consensus to do so... Adambro - (talk) 07:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"We have to comply"... no we don't. Maybe we shouldn't, maybe that would make the Foundation listen to us and hear our arguments. I deeply respect the Foundation and the wise people on the Board, and I call myself a Wikimedian, but in this case I feel we have been completely overlooked, and I don't see why we should do anything that damages our project. In this case, listening to the WMF would do more harm than good, imho. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

We need to make a decision about how to handle this as a community. One admin going about and deleting things is just going to make people angry. If we are going to as a community going to ignore this policy we need to do so in a way that is effective. We need to decide what points we actually have a problem with, since the policy overall is pretty decent, and present our arguments in a calm united manner. --Cspurrier - (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Merkey Responds

FYI - An anon-IP claiming to be Jeff Merkey has posted a comment at Comments:Jimmy Wales accused of editing for donations#Merkey Responds. I could use the help of one or two experienced Wikinews accredited reporters and/or admins, for verification purposes, to get in touch with Merkey and also to get in touch directly with the Wikimedia Foundation and possibly with Jimmy Wales, in order to set up a potential follow-up piece and allow for these individuals to comment and respond to what has been said (by each of them).

I am neither a Wikinews accredited reporter or admin, so I could use some help/input here. Thanks, Cirt - (talk) 06:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice front page

Think the front page looks great right now, two breaking stories (and the China one is important and not being covered elsewhere) and an excellent story on Belgium, again important news that isn't getting attention elsewhere.

Nice job y'all!

David Shankbone's New York Meet-up Presentation on his Wikinews and Wikipedia work

Video presentation --David Shankbone - (talk) 05:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)