Jump to content

Wikinews:Water cooler/miscellaneous/archives/2013/July

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!


18:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment from deliverer: I delivered it to misc instead of tech because it was listed in the "Subscribe" link above. I will not do personal deliveries here, probably - just to the water cooler. BTW, I fixed several errors in the code per m:Talk:Tech/News#Tech_news:_2013-28. PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

17:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment from deliverer: Seems fine this week. PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SISTER templates on English Wikipedia

w:en:Template:Wikinews category and w:en:Template:Wikinews portal have been nominated for deletion over at Wikipedia. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

20:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Signpost op-ed

On the advice of Grydilla, I'm posting this here. I'm the editor-in-chief of the "Signpost", and after the recent scuffle on the English Wikipedia about the link to Wikinews in the Main page's "In the news" section, User:Adam Cuerden contacted me regarding a potential op-ed about the purpose and utility of Wikinews within the Wikimedia movement.

I am hoping to turn this into a "Room for debate"-style article, with both sides represented on one page. Would any of you be willing to make the case for Wikinews? I would need the article fairly quickly, by 20:00UTC today; sorry for the late notice, but several of your colleagues have declined my invitations.

Regards, Ed [talk] [w:majestic titan] 06:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a non sequitur. Wikipedia makes a decision about the design of their main page, and you cite this as a reason for a discussion about a radical agenda, concerning a different project, that the wikimedian community already considered and rejected. Perhaps you're trying to be neutral, but if so, you need to try harder. --Pi zero (talk) 12:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We're an English Wikipedia journal; I think it's only natural that many of the topics we cover are dictated by recent related discussions. You and I may have different viewpoints on the matter, though. Ed [talk] [w:majestic titan] 16:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're only making a stronger case against yourself. You're a Wikipedia journal, and you want to give major air time to a wingnut view about a non-Wikipedian project. --Pi zero (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But then, this response is to be expected - David Gerard (talk) 09:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relation of statistics to how a project works or reacts is a mystery to me. Gryllida 13:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the deadline has already passed but nobody looked interested. Sorry. Possibly some of us look forward to more motivating tasks from you in the future. Gryllida 08:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow thanks for trying to get a hold of specific users. Quite frankly, I see this as nothing more than an attack on the project. The powers that be in the Wikiworld have done and continue to do whatever it takes to see this project burnt straight to the ground. I see you less than a 2 day deadline as an example of that. But I guess that is to be expected. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Op-ed" or not...make sure you write facts. If you want to go on bad mouthing Wikinews, be prepared to do it with facts. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We specifically invited four Wikinews editors. All declined. As for the op-ed, I believe that the facts given are accurate. Is there a point you wish to dispute? Ed [talk] [w:majestic titan] 04:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
<chiming in> On first reading of the piece, I didn't actually notice anything that wasn't a misrepresentation of reality. I've learned the hard way, over the years on a project that receives chronic hate-based abuse from a subcommunity of wikimedians, that there's a threshold of misrepresentation in a post above which it becomes a spectacular waste of time to try to respond on a point-by-point basis. My rule of thumb is, a post is over the threshold once the density of misrepresentations reaches about one per sentence sustained over a significant number of sentences, or if simply enumerating the misrepresentations would take significantly more space than the misrepresenting post did. That piece is over the threshold. --Pi zero (talk) 12:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]