Wikinews:Water cooler/policy

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



Policies and guidelines and the Style guide contain or link to most of the current en.Wikinews policies and guidelines, however policy is based on the accepted practices of the day on Wikinews, often these might not be written down. This section of the Water cooler focuses on discussions regarding policy issues.

You may wish to check the archives to see if a subject has been raised previously. copying our articles[edit]

I have begun to notice that has been copying our articles. While it may be okay, I've not seen it telling readers that the articles are licensed under CC BY. What to do about it? --George Ho (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

They do provide a link back to our original. I am not sure if that satisfies the attribution requirement. I think it might. --SVTCobra 05:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
They mention "Wikinews", but they do not credit editors who worked diligently on making the articles more likely to be published into the Main Page. Also, Wikinews communities are small in contrast to huge Wikipedia communities, so crediting individual editors when using Wikinews content wouldn't be that inconvenient, would it? Should we enforce CC BY more, or what else? --George Ho (talk) 05:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Individual editors are not expected to be named per our Terms of Use. That much I am sure of. --SVTCobra 05:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
It's been my understanding that crediting Wikinews and providing a link back to our original is sufficient. Folks who do that are to be treated as allies and friends; I've encountered folks who think asking them to acknowledge us and provide a link back is a vile act of oppression against them.

When someone worth mentioning syndicates us, and we notice they've done so (which is far less common), we have a template to use on our article talk page, {{syndicated}}. --Pi zero (talk) 06:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Science news, freshness and the lag[edit]

In the past, we've had trouble publishing Wikinews articles on science news because of what I call "the lag." A study is completed (sometimes in secret) long before it is published, undergoes peer review, appears in publication and sometimes the mainstream news doesn't respond to it until weeks or even months later. If we treat the publication as the focal event of the Wikinews article, the covering science news is impossible for papers whose publication date is more than a few days before anything that can serve as a corroborating independent source. I was looking through Eurekalert one day for a good article to write and saw a press release for a journal paper that was marked as having been published months ago, so I emailed the corresponding author and just asked why this happened.
I saw your press release on Eurekalert and I was hoping you could resolve a mystery for me. I notice that the paper "Seascape models reveal places to focus coastal fisheries management" appeared in Ecological Applications on February 8, but the media is only responding to it now.
Can you tell me what causes the lag? Was there a reason why your research team waited until now to promote your published findings?
Thank you very much.
And the person was kind enough to respond:
As per the publisher of the journal, every paper has an Accepted Date and an Early View date. The accepted date is the date of record since it is the first time the manuscript is made available for citing. The Early View date is the date the edited version appears. The February 8 date on the link to the paper is the accepted date. The paper was actually just published this month.
I've cc'd two of the co-authors here if you have additional questions.
All the best,
So that's what's going on. "First published" should not be taken literally with professional science journal articles. I propose that if we must keep to the idea of publication as focal event, we go with the date the research team decided to advise the public of their work. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
@Darkfrog24: We care about date of publication, not date of acceptance. That has always been the case.

(Reminder: we are, of course, only talking here about pure synthesis; of the much-higher-prestige original reporting, we have a number of excellent examples where Wikinewsies contacted the researchers directly for an interview, entirely avoiding issues of synthesis freshness and producing in the process several Featured Articles.) --Pi zero (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

It looks like the date of publication may not always be what's listed and looks like date of publication. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. That is a difficulty (of verification, not of policy). The problem would seem to be, how to verifiably ascertain the date of publication (public announcement) in those cases. --Pi zero (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
In the example you cite, the "first published" date is February 8, but the article appears in Volume 28, Issue 4, the issue date for which is June 1. Pinning down the early view date — which, from the name, is presumably prior to June 1 — seems more challenging. --Pi zero (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Versions of Creative Commons[edit]

Curiously, our current version of CC BY is 2.5. Considering how different the versions are, especially in regards to moral rights, I've been wondering how ready the project is to change to or add the 4.0 version of CC BY. Do we still maintain moral rights for the articles? --George Ho (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

We use a different license because we need news to more reusable than Wikipedia would be. --Pi zero (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
@Pi zero: I think you misread George's comment: This is a good reason why we have CC BY rather than CC BY SA (like all other WMF projects) but does not explain why we have CC BY 2.5 rather than CC BY 4.0. Should we update our CC BY license? —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Ah. Hm. --Pi zero (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom elections[edit]

This conversation has been marked for the community's attention. Please remove the {{flag}} when the discussion is complete or no longer important.

I propose the same dates, rules, procedures as in 2017. (See WN:Water cooler/policy/archives/2017/July#ArbCom elections, Wikinews:Arbitration Committee/2017 election.)

The community must agree on all election procedures by July 1, and election committee members by July 10.
The deadline for nominations is 2000 UTC July 17.
Voting will take place from 2000 UTC July 18 to 2000 UTC July 30. Questions and comments may be made during that time period.
Since the incumbent members' seats expire on August 3, the election committee will declare the winners on about July 31, and the new term begins after declaration. Should any case be before the ArbCom at election time, the current committee continues to sit after turnover on cases that started under the current committee. Any new case after turnover is for the new committee.

As worked well for the past several years, I strongly recommend the committee not create a page for "questions for all candidates"; questions for each candidate should be located under that candidate. This is the way things have been done in all but two previous elections; once there was no place for questions at all (the undesirability of this is obvious, I hope), and once (six years ago?), we had a page for questions for all candidates, and it turned into a political circus and an ordeal for the nominees (en.wn ArbCom is a judicial body, so should be scrupulously apolitical). I'm not the only one who experienced the circus years ago and came away from it with a powerful conviction it should not be allowed to happen again.

We need at least two people for the election committee. Volunteers? --Pi zero (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

These rules look OK.
Have not seen the above-described circus, but I am hopeful that your judgment is correct, and I am confident that separation of pages would not prevent necessary questions from being raised and would not limit relevant discussions.
I also volunteer for the election committee: now that I started taking notes on paper and on computer more properly I'll try better to not miss the deadlines this time. Previously it was only thanks to the enthusiastic and greatly appreciated reminders and actions from the second member of election committee that things were moving. Hopefully I would be able to follow the election more closely and in a more timely fashion this year. :)
--Gryllida (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)