Wikinews:Water cooler/policy

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

Refresh

Archive


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.


What is freshness and how should we apply that standard to science news?[edit]

What is freshness? What does it do for the reader?

I feel that if we answer this question, we can come up with a rule of thumb that will help us assess the freshness of science news. My take is that while the two-day limit works great for politics, sports and other current events, a lot of perfectly fresh science news gets excluded just because of the way the publication process works. EDIT: Like a reverse loophole.

On one of the first science articles I wrote for Wikinews, the reviewer said "Hey, this study was performed last year, so it's not fresh." The study had indeed been performed months earlier but it had been published more recently. We ended up using publication of the study as the focal event. For science, this is normal. Peer review takes time. Many scientists keep their work a secret until publication. They're worried about being scooped by rival labs or turned down by journals who won't bother publishing something that people already know about. There's another lag between publication in for-scientist journals and the mainstream newspapers, magazines and websites that we need for independent corroboration. Here's an example about a new discovery about nuclear fusion:

  1. Scientists collect data through September 2016 but don't get to analyze it until early 2017, at which point they identify some nuclear fusion reactor fuel that works ten times as well as anything before. Eureka, clean energy!
  2. Nature Physics publishes the study June 19, 2017.
  3. Popular Mechanics and other mainstream outlets write about it around August 28, 2017.

The important thing, the actual news, was the discovery in early 2017. But these findings could not have been published on Wikinews because the study and independent corroboration were published more than two days apart. This gap is unusually wide, but mainstream outlets routinely write about studies published the previous week or month. They don't think that these scientific findings are too old to write about. What we need to know is why not and whether those standards could be adapted for use on Wikinews.

Has anyone here worked in news on a professional level or gone to journalism school? What standards could mainstream outlets be using and is there a good way to adapt them for our use?

@Pi zero: and @Acagastya: have also spoken on this issue and I'd like to invite both of them to summarize their views for new contributors. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

while there is no clear policy about "three day" freshness rule, it has been the trend. I would cut down to 48 actual hours, if I could. But until then, the focal point of any scientific article is when was the study/discovery announced. The clock won't stop ticking. If you have to write, write and get it published within three days of that happening. Anything else is not welcomed.
acagastya PING ME! 13:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
@Darkfrog24: All kinds of event don't become news until well after they happen. E.g. a political scandal occurs but is covered up: the news event is it being uncovered. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
This is all good and lively discussion. But: start with our policies first. Read them clearly and see if that helps. As Pi Zero likes to say: We focus on discrete news EVENTS here. Focus on that word: 'Events'. I love science. I love scholarly journals.....always have. But keep it simple: What is your source? Is it reputable? When did they report the 'story'? 'The Journal of Unicorn Psychiatry published an article on the use of anti-psychotics for rainbow loving horses on <yesterday>.' That's fresh, focused on a discrete event. The PUBLISHING OF THE STORY is the event.....(not automatically newsworthy, but it might be). Again:What is your source? When did the event happen -- and how does that plug into when the article was published? Yes....we love to focus on THE EVENT here....and that's great. But the 'tallying up of the findings' might've happened 7 months ago. In most instances, that can be OK.....but you have to focus your writing on THE EVENT. I often ask myself here: what is the event? When did it happen? Is that event unto itself newsworthy? With OR, we're known to give an extra inch here and there time-wise, but just only. Hope this helps. --Bddpaux (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I haven't run into any cases of people considering the scholarly journals, Eurekalert or mainstream sources unreliable for science news, so we can probably skip that issue.
Interesting point, Bddpaux. Thing is, "the event is the announcement" feels like a workaround we came up with to avoid having to write a freshness rule just for science, and now that you point it out to me, I realize the reviewers don't treat the announcement as the event. The meat of the articles I've written has almost always been the discovery itself. The article isn't "this research was announced and people who didn't already know about it went 'wow'/'oh no'/other" or "Discovery X was announced at Conference Y and the audience made reaction Z." Instead, I write, "this research was announced and here's what it was, who did it and why it matters." Contrast: When Deep Throat announced his real identity, the articles about it focused on "a big secret has been revealed just now and here's how people are reacting to it," NOT "an informant told Woodward and Bernstein about President Nixon."
No reviewer has ever rejected one of my science articles on the basis of "this focuses on the research itself instead of the announcement." I've gotten objections for not mentioning the announcement, but that's not the same thing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
There appears to be some misunderstanding. Reviewers certainly do treat the announcement as the focal event. That's what I see Bddpaux saying. And if your article is rejected for not mentioning the announcement, the reason that's a problem is because it leaves the article without a specific fresh focus. --Pi zero (talk) 20:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Terminology aside, I've been writing articles that are about research and merely mention the announcement. Wikinews articles about things other than science usually don't do that. The real focus of the article, which I've called the meat, is almost always something that didn't happen that long ago. A science article about a recently published study about research completed six months back doesn't seem to check anyone's "no" box on Wikinews. Can you put words to why not?
I'm also trying to work out why National Geographic and newspapers keep writing an articles that lack the "specific fresh focus" as you've defined it, and no one tells them "That isn't news." Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

No, obituaries are similar to it. Except for the tributes (that too, not always), every single thing of that article is what that person did months, years or probably decades ago. And why we are not telling them it isn't news? A) NatGeo hasn't established themselves as dedicated news organisation and B) I don't work for them or read those articles to tell them. If it were The Independent, I tweet them why is some shit they have published, newsworthy? But they don't care. And I ended up unfollowing them.
acagastya PING ME! 01:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC) And by the way, telling when the specific story happened would be the first thing one learns in journalism course. If a news article's first para reads "Frogs are not exactly the cultural exemplars of good looks, as the famous fairy tale, The Frog Prince, reminds us. But the newly discovered Nasikabatrachus bhupathi could set the bar a couple of notches lower – or higher — depending on your aesthetic sensibility.", the organisation is a mediocre news organisation, (yes, The Hindu, the only advantage you have is the other Indian news orgs are worse than you) and the author is an idiot.
acagastya PING ME! 01:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

In the car this morning, I finally thought of the word I need to use: patch. It's not a cheat; it's not lip service; using the date of journal publication reminds me of a temporary, somewhat artificial way of connecting two things. Acagastya is referring to the article about some purple frogs that I drafted recently. It was also subject to the timing problem, but the reviewer had other things to say as well that don't have to do with the freshness-in-science-news issue. Acagastya, do you want me to find a better example? Say an article in a major newspaper about a study published more than a few days earlier. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Fresh is 'less than 2-3 days ago'. For science, time of publication is OK as a focal event in my experience. For an interview, it is within 2-3 days of the last interview question being answered, for me personally, as this is when I start to prepare the article on-wiki (I didn't confirm this with anyone). What are other difficult cases? --Gryllida (talk, chat) 02:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@Gryllida: OR can be a very different case, if its original element is substantial enough, and full-blown interviews are a case in point. Usually an interview would last much longer than 2–3 days after the last question is answered. We've never had so very many interviews published long after the event as to form specific standards, but the one time I can remember an interview going stale, as such, the call was made by the interviewer about a month after the interview had concluded (I honestly don't remember what the hold-up was that made it so late). The most important date is when public revelation takes place, and serious OR is to start with something only we have, so — up to a point — OR carries its own event with it: our date of publication is the date of public revelation freshness. After a while, secondary effects, perhaps related broadly to relevance, build up enough to affect freshness, but in most cases that takes a lot more than 2-3 days to reach a critical level. --Pi zero (talk) 11:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
your argument can not be based on what other media is doing. BRS's one of the original reports focused on how British media broke a rule by posting photos of victim/accused online, and the jury came to know about it. We don't follow them. Other websites paywall their content, mislead the readers, show advertisements, gives opinions, adds bias, publishes wardrobe malfunction, telecast what is trending on Facebook, or show how to use Google Maps, they even publish what UK's queen eats. These things would never find a place on Wikinews.
acagastya PING ME! 06:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I hadn't discussed this issue for a while until now. I found the freshness less clear yet too enforced. As a result, very little has gotten published. August of this year has gotten a little bit slower than of last year. Same for July of this year and of last year. I could create more articles. There have been several articles awaiting reviews yet with less than a few active reviewers. However, I can do so most likely when there are no articles under development and/or review. I don't want to burden reviewers with too many articles, do I? --George Ho (talk) 07:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I have some thoughts on this. Science news is a little bit different from regular news because the initial study/results and the replication of that research might be years or decades apart, but they are not independent events. They are the same news story, just spread out over vast amounts of time. Normal news - even something like a hurricane - is driven by an initial event, and then updates to that event. Those can all be independent articles that reference each other.
Science news doesn't allow for that traditional approach, which is why no one *uses* that traditional approach on science news. Instead, organizations write multiple almost identical articles on the same science event, separated by significant amounts of time. Usually they'll write an article about the rumour that the research is happening (if it's interesting or controversial enough to warrant that of course), then an article when the white paper on a piece of research is released, then another similar article on the journal article, then another similar article about public reaction (if applicable), then a series of similar articles about replication research (if this happens, which sometimes it doesn't). These articles are spread out over enormous amounts of time, and don't deal with new events, but rather with the veeeeerrrrryyyyy, veeeeerrrrrryyyyy, slllooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwww progression of a single piece of research from start to finish. There is no "new news" by traditional standards for those articles, they're just reporting on the current status of the glacially paced research. It's kind of like you're writing an article on someone walking through a time dilation field. Having a new article every month saying "they took another step" wouldn't be "new news", or even much of an update, it would just be reporting on the progress of a slow moving person crossing a room.
That's why everyone reports on science news with a different standard of "new". Glacial. Pace. Of. Progress.
(A good example of this in practice is the green energy and transportation news website Electrek, which will write tons of articles about different parts of the same event (or even news conference), with each article focusing on a different specific detail, and linking to the others.) — Gopher65talk 17:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
@Gryllida: less than 2-3 days ago
Yes, but the question is "What is happening in those three days?" I've seen a couple people say "X number of days is too old," but 1) the mainstream newspapers don't seem to think that makes a science article too old to publish and 2) If we figure out what freshness is qualitatively, we might be able to find a rule that works better for science news. If it's that "2-3 days is how long it takes for most people to have already heard about it," then we could still write about a scientific discovery that was published more than 3 days ago if it hadn't had any mainstream buzz yet.
So I'm asking what freshness feels like to you. What does it do for you? What makes a one-day-old article good and three-day-old one crummy?
Acagastya makes a good point in that we might find that the criteria used by other publications/tailored to science does not suit Wikinews' needs, but we should still try to define those needs.
@Gopher65: Do you think that Wikinews shouldn't write about science news, should accept that it will publish less science news than other venues (what we're doing now and it's not like that's the end of the world), or that we should work something out so we can publish more science news than we are now? Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I see that Pi Zero made another good point: The most important date is when public revelation takes place
But just because a study was published in a professional journal doesn't mean the public knows about it. Any member of the public might be able to access it if they already knew it was there, but that's not the same thing. (Think Arthur Dent having to get past a "beware of jaguar" sign to find the city plans about his house being demolished.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
There are two points you raised:
  • 1. "Should we write science news: Wikinews should write science news, but it should create a different standard for that news than that which is applied to celebrity gossip or ambulance chasing disaster stories. Those are a different category of reporting, and should be treated as such (I think that everyone should do this, not just Wikinews).
  • 2. "The most important date is when public revelation takes place" <------- that's a big part of the problem with the way science journalism has been done since the collapse of traditional print media. Non-science journalists take a break from their gossip columns (you know, the ones that actually make money for their bosses like "Use These 10 Tricks to BECOME a Better Lover!") and write a science piece. And given the training they've had, and what little time they have to work with, they often do not too bad a job. The issue is that science is a rolling, iterative process. That preliminary study is useless without the context of all the other research being done in the same field. You can't just report "Coffee causes/prevents cancer!" as the conclusion to a study, because that single study is but one data point, and unimportant by itself. You cannot draw conclusions from one study. And given that a p-value of 0.05 (95% confidence rate) is the standard for publication in most research journals, even a quick glance at this issue will tell you that 1/20 studies will automatically give a false positive. (It's actually much worse that that, which is nicely put into words by this physicist/youtuber: "Is Most Published Research Wrong?". Another amusing (though more simplistic) look at this problem comes from xkcd: Significant.)
Standard news publishes one story about each update. But that doesn't work well for science news, because of the timescales of a topic of research. Each study is a single datapoint in a best fit line on research. If you publish a story about each interesting result, you get the problem seen in the xkcd comic I linked above: lots and lots of false articles that are published only because the journalist doesn't have a ****ing clue what is actually going on. No retractions are ever published (because the story was "true"), and you end up with a slew of inaccurate or outright incorrect articles polluting Google Search results, filling the head of the public at large with crap that isn't true. But it's "science" as far as they're concerned, so they believe whatever they were inclined to believe in the first place.
There are several alternatives:
  • 1. Write a series of articles (and make clear that you're writing a series of articles) about a single topic. Because of the fluid nature of community driven new sites (like us), this is very difficult. Contributors come and leave all the time, so how do you make sure a series of articles happens?
  • 2. Wait until replication research is done before publishing a controversial result. This can take months, or even years, but it saves you from the issues listed above.
There are others, but I can't think of them right now;). — Gopher65talk 00:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
@Gopher65: Wow that is a lot of thought into this. Do your two alternatives apply to what you think pro journalists should do or to what you think we should do?
I've been dancing around it but I'll state it explicitly: I don't scour the professional journals looking for things that would make good Wikinews articles. Instead, I look for press releases and mainstream news outlets that cover them (which, since we need independent corroboration, I'd have to do anyway). That means I don't find out about most of these discoveries right away either. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Acagastya's comments to Czar below have brought up a new element: Freshness also involves getting the article in before the mainstream media does it too many times. That's probably not an issue with science news, but it should be incorporated into any unified freshness theory we come up with. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

How best to cover science is a real and interesting issue. There is no issue about freshness of synthesis articles; we already have a "unified freshness theory", it's been stable for many years, and much of the key stuff is currently documented at WN:Newsworthiness. Notice that last big comment by Gopher (about which you remarked "Wow that is a lot of thought in this") says nothing about freshness. It would be neither necessary nor desirable to fudge/complicate the freshness criteria; they're part of the simple scheme we work within. Fudging the simple scheme is a distraction from the fundamentals (cf. that comment by Gopher).

I can also see I could spend a bunch of time writing up comments on various points in that comment of Gopher's, a great temptation which, of course, I don't dare let myself spend the time to indulge atm. :-S  --Pi zero (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

first of all, that is not what I meant or hinted. It is not even in this context. But now that you have mentioned it: it is one way. Freshness window can be narrower for some articles, but it can not grow wider, for a synthesis.
acagastya PING ME! 03:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Well now I'm working on an article whose study is scheduled for publication a month and a half from now. But I don't think it would still be considered fresh then considering it's hitting the mainstream news this week.
WN:Newsworthiness focuses on events. Scientific studies don't really have an event the way political and sports and disaster news do. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
The announcement of the study is an event. Just like the announcement of someone’s death. And as I said earlier, both of them focuses on what happened in the study/what X did in their life. Both being old content but that is what it is about.
103.254.128.50 (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
That dyslexia article, or smallest star discovery or this article with poorly framed headline -- all of these got media attention within three days of the announcement. So did those tech news articles like WPA2 or SHA-1. So, why should we increase the duration of freshness? If something did not get light until three days, it is possible that it is not newsworthy. (Don't come up with the announcement of Masaya Nakamura's death, which was announced after a week. In that case, the announcement becomes news) Increasing freshness window is just an attempt to allow us being lazy, and degrade our standards. We should be trying to deliver news as soon as possible, not the opposite. I would prefer a maximum of 48 hour freshness window, considering the time zone difference, and making an agreement with UTC clock.
acagastya PING ME! 09:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

bottleneck and vision[edit]

As suggested in Wikiversity:Everyone's favorite news site and elsewhere, I believe that Wikimedia foundation projects can grow to play a major role in reducing political corruption and the Balkanization of the international body politic and increasing the prospects for peace and rapid, more stable and more broadly shared and sustainable economic growth.

In Wikinews a primary bottleneck is the number of qualified reviewers.

This is manifested in the difficulty of authors (speaking from personal experience) to get timely answers to questions about why an article wast not considered "ready".

I believe that with a better structure, Wikinews could attract thousands, maybe millions, of volunteer reviewers that could attract volunteers all over the world to write from a neutral point of view with appropriate documentation. To handle the volume of material that people all over the world want to write, we'd need "local editions" and "back pages", probably approved by “local” and “associate reviewers”. Such "associate reviewers" could be empowered to recommend particularly well written articles of broad interest to the "full reviewers" and "administrators" for consideration for publication on the "front page" that currently publishes less than one article per day.

I've said repeatedly, e.g., on "Wikiversity:Everyone's favorite news site", that everyone who tries to post something on Wikinews should get a timely response and help with posting something somewhere about that. If the person is willing to produce something written from a neutral point of view with reasonable documentation, that should be enough for publication on "back pages" or some "local edition".

Otherwise, they should be referred to to-be-developed projects like "Wikisocial" or "Wikiblog", that would include efforts to match people with contrary perspectives to work through their differences with a rule that requires treating others with respect, which means blocking obvious profanity and castigating personal attacks, etc.

In particular, for "local / back pages", no screen for general interest should be applied. My favorite example is a boring article about a city council meeting, whose very publication would still be very useful in putting public officials on notice that someone is watching them. An example of the need for this is the w:City of Bell scandal: Bell, CA, USA, is a city of roughly 35,000 in Los Angeles County. In 2010 they made national news, because the City Manager was the most highly paid public servant in the US as far as anyone knew, with total compensation over $1 million per year, more than double that of the President of the US. Property taxes were outrageous, and the city was near bankruptcy. The local newspaper died around 1999, and the City Manger effectively said, “Wow: The watchdog is dead. Let's have a party!”

Many local chapters of the w:League of Women Voters have “observer corps”, who attend public meetings of local governmental bodies and write summaries of their observations for their regular newsletters.

Wikinews could provide a platform for more extensive and more available reports of this nature.

Some reports like this may attract few readers -- if any. However, they could still be valuable, because they reduce the motivation for self serving actions of public officials.

Large numbers of volunteers are coming to Wikinews, eager to contribute. In the 163 days between 2017-04-28 and 2017-10-08, my copy of the counts at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews indicates that Wikinews received 8,652 submissions, averaging 53 per day, and published 142 articles, less than one per day.

I think it's fairly safe to assume that those 8,652 submissions were submitted by something close to 8,652 different people. To the extent that this is accurate, it means that on the average day during that period, 52 new people tried to offer an article to Wikinews and were pushed away.

I believe this represents a huge opportunity: With the right structure / rules for recruiting and qualifying reviewers and contributors, Wikinews could become bigger than Wikipedia -- and in so doing could make a major contribution to reducing political corruption and violent conflict while also increasing the rate of improvement in the political economy generating faster, more stable and more broadly shared economic growth.

If Wikinews reviewers and admins can find a way develop rules and structure that retain and teach more of these potential contributors about writing from a neutral point of view with adequate documentation, it could make major contributions to improving the quality of public debate on all kinds of issues:

  • Reducing political corruption.
  • Making it harder for xenophobes to succeed with divide and conquer rhetoric that often stampedes too many groups into violent conflict over misunderstandings that Wikinews could help bridge.

For more on this, see the Wikiversity articles on v:Everyone's favorite news site, v:Net neutrality and 'Restoring Internet freedom', and v:Winning the War on Terror.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DavidMCEddy (talkcontribs) 16:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I mean no personal offense to you, but this stuff is not based on understanding of Wikinews. It really looks to me like you have an answer you want, and are inventing stuff to support it. (That's an extremely common pattern in the world today, in its radical form I've been known to call it "opinion-based mindset", and I see combatting it as a key value of Wikinews.) Eventually you get to the point of invoking statistics to support what you're saying (not just lies or damned lies, but statistics :-) ). Statistics are useless unless preceded by deep insight into the system being studied. The point at which the above first runs off the rails is the second paragraph (the first seems too vague to object to), when it says "In Wikinews a primary bottleneck is the number of qualified reviewers." You'd have to be intimately familiar with an immense amount of subtle project dynamics to qualify to make calls about primary bottlenecks and such, and truthfully you don't know the project nearly that well. Here's a tip: that bottleneck isn't primary. It's not the root of the problem. I strongly suspect you're missing what the purpose of the whole project workflow is — what the nature of our output is — and without that one cannot make meaningful judgements about how well it works, let alone what is needed to make it work better. --Pi zero (talk) 16:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I didn't read David M's big ol' post (I might some day but not right now) but I did read yours, Pi zero. I'm curious: If you don't think that qualified reviewers are the bottleneck, or "limiting reagent," as I called it when you and I discussed it, then what do you think the root of the problem really is? I am asking because your comments on matters like this tend to be interesting. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I read David M's post. I feel that using project Wiki for political purposes, even political purposes that seem good and noble and right to you—it seems that you want to rescue journalism and use it to keep the government honest—is highly likely to backfire. Something similar is happening on Wikipedia. The world might need a watchdog group of the kind you describe, but it also needs a place that can be trusted to compile, organize, and summarize the whirlwind of information available to people today and do so in a politically neutral way. That's where Project Wiki is supposed to be and sometimes it manages to do it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
@Pi zero:, @Acagastya:, @Darkfrog24:: I will here try to summarize my concern and vision more succinctly: The US “Government Organization Summary Report: 2012” reported “90,106 state and local governments ... in existence on June 30, 2012.” If we scale that up to the world population of roughly 7.6 billion, that's roughly 2.2 million different political jurisdictions in the world. Maybe it's 200,000 or 20 million.
Many of these could have their own edition of Wikinews -- and possibly multiple editions, one for each ethnic, cultural and linguistic group, religious congregation, etc., of a certain modest size within each jurisdiction.
New media and old are currently being managed to increase Balkanization (called “market segmentation” in business jargon) to benefit elites.
How can Wikinews be restructured so it can grow to support millions of local editions, each managed to improve fact checking and build bridges rather than walls?
DavidMCEddy (talk) 12:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Right now we just summarize the news for people. Without commenting on whether any part of Project Wiki should take part in sweeping social change, how do you see something like what you've planned interfacing with our existing mechanism? Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Just to note; "we just summarize the news" is not really true. On one hand, synthesis is not just summary; amongst other things, we strive to make our synthesis more neutral than the sources (the exact opposite of adding commentary). On... well, an other hand, synthesis is not all we do, although it often feels like it since synthesis is our most common type of article. --Pi zero (talk) 16:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I do not have all the answers, but each article could be coded for "front page" if it met your standards for primary distribution, and would be "back page" material if it seemed to be written from a neutral point of view with adequate documentation and showed appropriate respect for others but may not have met your other criteria.
Each "back page" article could be further geocoded and offered to users who request "back page" Wikinews based in part on the goelocation that interests them.
A system like this would obviously require some new software. However, it could probably be built on top of something like Google Earth fairly easily. DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
it is not a neutral approach. Nobody has the right to determine which event happening in what part of the country is more important than others.
acagastya PING ME! 05:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Acagastya: I would not go that far. A cute picture may become a Facebook post but will rarely make the front page of the New York Times.
Over 50 times as many articles are submitted to Wikinews as are published. Why are the other 49+ not published?
Each of those 49+ failed to meet at least one of Wikinews' rules. But why was the problem not corrected?
I cannot answer that question for everyone, but I can answer it for myself: If I remember correctly, I've had two articles published and two rejected. The two rejected were because I did not understand the feedback I got. In the first case, I failed to see and understand some of the feedback I got until the article was stale and no longer news. In the second case, I asked for clarification -- repeatedly -- and never got it.
I believe that most people can be trained to write from a neutral point of view, documenting their sources, and treating others with respect -- even when they think the others don't deserve respect. Many people make extreme statements. However, many of those would be willing to listen to alternative perspectives. There are a few vociferous Internet trolls that need to be ignored, but I think those are a tiny percent of humanity.
Do you know any research on the percent of people who will NOT listen to alternative perspectives? The best research I know on this is Thining, Fast and Slow, and that does not give a direct answer to this question. In my own experience, I've seen people who I thought were ideologues become more reasonable over time. DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The things going on this project are very dynamic and every case will be different from the other, @DavidMCEddy:. Let's say for example, it is possible that while you were waiting for explanation, a reviewer thought it would be better to attend some other articles in the review queue, else both the article would lose freshness. It is possible that some articles were never completed on time -- I created some articles but I never got time to write about it. Last month, I tried to help other's articles, which would not have met all five requirements (and all five have to meet. If the article fails in even one, and if it is published, it beats the ideology, philosophy and goal of Wikinews) otherwise. So, if an article manages 3/5 or even 4/5, it is not acceptable. We aren't lowering our standards. Less number of articles is okay. Poor quality articles is not. One of the reasons I am on Wikinews is because I do not like the other news orgs who publish poor quality clickbaits, opinionated, biased, inaccurate, partially true articles.
acagastya PING ME! 16:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
@Acagastya: Can we make a distinction between articles that are factual and appropriately nuanced (not opinionated, biased, inaccurate, only partially true -- or at least inadequately documented) but may not meet other criteria, e.g., problems with the lede, clarity, concision, etc.?
One simple example: I'm somewhat involved with a local chapter of the League of Women Voters. They have an "observer corps" of people who attend meetings of local governmental bodies and write notes. For an example see from the bottom of p. 4 to p. 7 of The Voter newsletter of the League of Women Voters of Johnson County, KS, USA.
This section includes seven short articles by nine different people. I did not write anything for this edition, but I have written for them in the past. My reports have been edited to maybe a quarter of what I submitted. I think articles like that could be posted first to Wikinews and later summarized in this newsletter. However, before I suggest that to them, I think I'd want to see the outright rejection rate well under 50 percent of submissions -- or serious documentation of why it's not. DavidMCEddy (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
@DavidMCEddy: There were some things I was thinking, this morning, I should say to you in this thread, that I felt were going to come out rather harsh but needed to be said. Then I looked earlier in the thread and discovered I'd already said them, probably more eloquently than I would have tried to do now. Your suggestions go consistently badly astray because you don't understand Wikinews (e.g., our workflow, or our neutrality). You're trying to start with assertions about what we should be doing, and then we're presumably supposed to either agree with you or try to fill in your knowledge one point at a time (not practical), instead of you starting by assuming you know nothing about the project, putting in time and effort to learn hands-on from scratch, and then later on working from a position of knowledge to think about improvements. --Pi zero (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
@Pi zero: I see two issues here: (a) the need and (b) how to respond to that need. If I devoted full time to Wikinews for several years, I might never learn enough of what and how you do things to be able to suggest changes that you thought were implementable.
Regarding the need, the Hewlett Foundation published a report recently on ANALYSIS OF PHILANTHROPIC OPPORTUNITIES TO MITIGATE THE DISINFORMATION/ PROPAGANDA PROBLEM: This and other sources note that Google and Facebook are making money from "increasing polarization and tribalism, thereby weakening our democratic systems." (p. 4) This document summarizes interviewers with leading experts on this issue, one of whom said, "I think [Google and Facebook] are willing to make choices to deal with this, but it needs to be an external party that holds them accountable." (p. 18) I'd like to work on two initiatives in this regard:
  1. I think the Wikimedia Foundation is ideally placed to lead experiments in developing alternative social media running free open source software (FOSS) to help build bridges rather than walls and encourage companies like Facebook and Google to use their software or modify it in any way to fit their purpose. The Wikimedia Foundation could likely be able to fund experiments like this via grants from sources like the Hewlett Foundation. I'm not well known in the Wikimedia Foundation, but I attended at least one event in their headquarters in San Francisco a few years ago in addition to m:Wikimania 2017, and I might be able to facilitate the production of a successful grant application to get funding for this.
  2. I currently live in the Greater Kansas City area. I've worked some with the Observer Corps of the League of Women Voters of Johnson County, KS; this county is part of Greater Kansas City. Last Friday, I had a discussion with one of the leaders in that group about what it might take to produce, e.g., an edition of Wikinews for Johnson County, KS, based largely on volunteer labor. She expressed concerns that reminded me of some of Pi zero's comments about the difficulties of getting untrained volunteers to write from a neutral point of view with adequate documentation. To be successful with something like this, we might need grant money for both software development and to pay professional journalism instructors to coach the volunteers in how to produce adequate reports on what they see. I think there are several charitable foundations like the Democracy Fund, to name only one, that would like to fund something like this -- both the software development and to pay the instructors / editors to manage this thing during an initial development period. If we can produce something that helps increase voter turnout -- and especially if the local economy seems to improve with that -- that success can help us get support to replicate it elsewhere.
I'm not ready to start working on this immediately, but I might be in the next few months. If successful, it could help deal constructively with the tribalism problems mentioned in the "Analysis of Philanthropic opportunities ..." mentioned above.
Thanks for your support of Wikinews.
Comments? DavidMCEddy (talk) 04:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
@DavidMCEddy: Sorry to be blunt. What I see here is you imagining you know what Wikinews is and what its problems are, and arrogantly talking about how difficult it would be for you to figure out what we're doing wrong and devise a course of action you could convince me was implementable. But you're mistaken from the start — I see no sign that you comprehend what Wikinews is, without which you can't see what we're doing right, and can't devise a proposal for Wikinews that's even sensible; whether it's implementable isn't even a cogent question. It's not beyond possibility you could do great harm through blundering in ignorance, but I don't see how a positive outcome is reachable if you are making zero attempt to learn any of what you need to understand because you're convinced you already know. --Pi zero (talk) 05:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
@DavidMCEddy: That last post of mine sounded rather harsh to me, and I apologize for the tone. I admit to being concerned about the problem.

It's interesting to me that you heard things from your local LWV that sounded similar to things I've been saying (I've heard a mix of wise and unwise positions from our local LWV up here in central Massachusetts, too). --Pi zero (talk) 12:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@DavidMCEddy: Regarding that report from the Hewlett Foundation, it should in principle be possible to go through that report and explicate how Wikinews relates to various aspects of it, like 'democratization' and gatekeepers and whatnot. Bottom line, Wikinews is way ahead of the curve on that stuff. We are well along on the trail of answers to questions that that Hewlett report is just starting to ask, and that the Wikipedian community mindset doesn't admit as questions. One view of the elephant here is that we seek to teach individuals, both by example and hands-on, to assess where information comes from and to build a worldview starting with objective reality. --Pi zero (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
@Pi zero: Thanks. On 2017-10-19 I analyzed all the edits on the 10 articles then featured on en.wikinews. I counted 254 references to Pi zero out of 442 total mentions. That was 57% of the mentions. Acagastya got 30% of the mentions, 70% of those that were not Pi zero. Darkfrog24 got 9%, 67% of those that were neither Pi zero nor Acagastya. (I say "mentions," because I searched the history for the names of the contributors. This gave me a few more than the total number of edits, because that counted both your contributions and the times that your name appeared in the brief summaries.)
I also noticed that Pi zero was the only one of the Wikinews:Administrators whose name appeared in that list.
I'd like to survey the other 19 Administrators with questions something like the following:
  1. To what extent are you concerned about "increasing polarization and tribalism ... weakening our democratic systems", as discussed, e.g., in the Hewlett Foundation report on ANALYSIS OF PHILANTHROPIC OPPORTUNITIES TO MITIGATE THE DISINFORMATION/ PROPAGANDA PROBLEM (esp. p. 4)?
  2. What, if anything, might the Wikimedia Foundation and projects like Wikinews do to help ameliorate this problem and perhaps turn it into an opportunity? (If the level of conflict continues to escalate, governments all around the world will act in ways that may be counterproductive or at best suboptimal. Governments all over the world are already using these problems to justify blocking content they don't like -- and some are using the Internet to find and persecute potential political opponents. The Hewlett Foundation report mentioned above notes that Europeans are considering measures that could negatively impact the future of democracy worldwide. The Hewlett Foundation believes that major philanthropic organizations like theirs might be able to intervene in ways that might turn this problem into an opportunity. I agree, and I think the the Wikimedia Foundation is ideally placed to play a major role in this.)
What do you think? I'm not ready to start this survey right now but soon, perhaps. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
@DavidMCEddy: Three thoughts occur to me, atm.
  • I'm not sure what you think you're getting from those statistics on mentions and edits. I'm doing most of the review atm; but we knew that already. Beware of statistics.
  • A "survey" of en.wn admins... I don't know what you think this would accomplish.
  • It sounds kind of like spamming all the admin accounts. (Well, okay, it does sound like spamming them.)
  • That list is immensely varied in nature. Some of them have the admin bit because they're associated with wikimedia software development. Some of them are pretty inactive, and could (if we chose to pursue it) be de-sysop'd under our privilege expiry policy (the policy doens't require us to remove those privs, it merely empowers us to).
--Pi zero (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
(Would you believe... four thoughts?)

Media upload and abuse filter[edit]

In response to recent abusive media uploads (porn, copyvio etc.), I've created a new abuse filter: Special:AbuseFilter/26. It's not enabled yet, it simply tags the files as 'Potential Media Abuse'. When the next wave of file upload vandalism comes in, I'll tweak the filter some more and then we can turn it on to try and catch this stuff automatically. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Newby comments/suggestions[edit]

Hi all,

I'm a newby (2 months) so there's a lot I don't know and a lot of background information I don't have. I saw a Request for Comment (RfC?) on WikiNews at the Wikipedia Village pump (idea lab). The OP asked for suggestions on how to 'revive' WikiNews, for example by giving it more attention on the Wikipedia main page. I and others joined in the discussion. Perhaps my comments/suggestions (for what their worth) are relevant to this page. They would have been better appended to the previous discussion on bottleneck and vision but I try to avoid duplicating the same discussion in different places.

So this is just to let you know of the discussion at the Village pump and to invite you to comment either there or here. I'd be interested in any feedback.

Kind Regards,

Mike Mikemorrell49 (talk) 14:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I think topics which are breaking news should in general be published sooner here. An example of today is Ratko Mladić' conviction to life imprisonment. Yesterday, there was the great news of Mugabe's resignation after 37 years of presidency. Yet nothing about all that can be found here. Instead, all this information goes immediately to Wikipedia (where it cannot be discussed in detail because Wikipedia is not a news site). De Wikischim (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm planning to write up Mugabe's resignation; have been checking Recent changes for someone else doing it first :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
@Mikemorrell49: (You may have noticed, when you asked infrastructure questions on Wikibooks I answered much more promptly; it's a basic property of Wikinews that we put most of our volunteer effort into day-to-day news production — because on Wikinews there is a deadline — and infrastructure happens much more slowly because of it.)

Note, there is a lot of history between Wikinews and Wikipedia (I'm talking about the English-language projects, mostly). The most glaringly obvious technical difference is that on Wikipedia edits by anyone are instantly published, whereas on Wikinews nothing is published until rigorously vetted by authorized reviewers. Some Wikipedians really hate Wikinews because of that, have made sure Wikipedia would never acknowledge Wikinews as a reliable source, and have blatantly (and sometimes subtly/underhandedly) tried to destroy Wikinews. At the same time, many Wikinewsies are current or former Wikipedians, and most Wikipedians are friendly folks (most of them must be, or, imho, Wikipedia would not be able to function). We've had no end of trouble, though, with Wikipedians who (even if friendly) have various misapprehensions about news, and about Wikinews.

For years, Wikipedia Signpost was a hotbed of anti-Wikinews sentiment, and once upon a time they published a so-called "op-ed" there that basically said Wikinews is worthless crap. We have no current axe to grind with Signpost (though I believe some of the anti-Wikinews faction are still there), nor with the author of the op-ed (with whom, as I recall, we later called truce); but I mention it for its historical significance. We didn't respond on Wikipedia to the op-ed; perhaps we should have, but in my experience we could waste an infinite amount of time trying to sway the Wikipedian community, with no realistic chance of doing so, and meanwhile Wikinews would simply grind to a halt because we'd be pouring our volunteer time into talking to Wikipedians instead of into producing news. Rumor has that an edit summary by an editor during the preparation of the op-ed explicitly mentioned beginning the strangling of Wikinews. Taking advantage of the momentum from that op-ed, the anti-Wikinews faction successfully lobbied to remove the link to Wikinews that used to be at the bottom of ITN on the Wikipedia main page; and, just as one might expect, we did observe some decrease in random visitors from Wikipedia after that. They then went on to nominate for deletion all of the templates for sister links from Wikipedia to Wikinews, on the grounds that Wikinews articles are worthless and it is a disservice to readers to provide links from the magnificent articles of Wikipedia to... well, you get the idea. As I mentioned, though, there are lots of friendly folks on Wikipedia, and the mass-deletion of templates didn't happen.

Now, as for what Wikinews needs to grow. It's well to have some influx of new users, obviously we can't grow without that, but just because we're a volunteer project does not mean that all it takes to grow the project is to go out and advertise for more people to come volunteer effort here. Wikinews has technical constraints that limit its dynamic equation, in fact after studying the situation here closely I concluded that the constants in that dynamic equation need to be tweaked, if its derivative is to be positive (i.e., growth). There was a fork some years ago, of Wikinewsies who wanted to make review easier by, essentially, lowering standards so it wouldn't take as long to review. The "hard news" Wikinewsies, maintaining that high standards are essential, stayed on Wikinews. The fork project failed, imho because if there aren't high standards for getting published then there's no motive to get published either. Anyway, I developed my own ideas about what is needed, technically, to make Wikinews work better, and I've come to believe that all the wikimedian sisters need the tools I'm developing; even Wikipedia needs them. Unfortunately, I've also concluded that the Wikimedia Foundation has baked-in software design priorities that (with all good intentions; we've no shortage of those) do harm to the sisterhood by pushing in a different and incompatible direction from where I see we need to go. So for five years or so I've been developing these tools, at the same time that I've been pouring time into review on Wikinews so the project continues while I'm trying to develop what it needs to make me unnecessary. At least some of what I have in mind is described at User:Pi zero/essays/vision/sisters; atm I'm struggling with a low-level technical problem with the dialog tools that was pointed out to me by someone who has ported them to Spanish Wikinews, and beyond that, I'm starting on the very large task of figuring out high-level strategies for using the low-level tools.

Hopefully, all of that may offer some degree of big-picture perspective on Wikinews's situation. --Pi zero (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)