Wikinews:Water cooler/policy/Archive/4

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

Revised regions/bureaus organization scheme[edit]

I'd like to have page that collects stories local to Massachusetts, where I live. I plan on attempting to recruit some more local reporters, so I want a page to send them to that has more dense local coverage than the main page.

Right now, we have a bit of a mess of different overlapping structures for regions. For example, we have:

  1. The Texas category
  2. The Texas Wikibureau
  3. WikiBureau_Pennsylvania (note the odd page name)
  4. Talk pages for each of these pages

I think we can condense this into three pages:

  1. A Category:Region page that automatically aggregates stories tagged with that region
  2. A wiki/Region page that uses Dynamic Page List to aggregrate stories in a little more visually pleasing fashion. This page would also have a short bit of information about contacting local Wikinews folks.
  3. The talk page for the wiki/Region page, where we talk about coordinating coverage of different local events.

I'm going to try setting it up for Massachusetts. What do you all think? Pingswept 00:13, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Great idea. I set one up for my base of operations in San Jose, California.
In the coming months, we'll have Las Vegas, Beijing, and my favorite Chinese city, Shenyang as well. Please check out the Wikipedia article for Shenyang if you'd like to see my vacation pics from over there. :) — DV 02:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Notes on Fair Use[edit]

This is in response to comments from the smoked salmon story about images and such that aren't public domain. Ilya stated that if we write a policy, Fearless Leader (Eloquence) will have it implemented. I am all for it. I am continually frustrated with some of the science and astronomical articles I would like to write but don't because without some image of some sort the story just ain't happening. I think most of us agree on that point in regards to all of our contributions.

I've been doing some reading on fair use lately, and the main problem (for Wikinews and the contributors) isn't the question of what is and what isn't fair use but the fact that some one can sue no matter what. It doesn't matter if Eben Moglen, Lawrence Lessig and the spirit of Johnny Cochran said that image you posted was fair use, some one can sue and it's up to whoever to prove the fair use question in that particular case. It's guilty until you prove your innocence. As far as I understand so far. I am not a lawyer to make that clear before I get too far into this rant.

I am willing to contribute to a fair use policy and as soon as I read over some of the others here on the site to get an idea of how to write one up I'll start working on it. Maybe. Post comments here or on my talk page I guess if anyone else has ideas about this. Or you can email me using the email link on the toolbox on the user page. I hope we can get this sorted out soon. vlsimpson 16:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I just noticed there is a policy on Wikinews:Policies and guidelines/Fair use. It seems not much has occurred in this regard. vlsimpson 16:38, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I say, go ahead and write the story without the image. Plenty of articles in newspapers get by without any graphics at all. DouglasGreen 04:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The policy has also been submitted to the juriwiki-l for discussion by the legal folks of Wikimedia. - Amgine 04:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Disclaimer should be added to top of page template[edit]

I have just emailed this request to the Wikinews-l mailing list

[Wikinews-l] request/suggest: urgent modification to wikinews page template

Hi,

I've just joined this list, sorry I don't know what discussion there may have been, or any protocols I should observe.

I have an urgent request/suggestion. We need to point out more clearly that content is user-written, and may change.

This is urgent to me personally because I have a source who is skeptical of providing quotes because they may be edited to misconstrue the position of the source.

This is valid, and will reduce our access to live sources.

And we have an ethical and usability issue to deal with. Ethical, I will not even argue, I think it is obvious.

Users who do not understand the multi-user, realtime contribution nature of the site may have trouble adjusting as they find their work amended. Forewarned, their expectations would be more in line with their experiences, and less problems arise.

And there are legal issues I suppose as well, if the case occured that my potential source is afraid of. I notice that even our disclaimers page is blank, but in reality it is not going to be effective to have this info hidden away on the disclaimer page (although I will try to find some time to put some disclaimer).

So what I would ask is that we amend the line "From Wikinews, the free news source (BETA)" which appears on every page to something similar to

From Wikinews, the free, user-written news source that anyone can edit (BETA)
<BR>Warning: content changes in realtime - refresh recent changes tracker to see latest amendments

OK, that is a bit long, the first line is the important part.

Can someone please make a change like this asap, then perhaps we can come up with better text after some discussion. I would like to be able to assure my source that readers cannot misconstrue our content as authoritative.

Simeon

Done[edit]

OK, this seems to have been fixed well enough for my satisfaction.

Currently it says: From Wikinews, the free news source (BETA) that you can write!, which is a substantial improvement on From Wikinews, the free news source (BETA)

Someone has also kindly added some content to the Disclaimer page, which I didn't read, but it looks very rigorous, and gives examples showing that other 'real' news organisations also disclaim the existence of any actual facts in their content. ;) - Simeon 16:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)ok


Copyright notice is completely wrong[edit]

Currently we state at the bottom of each page All content of the Wikinews Beta is in the public domain.

This is totally wrong, many of the images are not, and I imagine a lot of the quotes we use may be argued to be property of someone, and being used under Fair Use or Fair Dealing.

We need to amend it, I imagine that something like All original content of the Wikinews Beta is in the public domain. might do, but I am no lawyer. Perhaps 'All unattributed content'... -Simeon 16:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Extension of previous wikilinks proposal[edit]

Please take a look at the Pope John Paul II dies story and follow the link John Paul II. Well what do you think, would linking to catagorizations set up like this be ok in limited circumstances (i.e. very famous people)? I think that by combinding a short bio with a list of related articles we could provide a winning formula. Any comments (apart from Amgine!) -> CGorman (Talk) 22:15, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see no reason why we should treat a topic differently just because it is a person. Whether it's Category:Television, Category:Weather, Category:Pope John Paul II or even Category:Michael Jackson. A centralized resouce of relevant information on a popularly written about topic is useful for the reader. -- Davodd | Talk 07:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Im just progessing with this with caution to avoid any backlash from Amgine! In reality adding too long of a bio would go beyond our charter - thats Wikipedia's job so im just testing the water to see have I got the balance right with the Pope category. -> CGorman (Talk) 20:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If it's mainly a directory of WN stories, you should have no problem. You may want to add a link to it from WP if it gets big enough. -- Davodd | Talk 05:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mediation[edit]

Dan100 requested that i mediate in a dispute between him and DV. I accepted as did DV, so the next course of action was (as always when one is confused) go to wikipedia. After some delving it would seem that wikipedia has quite a complex dispute resolution procedure. I thought that since we have a small site, we dont really need to set up an arbcom and a Mediation Committee, and an advocacy Committee and a.... (are you asleep yet?). Basicly i tried to meld it all into one page called Wikinews:Dispute resolution. A lot of it is taken from wikipedia, and the general idea is that the disputing users publicly name thier beef and how they believe they can move forward, and then the community (which is who is being hurt by the dispute) try and come up with some kind of solution. The page has no concrete power, so there will be no votes saying "Dan100 HAS to do this" or "DV HAS to do that" or whatever. (However if people wanted the page to gain these kind of powers - similar to those of the Arbcom in wikipedia - then raise it, and try and build a consensus. For the moment though, im against it.)

Please dont comment on the page if you are just going to list your own personal gripes against the participants rather than working towards a solution.

Finally, this is obviously only a beta and will almost certainly need changing, so come get involved, see what works and what doesnt, and then be bold... ~The bellman | Smile 13:05, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Eek! Thank you for volunteering. And Good job on the translation! ;-) -- Davodd | Talk 05:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ok; my partner is a mediator(don't laugh) and she offered the following; A; there are usually underlying motives that need to be gently addressed in order to reach a comfortable resolution B; a good beginning is to ask each party what the OTHER can do(or not do) to help fix the problem and C; try to convince each party that the only one they can change and control is themselves. Perhaps this is too two dimensional or maybe it could be 3 dimensional(bring in the community) and maybe the community can help define the underlying motives and what each person can do,not do or change? Paulrevere2005 03:59, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dealing with duplicate articles proposals needed[edit]

As more stories are being written, we have had some stories that are basically duplicates of alread-written WN articles, including:

Talk-therapy a promising first response for severe depression: study (April 5)
duplicated as- Study: cognitive therapy as good as medication, but lasts longer (April 6)
Archbishop Desmond Tutu calls for African Pope (April 3)
duplicated as- Desmond Tutu calls for election of African pope (April 4)
Australian rescue helicopter crash in Indonesia: nine dead (April 2)
duplicated as- Australian rescue helicopter crash in Indonesia: nine dead (April 3)
Prince Rainier of Monaco dies (April 6)
duplicated as- HSH Prince Rainier III has died (April 6)

Being that news has a much-faster turnover rate than encyclopedias, I don't think the lengthy Wikipedia merge process is really applicable here. Any thoughts on how to prevent or deal with this problem? Is it a problem? -- Davodd | Talk 21:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As a practical matter, the scuffle over the drug study story would suggest that we are better off allowing duplicates.
Also, I'm not sure why more than one story is such a problem. Why marginalize a contributor by placing a warning or label on a story they have contributed, declaring it to be a "duplicate"? Does anyone really want to spend time trying to figure out which article should be merged into the other?
Readers see more than one story about the same event every day. My local newspaper occassionally does this, sometimes even on the same page.
If this weren't a wiki, I'd suggest a "city desk" that contributors can check with before they begin a story. However, on a wiki that idea would be impossibe to enforce, and it goes against the spirit of letting everyone work on whichever story is of interest to them. That's my two cents. — DV 23:45, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This can be very simple: You see an article in creation in the developing stories area, you write about something else. Or you wait for completion of the article and improve on it. But to simply impose an entire word processed page and a new title over something is wrong. Until someone does it to you, you can't even imagine how crass and wrong an action it is.
There is plenty of room on Wikinews for several articles on the same subject. They would not need to be duplicates at all. For instance, in any disaster there are thousands of stories and even more thousands of ways of approaching each. Does that mean that the first person to write "anything" about the disaster owns the headline? Of course not. Rather than a city desk, any of us should feel free to check with either a trusted friend or an Admin to clear conflicting ideas before they engulf the users.
There should be an element of decency in what we do in the world, whether it is in here or in our own homes. If someone thinks to themselves, "Maybe Bill will be mad at me for this," then maybe they should rethink their motives in doing something. If they think they could generate anger instead of harmony, it is probably the wrong thing to do. I would call it "educated vandalism," since it is done with the expectation of a bad outcome, but thinking it could be "pulled off" anyway. Is it as bad as graffiti? Almost.
Perhaps a simple bit of respect is all that's needed. Sadly, that is not something that can be taught. It has to exist without being prodded. I could not think of doing an "Ops!" on another author. If I do the slightest bit of homework and notice another person has "Scooped" me, I will move along. There are lots of stories. Or I will just write an article on the same "disaster" and discuss a different aspect of it...or compare the disaster to one that happened last year...to make a long story even longer, you can't teach respect. Either someone has it or they don't. That has been a core issue for many wikis, and it is here as well. Some folks just have little self control, and decide if they have already spent the time writing something they could just as well spend the time defending their questionable actions in overwriting someone else's work. (If the shoe fits...) and since this issue has taken a lot out of my day, I did expand on it more than I wanted to. And I hope it doesn't happen to any of you.
Thanks for reading. --HiFlyer 00:39, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • More than one story was a problem for Prince Rainier of Monaco dies, which had the better title, and HSH Prince Rainier III has died, which had the better content.
  • The way to combat this is to discourage the culture of article ownership. Article ownership has authors writing articles on their own machines and then submitting them only when they are complete. Article ownership gives us such anti-wiki notions as the {{editing}} tag. Article ownership has authors complaining when their writing is edited mercilessly. Article ownership may be relevant to a printed newspaper, where the byline is all, but part of what makes Wikinews different is that it is collaborative. Anti-collaborative measures and practices are to be discouraged. Save early. Let other people muck in. Uncle G 00:51, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
One can also avoid duplicates by choosing more obscure story topics, which is something I am particularly good at on occassion. :)
Seriously, I am on the fence about the "editing" tag. On the one hand, if you don't submit at least a couple of grafs right off the bat, it's easy for some zealous enforcer of newsworthiness (I won't name names, they know who they are) to tag your article for deletion, claiming that it doesn't pass muster as news.
If only the "wiki way" was not constantly under attack.
For now, I tend to write at least three or four grafs before I hit the submit button.
If there was some way to reign in the enforcers on this site, I would feel a lot more comfortable simply submitting an early version of the story that just had the citations I was working from, and then submitting a graf at a time with individual submissions, to allow others a better chance to jump in before most of the story was written.
On the other hand, some submitters go totally to the other extreme, and just post random links for a story and then leave, without lifting a finger to write the story, which can either be looked at as lazy or sloppy, depending on your point of view. That kind of thing is no big deal as long as the story isn't on the front page.
Uncle G, I rather like it when someone else jumps in and adds a bit I hadn't thought of yet. However, it's difficult to do that in the current atmosphere of this site, with enforcers who are all to eager to label an article for "editorial cleanup" or even throwing on a Deletion request on it, without pitching in to help themselves.
I'm definitely eager to hear more constructive ideas to help solve this issue. — DV 01:09, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Just check the last couple of days on Latest news and look at Developing stories. If you're stories been 'done', work on the existing story or start something new.
I'm not a fan of putting out more than one story on the same subject - could you imagine a newspaper or CNN doing that?! It wouldn't do much for our reputation. Dan100 (Talk) 08:12, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There is no need to imagine a newspaper or CNN putting out more than one story on the same subject. As I write this, CNN has about a dozen stories on the same subject - Pope John Paul II. I've also seen the front page of my local city newspaper offer more than one story on the same subject on many occassions. On the day after 9/11 I recall that there was an entire section of our local newspaper chock full of stories about that single event. — DV 09:15, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Those CNN stories are not duplicate stories. They are all different stories relating to Pope John Paul II. They aren't the same as the several examples given at the start of this discussion, which all are duplicate coverage of the same event. Dan100 is right. Commercial news services rarely put out duplicate stories, and when they do it is usually by mistake. Uncle G 12:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I rather like it when someone else jumps in and adds a bit I hadn't thought of yet. — Maybe I've just been lucky, but with most of the news articles that I've worked on collaboration has worked. For example: I added the "Tributes" section to Pope John Paul II dies, and started it off with a few, and other people jumped in to contribute reports of other tributes. We ended up giving the BBC News' similar tributes page (for example) a very good run for its money. It's exactly this sort of growth that doesn't happen when different editors are working on separate articles about the same event. Uncle G 12:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, as one of the ppl who submitted a duplicate article, i'd just like to say that it is possible to scan the news and not see the already written article; mistakes happen, and as the number of articles per day increases mistakes will happen more often, and if we stop listing all articles on the main page (when we get a hundred articles a day, it will simply become impossible), it will become impratable to check. I think the solution lies in an improved category system, where i can look at category:The vatacan and see the articles in chronological rather than (or as well as) alphabetical order. Anyway, just on a side note. I agree one million percent with uncle g on article ownership. We are begining to build up a culture where ppl say, "in my article". There is no such thing as your article or my article, its our article. We cant let ourselves imagine that we have some little bit of turf to defend. We are all in this together as the saying goes. ~The bellman | Smile 12:21, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thimk or Thwim[edit]

Greetings from Texas. Just a quick question for the assemblage: Is anyone suggesting that we simply throw an article out there like red meat and let the jackals and buzzards descend on it en masse? (Oh please lighten up! I'm not caling you a jackal or a buzzard)
Is anyone suggesting that we become simply a "headline Wiki" where anyone throws out a headline and then lets 'em have at it' or let's it rot on the vine?
Personally I think anyone who works with a word processor of some sort will, by virtue of the technology involved, produce a piece with fewer mechanical errors. That leaves the "human side" up to the humans. We all travel in different social circles but come together with an interest in news. Did anyone actually wander into this site looking for pizza recipes?
Ok. Back to work. --HiFlyer 16:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Policy question about non-English sources[edit]

Dpr and I were discussing the use of non-English sources for stories on Wikinews.

This Water cooler page is getting kind of long, so I won't paste the entire discussion here, but if anyone has some additional thoughts, please share them with us.

The original discussion is on the talk page for a story from April 9. Please carry on the discussion back here on the Water cooler, as a discussion of a policy for sources is getting a bit off-topic from that specific story.

I thought we at least had a guideline or even a policy for this question, but I'm not sure where it is. Thanks. — DV 04:01, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think non-English sources should be allowed but not encouraged. The fact is, Wikinewsies are able to understand a great number of languages to a reasonable degree and we should be taking advantage of these abilities when we can make stories better. There is always another person out there somewhere to read a source in a foreign language (though maybe one would need to talk to people at other language wikipedia or wikinews projects to find them). I would encourage English language versions of foreign press before non-English versions (i.e. use english.aljazeera.net before www.aljazeera.net, for the same opinion), but otherwise I think the foreign source is fine. -- IlyaHaykinson 07:10, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I suggest that foriegn-language sources also provide a link to an English translation of the web site where possible. for example:
This can be done using Google Language Tools - no it isn't perfect, but it helps. -- Davodd | Talk 07:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The automatic traslator are rarely exempt from serious problems. In my opinion non-English sources can be provided but English sources should be provided. That is the non-English sources can be only an extension and the English sources should be the main one. The non-English sources should be inserted only if it valuable. 10:04, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Everything sounds pretty reasonable--thanks for your help. But one thing back to DV's concern about copyright violations...I don't think the language issues makes a difference; we have to respect copyright conventions--unless my comment about being a "clearninghouse" for information (on the original talk page) was vague and was appearing to mean "provide whole translations", which would certainly be a violation. That wasn't my intended suggstion.
But I did want to reiterate...I hope we can use Wikinews to become the Internet's premier site for DIY news from an international perspective that uses all possible availabe sources, not matter what the language. We can really head to the forefront, especially in terms of providing a truly broad, open perspective, if we incorporate international, multilingual sources. Thanks! Dpr 18:45, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think we should encourage foreign language sources as long as they aren't the only sources listed. I've run into trouble before with an article that had only one source, and it was in a language I couldn't read. I'm not saying that I personally need to be able to read everything linked, just that the sources that we are using to vouch for our claims should be written in the same language as the article. Otherwise, the claims are much less verifiable. Pingswept 23:56, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
An English source should not be required, but only ecouraged. There are many news in the world that are not reported by mainstream English media, but does appear in local newspapers. We are an international community here. --Dcabrilo 15:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is it legal to include document from Wikipedia?[edit]

Due to the different Licence (PD here and GPDL in wikipedia) is legal to include document from wikipedia? And from meta (like the help page)? AnyFile 09:59, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • I can see it now, tommorrows lead story: Open source free encyclopedia Wikipedia sues younger sibling Wikinews; BBC joins the Britannica; Encarta in celebration! On a more serious note, I don't know; I doubt it, but Amgine or Erik are more qualified to confirm/or not my assumptions. -> CGorman (Talk) 20:14, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikinews is Public Domain. Wikipedia is not. We don't have the right to take Wikipedia material and release it into the public domain without the permission of all of the contributors who wrote the material in the first place. — DV 20:30, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Wikimedia would never have a problem with this content since we're a child project of the foundation. An organization can't sue itself. I would generally support the PD restriction as applying mainly to the main article namespace and not to the support pages (Wikinews: pages, Talk:, etc). -- IlyaHaykinson 20:45, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • What Wikimedia has a problem with is entirely immaterial. It is the contributors who wrote the content who are relevant here, as they own the copyrights. David Vasquez is right. (I've just pointed out the same thing over on Wikipedia, where it was suggested that something be transwikied to Wikinews, as a matter of fact. Wikipedia has no transwiki procedure for Wikinews, because of this very issue.) Legally, GFDL material cannot be given to the public domain by a third party. The GFDL is, indeed, deliberately designed this way. Please familiarize yourself withe copious Free Software Foundation documentation on this issue, and its rationales for why its copyright licensing is as it is, starting here. Uncle G 21:29, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • In Wikinews:Template messages I found
Also, feel free to liberally steal anything you need from w:Wikipedia:Template messages
I doubt this could be legal AnyFile 18:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is legal if there is link back to the origintal source, which contains the attributions to the original contributors. In the case of templates, include the link back on the talk pages, with a clear statement - something like "The origional source of the material is Wikipedia, and can be found at [[w:Template:Name]]", making sure the actual file being copied is linked to correctly. This suffices for the GFDL licensure. - Amgine 18:14, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure? I have to admit that I had no time to read again the GPDL, but I think that you can not distribute verbatim copy or derivate works in a different licence and here the licence is PD. AnyFile 22:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Libel[edit]

I'm not sure where is the best place for my note. But I want to caution about libel. I changed "Lawsuits filed against students illegally sharing files over the Internet2" to insert "accused of". Maurreen 04:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for changing this, I agree this is very important. --Cspurrier 19:00, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have run across this a time or two with articles on Tom DeLay. Someone, I didn't even check who, made some bald statement that DeLay is culpable of some criminal activity, I can't even remember what. Having a passing familiarity with the case, I know that DeLay has not been found guilty in a court of law for anything. All I did to correct the situation was insert the word "allegedly". That's pretty much all it takes to preserve neutrality; it's a trick the newspapers do all the time. DouglasGreen 03:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Headlines are generally understood not to be factual (I think) if the story explains the actual facts, ie that the people are accused, not condemned (as long as the headline is not obviously malicious — one criteria for libel is malice afaik). But, that said, it's nice to be accurate in headlines, so your motivation to change it is good.
Headlines like this one can often be amended in some other way, without having to explicitly mention 'accused' which is wordiness really, in a headline. For this example 'Lawsuits filed against students for illegal file sharing' says the lawsuits are for illegal filesharing, not that the students have been found guilty of that (yet). - IAMNOTALAWYER Simeon 03:02, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Headlines are supposed to factual. And "courts have ruled that a headline may be actionable even though the story under the head is free of libel." That's from "The Art of Editing," by Baskette, Sissors and Brooks.
Also, "allegedly" and "arrested for" and similar constructions offer no protection from libel charges. (Although "allegedly" is probably used more often, and in my view, not quite as bad.) See libel notes from a Radford University page.
Proper constructions include "accused of" and "charged with."
I'm not a lawyer, but I do write headlines for a living. Maurreen 06:02, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks. I guess mine was not very good in retrospect. 'File sharing lawsuits filed against students' would be better :) or 'Students sued over internet2 file sharing' - Simeon 06:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I am curious now ... "Lawsuits filed against students illegally sharing files over the Internet2" mentions no names .. is it still illegal if the students in question can't be identified? - Simeon 06:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Worth noting that it seems to be accepted that publishing on the net == publishing in many countries, and having to obey all their laws. Gutnick v Dow Jones - Simeon 06:37, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I will add some info resources links to an appropriate place in our Writing an article documentation. Please help if you can by providing links here. - Simeon 06:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Here is a link. I'll try to look for some more.
Also, about the students, I can see arguements both ways. But it is not necessary to use people's names to be libelous. Material can be libelous if they are identified or identifiable in other ways. Maurreen 07:36, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hiding news based on NPOV[edit]

Now I haven't really seen anything on this, so I thought I'd bring it up here. Sometimes I read an article and later, cannot find it again. I found one recently about ACLU_illegally_helping_aliens_avoid_capture,_says_Minuteman. I saw it on the frontpage and read it, and today couldn't find it, even when CTRL+F'ing April 2005. Why? Oh, I see (thanks to a google search), it was marked non-NPOV.

This creates a problem. Articles that aren't listed anywhere won't become NPOV, because noone will find them. I can see that it's listed at Category: April 15, 2005, but that's not the obvious list. I don't know what policy is on this, sooooooo... What is it? Is there a list of all NPOV articles? Is there official word on this? To me, it seems like censorship, just because an article may not be NPOV doesn't mean it needs to be instantly removed from the list of news for the day :( --Tom 02:34, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is no need for concern about censorship, because there wasn't any. I am the author of the original article, with the title as you give it. It was rather hastily written, and probably not sufficiently NPOV in the first draft. It was marked with an NPOV flag with several comments. I reviewed the comments and then pulled the article from the Front Page myself and put it back in article workspace to be retooled. It seemed good to me not to hash out NPOV or any other flag issues on the front page. After some give and take, and a complete rewrite of the article, a new title was suggested, ACLU, Minutemen trade accusations of misbehavior and it is now sitting on the front page again with no flag. It was generally agreed to be acceptable and NPOV by those who were originally concerned, and in fact I did take the time to gather and represent more diverse opinions than in the original draft; it is a better article because of their criticism. You may see the Discussion page of the article for more details. We in fact composed some e-mails to the Minutemen and ACLU and now have received at least 1 reply from the Minutemen, also mentioned on the Discussion page, which may form the basis of a follow-up article. Please let me know if you have any questions. DouglasGreen 03:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
On this subject, how about hiding unapproved articles from people who don't log in, as a default. Obviously there is no real approval mechanism at the moment; but it might be something to build to in the future. Or hiding a namespace in which articles are prepared before going big time. :ChrisG 16:46, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Number of day on Wikinews:Deletion requests[edit]

I notice a little incogruence on Wikinews:Deletion requests. At the beginning it written three days or seven day. Some lines after it said that "The period of five days starts at ...". As I do not know whic is the correct number of days, I left the change to someone who knows. AnyFile 15:23, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Press Kit images[edit]

What is Wikinews policy on press kit images? That is images which are deliberately presented for download as part of a press kit, for example, this image that depicts the subject of an article I just wrote. I presume that this is a copyrighted image, not Public Domain or GFDL. Yet it is in a press kit... and we are press... ???

Good point. I just modified our proposed [use policy] to reflect our ability to use these kinds of images. However, the policy is still subject to going into effect only when uploads are turned on. I suppose Eloquence needs to make this decision. -- IlyaHaykinson 06:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, decisions on uploads and image use are decided by a single person? Is this for en: or for all languages? Sj
All press release materials - under international copyright treaties - are considered to be copyrighted unless they specifically state otherwise. There is no need for a copyright notice for material to be copyrighted - but there IS a need for a copyleft-type notice of some sort for eligibility to be uploadable to Wikicommons. -- Davodd | Talk 08:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The policy will need to be discussed at the Wikimedia Foundation board level, since the project definition from the start specifically stated Wikinews would not have image uploads to avoid fair use issues. However, that discussion has begun, and will hopefully move on toward a resolution which will allow some limited Fair Use such as logos and press kits. A parallel discussion on Wikinews-l seems to be helping a lot, so if we can also talk about this there? - / 17:15, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Retroactive categorising?[edit]

I've also asked this on the talk page a category I've just created, Category talk:Microsoft, but it'll get more exposure here, I reckon. Question: Is retroactively adding old articles to categories like this one considered 'editing' under the guideline asking not to edit old articles? I believe it would be nice if one could easily find all articles related to Microsoft in its own category. If that's all cool and froody I'll make the edits, and get it done for Linux / FLOSS as well. :) Hooloovoo 00:03, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Go for it... good idea! - Amgine 00:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've set up a small Microsoft page and category using the DynamicPageList teg. I didn't read this until after I set it up. Good luck with your quest! -- Redge (Talk) 13:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't, and never have, liked lots of little categories on Wikinews. This ain't Wikipedia - such categories aren't much use as they can't list the pages in publish order (although DPLs help, but adding the tag can mess up the listing order)

But the bottom line is that the vast majority of readers use the search function to find old articles. It's easier, quicker, and more effective, so I just don't think it's worth doing tiddly little cats. Stick to the big ones that the main DPL pages use. Dan100 (Talk) 15:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Protection hinders this[edit]

(Last time I tried this) Pages which have been protected (for reasons I don't yet fully understand, but I am told it is something to do with wikipedia's desire to use us as some kind of yearbook) cannot be altered in this fashion. I would like to propose that stories are not protected in their existing location, but instead, a copy is made, including the date in the title, and that is protected.
eg Fire service rescues kitten should be copied to Fire service rescues kitten/April 21, 2005, and only the copy is protected.
(I have proposed in the past that wikipedia simply link into the relevent history page of the article, but have been told this presents technical problems, I understand the history pages are compresssed, and perhaps the tech team don't like the extra load of ungzipping pages that might be in common use.)
This is much more in keeping with wikiness, and allows people to continue to correct the original story, as well as adding categories.
I would still ask people not to update the facts of a story — they should write a new story for that — but I think typo corrections are certainly acceptable, and I would also like to allow people to correct balance/POV, expand background, link to more recent updates ... there are a number of changes I would see as acceptable. - Simeon 02:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The problem with not protecting articles is they are not carefully monitored, and they have been used for wikispamming in the past. Also archiving old news was a part of the initial project development plan, to provide permanent historical documents[1]. There is a process in place to add updates to articles in the archive conventions, and admin alerts page.
Ongoing editing to correct balance/POV, add background would reduce the article's value as a historical resource, since the information known or believed at the time would be suspect.
There are already some 600+ links to Wikinews in Wikipedia, more than 100 through the Wikinews article template. Other sites are also using Wikinews as a reference. As one of the very few, if not only, news sources which has perfectly open archives I believe Wikinews should make the necessary efforts to maintain its value as a valuable resource. - Amgine 03:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Personally I support protecting old articles as it stops vandalism. However, the last time I tried to establish a policy on this it was generally felt to be a bad idea. I'm not really sure what the situation is now...

Perhaps we should have the debate again? Dan100 (Talk) 19:28, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Move protection[edit]

I would like to see all prominent, fixture-type pages with long histories protected against page moves. The Water cooler, for instance. cf. recent move-vandalism. Is there any reason not to do this? Sj 08:25, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am completely against locking down of the site. We have the most efficient and effective rollback process in .. history .. so we have little need for these things. If we get 10 or more vandals a day, I am happy to look at the options then.
The atmosphere we create, as well as the content of the pages, determines what people will do when they encounter the site. For anti-authoritarians, a locked down site is a sign of a bunch of weaselly fascists who need a good stirring. So locking things has a balancing effect of encouraging more vandals.
Vandals on the whole, want attention. Locking things can be a sign that what they are doing is working. It has upset us so much that we are prepared to undermine our own principles, and also to undermine the access of new users to make changes. It raises a barrier to entry to new users, which is my main objection.
I realise that you only propose this for specific widely recognised pages, so do not think that I will get upset if you do it. I'm simply responding to your question with an opinion, for the benefit of those who may not have tought of these factors, or as a voice for those who have but didn't get around to commenting here.
Someone commented recently, 'why can't unregistered users move pages'. I tend to agree. So going a step further and move-protecting some pages, so that only admins can move those .. just adds to the illusion of hierarchy, and I find that unattractive. - Simeon 08:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

creating / deleting dispute flag templates[edit]

yesterday this tag {{notnews}} was put on an article

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI%27s_opposition_to_the_Masonic_Order_and_other_%22religious_mysticism%22_goes_back_at_least_22_years

I had never seen this "notnews" flag before and the article could/can not be found in ongoing disputes or deletion requests. By amazing coincidence I went to an editor's user page to see if he had responded to a message I had sent him the day before. There was a discussion there between an admin and editor relating to the above flag and article which I find disturbing.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/User_talk:Uncle_G#Disputed_article_on_the_day_page

and which resulted in the administrator creating a new dispute flag.

http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Template_messages/Disputes&action=history

I am wondering if this process for creating dispute flag templates is acceptable to the community?? I am also wondering if any of us are allowed to delete such a tag template? Paulrevere2005 12:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Paul, it is not illegal for the wiki to evolve. There was a disupte tag on the article, but that did not actually encompass what the dispute was about. As such, editors ARE allowed to create new tags, and use them in response to an evolving situation/new situation. Now, if the community chooses to accept them, that's another issue. I don't have any problem with that tag personally, although I think we are setting a dangerous trend regarding the news/not news debate. Lyellin 14:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I didn't use the word "illegal", I said; "I am wondering if this process for creating dispute flag templates is acceptable to the community??"Paulrevere2005 19:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Dispute tags devolop as policy develops; if you look at the history of existing article tags you'll see most of them have changed quite a lot, but what you might not see is the many other dispute and editing tags which were developed previously and which are now not used at all. I created this template in response to a perceived need, which cites specific Wikinews policies which an article might be in violation of, and describes the resolution to the dispute - which is what a dispute tag does.
Wikinews has developed policies regarding what is appropriate content and what Wikinews is, as well as what Wikinews is not. I'm sure you can see where I drew my advice to you previously on this specific article. - / 15:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I guess the thing that surprises me is the process. I think "consensus" is the foundation here and I would have thought invoking a "notnews" dispute flag would be an important event deserving of an inclusive discussion on the water cooler or elsewhere before implementation...not just a 2 person discussion on someone else's(uncle g's) talk page.I mean, should another editor and I come up with a "governmentpropaganda" dispute flag ??and install a template within 9 minutes of our discussion; without community input??Maybe this site is more wild west than I thought; which I can adjust to, but I find it really hard to believe that,in hindsight, this process is acceptable even to the couple who were involved. Paulrevere2005 19:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I know you didn't say illegal, but that is the kind of tone being given. Sorry for the exaggeration. Any user can create a flag if they want. Any user can put it on an article. Now, Since there are already policies regarding the "not news" issue, the tag could be readily made, cause we've already talked about that. Save it had not been, so users created it. Now, once the tag is on an article, that is a different matter. It requires dicussion to remove it, and discussion to see if it is valid. Is this system perfect? No. It typically results in the ability for a single user to hijack an article, without community support. In the end though, it allows for the most detailed vetting of issues, and great articles. Quite similar to Wikipedia, for instance. Now, discussion should be occuring on the page itself, to defend it being news or not. We should not be critizing editors for making templates. Lyellin 20:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


  • The facts don't support your argument.

1. the people who put in the flag were clear in their conversation that they didn't want it to go into delete request because they didn't want the community to have the final say "it might be kept"....they wanted to take control of the article's destiny by themselves. 2. now the article is nowhere..not in ongoing disputes..no where; so your point about "discussion should be occuring on the page itself" is naive,imo. there were 12 different editors who commented in a 2 day period before the new flag was inserted and the article removed..none have commented since.

No! the facts show this is a simple case of 2 people not only blocking an article but also planning the method of blockage in such a way as to prevent a full-community discussion of it. Now maybe that is ok too in an evolving wiki..dog eat dog so to speak..but it seems to me to run counter to the core values listed in the policies and guidelines..and is clearly censorship as defined by wikipedia "censorship consists of any attempt to suppress information, points of view, or method of expression". I don't like it and I don't buy the rationalizations for it. Paulrevere2005 22:45, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What? It should certainly be in ongoing disputes!
If it isn't, there is an error in the template. - / 23:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I apologize, Paulrevere2005, I did not double check that the tag was working completely. It is now. - / 23:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Paul, you seem to be assuming there is some sort of all encompassing, crazy attack based upon nothing for the article.
  • This discussion is about the process that led up to the creation and (imo) misuse of a "notnews" flag; was this process acceptable to the Wikinews community? is the flag acceptable to the Wikinews community? Paulrevere2005 12:23, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Now, I do recall hearing logical arguements on both sides regarding this issues. Were there also words said too quickly, and without proper consideration? Yes, on both sides. So, let's try this again. 1. I don't believe that. I know both editors. I'm pretty sure you are putting words into their mouths, or misinterpreting here.
"I think the best solution here would be a listing on Deletion requests....However I'm mildly allergic to DR and the ensuing arguments, so I haven't listed it. And it might be kept of course, which would be a worring precedent."

Please tell me how this can be misinterpreted? Paulrevere2005 12:23, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

it SHOULD be on the page of the article, as well as the article should be listed on ongoing disputes. If it's not, the template needs to be fixed. I do not believe this is naive. The 12 editors could not come to an agreement, that I saw. At least, the grivences against the article were not solved. That means it is disputed. the fact that no one has commented since has nothing to do with it.
Paul, I was one of the editors who commented to Amgine that it needed to be looked at in more detail. There was discussion, and there can continue to be discussion. I suspect some of that has been distracted because of the user page comments, and admin action alerts, and here, as opposed to working to solve the issues with the article. . Lyellin 23:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Different point. At the top of this article,Amgine referred me to what Wikinews is, I just read it and at the bottom it says clearly; "If you discover an article which doesn't come up to these standards, please edit that page to fix it! If there is no possibility of the page being brought up to these standards, please list it for deletion as a last resort."

Why wasn't this article handled that way ? Why wasn't it put up for deletion?

A;especially since it seems the disputer is the very person who wrote the process above for dealing with "notnews"articles.

B;This different approach is particularly upsetting as the disputer had said he was worried "it might be kept" if put up for deletion http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/User_talk:Uncle_G#Disputed_article_on_the_day_page

When one adds A and B together, it does seem as if, despite knowing the stated wikinews procedures for handling an article someone thinks is "notnews", in this case another method was chosen specifically to avoid a community decision on the article.

To me that is the major point and shows clearly the danger of mis-use of this dispute flag.

Paulrevere2005 12:23, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We do have a problem here. The original zeal of the article has been gutted, and now the newsworthiness is being questioned. Last night I contemplated a headline, Wikinews shackled by its big brother, for an original reporting story. The thrust of the story would be that Wikinews is missing the power of the blog by insisting on NPOV.
I personally fell the NPOV requirement filters access to the new here by contributer at this site by asking too much of people only causually interested, but excited enough to write. If we truly hope to gain the insight of whole world, then the price we pay is a loss of NPOV. Our viewpoint is inherent in any article published here. And since the is not an encylopedia it should be tolerated.
Readers understand an expect, even search out news that conforms to their viewpoints. The beautify of Wikinews can be it is 'world view' with all its varying opinions, but put in check by the facts. The Pope story is on the cover of this week's Newsweek. He is still news. This story is news. The article flag is incorrect. Indeed it is the flag that is POV. -Edbrown05 15:30, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The policy of NPOV is non-negotiable. We attempt to ditch that, and Jimmy Wales will close us down. There's no discussion here. And for what it's worth, npov is what makes us better than blogs, and better than many other news sources.

Re the new flag. The article needed a dispute flag that didn't exist. Amgine created it, and I put it on the article as at least Uncle G and I object to the article on the grounds that it's not about a news event. There's not really any issues here, it's just life on a wiki. Dan100 (Talk) 15:36, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't read the articles and arguments in question. In fact I didn't even read this whole thread.
But I am glad PaulRevere2005 asked the question. Many on this wiki in my opinion have become much to attached to a status quo, their own perception of a status quo, since no-one sees the whole wiki and we therefore each see a different slice.
In a wiki, people create things. Except for rampant vandalism that some users can immediately delete, people who don't like things people create, have several options.
  1. Change them
  2. Request they be deleted, this request is then discussed
  3. Change them into a redirect. This leaves the option for someone to later undo the change relatively easily.
  4. Put up with them
  5. Talk about them
Any I have left out?
There is no actual need to discuss what you are going to do, unless you are not sure if you want to do it, in my opinion. If we ever develop actual set-in-stone policies, then these would be the only things I think should actually *require* discussion. For every other change you are permitted to do, do it straight away if you think it is good. If you want to talk about a proposed change, do so, but don't feel compelled to do that instead of making something.
Furthermore, I am actually in favor of people removing tags themselves, ignoring discussion. Sure this may lead to an edit war over the presence/absence of the tag. So what? It's better than sitting on your hands while some troll has flagged your perfectly good article and frightened off all the readers. (theoretical case) Best case, you look at the tag, fix the article, remove the tag, everyone is happy. Why so much discussion? It's starting to smell like a beauracracy in here.
Re NPOV, it is non-negotiable that we aim for NPOV. It is not expected that the first version, or the second ... of every story is NPOV. If you can write something completely straight NPOV that makes every reader feel all warm and glowing inside, bully for you. If you have 6 minutes to spill the beans on what your boss did today to the Kurds in Nicaragua, then spill. Others will add to it. Only trolls who fight against others' efforts to balance a story, who are not respectful of the existing viewpoints in the story, are in violation of the NPOV-as-Dogma law. I am not Jimmy Wales, but I can read his mind.
And don't feel like an NPOV flag on an article means it is unreadable, or that it is a criticism of your viewpoint. It is simply an editorial tool, just like all the other flags. But, please, do think before you use it. We prefer you to balance the story yourself, than to flag it and whinge. Edit wars are good. That is how we get to NPOV. Do not be afraid of some controversy.
Wikinews has perhaps overcompensated I think since arguments kept stories from being published. We should not look at it that way, we should publish the stories as quickly as possible, we should aim not to tie up the process, but we should also expect some controversy. ;) - Simeon 08:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

No winners[edit]

Does anyone expect to 'win' this debate? I hope not. Prolly time to move on and agree to disagree. I know I won't be making up any new flags soon ;-/ --HiFlyer 16:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

the {{notnews}} tag[edit]

PaulRevere2005 asked me to comment on this issue. Here's what I think.

  • As someone who writes hyperlocal news stories that I expect get read by almost nobody, I don't like the {{notnews}} tag. I'm not strongly opposed to it, but I fear that will generate a new set of flamewars.
  • I wish the tag had not been created and put into use without discussion, but I don't think it's that big a deal. We're still developing the rules around here.
  • The article under dispute is biased. I read the Cardinal's homily-- it doesn't mention the Masons. The warnings about "new sects," is a short part. I would welcome a story with a title like "Cardinal delivers homily" that summarized what he actually did say.
  • I find it difficult to participate in a discussion where the comments are filled with bold,exclamation points,!!!!,speling erors,and commas with no spaces. I am not, I repeat, not saying that you need perfect punctuation to speak on Wikinews, but that that kind of writing makes the text sound in my mind less like a respectful discussion and more like a rant, which is probably not the desired effect.
  • We are all trying to build a website that collects and distributes news, right?

Pingswept (Talk) Some time on 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I will repair the bold type I did now. The particular article's relevance is not what is important here imo. Paulrevere2005 17:48, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pingswept, none of your stories could be tagged 'notnews' because they're, er, news stories. It doesn't matter if the event is big or small, global or local, as long as it is an event. Dan100 (Talk) 17:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with a user creating a new dispute tag -- marking something with a tag is certainly better than putting it up for deletion — In general, I am in favor of resolving the problem on the article's talk page and not in Deletion Requests.
That said, I think the article deserved an accuracy tag, and not a notnews tag, if Pingswept is right. Notnews should be reserved for borderline cases where the article isn't clearly a candidate for speedy deletion, but also obviously not a news story (i.e. reporting on something that happened 2 years ago; reporting on something that's absurdely local (i.e. reporting on things happening in the original author's own apartment); reporting on something that's obviously not news at all (i.e. "Countrymen make sandwiches with turkey and cheese" type stuff).
As for this story: I think the notnews tag should be taken off, and either an accuracy tag be placed on it, or it be put up for deletion. I think it's better to leave it to one of the 10 editors on that article to take the decisive action, one way or another. -- IlyaHaykinson 18:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See also the comments on User talk:Amgine#Template:Notnews.--Eloquence 06:57, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Can we use the {{Cleanup|Reason}} tag? I think that this tag maybe is redundant and that is not well defined. However I am not clearly against it and I am still in doubt if we should use it or not. --Carlosar 12:34, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Chinese Wikinews versus fear of censorship[edit]

Hi. I wanted to make sure people here at Wikinews are aware that a very serious discussion has been going on at the Foundation-1 mailing list regarding the fact that the launching of the Chinese Wikinews has been delayed, despite more-than-sufficient interest, because of worries among some Chinese users that it will be censored by the government.

The discussion can be read here:

Foundation-1 May 2005 Archive

Maybe this is newsworthy? (One of the first articles in Wikinews about Wikinews?) But it would have to be kept NPOV. :-) Dovi 06:00, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting the cause of someday launching a zh.wikinews. Generally speaking, articles about Wikinews are frowned upon (some view it as "navel-gazing"), but this cause is important, so thanks for keeping hope alive.
(I replied in more detail on Dovi's user talk page.) — DV 07:21, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Standard practice linking images to articles?[edit]

While the MediaWiki default of linking images to their own page automatically is appropriate for Wikipedia, perhaps images on Wikinews (especially the main and category pages) should link to the story they describe with the full image being linked from the article itself. This applies moreso to stock-images such as "Breaking News," after all, most people tend to click the image for a story when visiting news sites and a high-resolution Wikinews logo is of no use to readers. -- Noclip 23:30, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea. Most of the time it is hard to tell what story a photo goes with.--Cspurrier 23:24, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
As far as I am aware it is not technically possible to do this in Mediawiki, though this has been brought up before. If someone has time to search the bugzilla to see if this feature has been requested so we can either support development of the solution or begin one. - / 23:27, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


Good discussion here, but on the policy page?[edit]

The central argument is about whether the word "policy" is being misused (or whether the word or the policy needs to be better/more clearly defined). There are divergent aspects to the discussion, but I myself would prefer to have the entire argument in one place, because arguments that become spread across the wiki are very hard to follow. This place is appropriate because it is the appropriate place for the most important part of the question. - Simeon 05:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Since nobody gets paid for doing anything here, this site should be fun: a place to rant, a place to vent, and mostly place to report news. Unfortunately, from the very top down to the so-called administrators and contributors alike, personal views are used to beat up on what gets out, and what gets out should be allowed reflect the ideas of contributors themselves (that's called being participatory). If nobody is allowed to report because it doesn't measure up to some imaginery -->yes imaginery<-- standard, there will be no news because who would cares to bother writing when their contribution is beat up willy-nilly (it's like my opinion ain't good enough).

Not enough credit is given to readers. They aren't stupid. Let readers be their own news filters. What can make this site exciting and fun are viewpoints from every point walks of life. I believe rolling back a contributors content should be done only in respect to making the report consistent with the facts. Viewpoints should be allowed to go un-checked.

If Jimbo is as serious about news as he and others are about Wikipedia, then the content reported here should allow for viewpoints. Otherwsise it is by definition: a censor. This isn't an encylclopedia, I believe this should be a site where raw stuff gets put up, and put up with by all readers. And it is arguable that news readers want that. Persons objecting to the POV in a story can add their own reporting if they are so motivated. -Edbrown05 13:58, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Then you have contributors abandoning this site. Something is up with that. Then you have readership tanking at the Alexa traffic report. Something is up with that. The answer is more contributors. To get more news contributions, I believe means allowing POV. And by this I do not mean blogging <although I don't dismiss it>. -Edbrown05 14:17, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Ed, we cannot. CANNOT. That's a central tenat of Wikipedia, Wikimedia, and the foundations of Wikinews. If we start doing that, we go against everything that all of those sites work for. And we can provide good, balanced news. We see what happens when POV is allowed: CNN, Foxnews, others. We don't need that. Now we are in the growing pains here - but that doesn't mean we need to abandon what makes us us. Instead, we need to figure out how to improve out situation.... are we editing too harshly/quickly? Do we need more/less standards? Was Eloquence's idea of a review process a good one, from the beginning? There are lots of options we can work with here. Lyellin 14:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Ed, have a read of m:Foundation issues. Some things can't be changed, and sometimes people leave because of that (part of the reason DV left. HiFlyer left because he was caught trying to make personal gain from the site and then became abusive).
But it's not all bad news. Alexa ranks aren't very accurate and always dip after weekends. By contrast, the RSS in on track to have it's highest-ever circulation today! So keep writing, everyone! Dan100 (Talk) 15:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Which is exactly the point Dan. Let's keep on writing and quit swatting at stories with flags and tags and whatever else. We're yet to see a story from you lately --> what? --> don't your viewpoints measure up to NPOV being trotted out all the time.

I don't mean this as attack on you Dan. I mean that nobody is perfect, help and encouragement is hopefully my own and others reactions to controversial stories. -Edbrown05 16:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

On the matter of policy, I would love to see the tag policy clarified. Now, we ask for consensus before tag removal, which means that if someone adds a tag and then leaves for a week, no consensus can be reached, so the tag can't be removed. How about either allowing disputed articles to published with the dispute tag in place as a warning to readers, or making the standard for consensus (on developing stories only) be "agreement between *recent* commenters." We could say "recent" meant "in the last 4 hours." (We can argue about the exact amount of time.) The idea is that as long as people are actually discussing a tag and working to agree on an article, consensus is required, but if someone won't respond to improvements, their input is regarded as outdated, and thus irrelevant. Thoughts? Pingswept 18:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC) (Updated Pingswept 21:00, 10 May 2005 (UTC))

I don't think we need to change anything regarding article flags. Common sense works fine. We don't so much ask for consensus, simply that the issue the flag is highlighting is fixed. Dan100 (Talk) 19:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Enough[edit]

Paul your posts here almost constitute vandalism - that is the defacement of a wikinews institution! When you make a post you enter a short line (less than 5 words in lenght) as the title and use the body text to convay your point. Also a descussion was already in existance in relation to this topic above - there is no need to create additional sections. If you do not learn some posting ettiquette I will ban you purely on the basis of rudeness and ignorance towards other wikinewsies thoughts, opinions and views. I am serious, this is your last warning. → CGorman (Talk) 20:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll keep it simple: Please reformat so I have some idea of what we are reading. Lyellin 21:09, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry..got upset..I'm trying to shorten the posts..keep getting edit conflicts and server down. Paulrevere2005 21:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Short is not the only issue. We don't need a new section for each one. Lyellin 21:49, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

ok; will go back and change. Are the 2 below ok with you admins? They are new topics maybe? Paulrevere2005 22:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if I'm an admin or not - I've asked the same thing on WP before, where I am not an admin. The first one is shaky, the second is a new topic, in my view. Lyellin 22:19, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
There are now 7 sections just on this. 5 were created by you, Paul, and one of the other two was created in response to the piles of setions. Does feel excessive, yes? Lyellin 01:58, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
You toss up stories PaulRevere2005 designed to inflame, then sit back and roar at the desired effect. Then on the story Satellite imagery shows viewing stand for North Korean nuclear test it was probably you who did the User:68.154.34.214 funny/vandal edit --> Talk:Satellite imagery shows viewing stand for North Korean nuclear test. I think your intended effect has run its course. But you just keep coming and coming with all this crap that, frankly, after initially agreeing but not enthusiastic about, it's just plain boring. The offenses against you are of your own doing cuz you know darn well how the fascinating topics you submit will be recieved, the offenses against others are a water pump for you to waste your time on after the first splashes spilled over the rim of your bucket. -Edbrown05 02:02, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
otherwise,how can we ever get rid of the bad eggs? - we remove admins just like at wikipedia by filling out a request for removal and voting.
I still stand by my comments earlier because you have:
  • backstabbed me in the past - sending kind gentle emails and then doing the opposite to what you have said,
  • you have tried to gang up on people such as Dan and Amgine,
  • you clearly have no manners,
  • you are a conspiricy theory fanatic,
  • you are unbelieveable rude,
  • you ignore the requests of admin's and other editors of high regard (yes Amgine, Dan and others are respected - just not by you),
  • you constantly try to create flame wars with your multiply posting :*and you have displayed an inability to work with others - the most important requirement for collabrative writing.
Your case is an undoubtly extraordinary one. I know I can't ban you for any of the aforementioned (althought I would love to) - but im contemplating creating a poll among all writers to ban you - i.e. to obtain an extraorindary exemption to standard rules in order to remove you before your drag wikinews any furture down into the gutter. My comments may seem extreme but this is how I feel; other admins are welcome to disagree or reinforce my comments. → CGorman (Talk) 20:00, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Mediation Works; Dispute Settled:))[edit]

Ok, I tried to remove all the stuff I put in.Hopefully I did not remove anyone else's. I do think its important for the whole community to get involved in dispute resolution. It can be a wonderful thing as what just happened with Dan100 coming in to settle the whole thing. I am particularly sorry that C Gorman feels I was not sincere. Its really hard to see what's going on on the other side of the computer, but I certainly am sorry he feels that way. Its just..to be really personal here... it just burns my ass to see innocent people hurt and killed (or see a loved one come home in a bodybag as I have) and then to see the very people who caused it getting media attention like they are just "doing their best" and "spreading freedom"..so I am really upset about this story [[2]] languishing under a dispute tag right now at this moment in history. Anyway, the good news is that mediation works. And I want to especially thank Dan100. So..on we go :))))) Paulrevere2005 20:51, 10 May 2005 (UTC)