Wikinews:Water cooler/policy/archives/2010/March

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


Tips on reviewing articles

I've worked up a draft of a Wikinews:Tips on reviewing articles page, inspired by what I thought I understood from the How to peer-review thread.

Does it at all resemble anything the community is going to want to use?

Here are a couple of specific points that came up regarding the checklist:

  • I was going to add a line under "Is it news?" about how long after publication significant changes are admissible — but I couldn't find a guideline I believed. The closest I know of is at Wikinews:Archive conventions where it says 36 hours in one paragraph and 48 hours in another, both of which are larger than I thought was current practice.
  • Is there a policy/guideline on use of supplementary pages, like the recent Plane crashes into office block in Austin, Texas/suicide note ?

--Pi zero (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  • A lot of these things are 'vague' deliberately, not just through inconsistency in collaboration. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Developing template

Should the developing template go at the top or the bottom of a developing article page? --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 13:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Current practise is to place it at the top. I tend to slot templates under the date, but I think I'm in a minority there. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 13:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Well the preload template ({{New page}}) puts it at the bottom, so I leave it there. I wouldn't object to changing it though, all the similar templates seem to go at the top. the wub "?!" 22:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I generally prefer to place it at the very top, above the date template. I think that's better, since it's more visible there. But, I don't think it ultimately matters that much as long as it's in there somewhere. Tempodivalse [talk] 22:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Does it really matter. Top, bottom whatever. (traditionally its gone at the bottom though). Bawolff 22:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "tradition" was at the bottom. The template has now been modified to permit the insertion of comments (a more gentle notice than {{cleanup}}); In such usage, I'd definitely place it at the top. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the top, though I don't think it matters. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 20:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It'd be useful to modify the templates so that it can be put at the top of the page imo. Pmlineditor discuss 12:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I've modified the preloaded page for the {{Howdy}} and competition templates. Probably quite a few other places you can create an article using a different preloaded page. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Accreditation - a proposal for losing it

I've just removed several people from the scoop distribution list; their mailboxes on the wikinewsie.org domain were full.

The names that stick in mind were; Julian Colton, Michael Valentine, Joseph Anderson, there may have been one or two more.

Passwords can be reset; accounts can be reconfigured as forwarding; scoop is spammed at a level that is easily manageable with a semi-decent client.

I propose:

  1. Detail scoop current recipients
  2. Contacted listed accredited not recipients
  3. no response in 2 months, de-accredit
  4. get response; return to scoop in some way
  5. for future, if scoop fails/mailbox full
    1. One warning via on-wiki contact methods (talk page & email)
    2. De-accredit 30 days later

Thoughts? Alternate process? --Brian McNeil / talk 19:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I dont see an issue with that. If people aren't using their boxes, they don't need them. It really doesn't take but a few minutes to hook up (For example) Gmail to fetch all your Wikinewsie.org email and stick them in a folder of their own. I turned off spam filtering at the Wikinewsie level and let gmail do it all. I get maybe 1 slip through a month. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 20:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Time it takes to review articles

I've noticed that articles that need review get marked "Overdue" if it's been waiting in line for a long time - nice idea, but I don't think it works too well. I've seen quite a few articles sit in line for over 30 hours before being published; this article is approaching 48! Therefore, I am proposing that we set a time limit (let's say 24 hours) for an article to be reviewed. If the article sits in line for more than 24 hours, then anyone, including the writer himself, may automatically publish the artcle without a review. This policy would dramatically cut the averge wait time for our articles. Benny the mascot (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think that's a good idea at all. Supposing that someone posts a copyright violation or article that is biased/clearly not up to our standards, not noticed for 24 hours (entirely possible given our lack of users, especially on weekdays), and published. That wouldn't make us look very good, would it? No; I think everything should be independently reviewed by a trusted user. The peer review policy is there for a reason. IMO, it's better to have a good article that's a little old, rather than a more recent article that's badly written. Another difficulty is that the author of an article won't be able to fully publish it by themselves if he doesn't have Editor privileges, given that we have flagged revisions and other anti self-publish measures installed. I don't think this is going to work. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Short response: Nope, Not gonna happen. Longer response: We require independent review of our articles for a number of reasons. Some of which include fun things like spam to more sedate reasons like accuracy. Additionally, We only got listed on Google News because of independent review, pull that and we're gone. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 01:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
My article has been waiting to be reviewed for two days! Are we going to let similar articles get stale simply because people are unwilling to review them? That is completely unfair to the writers! Furthermore, would it help to increase the time limit to 36 hours in order to give people more time to check everything? Benny the mascot (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Peer review is not a rubber-stamp. Publish yourself and expect a caution. Repeat? Expect a block and de-editored. Certain contributors work gets passed over because of the extensive work known to be required to bring it into compliance with the style guide and various other policies. I suggest you review the discussion elsewhere on what various people do in reviewing. Then, look at articles that do get published and, in some cases, the considerable work required to bring them up to that publishable standard. --Brian McNeil / talk 01:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Do you have any issues over my articles??? If so, then fail them, don't keep me wondering for two days what's going on! The same applies for other articles: we should not prevent them from going stale just because we're too lazy to review! Benny the mascot (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You don't seem to understand, Benny. It sure can be unfair to the writers when a story isn't reviewed in a timely manner (it's happened to me personally, I can sympathise), but there are other considerations as well, which I think far outweigh that. For instance: it contravenes many of our policies, would get us kicked off Google News (a big no-no since we're already struggling to increase/maintain our reader base), and results in the possibility that a copyvio or biased/badly written/inaccurate article would appear in the main page and feeds. That would make us look bad, which is even worse in our situation, since we don't have a great reputation as it is for being the most accurate news source in town. 36 hours - or even more than that - wouldn't guarantee enough time for someone to be certain to go over an article. The negatives far outweigh the positives for self-publishing, I think. Perhaps we should look at ways to encourage reviewers to review more (like having a bot ping IRC when an article has been waiting for review for too long? i dunno). Tempodivalse [talk] 01:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  1. I do not know the sport of Basketball at all. I do not consider myself qualified to review that.
  2. I loathe reality television with a passion. Particularly where it is related to shallow, insipid, mental-midget faux celebrities.
I'm not the only reviewer. The above two are clear reasons why I'm not devoting my time to these particular article topics, my earlier comment was more general and intended to try and point out why numerous articles languish unreviewed. I'd rather do a good review on something I have some basis to feel qualified to review and not be actively, and aware of, a bias against. --Brian McNeil / talk 02:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
This is a terrible terrible idea. Under no circumstances should we re-introduce self-publication; it would destroy what credibility we have. If your articles are taking too long to get reviewed, then write articles in such a way that other editors will want to publish them. --Killing Vector (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
First of all, I write articles that actually interest me, but never only to satisfy the tastes of other editors. That is something I will never do, and I will not let anyone tell me what I can and can't write. As for your comment on self-publishing, I can live with not having it. But I would still like to see a time limit that triggers an automatic publication by another reviewer. For example, let's say that the ITV article stays in line for the next 36 hours. Since I'm not involved in the writing of that article, then I can publish it even without having to formally pass it. Would that work for everyone? Benny the mascot (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
How does that make sense? If time runs out, an article gets automatically published. That is exactly what you said previously and the answer is still no. I'm sorry you feel slighted. I'm not sure if you've ever done it, but reviewing is a fair amount of work and we don't have enough reviewers. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 02:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Um, I don't think that would work out well either. The problems laid out with self-publishing above still persist if a reviewer publishes an article without even looking at it - accuracy, neutrality, copyvio, etc will all go through and that's unacceptable. Sorry if you've feel slighted. One suggestion - you're an editor, if you want to help remedy this problem, perhaps you'd like to just review others' articles yourself whenever you have the time? My motto is, you want something to be done right, do it yourself. :-) Tempodivalse [talk] 02:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I was actually about to review the ITV article, thank you very much. :) I've noticed, however, that reviewing every other article written tonight won't change the fact that the gadget is counting days instead of hours for my article! I was shocked once I saw the words "2 days" instead of "48 hours" next to my article. Oh well...I suppose it's nice that we've prepared the gadget for these things! Benny the mascot (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, yes, you can't publish your own articles of course. But if you review others' articles, then there's a higher chance someone else will review yours since there are fewer in the backlog to choose from. And, by reviewing, you can at least spare others the frustration that you have yourself experienced with staleness. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Wikinews has a limited user base, still. I see the subject of your article is a local HS basketball game. I am not really surprised that it was hard to find reviewers. We don't have coverage of NBA or college basketball that is worth mentioning. That said, it is really regrettable that your article didn't get reviewed — at a glance — it appears to be written well within WN:SG. I guess it boils down to time and people resources. People naturally decide to review articles that seem interesting to them first. We can't force anybody to do anything, since we are all volunteers. Cheers, --SVTCobra 02:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I will say this one more time, Peer review is not a rubber stamp. I worked too long, and too hard to get Wikinews reportage seen as respectable enough to be listed in Google News, and even used as a source for Wikipedia, to throw it away on an ill-judged suggestion to slap a rubber stamp on things. Might I suggest you look at the discussion around RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs) losing editor status? Virtually everyone with a reasonable number of articles to their name has lost some – for a variety of reasons. Nobody is dictating what you should, or should not, write about. I frankly expressed areas where I have no interest, or experience/qualification, suited to reviewing the examples you cite. I will reiterate the point; this is a volunteer project, as such you volunteer to write what is interesting to you; those reviewing also volunteer. Browbeating people at 3am is generally a bad idea. --Brian McNeil / talk 02:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I've read the archived discussions regarding RockerballAustralia, and I think that since then we still haven't found a good way to clear the backlog. I think the 36-hour time limit I'm proposing would motivate editors to review articles well before 36 hours have passed. I don't think we'll even have any articles approaching 36 hours, since everything would have been reviewed so quickly. Benny the mascot (talk) 03:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I understand your reasoning behind the suggestion, that the threat of auto-reviewing would encourage people to review more quickly. But still, I think it's highly risky. Supposing there are no people around willing or capable to review (we do have days when there's practically no activity at all) and a spammy/factually incorrect article does get auto-published? No, I'd rather not have that. I also don't think that system will keep us in Google News, whichis probably one of the biggest factors weighing in this. Tempodivalse [talk] 03:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I guess I didn't say it in my comment because I think it to be inconceivable ... but for the record NO on some sort of system that let's article's get autopublished if they are not disputed within 36 hours (or any time-frame). --SVTCobra 03:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Although on an absolute scale, an article dying of staleness unreviewed is a big problem, on a relative scale it is dwarfed to insignificance next to the problem you're proposing to create. You can't force volunteer editors to review articles more promptly by threatening to destroy the project if they don't; there are a couple of flaws in that plan.
Here's another way to look at it: The standards imposed by peer review are a huge step forward that we managed to take in the past, overcoming a challenge that we had to overcome, and removing those standards would be reversing that victory and giving up. We've got another challenge we're facing now, and we haven't figured out yet how to defeat it — so far we're harassing the enemy while we look for weaknesses in its defenses — but we do know that retroactively losing the previous battle we fought isn't going to help. --Pi zero (talk) 04:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the above proposal. Essentially per Tempodivalse (talk · contribs), ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs), and Brian McNeil (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 05:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I think its safe to say this proposal is not going anywhere. Instead of all beating up on Benny, lets try to make this conversation constructive. Review time is a problem in some cases. What cool ideas can we come up to fix that, without compromising standards? Perhaps we can split the review process into steps or something, so that one reviewer doesn't have to do the whole thing by him/her-self. Perhaps there is something we can do to make it easier for the reviewers to review articles- have inline <!--comments--> describing where pieces of information came from so that it is easier for reviewers to verify articles. (These are just random ideas, not sure if they're good ideas, but if we can make reviewing easier, it will reduce the queue). Bawolff 12:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Guess what??? The system just cheated me out of an article (now too stale to fix) and 9 points in the writing contest... nice job everyone! Benny the mascot (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that sucks. And during a writing contest adds insult to injury. --Pi zero (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I can certainly sympathise with that. But, on a wider scale, this isn't a very big problem, as Pi zero so aptly described above, especially compared to what you're proposing - threatening to basically kill the project should reviews not be carried out in time. (And that still doesn't totally guarantee that reviews will be carried out quicker.) One of the reasons this particular article wasn't reviewed, I think, was that it was rather specialised, being concerned with basketball. A lot of our contributors, especially those in Europe, aren't very familiar with the sport, and I've noticed people tend to avoid reviewing articles on topics they don't know much about. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Here's an excerpt from a discussion at the proposal watercooler back in September.
While we're brainstorming, though — Reviewing is a multi-faceted operation, with a specific number of facets (copyright, newsworthiness, verifiability, NPOV, style). So, what would happen if we (somehow) split up the review process into these individual facets, so that different editors could certify that an article meets the different criteria?
  • Would reviewing a subset of the criteria be enough easier than reviewing them all that it would make any observable difference in how fast articles get reviewed?
  • How could one readily be sure, if different criteria are being reviewed at different times prior to publication, that all of them are actually being reviewed by editors?
--Pi zero (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
First question: No, unless there was a highlevel of communicastion between the reviewers and they did their reveiwing simultaniously. Second: see previous answer.--RockerballAustralia (talk) 05:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
More targeted criticism sounds like a good thing.
My current notion is that reviewing would be easier if there were some really well-designed help on how to review (no I'm not talking prescriptivism here), so that reviewers — and not just new ones — could move through the review process with confident efficiency. Incremental progress, perhaps, and not terribly sexy, but progress. (That's one take on why I started the previous thread; I'm working now on assimilating the great responses there.) --Pi zero (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
@Pi zero: Actually, I think that splitting up reviews among different people would make the process more time-consuming and confusing than it already is - as it is, we're lucky to have two or three users who are willing to review articles on an average day; if we forced them all to review the same page, then that would, methinks, drastically increase the already problematic time needed to get an article out of the queue. No, I think single-reviewer is probably most efficient and still fairly reliable; the trick is how to encourage people to review more. (Of course, I'm not one to talk here, I almost never review anything myself, i just don't find it interesting :-b ) I think we should try brainstorming ideas how to increase that motivation. Perhaps (just off the top of my head): have a bot ping IRC whenever an article has been waiting for review for over X hours; have some sort of site-wide notice that says how many articles need reivew; have some sort of "taskforce" editors can sign up to, where they promise to try and review any article over X hours still waiting for review if they see them, etc. But I agree, this is a big issue and certainly needs to be addressed. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, a bot already pings irc (#wikinews-en , not #wikinews) when an article gets tagged {{review}} (Although having a bot remind people and generally be annoying once an article become &ge 12 hours late, might be a good idea). There is an option in gadgets under special:preferences to see what articles are waiting in the sitenotice. I think users are aware when articles are in need of review. Reviewing (And like Tempo, I really can't talk too much either, as i almost never review anything) is not "fun" and takes a relatively large amount of work. Most non-fun wikitasks can be broken up into very small pieces - do boring thing for about three minutes, then do fun stuff, then come back to boring stuff later. Reviews cannot be split up that way. Bawolff 17:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Would it be possible to somehow get writing contest points for articles that are kept waiting for too long? I really would like to have those 9 points to move up the rankings! :-P Benny the mascot (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Informal commitment

It seems clear that not all of the editors are actually willing to review. Therefore, I think it might be best to have a few editors informally commit themselves to reducing the backlog. We would, for example, sign a statement acknowledging that we promise to keep waiting times below... let's say 12 hours. If we have any article that waits longer than 12 hours, then we would hold ourselves accountable in some way. Would any of you be willing to make some sort of an informal agreement, and do you think it would work? Benny the mascot (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to, but my commitments and availability fluctuate, often at short notice. Also, as others have said, in the right mood I will make the effort to understand a sport I know nothing about, but unless I'm 100% 'in the zone' (yes, I hate that phrase too, but it was the first to spring to mind) then I'd be risking the integrity of the review. If something has been waiting some time, then provided it's a reasonable time of day to someone, a polite request in IRC or an actively editing user's talkpage often helps. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
That's mostly why I'm suggesting an informal commitment. Benny the mascot (talk) 04:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Here's the thing Benny: I don't review very often, but when I *do* review, I review things that I'm familiar with. I wouldn't expect that many people here would want to review an indepth article about... say, the ups and downs of some group of researchers attempting to create a boron-11/proton fusion reactor:P. It's just too narrow a subject field for most people to have any knowledge about. And if you don't know anything about a subject, you can't really tell if the information in the article is being presented properly. So regardless of whether or not people signed up to review articles on a regular basis, it still wouldn't help get an article about an arcane subject published. The same is true of micro-news or local news. If news is too local, people won't touch it because they don't know enough about what's being talked about in the article to fairly judge the content.
This is not an issue that can be fixed by forming a reviewing committee (or somesuch thing), but is rather a longer term problem that will eventually be solved by Wikinews reaching a critical mass of contributors and reviewers. Once we have enough people, there will always be someone in a forgiving enough mood to review local or micro news articles.
For now, the only thing you can do is try to not write articles where the subject matter is too narrow for a potential reviewer to feel comfortable with. Gopher65talk 01:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from, but when the current system allows articles to sit in the queue for several hours–or even days–then how can we attract more contributors enough to reach that critical mass? In order to improve the project, we need to review articles more quickly. Benny the mascot (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I started a full-time work project, with a long commute on the 15th. Up at 5:30am, just cooking food now (I'm on UTC). I wish I could've devoted more time to this because I want to see writers improve. Wikinews generally doesn't seem like work, but I also need downtime and am not, to my mind, on-the-ball enough to come in and plough through a half-dozen reviews. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Is WN original reporting reliable?

Does the Wikinews community believe that Wikinews original reporting is suitable for use as a reliable source on Wikipedia?

The question of Wikinews OR reliability came up over at Wikipedia, and the questioner was told decisively that "Wikinews has no editorial oversight or means to ensure the accountability of its editors." To be clear, I'm posting here to raise these issues here; I obviously can't control whether people here put in their oar over at Wikipedia, and even if I could I wouldn't trust my judgment as to whether they should — my judgment is predictable, I like to err on the soft-spoken side; but it does seem to me, from the following, that perhaps Wikinews needs to work on representing itself better on its own pages before it undertakes to represent itself on Wikipedia's talk pages.

I politely inquired, in that thread, about the justification for these claims about Wikinews, and was directed to (besides talk archives over there) a passage in WN:OR, written in 2005 and apparently not significantly altered since then, which when taken out of context reads

Wikinews ... has no formal approval process for authors ... [i]t is an open, public news forum, with transitory quality control, at best.

Now, it seems clear to me why we don't spend a lot of time tinkering with our policy and guideline pages: we're endlessly too busy meeting deadlines. But we can't expect our editorial control measures to be taken seriously by others if we don't bother to update antiquated official policy statements saying that those editorial control measures don't exist. Regardless of whether we actually consider those measures sufficient to render our original reporting "reliable".

(The thread I'm referring to is w:Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#Wikinews?.)

Which brings me back to my original point: do we believe our original reporting to be reliable in that sense? --Pi zero (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

In short: Yes. In length: Yes. They have a point though, that page is out of date, oh well, someone should update it. Basically we only allow OR through our accredited reporters who are all trusted users in the community. Occasionally we get OR from non-accredited users, and generally we make sure there is lots and lots of sources. Even for those of us who've been around this rodeo a few times have to prove our OR. Either by forwarded emails to scoop or similar means. Heck, I've even gotten harassed for my OR (and recently too). Past that, we still require an independent editor to review the article before publishing, just like the rest of ours.
Also, so far to my memory (the last say 18 months) we've had no issue with our OR. No issue in the form of someone coming up to us and complaining that no they didn't say that, or no that's not how an event happened. Our stories are good enough for basically everyone (Even Google News), just not good enough for Wikipedia. It's always been that way, but that's ok, their pricks anyways. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 17:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm mainly with Shaka here, we have several measures in place to make sure everything is credible. We've even been accepted by google news, right? Doesn't that count for anything? :-) That statement you highlighted should be removed from the policy page, it's not really accurate since we've installed Flagged Revisions. As far as I can remember, haven't ever had anyone, i.e. an interviewee, come up to us and say "This isn't true" or "I never said that" over one of our OR pieces. I'm not sure what wikipedia considers a "Reliable source", but if they accept bottom-of-the-barrel stuff like Daily Mail, and other user-controlled things like IMDB, i think they probably should accept us too. (Whether they actually will do so is a different matter.) Tempodivalse [talk] 18:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Two bits by "Mainly" he means mostly everything but where I start calling Wikipedian's pricks. I think we all universally accept that as truth, but tempo's a nice guy and would never say that outloud. B) I made it dead right after my post. I checked the version history, it was there from the very start. I guess that was ok in 2k5, but that is crap, even before we got flagged rev's and such. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, back in '05 we were rather haphazard, I must say, with our news coverage, from looking at the archives. :-) That could have been an appropriate statement to issue then, but not now, 'specially seeing as we have flagged revisions, reviewing and such ... Tempodivalse [talk] 18:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Were you looking for an argument? Or abuse? :-P The whole point of FlaggedRevs was to make the project more credible; you've seen the process - even if only on a little OR - do you think we do due diligence? That's all, realistically, Wikipedia can do on any source. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts: Is our OR acceptable as a reliable source on Wikipedia? Well, we have buttoned down a lot of the issues. I feel we have attained sufficient editorial control. Rogue publishing seems to be a thing of the past, as well as published vandalism. However, specifically on OR it really comes down to trust that we have built in our fellow contributors over years. For example, when DragonFire1024 (talk · contribs) says that he heard something over the radio scanner that he listens to, I have faith and confidence that he is reporting fairly and accurately, because that is who Jason is. But how can we really make such confidence transferable to other projects ... I mean, it really boils down to: "Well, we know and trust him." I don't know if there is a workable answer, other than being extremely strict with OR notes, even with Accredited Reporters. That could mean audio recordings being made mandatory. Basically, a great deal of added transparency. Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say that Wikinews OR is reliable for Wikipedia purposes now. But Wikipedia is just as likely to want to reference old articles as new ones, and things haven't always been so strict here. The trouble is there's no sharp dividing line between "reliable" and "unreliable" articles. A pragmatic suggestion (with my WP hat on) would be to consider articles published after Wikinews got onto Google News (I'm not sure of the exact date) as "reliable" - I know that many of the procedures were in place well before, but that event marks a real external endorsement of reliability. the wub "?!" 00:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


In light of the doG-awful mess the petty argument on Wikipedia has turned into, I have made this change to Wikinews policy. I have been working to get this project accepted as credible, and making a far, far, better effort to be respectable than a huge number of sources Wikipedians love to cite since before I was invited to Wikimania '08 in Alexandria. The ill-informed, and frankly, "projectist" reaction I've seen is no less than I'd expect. There is not a single name I recognise on the list of Wikipedians opposing accepting Wikinews as a source that I recognise from any of the "inner circles" I am, or might be able to have once considered myself part of. Are they even particularly prolific content contributors? I'm in contact with people who've done FA-quality content on several lang/proj combinations; these people see the value in what is attempted with Wikinews, they understand the risks to public awareness from sources like the NYT and Washington Post retreating behind paywalls. An example I'd cite on that was an OTRS ticket I handles 2-3 years ago; it was from someone indignant in Turkey, challenging the right of the WMF to have a single mention of "Armenian Genocide"; I could – PDF, by PDF – show them what the NYT published at the time as a total refutation of their argument that the entire 'incident' was fabricated decades later.

Right now, most of the sources shouting they will 'go hide behind a paywall' expect to have to give away some articles while they're current just so they can remind the world they exist. My questions have to be: When will Wikipedia be pragmatic and accept that a peer-reviewed Wikinews article was checked against available-at-the-time sources? And, Why should CNN or FOX NEWS be assumed to be credible in comparison to the current Wikinews structure that generally appears 'hostile' to would-be contributors with an agenda of any political hue?

I really think these are serious, critical, and appropriate questions. Rumour has it that Erik Moeller had a meeting with people from Google and Wikinews was delisted within hours. The project, as it stands today, is utterly different and has all the checks-and-balances that gave Google pause at that time. Taking them from naturally suspicious, to trusting our editorial review processes tool a lot of time and effort; we've remove privileges from those found not to do due diligence. The process is hugely more transparent than anything you'll find in the mainstream. Just get your head round the fact that we're not a community of Wikipedians. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

WP does set the bar pretty high ... WP doesn't consider itself reliable. And don't we have some policy against considering WP reliable? I agree with you, however, that we are not less reliable than a majority of sources that are considered to be newspapers or news websites, and on average we probably have far less POV. --SVTCobra 00:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Brian, you're misjudging the nature of the discussion over there, and in your posts there reacting to what you think is going on, you're sounding paranoid and making Wikinews look bad. WP:AGF is a very Zen thing that takes years to master, and part of it is that you don't mouth off about how everyone's out to get you, even if they are. In fact, there are some idiots in the thread, but most of the significant contributors are intelligent and open-minded and are seriously considering the serious issues involved. Could you please refrain from going out of your way to drive off possible allies? --Pi zero (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
(I think my post above was rather rude, and I apologize. I guess the stress over at Wikipedia was getting to me.) --Pi zero (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • There are various things I could say about the weaselly way WP:AGF is used; "Zen" certainly wouldn't be anywhere near my assumption on the policy, and the interminable nitpicking that can see a simple BOLD decision buggered about for months, and then magically get archived when you're not looking.
I'm not trying to drive off possible allies, never the intention; but, I do not suffer fools gladly - if at all. Were people posing clear questions that I could provide answers to, fine. If they're getting into arcana, I will not devote the time to it; Wikipedia has thousands of contributors, it can look after itself - my time is better spent on Wikinews. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Meh, looks like the en.wp RFC has gone nowhere. I can understand some of the opposers' reasoning, although i still disagree with it. Oh well, i'm getting away from that distraction and back to writing news, waiting for the huge OR scoop that will make us famous worldwide :-b Tempodivalse [talk] 15:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I think the RFC is going nowhere because we keep talking about abstract situations. Let's talk about an actual article instead. Is there a specific OR piece that someone wants to use as a source? Benny the mascot (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────┘
We could always chose an interview, imo. --Mikemoral♪♫ 21:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Archiving discussion revived

I'd like to revive this discussion regarding the archival policy, especially after I just reverted a huge addition of text to a day-old article. Basically I want to change the time limit on WN:ARCHIVE from 36 to 24 hours. Comments? Benny the mascot (talk) 02:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that is an interesting idea, but it would not have to be set in stone. Cocoaguytalkcontribs 00:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
As I remarked here last month (in relation to tips on reviewing articles), WN:ARCHIVE already isn't consistent on this horizon; it says 36 hours in one paragraph, and 48 in another. Though I'm not sure the latter paragraph should even exist anymore, since flaggedrevs.
24 hours sounds reasonable to me. --Pi zero (talk) 03:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
24 hours seems to make the most sense rather than 36. --Mikemoral♪♫ 03:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support change to 24 hours. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed, 24 hrs seems to be the most logical. Tempodivalse [talk] 21:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree that 24 hours is the maximum --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)