Wikinews:Water cooler/proposals

Refresh

Archive

---

Archives 2009  May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 2010  January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 2011  January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 December 2011 2012  January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 2013  March 2013 April 2013 July 2013 September 2013 November 2013 2014  January 2014 February 2014 April 2014 May 2014 June 2014 July 2014 August 2014 September 2014 October 2014 November 2014 2015  January 2015 February 2015 March 2015 April 2015 May 2015 June 2015 July 2015 August 2015 October 2015 2016  January 2016 March 2016 May 2016 July 2016 August 2016 October 2016 November 2016 December 2016 2017  January 2017 February 2017 March 2017 April 2017 May 2017 August 2017 November 2017 December 2017 2018  January 2018 February 2018 April 2018 May 2018 July 2018 August 2018 September 2018 October 2018 November 2018 2019  February 2019 March 2019 April 2019 May 2019 June 2019 December 2019 2020  January 2020 March 2020 May 2020 June 2020 October 2020 2021  February 2021 July 2021 December 2021 January 2022 February 2022 May 2022 June 2022 July 2022

rethinking the policy on stale articles

As some of us have noticed, Wikinews has not been very active lately. Ever since we lost Brian and John, the rate at which articles are reviewed has slowed down. It's not unusual to see interesting articles go stale.

Now I understand that Wikinews editors are volunteers, and we can't expect them to be on call at all times. However, the current policy on freshness means this is a time-sensitive matter. Therefore, I'd like to know others' opinions on implementing either of the following changes:

1. Reduce the freshness requirement when fewer reviewers are active. Once the activity returns to normal levels, the window can be shortened back to two or three days. We can always backdate the article if necessary.
2. Don't count the time it takes to review an article towards the article's age. For example, if an article is submitted two days after the event and reviewed three days later, the elapsed time since the event should be treated as two days rather than five. The article must have significant content to be considered as it is not a reviewer's job to finish other people's incomplete articles.

I do have two questions, though:

1. Would it affect Wikinews' credibility if we frequently publish stale articles?
2. Are there any ways to quickly reach an editor, such as IRC or a Discord server?

--Ixfd64 (talk) 05:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

That's an interesting proposition. I don't think reducing the freshness requirement would be a bad idea -- a maximum of maybe five days might be sufficient -- but I'm strongly opposed to not counting the time it takes to review an article towards its age. While it might be fairer to authors, combined with a longer review time, it could lead to articles being published more than a week after the focal event, which I don't think would be acceptable. LivelyRatification (talk) 07:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I've had some time to think on this. Perhaps for, say, a two-month period, a five-day staleness period could be adopted as a trial, and we could reflect on the effect had on articles published/submitted afterwards? I don't think it's a good idea, as I said, to not count the time taken to review an article towards its age, but given the shortage of reviewers we seem to have on hand, a longer staleness period may be wise to try out. I don't think it would effect our credibility all that much if we published stories about things that happened four days ago, even if there's no orginal reporting involved.

As for quickly reaching an editor, I believe we do have IRC, but by my recollection (I haven't used it in a while) it's not terribly active, and we don't have a Discord server. Speaking for myself, the best way to quickly contact me would be a message on my talk page. LivelyRatification (talk) 02:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ixfd64: I have looked through the history of WN:Stale, the relevant guideline. The date range of 2-3 days was added in March 2014. I can’t find a specific discussion about this, so I am assuming it was adopted by usage. My opinion on the current state of Wikinews is that we should temporarily suspend the idea that we can somehow match fast-paced news outlets. We are all volunteers and we have limited resources. I think it is worth trying out your proposal because the current range for freshness does not seem to be working for us. As a side note, we have moved from archiving stories when there are more than ten recent stories and instead we now have a limit of twenty unarchived stories. I have occasionally pushed freshness to 4 days during reviews where I think I can justify it. I would suggest a three month trial with a normal limit of FIVE days but occasionally being allowed to push it to SEVEN days. I’ve been pondering a similar change to our time limits for WN:PROD and I think it will fit well, after your proposal has been tested. Feel free to write up a proposal with a week of voting. [₂₄Cr][talk] 19:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

YES! to extending the "stale" limit to 5-7 days from the current 2-3 days. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the "Hey I wrote a great article and they just threw it away!" alienates new contributors (despite the nearly universal friendliness of existing Wikinewsies). I don't think this is the right solution, but I do think you've identified a big chunk of the problem correctly. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree that "Hey I wrote a great article and they just threw it away!" alienates newbies and old-timers alike. There are also other problems at WN, but where is the correct "watercooler" to discuss this topic? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm on board with all this, albeit marginally. We must always keep the (somewhat difficult) balance of germinating interest/input while also functioning as a legitimate news organization.--Bddpaux (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

A modest proposal ...

I hate the fact that the shortcut WN:NEWS points to Wikinews:Wikinews Chronicle which has been defunct since 2007. I would much prefer it point to Wikinews:What Wikinews is. I hope that others agree, but barring objections, I will likely be bold and make the change after waiting a commensurate amount of time. Cheers, SVTCobra 03:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

This proposal makes sense. Therefore I agree with it. RockerballAustralia contribs 07:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)