Wikinews:Water cooler/proposals/Archive/15

Audio Wikinews... or something like it.

I've been running a private streaming "radio station" for some time, and have been using Festival to "speak" web-fetched news stories and weather forecasts for the top of the hour. I had been getting my news stories from AP's website, but their HTML formatting is in constant flux and I am constantly needing to re-write my parser.

I was thinking that the Audio Wikinews thing is a great idea, and I could have my RobotRadio server Festivize the stories and push them up to Wikinews a couple times a day, if I could get reliably-formatted, plain-text news stories (or someting with minimal extra junk).... just 5 or 6 "top stories", a paragraph or 2 each -- not too short, not too long... something to make, say, a 5-minute newscast.

Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ursuspacificus (talk • contribs) 05:04, 3 January 2007

You can also get raw versions of our stories through &action=raw. for example http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&action=raw that may be what you need. also see skins in special:preferences they might have less html. also http://en.wikinews.org/w/query.php and special:export may be useful, as well as our various RSS feeds. Bawolff ☺☻

Thanks. I broke down and wrote a "parser" (in bash) which fetches the the list of headlines (links) from the rss page, then, one by one, fetches them and tries to pull out all the non-news-story stuff, like links to other articles and so on. What it doesn't do is list all the attributions or get the "last update" time for each article. If you're interested in it I could post it here, but I didn't was to clutter up this space with code no-one wants. If you're interested, let me know here.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ursuspacificus (talk • contribs) 13:21, 31 January 2007

• The RSS feed works off this page, if that's any help. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Full RSS Feeds

I really want them to. I think this is the best way of reading -only- the news, and that is the only thing I matther. I think wikinews has good content management, so making a feed with full content souldn't be that hard?

I think that it would be plausible to expand the RSS feeds to include a short summary of the articles. I think that this could be done by expanding the parser or generator that's used to automatically update the feeds. It could be modified to place a section of the article (perhaps the first paragraph) in the <description> tags for each item, making a more useful feed. Example: <description>summary</description>. Please let me know if this is possible. TheVault 14:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The short, yes its possible. the long part is that you'll probably have to do it yourself to be able to get it done (that's based on my experiences. I might be wrong). Bawolff ☺☻ 00:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Should I pursue this?

I would be happy to work on a generator/parser for this task. I believe that WikiFeeds could be used to generate feeds and items and my code could add a description to those items. I would like to hear some input about this project which you can leave on my talk page. Thanks. TheVault 04:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Previous discussion on this topic that was archived:

---

Hi,

Is it possible to have the RSS feed(s) include the story, rather than repeating the headline?

Hamish.MacEwan

I would think that what might want to be considered is an additional bit of markup for stories that would compliment the headline such as slug: One sentence that captures the key fact of the story or captions a photo. that could be included in the RSS feed. It would then be pretty easy to run the RSS feed with headline and slug in a ticker or feed-enabled application as in the news ticker proposal. But I'm just a new guy. ---cman- 17:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Its definitly possible, (<span class="summary"> first lines that you want in rss</span>, but you'll proablly have to find someone to do it. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I have a question: does that thing work already? Or does it need to be switched on?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

No its a figment of my imagination. span is an html tag. its use in the RSS feed doesn't currently exsist. Span's are ussually used as a generic stylistic tag. (similiar/replacement to font [which is deprected I think or should be]). You are supposed to use html tags that have the correct meaning.

For example you use <h1> to specify the first header/title in a document. by default this would make the text bigger, as its a title. However some people abuse that (especially in the earlier days of the web) for things like making all the text on their page big. This is a problem as some things that arn't graphical (like screen readers etc) interpet that as a title (and mis-comunicate its meaning).

Anyways, the point of this story is, nowadayds people mostly use CSS to style their page. This gives specific instructions on how to make things look. (you could say make all h1's in red blinking cursive writing). A span tag is meant as a generic tag that has no special meaning, just so the CSS can identify what it should make look pretty.

In wikinews we use this for the RSS button (any span with the class rss), as well as for plainlinks (http://example.com (look no external link arrow).

The span tag can also be used for scripts to look for certain sections of a document, etc. Bawolff :-)(-: 07:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes very interesting... :-D . Now tell us how we could implement article summaries?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Go ask the person who does the RSS feed update script (I think its CGorman or Cspurrier. Dan100 knows). They could also just make it pick up the first paragraph or two sentences which might be easier (and I was under the impression they already do) as this requires no re-teaching half the site what to do. user:Bawolff 20:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The RSS feed is created by a script running on my server created by Dejan Cabrilo (better known by his IRC name as Pechorin). The script does not look at the individual articles, only the main page list of articles. A real RSS feed would be very good for Wikinews, but will require some developer time. I hope to get a chance to work on it in the near future. --Cspurrier 16:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

See also meta:WikiFeeds (example unfourtanatly you can't do multiple categories like in dpl's, but it'd still be useful.) also bugzilla:8857 is someone from wikipedia requesting feeds for pages. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hi if anyone wants to change the front page main RSS feed, let me know so I can change the feedburner feed (e-mail, use the link). We have about 30,000 subscribers on there... Dan100 (Talk) 21:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Photojournalism

Can I ask people to please review WN:PHOTO and make some comments / give some ideas? I'd like to follow tis through and make it a contributing part of Wikinews. --Skenmy^{(t•c•w•i)} 14:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

looks fine. place a link to it on the newsroom. — Doldrums(talk) 06:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

We should get involved or merge some activities perhaps with m:Press Corps?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Audio Wikinews... or something like it.

I've been running a private streaming "radio station" for some time, and have been using Festival to "speak" web-fetched news stories and weather forecasts for the top of the hour. I had been getting my news stories from AP's website, but their HTML formatting is in constant flux and I am constantly needing to re-write my parser.

I was thinking that the Audio Wikinews thing is a great idea, and I could have my RobotRadio server Festivize the stories and push them up to Wikinews a couple times a day, if I could get reliably-formatted, plain-text news stories (or someting with minimal extra junk).... just 5 or 6 "top stories", a paragraph or 2 each -- not too short, not too long... something to make, say, a 5-minute newscast.

Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ursuspacificus (talk • contribs) 05:04, 3 January 2007

Google News

Google News, for some reason, doesn't include Wikinews in its searches. I tried to contact them and they told me that they will look into that. Maybe you should contact them too in order to increase the visibility of Wikinews via google news:

1. Help for publishers (general info)

2. Contact Google so they include Wikinews

Towsonu2003 16:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Its been done, they refuse to list us. (no formal review process). we've tried some ways that would be acceptable to both, it didn't work. however they do seem to list our mirrors on occasion. Bawolff :-)(-: 07:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

yeah, that formal review process is the pain, we need away around it somehow Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 07:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If there would be an easy way to have a mirror that uploads stories from us but formally reviews them to filter crap...--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that was the general idea behinnd http://wikinews.blogspot.org , but it never really matarielized user:Bawolff 20:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The main reason we are not listed on Google News is because we don't include a three digit number (or more) in the address. They need that special code for them to accurately crawl the website for the news articles. That is the main reason, there are probably more. --Nzgabriel | Talk 04:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That can't be it. there must be some other reason. If not,I'm sure its easy enough to create special:randomthreedigitnumber/342 and that points to the story. (even could make the number revision id)[note that idea's just in my head, and I assume its easy, I actually have no idea how hard or easy that would be to make]. Bawolff :-)(-: 01:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The prob with the blog is that we would need a bot to post the stories, as it takes to long to do it by hand. Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 20:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

And that would kinda defeat the point... user:Bawolff 04:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Google's original objection may be its strongest one: that Wikinews stories can change unexpectedly, perhaps even be vandalized. Imagine a pointer by Google to a vandalized story. I'm no fan of static state stories, but that seems to be what Google wants. -Edbrown05 05:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Google doesn't know what's going on in MySpace either, does it? A very conscious decision that says "screw Google" wouldn't be a bad one. -Edbrown05 05:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

MySpace doesn't make Google News results. Google itself registers our articles, it's only Google News in question. -- Zanimum 19:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Stable versions is the feature we need. Until then though some sort of bot that could handle all of the copying bit after a trusted user says it is ok, would probably be our best approach. --Cspurrier 15:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone object to me asking the board personally if we could test stable versions here too, once it's available? -- Zanimum 19:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably not, define stable versions (in the context of exactly what you're testing). Bawolff ☺☻ 23:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

WikinewsTicker

This is the best newsticker code I can find out there... I've already tested this some time ago (as some may remember) and was able to get this to easily work with the Wikinews RSS feed and was able to customize the look and functionality (speed, etc.) with minimal code changes. It's got nice Web 2.0 ajax/php coding, seems to work on most browsers, pauses on mouseover, etc. and their terms of use are perfect for Wikinews. Let me know if you need any help customizing this, consultation, etc. Also, be sure and grab this logo I made for the first test I first worked on if you'd like to use it. If the logo is too big, etc., it's easy to re-edit if you use this photoshop file with layers, etc. still intact. Cowicide 07:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, I almost forgot... this would be a cool thing to let ppl put on their individual home pages & blogs. When you click on any of the headlines it would take ppl to the corresponding Wikinews article, of course and help build the Wikinews userbase.

Since Google News is being lame and not allowing WikiNews to become a valuable part of their news content, I say screw em' and let the blogotubes spread the word. I'm sure plenty of blogs and assorted websites out there would love to help support WikiNews by adding a stylish WikiNewsTicker to their homepages. Cowicide 09:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Per the description, it wouldn't be possible to allow people to use this on their external sites. They'd have to have PHP and set it up on their own machine at the same domain as the blog or whatever.

I'm also not so sure about the licensing requirements, I'll ask around. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right that the server would require PHP but almost all webhosts support PHP nowadays. Once the code is customized, it'll be pretty easy to add the ticker to a site or blog as long as their webhost provider allows them basic FTP access. They would just "drop in" a folder that has everything they need already pre-configured and paste in some code into their homepage. I tested this and I didn't even have to chmod the cache directory to 777; it worked just by dropping it in and going to the demo.htm page. Also, back in the day when I customized this for the wikinewsticker demo it worked just as well. (I lost that code when I shut down my Cowicide server, but can make it again if needed) Cowicide 14:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I just copied and mooved this discussion from here to my talk page so it won't be in the way of other discussions here... and also since Bawolff marked my talk page for discussion or something anyway. If someone wants to delete/archive this to get it out of the way, please do. Cowicide 01:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I killed the flag. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia link

Since in Wikinews articles we have to insert Wikipedia links, we should have a button alongside the internal link button found with all the other formatting options. I think it would be easier than having a small text link. Also I would like to raise another point raised earlier last year which has not been done which I think is also a good idea. It is having a similar button, but this time for sources (first discussion here). --Nzgabriel | Talk 21:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think thats to difficult (although the charinsert stuff underneath is equally as good in my opinion) the following in Mediawiki:common.js (to test for yourself add it to special:mypage/monobook.js or whatever skin your using.) should do it (I think havn't tried it so I might have mssed something):

 
 if (mwCustomEditButtons) {
   mwCustomEditButtons[mwCustomEditButtons.length] = {
     "imageFile": "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/WP-icon.png",
     "speedTip": "wikipedia link",
     "tagOpen": "[[wikipedia:",
     "tagClose": "|]]",
     "sampleText": "article title"};

   mwCustomEditButtons[mwCustomEditButtons.length] = {
     "imageFile": "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Btn_toolbar_liste.png",
     "speedTip": "Enter source",
     "tagOpen": "*{{source|url=",
     "tagClose": "|title=|author=|pub=|date=}}",
     "sampleText": ""};

   mwCustomEditButtons[mwCustomEditButtons.length] = {
     "imageFile": "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Button_redir.png",
     "speedTip": "Redirect",
     "tagOpen": "#REDIRECT[[",
     "tagClose": "]]",
     "sampleText": "Redirected to"};

   mwCustomEditButtons[mwCustomEditButtons.length] = {
     "imageFile": "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Btn_toolbar_enum.png",
     "speedTip": "Related news link",
     "tagOpen": "{{Wikinews|title=",
     "tagClose": "|date=}}",
     "sampleText": ""};
}

Image choices: see commons:Category:ButtonToolbar for more possibilities. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Just tested it, works fine, but there is a thin space between the new buttons and the old. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. But I don't see a space between the Wikipedia and source buttons. --Nzgabriel | Talk 23:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I meant between the horizontal rule and the wikipedia link. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I knew what you meant. I shouldn't have used the word but, because I was voicing a problem I was having. --Nzgabriel | Talk 03:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

While we're talking about this, how 'bout a redirect button?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally think that redirect's are so simple that they really shouldn't be there, but I added one anyways to the thingy above. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's a related news link:

 if (mwCustomEditButtons) {
   mwCustomEditButtons[mwCustomEditButtons.length] = {
     "imageFile": "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Btn_toolbar_enum.png",
     "speedTip": "Related news link",
     "tagOpen": "{{Wikinews|title=",
     "tagClose": "|date=}}",
     "sampleText": ""};

}

—FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 03:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

So... how is this idea coming along? Or do we have to add it ourselves?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I mean I understand this too little to add them to MediaWiki myself.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 10:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that we add the related news and the wikilink skin to Mediawiki:Monobook.js. —FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 00:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be added to mediawiki:common.js (it's for all skins), but first, is everyone happy with the button image choices? Bawolff ☺☻ 01:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I like this one for the Wikipedia links: .--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 10:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, going to put them in. Also see the edit box on fr:. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay I put half of them into Mediawiki:Monobook.js (tried common first but didn't seem to work, but that was proablly related to the two template buttons). RElated news, and the sources button did not seem to work. It transcluded the template into the javascript file which is not what we want. (not only that, it did the entire template, including stuff like <noinclude>.). This broke it because the actual template has quotes in it. I added related wikinews to Mediawiki:Edittools however. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed articles

This is actually in responce to this question. So, should we list proposed articles on the main page (like articles in development)? Mostly, the articles listed on the newsroom never get created, so I think that listing them on the main page would be better. —FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 00:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it would be easier to just create them as stubs / minimals then and hope someone improves them?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Usualy stubs on WN are deleted as they get abandoned. Only major news event articles get published as stubs, then expanded as the story develops. —FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 00:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally think we should scrap the idea or change it substantially. Putting it on the main page isn't going to change very much. (although if we were going to take that route, RC would probably also be a good place too [like 'pedia].) Bawolff ☺☻ 01:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

i would suggest we put a link to a Wikinews Shorts page for the day and tell people that's the place to create a short article in. that way it's

1. easy to split off a growing article to a separate page
2. all the stubby stuff gets preserved
3. we get better coverage of news events - Wikinews suffers from very patchy coverage, important news often go unreported while very local and "non front-page" stuff gets reported.

earlier we used to do shorts by someone trawling unpublished articles couple of days after they were created. this way, the Shorts will be fresher. — Doldrums(talk) 04:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

sounds good. Bawolff ☺☻ 08:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 10:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok. —FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 20:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. see Start the article section on the Main page.  — Doldrums(talk) 10:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks great! Thanks Doldrums! —FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 23:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Potential Cure For Cancer

Big media seems to be ignoring this a bit.... thought some of you might be interested in this article. This could end up being some pretty heavy "breaking news" to say the least. Cowicide 11:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

E-mail

Should we make it so an accredited user on Wikinews recieves an e-mail address username@wikinews.org. I think it would make it easier and look more professional to have that kind of e-mail address rather than a third party host, like Gmail. --Nzgabriel | Talk 21:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting idea. Ideally the address should forward to their normal address. We should ask the developers about it. Bawolff ☺☻ 05:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

After further thought, an email address with the users real name in it would be better, e.g. firstname.lastname@wikinews.org. --Nzgabriel | Talk 08:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This should happen, serious reporting means that people want to know who they are talking to and what that news outlet they report to represents. -Edbrown05 09:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'd be happy to have an email address @wikinews, but it would require some restrictions on who got them and could pass themselves off as representing the site. I agree it should be firstname.lastname@wikinews.org although it might have to be @en.wikinews.org. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 10:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think active accredited reporter would be a good restriction as to who gets addresses [this is assuming that we're actually allowed to do this]. Also they should be used strictly for wikinews (and perhaps publicly visible?), as being a mail server is not the goal of wikinews. (maybe be integrated with the mailing lists?) Bawolff ☺☻ 10:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it shouldn't be that big a problem, I already use my @wikipedia.be address for some things like requesting licencing for images from third parties. Maybe a related subject, but I was wondering what and/or if we should do something with accredited reporters who are no longer active... seems like there are some people out there who have left wikinews and are probably trustworthy, but who still have a press card and are no longer active here... that doesn't seem very logical to me. Maybe accreditation should have a time limit, e.g. 1 year, automatically renewed if the user is still active?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I would support removing user's accreditation after a period of several months of inactivity. Inactive users have no need for accreditation. Either they has stopped using their cards anyways and do not need it, or worse they are still using them and not writing about it. --Cspurrier 16:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Craig. —FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 16:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well (I personally would of gone with 6 mos though). There are quite a few people who are inactive there having either left outright (thinking of MrM right now) or drifted away from wikinews. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with a time limit, but not with an automatic renewal, perhaps after the time has finished, voting starts again to see if they deserve to keep their press cards, based on if they have used them, etc. Having the e-mails public would also be good because that would mean users interested in seeing what the original email said could easily do so. --Nzgabriel | Talk 02:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

i don't think we shld be publishign every e-mail we exchange with our sources, especially without their permission. ppl are likely to deny permission for mails that say something other than what a press release would. and then, there's things such as confidentiality and privacy.  — Doldrums(talk) 02:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point, but perhaps admins can see it or something. We need someway to make sure people are not misusing them. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has sort of forked between two seperate issues. Yeah, a Wikinews email address would be nice, but is not a necessity, nor perhaps even a possiblity. Accredited reporters shoud be transparent about their activities.

More important now is what Cspurrier notes that has to do with site maintenance: the matter of who is, and who is not, an accredited reporter. The credentials page is protected page for a reason (you name it why). Wikinews does make a distinction between active, and inactive, administrators. It does vote with regularity on members of its arbitration committee. What should develop to be its most important resource, its accredited reporters, needs to be addressed in terms of what constitutes their accreditation with the community. -Edbrown05 10:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Editorials/Voices

As many traditional newspapers contain an Editorial/Voices section or “Letter to/from the Editor” section I was considering it would be a great idea to introduce one into the batch of content already available at wikinews. I would sort out finding people who will be willing to submit them at no charge since we are free non-profit volunteer based project.--MagicalNewsMonkey 01:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This notion of Editorial/Voices has been judged as something impossible to achieve in the collaborative spirit of Wikinews. Somewhere, archived on Wikinews, are lengthy discussions about the introduction of editorial content. In the end, it was a bust for the idea. The formation of consensus on an opinion piece goes beyond the basic who, what, where, when and why of a news report, and was something the community believed is unachieveable in the environment of an open editing environment. -Edbrown05 06:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

We have had, for a short time, a comments page, which is slightly similar to what you are suggesting. However that didn't survive very long. --Nzgabriel | Talk 19:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Digging up links. Note you're are allowed to rant in your user space (some rants are of fairly good quality), so I personally think the ideal solution would be to have a template for them (template:editorial,Template:Editorials/article,Template:Editorials or one of their clones) then have a single portal for this stuff so people can see it, but never let it go anywhere else. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

see also: Wikinews:Opinion articles poll (was a tie) Wikinews:Columns, Wikinews:Reviews, Wikinews:Debates (similiar to pleonasm:Editorial warz. Also of interest is wikireason:) Bawolff ☺☻ 00:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Media links

How about having a permanent header to newspapers and other media from the various regions? That way, you can make use of news work that has already been done.

I;m not a 100% sure what you're trying to say, but do you mean something like google news? My main objection to that is that its already done, and we want to try and focus on our content, not others. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Commons Picture of the Year 2006

I think that when the commons picture of the year competition is completed and the votes are tallied we should have an article on it. It's a great opportunity to show off some of their pictures, and using the Northern Lights one on our main page is nice. Anyone follow commons well enough to do the original reporting on this? I think it could go in the prepared stories section at the moment. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As a very active Commoner, I'll be glad to help. Cary Bass 14:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Great! Details to dig into are where some of the pictures are used. That's an aside to comments on the voting as I think a well done article on this could do as a nice 3rd lead on results day featuring the winning picture. If I recall correctly, you're one of our accreditation candidates, so it's time to get out there and do some original reporting. ;-) Can you get quotes from the photographers? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

nzgabriel has a photo in the running for picture of the year. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, we have it on pl wikinews but without comments and quotes pl:Wikimedia Commons: Konkurs na grafikę roku 2006 rozstrzygnięty. I see big trouble with collaboration between users - WORTNET is dead :( With regards Przykuta 09:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Penis symbol

The 'this' in this with the little symbol at the end looks too much like (well I already said it) and we are losing female collaboration as a result. -Edbrown05 11:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

And you propose to...?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 11:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I came up short there... -Edbrown05 11:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

... eliminate it. I think it is possible to do it with special coding I once saw somewhere in a discussion. -Edbrown05 05:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Just pretend I'm a bit ignorant for the moment. I read the article, well its very interesting, I do not see what it has to do with what you're talking about (Or for that matter, I have no idea what you are talking about). Bawolff ☺☻ 07:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[1] <-- what does that look like?

The only benefit I see deriving from the use of the symbol is distinguishing between Wikimedia generated content, within a news story, and content or comments from outside of Wikinews. -Edbrown05 09:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

And who says someone can't link inline during a news report? -Edbrown05

Maybe then Wikinews could get rid of all these god darned source templates and bull crap. -Edbrown05 09:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Linkage is the important issue. It shouldn't be tied to a symbol. The "1" in the image description is enough. -Edbrown05 09:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The only reason I don't support inline links in a news story now is because it makes the text look like you are a dick. -Edbrown05 09:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• I was wondering what you were meaning, but now I see it's that the symbol after this hyperlink looks stupid. If we wanted to drop it I would recommend that links to external sites open in a new window. Personally I don't like seeing inline links in articles, it encourages people to go and read about the news elsewhere. I'd rather see them finish the body of our article, and if they want more the sources are listed below any related news that might offer background. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 10:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

What if the symbol was something like |-> instead of resembling the symbol for masculinity? Who knows how you'd go about changing that? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 10:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm in agreement that the "Sources" and "External" way of presenting links is a really good way in Wikinews presentation. The wiki markup in discussion pages goes astray, and guys do know how women like to talk. -Edbrown05 10:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

So what does this image have to do with this so called "proposal"?? —FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 20:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Am I hearing it correctly from FellowWikiNews that what I believe are universally accepted symbols representing male and female genders are not recognized nor understood by you? Or by wikinews, or by wikimedia? I drew the images in a splash and dash sort of way, because incredibily, I couldn't locate anything like them online. Are the image symbols that represent gender so removed now from our every day existence that they have no meaning?

I don't think so. I think it is bullshit that nobody knows what to do about it. Which makes me the same, because I don't know what to do about it either, except bitch in the hopes that somebody can figure out how to make it right. -Edbrown05 10:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I know what your talking about now. Personally I'd never associate the symbol ♂ with the thingy after external hyperlinks. However if you do think some people do, I still think we should have some symbol for external links. Its nice to be able to tell the difference between an external and interwiki links (local links are a different colour). Perhaps the symbol wiki's such as something like moin moin uses would be better (A globe, or a globe with an arrow on it). As far as changing the symbol, that is easy enough to do in the css. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Lol. Now I understand what Ed was trying to say (thanks to Bawolff for explianing above). Well, that is pretty much inside of your head. Like Bawolff said, I'd never associate the symbol with the external links thing. This shouldn't be changed, but only if other users complain. —FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 00:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Change it, a globe would indicate that it was a non-local site on the Web. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Virgin Train crashes in England

This has turned out quite nice, and I think it should be nominated for Featured Article status. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Then nominate it. (WN:FAC). Bawolff ☺☻ 23:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews ads

We should create adds for Wikinews using the Wikinews logo. (for example Image:Wikinews ad1.jpg). Does anyone like this idea? This is just a fun idea and we do not need to go through with it. —FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 01:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

looks nice. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

E-mail, part II

The previous discussion didn't really reach any conclusion, however there seemed general agreement on the subject. I'm going contact some of the developers to see what their view is. Does anyone object to accredited reporters getting a firstname.lastname@en.wikinews.org email?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No. I think it would look more profesional, imo. —FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 03:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I've asked Brion on meta if it would be technically possible (but he's on WikiBreak), if anyone knows who we should ask on the board (Eloquence?), feel free to ask them!--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation owns the domain, which means that they would have to pay for the extra mail server, so email the Board.  Thunderhead  ►  19:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Brion said "Hypothetically we might be able to do something like that" on Meta, he didn't reply here (yet).  Thunderhead  ►  19:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe someone with better English should sketch the background and mail the Board (fiercefully trying not to look in the direction of Thunderhead...).--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If I didn't have reports and projects due coming up, I'd do it.  Thunderhead  ►  22:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• It will wait. Your studies won't. We don't need to react immediately, and anyone new from Commons that tries for accreditation can be referred to this discussion. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Just got finished with my projects. They were quite small (lucky me). I'll type up a draft letter on User:Thunderhead/sandbox.  Thunderhead  ►  23:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that the board@wikimedia.org is no longer used Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 00:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It isn't? How long has it been depricated?  Thunderhead  ►  00:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I had to contact them a while ago, *digs through e-mail archive* this was the auto response I got:

Please be advised that the Wikimedia Board of Directors has closed the board@wikimedia.org address. It is no longer possible to contact the board via email. If you wish to contact the Wikimedia Foundation via email, you may send your inquiry to info@wikimedia.org. Your email will be reviewed by a team of volunteers. If they are unable to help you, your email will be forwarded to the proper people. Additional contact information for the Wikimedia Foundation is available at: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Contact_us

Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 04:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... Well then, the info@wikimedia.org address.  Thunderhead  ►  04:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

E-mail Erik (Eloquence). He founded this site and I'm sure he's still got time for us. I bet that info@... address just goes to OTRS - ouch. Without wanting to get too political here it now looks like you have to go through underlings first to get in contact with our board! How "open". Dan100 (Talk) 21:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Email Eloquence. Or failing that Mindspillage, as she also hangs out here sometimes. Going through the info bureaucracy sounds like a mess. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have just contact Erik.  Thunderhead  ►  23:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

wikinews Video

VISIT http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Video_Wikinews/2.0

It looks so cool...

hey,

I wa sjust wandering about the possibility of having a video ediiton of wikinews, It would open up many doors for wikipedia (imho)

—Symode09 03:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If you're willing to start it, I think it would be great. Around when this was discussed, I was talking to some people on irc, and a lot of people (not me personally - i like to be anonoymous) liked the idea of being in a wikinews video. Also check out Wikinews:Broadcast (and i believe you are already familiar with WNN) Bawolff ☺☻ 06:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I am interested in it also...more of a reporter POV though. I think IMO though we do not have enough stories or articles and or contributers to do WNN at this time (most unfortunate). But the doors that would be opened would be endless and would be great for Wikinews. DragonFire1024 06:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we do if it was on somewhere between a weekly and monthly basis. We don't need to start off with doing daily newscasts. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I would agree to that...but who? And how? The image above is cool as hell...but we do not have the resources for something fancy like that. We also have to figure out how the foundation would like to proceed as this would be a matter for the users. We would need funds as well...but I don't know if the foundation would supply us with funds etc. DragonFire1024 06:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

From What I gather on Wikinews:Broadcast, there is some probility of stumbling across someone who has the equipment. Which would be really cool. Otherwise its ~$800 (USD)+cheap video camera for all the equipment which is a very pretty penny. The other thing needed is someone familiar with post-editing software. /me has a slow sinking feeling of this proablly not happening Bawolff ☺☻ 08:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What about Grants? The US has a grant for just about anything...its just a matter of getinng it. What does Jimbo think of this? He seems to like the fact that other than the Essjay issue Wikipedia is among the number one sites on the internet. What about a fund raiser specifically for WNN etc? Theere has to be something that can be done. Although I agree that this won't happen anytime soon not because of funds necessarily, but interest. If enough users who have either the Money, Time, and or equipment come forward then there is a possibility. Has anyone looked to someone on commons who might have equipment etc...? DragonFire1024 23:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia foundation raised ~1.2 Million dollars. the amount we're talking here is peanuts compared to that so perhaps they might be able to lend a hand if we're lucky. As for equipment and experience from other projects. we can get info out on commons-l and announce-l (wikizine). Bawolff ☺☻ 00:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I just watched the chili finger video...Wow. I mean its like watching a real news report. Here's what I think: To start simple we should would start by covering lets say for example 2-3 stories/articles a day or more depending on coverage of the days events, which could total anywhere between a 5 to 10 minute clip on a few articles (like a top of the hour headlines clip), or a 5-10 minute news bit on featuring several articles a.k.a. a actual news broadcast. For the moment other than the equipment we can do that as we speak (a 5 minute every hour headline update). We have the images and the articles we just need them to be put on video with either a reporters voice or face, even the face could be animated much like the above image. If I had a video camera or knew someone who is as involved with Wikinews as I am, near me, then I would love to report on all the local events that I can attend here. Now we will not get paid a salary, but hell, we will make other agencies jealous and who knows, we could eventually get paid for all this...I think if we stir enough interest and put a call to arms of the most trusted and involved and resourceful users we can find, it can be done and quicker than you or I think. DragonFire1024 00:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll just like to say I would support such a project. I've got a video camera and pretty decent with post-editing software (shameless plug, an example being newscast.mov; I'm the weird guy with the Australian accent). Personally I believe we should start with a weekly episode, to see how that goes, than build upon that (and hopefully increasing our userbase/submitted stories). terinjokes | Talk 19:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

On second thoughts, it wasn't the best piece of my work, but it is the only one I currently have uploaded... terinjokes | Talk 20:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

VISIT http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Video_Wikinews/2.0

Possible grant sources

As I mentioned above, I am wondering if grants are possible. I am listing what I come up with and would like input on each.

• Television Grants: Planning
• Television Grants: Production
• Television Grants: Scripting

DragonFire1024 09:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Do we fall into the "documentary programs or historical dramatizations" category? Documentaries, in my mind, are somewhat timeless programs that don't cover this exactly as soon as they happen, but within a historical context, once the dust has settled. Anyone else have interpretations of the grant description, negative or preferably positive? -- Zanimum 18:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well our policy states somewhere I believe that Wikinews articles are not a work in progress after publishing, but a collection of the worlds history at the time it happened. I think that OR would fall under history and such especially those OR articles that have more than one report aka Chili finger and the hotel articles I did a while back. DragonFire1024 04:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

A fellow blogger I know decided to weigh in on ideas of getting off the ground for WNN:

There is no doubt that adding a/v content can bring an added dimension to text/image based reporting methods, but there are pitfalls to be aware of. [I have been around this block a couple times, and I want to be clear that I am not hating on this project.] The punchline is this: professional-quality video production is very time-consuming and requires expensive software, huge bandwidth, and lots of top-of-the-line hardware. Considering the up-front expense and continued overhead, it is important that you use your limited production resources effectively. My suggestions:

For starters, you should scrap the linear presentation of news items. For old media like television and radio, producers had to decide what consumers were most interested in. Thus, if you knew there was going to be a piece on the Middle East, you'd tolerate sitting through an excruciating five-minute expose on Britney's detox treatment. That doesn't fly on the Web in general or Wikis in particular, because consumers have been empowered and expect to be able to follow their own interests.

Once you've gotten rid of the linear progression of news items, you can also get rid of the anchors. The only real job of the anchor is to MC the broadcast, but since the consumer is deciding their own path, that job becomes unnecessary. This is a good thing, because when you're on a shoestring you don't have time or resources to dedicate to producing filler. This one-minute 'pilot,' for instance, is all filler and totally unnecessary if you instead make short video segments and place them on the appropriate Wikinews article pages.

Next, consider your a/v content carefully. There's no need to stand in front of a camera and read an article that is already available as text, simply for its own sake. It is faster for a consumer to read the article on his own [also it gets indexed by search engines, whereas videos do not]. The video should bring something to the issue that can't be more easily expressed as text. Excerpts from performances, music, and movies work well. Interviews also work well, especially if you provide an unedited or less-edited version of the interview that is included in the textual article. These Chili Finger pieces are better off as plain text - it's a guy reading an article, and the b-roll is static photos run through a Ken Burns filter. The time it took him to go on-location, set up a camera, read the article, edit it together, compress it, and upload it is as far as I'm concerned a waste - because he had to write the article anyway, and he could have had it up already before he even got in his car. Instead: provide a video of the press conference.

And finally, there are technical issues. You'll have to address the format wars, of course, but there's a more pressing issue: despite its name, MediaWiki's support for non-image media sucks. At the very least, users should be able to see a preview of the video inline, much like the way images are displayed. I think it's much less intrusive if it plays inline as well, but it would be acceptable to click to a detail page to watch it [sort of like clicking on high-res images]. Furthermore, you can't expect that producers are going to have the software or technical know-how to compress video to spec. The server will have to accept multimedia files coming in from a wide variety of sources in a wide variety of formats and recompress them, if necessary, to something more consistent. This is very processor-intensive.

DragonFire1024 06:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If something can be better expressed in text, it's probably better in text. The same my also go for WN:AW. However he says "The server will have to accept multimedia files coming in from a wide variety of sources in a wide variety of formats and recompress them". I disagree with that. As with our audio editions, if people follow guidelines, the server would get videos compressed decently the same, and in vorbis. I'm still thinking of the whole video edition being similar to Current's philosophy. terinjokes | Talk 09:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Note, that's theora for video. Vorbis is an audio codec. (Commons accepts ogg vorbis, ogg speex, ogg flac, mid, ogg theora formats for multimedia to my knowladge. there is another video codec for ogg, but I don't think its completed). For something like this, its better if its distributed in a non-web medium, or perhaps as a video podcast. The web in general has lots of choises. They can't do that in video (unless you do interactive video wikinews, with DVD like menu's, that'd be cool) so the medium has to be something where lack of choice is expected. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

VISIT http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Video_Wikinews/2.0

Streaming video

Free license streaming video software is one of the possible projects that Wikimedia is going to run at the Google Code Jam. I presume it would be worth it to strongly urge Brian Vibber to make this a priority? -- Zanimum 15:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If this happens — yes. Its not vital (their short video's people can wait a couple minutes for download), but it'd be better. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

First we need the videos and reports :) DragonFire1024 03:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes we do. I'm going to email a couple people to try and spark some intreast. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have already started to blog the discussion and the proposal. I included links to the interesting stuff like the Chili Finger LIVE Reports and links to what WNN is about and such. So lets see what we can do. BTW take a look at the above grants...se what we can work off form those or whatever. DragonFire1024 03:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree we need content before streaming capability, but unless we get streaming capability, people will be creating reports for an audience of two. -- Zanimum 18:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

There are four problems with the video project proposal:

1. Who will create it?

• If it's supposed to be a regular feature, multiple people would have to be responsible for keeping it going. The last Wikinews:Broadcast test was just done by DV and it took him a looong time to put together. I would recommend a much more amateur, vlogging approach, and that a bunch of people produce videos every week (so that we can be sure that at least one of them actually ends up producing something)

Us...we should elect users or get volunteers to do whatever work is necessary and whatever work they are able to do. DragonFire1024 07:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• We have a problem with getting a consistent feed of Audio Wikinews, and audio is much easier to produce than video. How can we guarantee that whatever we try won't be just a one-time test like the previous approach?

The way we set our audio up does not reach a lot of people and isn't popular IMO...You need special codecs etc and its a hassle. The test last time was never followed up on...aka lack of interest maybe? DragonFire1024 07:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

2. What will the content be?

• In the text world, our content is public for every user, and the final version is the result of collaboration. What would it be like with video? Will anchors just read the content that was written by others? If so, is there an advantage of this over Audio Wikinews? Meaning that there's very little advantage to consuming news by watching a talking head over listening to someone, or even just reading the headlines.

This is where we can do Wikinews Shorts maybe? Thats a good start. We can also just do a short headline update for each article or pick the top Favorite articles of the day...that is also a way to boot readership and interest. Video attracts more than audio. We would eventually have anchors...once we grow and are able to handle it...and again the more interest the better. DragonFire1024 07:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• If the video will only be produced weekly or monthly (can you even have monthly news? isn't it pretty silly? what about weekly -- is that even valuable?), how will we choose what content gets included in the broadcast?

Well we have to start slow...get interest and viewers as well as viewer feedback. I think 2 times a week is good...once is good...as a scenerio or a test run to gain popularity...almost like a teaser trailer ;)DragonFire1024 07:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

3. How will we deal with the immutability of video?

• Unlike wiki markup, video is a lot tougher to edit. There are no good online video editing tools, and if there are any they're not possible to integrate into Wikinews. If that's the case, and someone produces content that someone else deems to violate the NPOV, for example, what will we do with the video? Completely abandon it?

We might need a formal editorial process...again by users voted in or something...sounds bad...ut thats how it would need to be done...IMO. DragonFire1024 07:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

4. How will we distribute the content?

• Like folks were saying above, there is definitely a problem with getting video out to viewers using Wikinews or even the Commons.
• I recommend that if anyone is truly interested, we can start this as a Youtube-hosted project: everyone can upload to Youtube, we're not encumbered by technical issues, and we don't have to worry as much about any of the above issues of distribution, NPOV, etc. Once we get the distribution, regularity of broadcast, etc proven, we can start thinking about how to get this onto Wikinews and under our policies. Until then we can link to the external content.

YouTube or as symode says soapbox...even MySpace (sounds cheesy but it is viewers). DragonFire1024 07:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, if we are to really take advantage of the video medium, we will really need a whole bunch of reporters in the field capturing interesting content. For that we'd need people with equipment in interesting parts of the world.

Look on commons maybe?? YouTube??...I love going and covering a local story. So when i can i do. DragonFire1024 07:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyways, these are just some thoughts on the matter. I would totally love to see WN Video, however... -- IlyaHaykinson 19:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to create it most of the time. The content would be the lead stories and similar to the audio edition but with presenters and graphics. If there are no presenters every now and then, we can simply use the audio edition with graphics and diagrams. Daily news would be difficult but would be useful. We can have a trial to see what will work. I could edit and compile the videos easily but, could not do it every night / day. I have editors etc. Tith the npov, we will use articles to the best of our ability. As long as we aren't compared to fox news, i'm happy!. We can have a disclaimer. I would distribute the videos on the MSN soapbox. The commons are useless. I HATE .ogg files - few people have the codecs - I do and I still don't use them. We shout outsource. I don't like youtube. The soapbox is a lot better.

--Symode09 07:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

We could also try a podcast or something like that too...We do need a voice over reporting and at some point down the road some editors or something appearing in there like an anchor but not. YouTube I don't like too much BUT it is a popular site...we might want to consider it down the line too. The soapbox is a good place to start too. So in either case I support it one way or the other. Daily: No...not to start...maybe once or 2 times a week...DragonFire1024 07:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Also here is Symodes test: Wikinews TEST opener. DragonFire1024

I agree. We shoucld begin. I'll create the graphics and put them up on http://symode09.spaces.live.com/ in about 30 mins. I agree with dragonfire. syndication is a good idea (in the future) - this could mean, if we get to the point where we have daily updates, people can buy rights to display the videos on their site (for commercial companies)

--Symode09 07:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

With the opening, is there anything you think I should add to improve the opening? What do you think i should include in the news graphics which are used?

I just had a good idea. Instead of having news updates or daily news, what if we worked on something similar to 60 minutes? --Symode09 08:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of the theme song, I don't know what others think but it doesn't sound "newsy" That cannot be compared to the NBC or Sky news theme song which is used for many networks (sky news uk, Au, NZ, channel 7 (australia) etc)

--Symode09 08:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The world through 4:3 or 16:9 eyes?

should it be in widescreen> I far prefer widescreen. Are there any objections?

--Symode09 08:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

VISIT http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Video_Wikinews/2.0

Protection of date templates on main page

We should protect all of the date templates on the main page as there has been some vandalism. What does everyone think of this? I will protect the templates myself if the community agrees with this. —FellowWikiNewsie 03:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Fully protect or semi protect? Bawolff ☺☻ 03:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Semi should be enough to stop the vandalism that has occured... Also, to do it automatically, we could have them automatically created as a sub-page of a protected page that has the "cascade" option on?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like a better idea as semi-protecting each of them individually would be time consuming. —FellowWikiNewsie 20:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... looks like that won't work since it says "Cascading protection - protect any pages included in this page". The pages are created as subpages, like Wikinews:2007/March/29.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just protected Wikinews:2007/March and it works perfectly. —FellowWikiNewsie 20:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Note, cascading protection doesn't apply to subpages. however, each subpage is transcluded on to its parrent page, so it should work. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Should we do this for all of the Wikinews:Digests or just the most recent? —FellowWikiNewsie 13:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews for PDAs or Mobile Phones

More and more news sites are creating pages designed especially for mobile phones, PDAs and other mobile devices. These devices are becoming quite common. If you want to spread the Wiki-Media message, creating a page for mobile devices would go a long way towards that end.

We had one in the past. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Did we? Does anyone have a screenshot?  Thunderhead  ►  02:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

here. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it was removed as it was unclear if it actually worked better for pda's or not. It also might of used monobook, as &useskin=foo only applied stylesheets, not the skin back then if I recall. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There's an Association on Meta that's devoted to creating a program to run Wikimedia projects on PDAs and PalmPiolits, i believe.  Thunderhead  ►  02:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Bawolff, I own a Palm t/x and I typed in the URL of that page you gave into my palm's "Blazer" browser and the reaction was quite odd. At first it looked like it was going to read fine, just like the mobile pages for BBC, ABC etc., then the browser flashed and the page became unreadable. I cannot speak for people with other mobile devices. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:12.183.100.8 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 31 March 2007

That sucks. I just geussed that that page would be better (as its simpler). I have no real idea if it will work, or if it will be simpler. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Communication Projects Group- we need your help!

Hello everyone, first of all, allow me to introduce myself to you all. My username is Pilotguy, I am very active on the English Wikipedia as an administrator, but I have started to join over projects, most recently the Communication Projects Group on Meta. I see that you folks have been discussing the idea of a wikinews video, and I have something that might help achieve that goal.

At our meeting on Wednesday, Sandy, the foundation's communications manager, discussed a Florida production company interested in doing a weekly or monthly video podcast for Wikimedia. As a liaison, we thought we could somehow get you guys involved in this, by either gathering stories they can do, or people they can showcase to be in the video, among other things, or just helping us to spread the word. Since I'm not yet familiar with how things operate over here, so I'm hoping you all can assist me in this, and use your resources to help make this happen.

Please see the links above for more information. Our IRC channel is #wikimedia-cpg, so you can contact us either there, at our meta page, or me directly on my talk page for any questions. We'd love to have your help and ideas on this matter. Thanks! —Pilotguy cleared for takeoff 14:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiCast needs Audio Wikinews Daily!

Hi people.

WikiCast - the free content Broadcast is looking to have some news coverage, and it would seem eminently sensible if this was provided by WikiNews with some additional coverage drawn from wp:en:WP:ITN

However for this to happen Audio Wikinews needs major revival. ShakespeareFan00 10:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Web 2.0

I was just wandering why wikinews don't try to be involved in adding web 2.0 funtionality and concepts such as article tagging and, virtual indexing so, categories don't have to phsically be created, the page will be automatically created and updated when needed. It would be difficult to add this funtionality but this is a great time - the story database isn't too big - it will only grow so, it is ideal to be able to go back and tag existing articles. For those of you who are saying "yeah, well what if an article has a lot of tags, just to be found in more searches. The solution is simple, limit the amount of tags to 5 tags and, allow a tag to consist of a phrase, no longer then x letters. —Symode09 16:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

well Commoners want better image tagging, really really badly. Our images are fine in the current system, the problem is no one cares to make it findable. A new system does nothing if no one is intrested in using it. (Thats another reason we should use commons, slightly better sorting. Really need to get over this irrational fear of the commoners). I don't understand what you mean by the category thing, it sounds like you're describing our current system. Also what ypou might be intrested in is semantic mediawiki.

Whoops: I meant to change image to articles - I posted the same concept on the commons ;S srry —Symode09 03:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the tags are kind of like categories. Can you say what exactly would be different with the new system? Bawolff ☺☻ 22:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be different because now, categories have to be created before the articles are put inside the page. Tags automatically create the pages as needed. Also, tags are used a lot more in the search function —Symode09 12:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay you have a point with optimizing search. However thats a seperate issue from the category system. But currently, you don't need to create categories for them to exist (You do if you want them to look pretty, but that's also a seperate issue). See for example: Category:Los Angeles County, California. Bawolff ☺☻ 20:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Editorials

Note - If no major progress has been made after three days, there shall be a poll held

I believe there should be and an editorial section in wikinews. An editorial can be defined as "An article in a publication giving the opinion of its editors on a given topic or current event"

I think wikinews should have a section dedicated to editorials because, there should be a place for users to express their opinions. I am not saying wikinews should become a blog (ie. an online diary) I am saying, there should be a section where users can present a story supporting a certain opinion (or weighing up the facts) with actual evidence or facts. This should encourage users can agree or disagree with the expressed view of the contributing editor.

If this is allowed, there would be a separate section (so, there is no way an editorial can be confused with news) and, the tag below would be added.

• {{editorial}}

Please add your opinions

• Editorials cannot ever be reconciled with the WN:NPOV policy. That's why we don't have them. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 08:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. DragonFire1024 08:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

In my experience on this wiki, facts are something that people can agree on (and then sometimes only tenuously). Open things up to full blown editorial pages, and then Wikinews would be obliged to give every crackpot their shot at blowing off at the news. There is an 'add opinion' tab available for each article. My opinion is keep your opinion on the "add opinion" pages. -Edbrown05 09:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

People write editorials now, it is a matter of where the editorials are placed. I wouldn't care about editorials as much if we were allowed to create investegative articles User:symode09 10:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're allowed to create editorials if they're in your userspace, and they don't get anybody mad. (See category:Editorials. )< I don't know what exactly you mean by investigative articles, but if I take those words at face value, I'd say that sounds like original reporting. Bawolff ☺☻ 17:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

...And you are allowed to to original reporting; but we need notes. Anyways, remember that NPOV is what makes Wikinews unique in the world, this is what sets us apart from every single other news source. So I say: no. Besides, editorials are even harder than articles because most editorials I read in the papers are crappy.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikimania

As most of you know Wikimania 2007 is coming up and, is a great opportunity for us to promote Wikinews and show the general public, there is more to the foundation then Wikipedia. We need to promote Wikinews in every way possible. I propose we set a Wikinews booth up with information and resources to show visitors how useful Wikinews is. If anyone is going, please add a comment. If you have any ideas or contributions, criticism or support, please leave a comment. —Symode09 14:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone going??? Maybe it would be nice if we present something like "state of the wiki" in a poster or something about Wikinews? Anyone interested? If we work together than individual workload might be all right... who's interested?

Also, should we organise some coverage ahead of this event?

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Umm, I remember someone saying they were going on irc, but I can't remember who it was. Also of interest is Citizen Journalism Unconference (whatever that may be?). Bawolff ☺☻ 22:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I will be there. I am planing to cover as much as I can, but if others are going to be there it would be nice to spread some of the work around (It is hard to take notes and photos at the same time :)). --Cspurrier 15:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have already done some of the graphics[2] - that is a low res version. I can put a report together (I hope I can get one of the scholarships - then I can present a wikinews speech + set up the technical stuff for other projects + record vids) - I know I won't get it :( anyway, I am going to get permission from the board (hopefully)

—Symode09 15:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about going, but would have needed scholarship to help cover it, and I thought there are users who do more for WMF than myself who should be there. Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 08:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Digg.com

I would like to propose that we use the Digg.com feature which allows users to either digg and or submit links to wikinews articles and such on Digg.com.

There is a simple script that can be added to wikinews to allow this. there is no ads and no spam. just a simple button. It will also display how many times the article has been dugg ;) We can also design our own button.

I think in terms of getting more readers/editors to Wikinews, this would be a perfect way to promote us, and still get attention (if you will). DragonFire1024 05:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• I came into wikinews to submit this exact suggestion and I see that some one did beat me to it. It is really surprising that this feature is not implemented in wikinews yet. It fits perfectly with the idea of community maintained news. what you say developers.--Teferra 05:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Will those Digg buttons make people on Digg notice Wikinews and then proceed to do something like this to the site? Funpika 10:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It already happened back when that happened, and wikinews articles already get posted on digg on occassion.

Somehow I don't think integrating features of a commercial website into a Wiki Foundation project is going to go over well. --SVTCobra 11:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this probably won't pass the board/developers, and I would agree, no commercial stuff on Wikinews. On the other hand, posting articles on Digg might do.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Its been discussed before, (I don't remember resualt). Basically, it is easy to do, but do we want to? I personally think it is not very classy to have a digg this link. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Re-skinning

Guys, I really like what you've done with the main page -- it's very nice! However, it still could be afforded to be reskinned. Would it be okay if I did a little re-skinning? Also, can you unlock my user page? →MR 12:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Done. I wouldn't mind more improvements.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Go for it :) DragonFire1024 19:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Temporary page, please, if it is anything major. Tweaks, no, go for it! --Skenmy^{(t•c•w•i)} 19:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify my point. For the most part, we have the main page down; it has many nice features. If the main page could be better in terms of format, then that's for another day. What I want to do is make it look a bit prettier — recoloring, box tweaks, etc. The flow of the page would not change, because, as I said, that's for another day. →MR 19:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Go for it --Skenmy^{(t•c•w•i)} 19:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews:Upcoming events

Hello. For quite a long time I have been willing to have a page where people could add upcoming events, so as to have a list of events that could be covered by Wikinews users. This email from David Gerard has motivated me and I can now announce Wikinews:Upcoming events. All your comments or improvements are welcome :) guillom 14:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent idea!--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Good idea, but it should be noted that similar pages have previously fallen into disuse in the past.Bawolff ☺☻ 19:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you link to such pages so as to analyse possible reasons of disuse and avoid them? :) guillom 06:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I have found m:Press corps. guillom 07:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't the page I was referring to (but its a good example. theres also some at meta too (m:IOTM, m:WORTNET, m:Scheduled attendance for Wikinews or Commons) . However those are really bad idea, because for it to have any popularity, it should show up in rc). I was referring to stuff like Wikinews:Interview of the month (although Wikinews:Request an interview sort of works), and i think there was another one here somewhere. Maybe it will work now as we have more editors Bawolff ☺☻ 20:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Either it is original reporting... or forget it

I am 300% guilty of re-writing news, double that, make it 599%. I,m tired of that. Make it No news that is not original. Just stop it. -Edbrown05 07:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Would that mean that there is any news, I hope so if users are still interested in contributing what news they know intimately. -Edbrown05 08:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. —FellowWikiNewsie 23:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If we had news that was just OR we would have no news. DragonFire1024 03:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That should ultimately be our goal, but we need to pass this phase of writing articles from multiple sources to get bigger. See our mission statement. But we should treat our sources reasonably.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Steven. We need to make sure we have enough content for people to continue to subscribe to our RSS, and browse the site, before we go through with a seriously limiting measure. OR takes up so much time, that except for the power players on the site, most of us can only manage an article every week if we really search for story ideas. Considering the small, small user base (and that's not even compared to Wikipedia), we need to keep "regurgitated" content for now. -- Zanimum 00:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine for you to say, Ed! You've tasted the sweet nectar of OR. I think you're drunk on it. Some of us are OR virgins and it will be a little while before we can belly-up to the bar at Ed's Pub of Original Reporting. :) --Jcart1534 01:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I am always drunk on OR...but I also know that every story to be OR right now is impossible. DragonFire1024 03:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I played ♣ s and you trumped me with ♠ s :-} -Edbrown05 05:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I've tasted that nectar, and I only want it now. I much prefer original/exclusives to what you are describing as "regurgitated content", although there will always be a place for that. Without it, Wikinews would limit its user base severly, no new users would join nearly as often because they would be "virgins", like Jcart said, and afraid. --Nzgabriel | Talk 10:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That afraid business is what worries me. That is why we must be so open. -Edbrown05 10:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Already open, afraid methinks is a bigger factor. -Edbrown05 10:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I only started doing interviews/original reporting after I had done quite a few articles, getting the hang of things. And then there are those people who I have encountered who don't even reply to e-mails I have sent (see my user page), that could put people off too.

Don't get me wrong though, I fully support original reporting, etc. I am just opposed to totally cancelling out regurgitated content. --Nzgabriel | Talk 10:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but when I see Google news sending up even low-brow reports: view Google page on Scooter Libby and this report, I think Wikinews sets its standards too high. Of course it needs to "bootstrap" (<- Eloquence adjective) any of its local reports to world reports. But, my words, the need expressed here for neatness has the effect of canceling participatory journalism. That is not inclusive.

Original is what people want. They are not going to get it if the attitude here raises the bar too high. -76.104.105.206 10:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Google doesn't exclude Wikinews for a lack of "editorial review". Perhaps it is for its lack of originality. -76.104.105.206 10:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia's open door days

If I look at Protesters demonstrate at US Coast Guard Academy by User:Ragesoss, I think we could promote doing OR on Wikipedia, I don't know what would be the best way but maybe there are more people out there willing to cover the 1 event that happens next to them in a year. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You know what the solution is? Wikimedia needs an open door day, or rather a week. With a banner on the Wikipedia sitenotice saying: "All projects are holding open door days, check it out", and a link to various cool activities on Wikinews, Commons, Wikiversity, Wiktionary... People could follow a little tutorial and get started, get the taste of the project. We could have public chatting with Erik Möller about Wikinews, 'Write an article with Jimbo', 'interview Florence Devouard for an exclusive Wikinews interview', or 'cover the event near you'. Commons could have photojournalism courses, Wikiversity writing classes... One week that all Wikimedians are invited to broaden their horizon.

Anyone agree? Anyone interested to write up a proposal about in on Meta and spread the word?

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea. Wikipedia has huge visibility and something in the sitenotice there would help sister projects enormously. I'm not so sure how we'd go about proposing this, so I'd suggest starting that here and then transplanting it when we have more feedback. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, great idea to have all sister projects helping each other out. I wouldn't like to write up the proposal, but add my name to it as a supporter! --Nzgabriel | Talk 10:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm quite busy now so I'll get working on this probably in July somewhere. Unless someone beats me to it :-). --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If that were the case, then Google news would be empty. DragonFire1024 11:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Question on Wikinews talk:Upcoming events

Anyone interested in this process, I'd like your input in the "Claimed/unclaimed events?" section. -- Zanimum 00:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Planet Wikimedia

I see someone's advertising Planet Wikimedia in the top line thing. What about if everytime English Wikinews has a major original coverage, the blog posts about the coverage itself (not so much the news story), and links to the article. Sound good? -- Zanimum 13:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Who's blog should we use? Brian NZ is on Planet Wikimedia, no?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking wikinewsreports.blogspot.com, so that we'd have our own Wikinews header on the aggregate, and that any admin would be able to add to/edit the blog, as Blogger blogs can have multiple authors. -- Zanimum 16:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've put some old samples up, to show what I was thinking. -- Zanimum 17:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks great! I support opening it up to other contributors as well but not to everybody. We could create a page for it here so anyone can prepare here, and then someone with access can post in on the blog once it's finished.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there a possibility to use tags for different kinds of blogs from us? We could also blog about important events on this site, ... not that that would happen too often, but e.g. ArbCom elections, or the latest requests from Commons users for a press pass might be topics for posts? And would the individual poster's name show? If we post as "Wikinews", we need consensus here, while if you post as "Zanimum" you have more freedom to post... anything really.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

How about using the wikinews.blogspot.com blog, as that has a nice wikinews skin :) and what we were going to use it for has since died. I support this idea. btw Stevenfruitsmaak, you are right, I'm on there :) Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 18:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I control wikinews.blogspot.com and will gladly invite trustworthy folks to blog there. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 22:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

How's about creating a page for preparing posts on this site, and then uploading some of it, for example the posts Zanimum put on the other blog, to wikinews.blogspot.com?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

So, what does everyone think, do we continue using the wikinewsreports.blogspot.com, or do we switch to wikinews.blogspot.com? I prefer the layout of wikinewsreports.blogspot.com . How do we set up a system to allow everyone to participate? Do we distribute the password? That would be hard I guess because Zanimum holds the account and also has other blogs on it I think. So what if Zanimum is on holiday?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Other blogger users can be given write permission on the blog. Don't have to hand out anyone's passwords. :) --Chiacomo ^(talk) 02:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's one of the best features about the blog, that it allows for easy collaboration. Essentially, we could give access away to anyone who is an accredited reporter on en.wn, or an admin. -- Zanimum 14:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I like wikinews.blogspot.com as it is a easier domain, and as it has a wikinews skin, that was made just for wikinews. Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 04:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Remember, 99% of Wikinews readers don't even know that the site can have this skin. (Personally, I think it should be the default skin for Wikinews, but I don't know if people would "get" it, necessarily. And the target market of the blog is new users, who don't regularly visit the site and don't think we ever have original content.)

Regarding the URL, I agree wikinews.blogspot.com is easier to remember/type, however the only reason we're creating the blog is so that it can be included on the Planet Wikimedia site. For all it matters, it could be named 9tgd4_23.blogspot.com, so long as it is registered with the sites. I dunno. -- Zanimum 14:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well technically the blog skin was created before the skin was made on wikinews :) I'm easy what ever the community wants. Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 19:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Default skin? Man that blue background on wikinews.blogspot is hideous! I like the layout on the wikinewsreports.blogspot . Maybe we should have a poll, or just keep with the current wikinews.blogspot since I can't think of any real objection. Unless Brian and Nicholas can really collaborate and move all the content from the current one to wikinews.blogspot . Right now, I'd appreciate the write permission, as I'd like to post something on the OR I did on nl:Belgische ministerraad bijeen in Leuven. I created http://fruitsmaak.blogspot.com , don't know if that's what you need to give me write permission, just let me know.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

NB: wikinews.blogspot.com is Chiacomo’s blog, not mine. My real blog is a New Zealand Politics one (where I write non-NPOV postings ;) Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 08:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Getting access

Hey all, to get access to the wikinewsreports blog, just send me your email address, and I'll add you in. I'll add your email to the list, and you'll get an invitation to edit the blog. I presume at that point, you are prompted to create a Blogger account (which is different than a Google Account or a Gmail account), maybe not--whatever the case may be, you don't actually need to create your own blog to add to wikinewsreports, since you add directly.

Once you have access to the wikinewsreports blog, you can create a new posting on the website, or alternatively you can go to Settings > Email > Mail-to-Blogger Address, which will create a personal email address that you can use to post things directly from your current email address.

Anyway, I've added Steven, as per his request. Email nicholasmoreau@gmail.com if you want on too. -- Zanimum 15:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Stepping up

Hi everyone,

Zanimum finally found the button to make others admins as well, hooray! I've already used my new powers to make some changes to the layout of the Wikinews blog, we now have an RSS on the blog: check it out http://wikinewsreports.blogspot.com/.

I would like for as much people as possible to join on the blog, so we can promote Wikinews in the blogosphere and on Planet Wikimedia. It would be nice to have more people blogging over there.

Please have a look and join! --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

How do I join the blog? DragonFire1024 18:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

See the line just above stepping up title - the one that has them email adress --MarkTalk 18:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Just saying that you want to join is ok. I've invited you Dragonfire. Anyone else? Or I could just start an email campaign, inviting everyone based on their email addresses... --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you invite me please steven?? Cheers --MarkTalk 19:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

POTD

Have brought this up on the flickr site but thought i would also post it here. What do people think about a Picture of the Day kinda thing with news related pictures and brief captions with maybe the best on the main page linking to an article kinda like a "picture short" article. What do people think?? --MarkTalk 21:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

We need good quality picture for that, but otherwise sounds great (Note for reference, this has been brought up before in the past on talk:Main Page as well as the water cooler). Bawolff ☺☻ 21:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

hmm didnt know that it has previously been discussed but i was thinking of using images from flickr, PD sources and commons for the pics. --MarkTalk 21:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I had the same idea two weeks ago when I was looking to the Creative Commons images on Flickr looking for news images... I don't think the quality and availability is high enough to have a picture of the day, but we could certainly have a section like that, I would really support it. Of course it would need a main page redesign... Could we get some references on previous discussions? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 09:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea. —FellowWikiNewsie 19:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC) Only if we use our own images. —FellowWikiNewsie 20:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added {{Featured picture}} to the main page... problem is it creates an area of white space in the left column, it breaks up the balance of the main page... so we should do something about that, more so because I remember so time ago we had cricket boxes and stuff on the right column so if we keep filling it up on the right, we need something on the left... maybe a Fourth lead? Anyways, we need to think first: what are we aiming for with a picture on the main page? Fellowwikinews said on my talk page:

“

I think we should only have pictures that Wikinews contributors took during an event as "Featured picture". It is good to promote Wikinews' work as opposed to someone elses on the main page.

”

I don't necessarily agree: a lot of news sites have these kinda attractive pictures on the front page, I think we should have (1) really good photography and (2) a human interest aspect, (3) freely licensed, (4) and recent. Shouldn't always be from a Wikinewsie: after all, if I were to ask someone on Flickr if I could use their picture for my story, then what's the difference with just using a cc-by-sa image from Flickr? I think there is great free stuff out there, a lot better then what we can gather on our own, and we should use any of it.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I diagree with using other people's images but we first need to see what the community thinks also. —FellowWikiNewsie 20:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If we did use our own original reporting images, we could have a brief description below the image and add a link to the article with more content and images from the event. I don't see a problem with promoting our own stuff, especially when we want to promote more original reporting (eg. Protesters turn their backs on Australian PM). —FellowWikiNewsie 21:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

There's so much great stuff on Flickr under free licenses, it would almost be a shamed not to use them... But of course I don't have anything against using our own OR images and stories. Maybe we need to match the Flickr images to stories, like a story on the Trafalgar Square event. I don't like the idea of exclusively promoting OR: after all, we already have a box for that on the main page, I think the idea is just to make the main page more visually attractive: most news sites today have featured images (and also videos) on their main page, mostly with a human interest side. What do the others think?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Images are kinda hard to find on Flickr if you don't know what you're looking for specifically... I tried to search for "news" but that returned nothing interesting from less than 3 days old... maybe if people checked this regularly, or actively look for outdoor events they know of (e.g. the demonstrations in Turkey). Anyway this needs input from multiple Wikinewsies.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure this can work unless there are several people working on it. It'd be great to pick the best we can find from free sources and promote people's work. If we try to slant to news photos - such as protests - we'll likely attract some new contributors when we feature their photos. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

This looks like something for tomorrow or so: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mllerustad/514997165/ . If you want to go that way we need to write a standard "congratulation your picture is featured" letter.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

How about picture of the week? This doesn't have to be all recent either. Commons has some very very good historical news pictures which might be good for aniversaries, etc. Bawolff ☺☻

I just looked at the main page, looks nice, but its so far down no one is going to see it. Unfourtanatly I don't see any better alternative for placement. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Main pagre redesign or remove a section of something. I also agree with FellowWikinews. Commons already has a picture of the day and they use their images. If we are to do a picture of the day/week, I think it should be images on Wikinews or images taken by wikinewsies that are on commons. Point is if we are going to promote something, it should be the work of Wikinews, not Commons or WP or etc etc. DragonFire1024 04:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The idea wasn't to promote anything, nor to have something like a classical "featured" section like on other projects: it's more the idea to display great photojournalism to attract more readers. But as a compromise, I suggest we favour images from Wikinewsies. This project could expand and get more photographers from Commons, Flickr etc. involved, readers could send us images... --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Its important not to duplicate commons picture of the day, but I don't see the harm in using some photographs from commons not specificly for wikinews if they qualify as photojournalism. The commons picture of the day focuses on good pictures, ours should focus on good news pictures (sometimes they match, like Image:2004-tsunami.jpg when it was recent, but generally they are not the same pictures) Bawolff ☺☻ 22:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Candidates can now be nominated on Template talk:Featured picture, once we get bigger we can start voting or something now it's just informal, anyone feel free to change it if you stumble upon something and join us (Fellowikinews maybe?).--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 09:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the time to do so myself, but I think we should promote this initiative on Commons, I think a lot of people could help us select images, e.g. admins that look through all new uploads anyway. We should talk to some groups on Flickr too. Anyone up for it?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

yup count me in for this - will try and help where i can and will contact some flickr users and maybe post a note on commons sometimes soon. --MarkTalk 19:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I would really appreciate working with you on this! I was thinking it might be better to ask some of the admins we collaborate with on Wikinews:CommonsTicker to promote the initiative for us, they know who to talk to and where the best place is to bring it up on Commons (I wouldn't know).--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 09:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to promote on commons, email to commons-l. Commoners use the mailing list A lot (I'd estimate about 3-7 emails a day on it). If you send an email in there, most of the really active people on commons will know, and they're tell there friends, and everyone will know. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Have added it back to the main page after BrianNZ removed it, nobody here has said anything explicitely against the idea, maybe FWN against the content but I think it deserves a little spot that normally would be white now (on a slow article day, there's space on the left open). --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I oppose this, we are a news site, not WP, nor commons. It takes up space, on the mainpage, space we don't have Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 19:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

And we are using news images. All news websites today have images (and even YouTube videos and such) on the main page. I admit, it can break the balance of the main page, especially if there are few articles published. This will hopefully help us to get more decent pictures for our articles. If main page is the argument, then we should have another redesign.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 09:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Digg/reddit/Newsvine/del.icio.us?

Can we add these buttons to Wikinews? Yes, their logos aren't free images, but it could really help boost readership. -- Zanimum 15:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

There was a previous discussion just above: Wikinews:Water_cooler/proposals#Digg.com.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes and besides "how it looks" I think its still a good idea...very good idea. DragonFire1024 18:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's be realistic: this is very unlikely to happen, a Wikimedia project with a Digg button. I'm not totally against it, but is there a way around this (and around asking the developers etc.): can we post Wikinews articles somewhere where they might draw the same attention? what are the options? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

a WN mirror run by some WN contributors is a good idea - has a better chance of making it thro' Google News, it can use images, etc which WN may not be able to host, all this diggitvinilicious stuff can be done. –Doldrums(talk) 19:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm talking about. We can even deceive Google News by setting up a hierarchie :-p .--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ummm http://wikinews.blogspot.com is basically what you're describing. Used to be updated by MrM I think, but no longer is. (Although it says posted by Brian on the bottom, not sure which one of the millions of people here named Brian that refers to) meant to be a sort of review of articles so google news would have no excuse not to pick 'em up. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea, but Google doesn't allow blogs on its own server to be classified as news sites. Plus it's all manually updated, which sucks. Once, or perhaps if, we get stable versions, that should do it. I have tried to put bugs in the ears of various Foundation people, both board and staff, suggesting stable versions be beta'd on de.wp and en.wn, but I don't know if any of them have paid full attention. -- Zanimum 18:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Digg? That's just tacky. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's tacky, however if we do want to do it, it can be done without developer assistance. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

May be tackey, but a lot of people use digg and read digg all the time...thats why I post a lot of Wikinews articles there. And I think it would definitely boost readership and will also allow for users/readers to "rate or digg" (for lack of better words) what they like the most. DragonFire1024 04:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes that's a real pitty, I'm always curious what our most-read articles are, how many readers we get exactly... Maybe we should just try it, if it can be done without the dev's. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If you just want statistics, we can do that too. The german wikinews has had fairly good statistics for some time now. See here. All we need to do is ask. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes to that! I think we need to know what readership is before we try to boost it.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 09:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think my second or third edit to this site said: stats plz. c'mon, this is what wkimedia does best, but won't release... stats plz. -10:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

And the fact that it's off-site means that you can't be against it: just don't go look then. Who do we ask Bawolff? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It's run by a de.wp editor, 16 I believe? (He was obviously very against the credential checks by the Foundation, and I believe threatened to take down his tool. Or I may be confusing him with a completely different editor with completely different tool.) Anyway, you need to contact him via IRC, and do a live chat about the project, so he can set things up. I don't know why a live chat, instead of just an email. I tried a few times back in October to find him on, no luck. -- Zanimum 18:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If you can't contact Leon try contacting User:DaB., who has helped him with the tool and seems to be an active de.wp contributer according to his contributions. It was not very tricky to implement the tool on de.wikinews. You have to add some code to monobook.js for example [3] The tool is not perfect, however it is interesting.--SonicR 18:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes this is the user that didn't like the rule. (And is in my opinion the perfect example why such rules are stupid. They keep away the good people, but don't stop the bad) I was originally going to ask for wikinews (en) to be put on it when I first heard about it, but then the whole 18+ rule controversy happened, and I thought it might be best to wait until things calmed down. I tried to contact him on irc yesterday, but he was away from the computer or something and didn't respond. Also I think its not only the js you need, I think something has to be set up on the toolserver side (but don't quote me on that). Bawolff ☺☻ 22:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews Weather

Ok...Brianmc and I have been attempting tests of the Wikinews WeatherChecker. He has had great success with the program. I on the other hand, have not.

The program is old. I have e-mailed IlyaHaykinson and he states that it has had no physical updates in 2 years.

It is an open-sourced program and can be fixed, but the link to the source code is broken and I have e-mailed Ilya about it.

I want to re-start Wikinews Weather with a new face and look and help. We have the NOAA at out disposal as all their content is Public Domain. We have already, some users such as Brianmc who can run the program. We also have some renewed interest as I have seen in IRC.

So my question is what does everyone think. Do you have what it takes to fix WeatherChecker? Make a new program? Have Ideas? Lets hear them :) DragonFire1024 04:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I can get maps for Europe but not for other parts of the world. A hint for anyone trying to use the package is that the Station list is out of date, so try sticking to airports where there likely is still a met station. I'll be trying to start maps for today later. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 08:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Better sample map. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 08:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I can only get Weather loctions for the World in varius loactions: Image:World F 29May2007at0821UTC.jpg. For whatever Reason I cannot zoom in onto a particular location. So I can do current weather temperatures, in that example F but can also do C: Image:World C 29May2007at0821UTC.jpg.

I am willing to do automatic hourly updates, assuming it can be uploaded automatically of the same select cities for 24 hours, then change the cities after 24 hours. Might need to alternate between 2 to 4 lists. DragonFire1024 08:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to refresh my memory, why was it stopped. I can't remember if the commoners just got really mad at us, or if there was a technical reason. I remember at one point the idea of a server side version was floated around (By Amgine I think). We could probably also do a wiki version with templates and transparent overlayed images (Although that might be hard to do, I know they do it at 'pedia for some templates though, so its possible (w:Template:Location map, m:Help:Composite images)). Bawolff ☺☻ 22:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. how about instead of continually uploading new images, perhaps just have one image per region, which is constantly overwritten (new version uploaded over top). Bawolff ☺☻ 22:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Anchorage, Alaska

vs

File:World C 29May2007at1100UTC.jpg

The top one is much easier to edit, is less space (file size), and could be made into a template. Of course there is some downfalls to this aproach as well. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The downfall could be that to avoid POV every major city in the world would have to have their own map. And thats perhaps thousands. The other downfall is we still need auot-uploads. I cannot sit here and click upload every hour. The staions can be changed at will as well. I intend on making several station lists...this is just an example of some scattered cities I could get readings from.

I am glad you did that map comparison because I was thinking about the same thing at work today. At least now I know it can be done. Thanks Bawolff :) DragonFire1024 03:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

As to why was it stopped? No clue. It was stopped before I joined Wikinews. DragonFire1024 03:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to include Christchurch, as that is where I am based ;) ? --Nzgabriel | Talk 04:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Done ;) Also to everyone: I have created: {{Weather3}} and am using it on my userpage. I also created: {{CurWeatherMapImage3}} for the latest image to be updated, and eventually automatically I hope. I did those as to not interfear with the current/old weather templates.

I want to do a {{CurWeatherMapImage2}} template for (F) but I cannot figure it out and currently, it will only do (C).

I will update the maps every hour, manually, as long as I am at the computer. Feel free to get current temperatures every hour until then :) DragonFire1024 05:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The difference would be instead of a bot creating an individual image each time and uploading it, it'd just edit something like the following:

{{Weather map
|Sydney, Australia=20
|Charlottetown, Canada=18
...
}}

And the map would be modified. (You could even have the template automatically convert between °F and ° C Bawolff ☺☻ 23:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Until Wikinews Weather moves in a different direction, I have added the weather maps to Portal:Weather. I think they look quite nice there. It seemed a shame that they were being updated hourly and not used anywhere. Feel free to revert if I have overstepped my bounds or if it is a bad idea. --SVTCobra 21:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, being bold is good. The weather portal actually originally had these weather maps (well a month after it was created): http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Weather&oldid=122149 Bawolff ☺☻ 01:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There will be no maps today - at least until much later, I'm out the door soon. As you'll see on my talk Polish wikinews wants the maps too, so I raised the issue over on Commons. Nobody yet has said don't do it, but they have pointed out that an auto-upload bot may need to purge thumbnail images or the portal using the maps will not be refreshed. This leads me to believe that last time this was being run new images were being uploaded and that's why it ended up stopped.

One question remains, who can help me out with an upload bot? For Windows, and I can write a proper specification. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 08:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Associated Press

Did you ever consider becoming part of the Associated Press, or at least automatically upload the AP press articles or something? Sadads 10:26 May 30, 2007

The AP is totally separate company from Wikinews and the Wikimedia Foundation. All material of the AP is owned and copyrighted by the AP. DragonFire1024 14:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

AP sells its news. At present, I am sure they would charge more for their stories, than they would pay to get ours. Further, it is incompatible with what Wikinews is, a free news source that can be reproduced anywhere free of charge. We have no basis for going into business with Associated Press, a for-profit organization.

We cannot do this for the same reason that Wikipedia can't just merge with Encyclopædia Britannica. --SVTCobra 15:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Associated Press is a for-profit company that sells its news stories. Everybody who publishes them pays for their news feed. We can't afford it, and it would be incompatible with our license. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

To further what everyone else said, Our goal in life is to write news stories that other people can use on their site (or paper/whatever they want), however they please, as long as they give us credit. The AP's goal is sort of similiar, except they want credit and a really really big fat check (And they don't let you do certain things with the stories that would get in the way of their bussiness model). Bawolff ☺☻ 02:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Didn't realize they acted just for a profit, but it might be a good way to raise money for the servers if Wikimedia sells the articles to the AP. It would be like a mini fundraiser for Wikimedia that everyone could contribute to by writing news articles. I don't know the legel implications that would cause, but I bet it would be a good way to make money, even if the AP denies some of the articles. Sadads 12:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Good idea but not sure if AP would want our articles, as we're a citizen journalism and a wiki website. Since the AP is professional they probably wouldn't want our articles. You could try posting something to Wikimedia and get their opinions on this, etc. But...even Google news doesn't want our articles because of vandalism concerns and because we are a wiki that everybody can edit, and we could screw up, etc. —FellowWikiNewsie 18:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that is not that they don't want our articles (they might or they might not, we'd give them a static version so the google thing wouldn't apply), but that they can already get it for free. (Although individual contributors can sell articles under an even less restrictive license if they want, that sti;; wouldn't work well as a wikimedia funraiser as each individual person (not the foundation) owns their edits, so it'd go to the contributor. (The way it works, is basically, each editor by pressing submit, gives the wikimedia foundation permission to publish their work (actually gives everybody permission under the terms of the CC-by), the editor still owns the work and can give it under different permissions too) Bawolff ☺☻ 22:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)