Wikinews:Water cooler/proposals/archives/2010/May

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


Proposal to deprecate the "reviewer" user right on en.wikinews

It has been bought to my attention by other users that the "reviewer" group right is still active on en.wikinews, despite the fact that it is essentially useless, and serves no purpose to either man or beast. Editors and Reviewers can only pass or fail articles, since the second level of pass available to reviewers is not used, and it seems pointless to me to have 6 reviewers on the site, none of whom are active, barring Tempodivalse.

It is therefore my proposal that the "reviewer" user group/right be deprecated on this wiki, and that those who have this right be amended to the editor group, since as I say, both can essentially do the same stuff anyhow. BarkingFish (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Kill with fire: Not particularly important, but it seems rather pointless. Δενδοδγε τ\c 20:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Points to you, sir, for that terminology. --71.87.155.34 (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • [edit conflict] This has been brought up before (people wanted to keep at that point). I say burn with fire ( Support). I support removing the group outright. I think all it does is confuse users. Personally I think reviewer is a much better name then 'editor' for the group, since in a wiki, we all 'edit'. Bawolff 20:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I say get rid of it. It hasn't served any useful function in the past and, given the way FR works for us currently, seems highly unlikely it ever will in the future. It also causes needless confusion. (This has been proposed before somewhere, btw, but failed due to lack of consensus - can't remember where that was though.)
previous proposal - Wikinews:Water_cooler/proposals/Archive/18#Change_.22editor.22_group_to_.22reviewer.22. Bawolff 21:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh yeah. Also, this. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Most of the "reviewers" we currently have are developers, who i assume were granted it back when FR was first installed to see if it worked correctly. I only gave it to myself because i was curious as to what it did (i'm contemplating removing everyone from the reviewer category, it shouldn't be controversial). If we can't have the userright removed for some reason, then at least remove it from documentation and don't have anyone in it. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Only two are developers, and Brion probably doesn't even know he has the right, being given it rather randomly by brianmc. Bawolff 21:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • As a side note, if we go ahead with this, I'd also like to propose that we rename the current "editor" user group to "reviewer", since, in a general sense, we're all editors. "Reviewer" is much more descriptive. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per Temp. --71.87.155.34 (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • btw, this is the list of all validated (reviewed by someone with reviewer rights to flag level 2) pages http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?namespace=0&level=1&title=Special%3AReviewedPages Most of them have the non-best revision flagged as best. Bawolff 21:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment What's the difference between the two? Benny the mascot (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
    The "reviewer" user right is sort of like "editor", except that it allows them to sight a revision to a second, higher "quality" level. (In other words, "editor" allows one to set level "0" [unsighted] or 1, "reviewer" can do 0, 1, and 2.) But for the news system that we've developed, the 2nd level really doesn't serve much purpose, we use 0 and 1. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
    Ah, I see. Support Benny the mascot (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Crush by elephant. We're not going to use it, and it's just confusing to people. the wub "?!" 17:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I would offer my two cents my saying it is better if we rename the current "editor" user group to "reviewer" It does sum up better the disc. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 23:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - Tempodivalse explains it well - it had me confused on my first article - if it improves things - get rid of it then! SatuSuro (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Done (I was bold) Editors are now reviewers, reviewers are now super-reviewers, and no one is a super reviewer (except voice of all who i didn't touch as i assume he has that group from testing flagged revs). Now we need to decide if we want to ask the devs to remove the group outright or not. I have no idea if that problematic or not to do. Personally i'm not really sure if we should bother just because I think any confusion is now avoided since we renamed. Bawolff 03:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
p.s. Anyone who doesn't like my new names, feel free to revert/change/etc. Bawolff 03:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I thought this proposal was for technically obliterating the group, not just renaming stuff and demoting people (although that was a good move). Next, i think we should remove all mentions of the old "reviewer" status from documentation and replace "editor" with "reviewer" where appropriate. Tempodivalse [talk] 03:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
and plot to take over the world as well? :P But been bold is always good :) Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 07:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment, aren't we going to post a request at bugzilla to have super-reviewer removed? I was under the impression we were going to completely obliterate it, not just hide it from documentation and rename everything. Tempodivalse [talk] 16:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Note, I just de-reviewed all pages that were reviewed in this manner (there was about 30 pages). Should i file a bugzilla request? Bawolff 19:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
To remove the group? Certainly. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
bugzilla:23351 Bawolff 21:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I strongly Support the renaming of the "editor" group to "reviewer". It was confusing before, since anyone who edits a wiki is an editor, but only editors (group) were allowed to sight an article. It was silly. As for the superreviewer group, it could actually serve a purpose, but only if we had 10's of thousands of users. Since that's not likely in the near (or distant:P) future, there is no reason to keep it around right now. If at some point we decide we need a secondary review group, it can always be readded. Gopher65talk 16:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Guideline on peer review

I propose that we make  Wikinews:Tips on reviewing articles  a guideline, and include it in the standard message for newly promoted reviewers. I've been developing the Tips page pursuant to this policy discussion. It includes some wording about what peer reviewers are responsible for, which relates to this. --Pi zero (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I generally support this, as long as we stress it's not a hard rule but rather encouraged suggestions for how to go about reviewing - I don't think it's a good idea to force people to review in a certain way. After my recent skirmish with Shaka, we probably need to clarify what a reviewer should actually do (in terms of responsibility etc.). Tempodivalse [talk] 18:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't really think its specific enough on what reviewers are responsible for. Pretend I am a new reviewer, here's the questions i'd imagine would go through my mind as i try to come to grips with peer review:
  • What defines plagarism/copyvio. Obviously a word for word copy paste job is not ok. What about a sentence. What about three words that come in the same order? (most academic things define it to be cheating if you have three words that are the same and in the same order as a source)
  • To what extent should things be fact checked. Do i need to verify every single factual claim in the article? Do i need to verify only major factual claims, and number type claims? Do i just need to read the sources and make sure there are no blatent contradictions?

Bawolff 03:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Those are good questions. The No copyvios item I wrote into the Tips checklist actually does more to address them than anything I know of in any of our policies, guidelines, or help pages. (Perhaps that's just my ignorance?) Because that checklist is meant to be very compact for quick reference, IMHO it shouldn't go into greater detail — but most items in the checklist do provide links to where the material appears elsewhere on Wikinews (hopefully in greater detail), and that one doesn't because I don't know of anything to link to. Any pointer to where such material exists, or writing of such material and giving a pointer to it, would be great. --Pi zero (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
(Okay, it does more to address the first question. The second one might be better addressed. --Pi zero (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC))
On third thought, what the checklist says about the second question also seems clear and to the point, and equal to what I've noticed on the subject elsewhere in the policy/guideline/help pages:
  • The sources must verify all facts in the article (except the obvious).
If anything more elaborate than that is needed, then, again — as for no copyvios — I think it should be on a different page rather than Tips. --Pi zero (talk) 04:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Allow bureaucrats to de-admin

Hi, I'd like to propose that we give bureaucrats here the ability to de-sysop (but not de-crat) on this wiki. IMHO, this would make it more convenient to remove admin status from accounts (i.e., resignations, addition/removal of bot admin privs etc.) as we don't have to go through the stewards - and we do this fairly frequently; for instance, in the past year, I can think of at least four en.wikinews desysop requests. It's also more organised if the sysop/desysop logs were all hosted on the same wiki, instead of being spread out at meta. (I know this is technically possible to implement, as several wikis, such as simple.wikt, simple.wp, and Meta already have it.) Not a really important feature, but I think it'd be helpful nonetheless. Thoughts and comments, please. Tempodivalse [talk] 16:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment — I actually thought that it was already this way. Is there some reason why this ability isn't in the hands of crats by default? Gopher65talk 15:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
    No idea. It really does seem natural for them to be able to remove the bit. (I think it's because bureaucrat was first implemented on Wikipedia, and you know how wiki-conservative they are. Smile.png) Tempodivalse [talk] 16:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Votes

  • Support No strong feelings, but why not. Bawolff 19:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Go for it! Benny the mascot (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Abstain I don't care. support for lulz --Diego Grez let's talk 00:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Power Overwhelming. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 01:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Why not? --Mikemoral♪♫ 02:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support as nom as these always immediately turn into votes, may as well do my share of the vote stacking. :b Tempodivalse [talk] 02:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support No reason we shouldn't have it. --Thunderhead (t - e - c) 19:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Keeping things local is a plus. Pmlineditor discuss 16:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Absolutely. I feel this should be the default where local bureaucrats exist; while we do need to interact with the broader cross-wiki community in order to thrive, keeping straightforward actions like desysopping local where possible is a good idea in my opinion. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • No! Don't give them even more power! Yeah, why not. It's not like they're going to abouse it, or anything. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dendodge (talkcontribs)

UK Election template

Conservative 309
David Cameron
Labour 258
Gordon Brown
Lib Dem 57
Nick Clegg
Others 28
 

Would it be worth putting the template to the right on every Election 2010 page? It worked well for BBC News. — μ 13:03, May 9 2010 (UTC)

Mm, I've not thought of that, but yes, that would be a good idea. Although maybe include two or three more parties, instead of labelling all as "other"? Dunno about that though. Tempodivalse [talk] 13:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
And it needs to be changed from "659 out of 650 seats declared" to "649 out of 650 seats declared". Δενδοδγε τ\c 15:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
So it does. Tempodivalse: I think the box looks quite good smaller rather than larger -- and then there's a problem with which parties to include. If you include the SNP, you need to include Plaid. If you include everything above five parties, you need to include Sinn Fein -- a result which is basically pointless. Seven parties other than the trio have seats: which ones do you add? — μ 08:49, May 10 2010 (UTC)
Microchip, yeah maybe you're right, for some reason I got confused and thought one of the other parties got votes in the two digits. Probably better to keep it short ... Although, can we make the "649 out of 650 seats declared" text somewhat larger? I can barely read it on my screen. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Writing Competition sponsorship

Since the 'long' writing contest tailed off, but the newer short, regular, contest seems to still be going strong, I'd like to start looking into some sponsorship options (i.e. prizes!).

I am assuming there will be regular repeats of this competition? I have (as Baldrick would say) a cunning plan for a partnership/promotion to get equipment that would be extremely useful for Original Reporting. If we can clear up, and do a little professionalising of the competition, I can run this past Kul in the office before going to the company I'd like to target for some freebies. And we're talking hi-tech freebies that I just know would appeal to some of our more cash-strapped Wikinewsies. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

May I be the first to say, ooooh! Smile.png This will really add some incentive to participate. If we could get this implemented, that'd be great. Yeah, Mikemoral was planning to host this type of competition once every two months (although I personally would like to it monthly, and making the competition even shorter, maybe two weeks). Please keep us updated on this. Tempodivalse [talk] 21:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Ahem, you're the first place. CoI? :-) (j/k) --Diego Grez return fire 21:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I will try to make it on IRC when I get home from work to discuss this with the cabalregulars. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The PC rebuild is not going as simply as I'd like; hence no IRC appearance. To sum things up, 3G mobile kit & the processing power of handheld devices makes it attractive for us (Wikinewsies) to have this stuff, and nice PR for companies to give us it. I would be speaking to Kul before hitting on any potential sponsor; but, one competition ever 2-3 months would be a great bit of PR for them. That is what people would have to accept. --Brian McNeil / talk 01:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd point out that in the last competition, which had prizes, no one accepted their prizes... Bawolff 18:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I would have done, but didn't write enough. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 10:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The Main Page

As a hobbying newsreader, I decided to join this site. My first concern is that the main page does not look professional enough, like a real news site. I think that the community should try to give it a bit of a revamp, and I would be glad to lead the charge or help. Tjc6 (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your feedback. What specifically do you think looks unprofessional about Wikinews' current layout? When it was redesigned it about half a year ago, one priority was to make things look as organised and symmetrical as possible. Maybe if you elaborated on that a bit, we'd have a better idea what to look for. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Some of the things that I have noticed:
  • The large list of recent articles on the right side of the page...It doesn't seem to fit in to me. News sites like this have these articles categorized with possibly images and captions, etc.
  • The headline layout just doesn't look very clean or crisp to me. If you look at the sites of CNN, BBC, FOX News, etc, there is usually one main headline and one or two smaller ones. I also believe that the images in these headlines should be larger.
  • The header bar usually contains the names of sections, or at least some sort of headline mechanism.
  • On an unrelated note, I would also think it would be good if we could add a breaking news banner to the top of the site's pages, ala CNN or FOX. It would inform all members of breaking events better.
I have experience in graphic and web design, so I would be glad to whip up a proposal. Cheers, Tjc6 (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed reply.
  • On your first point: TBH, I don't think the latest news list looks too bad - although maybe the font size should be larger. I'm not sure, from a technical standpoint, how we can fit in images or captions into it - we use a system called Dynamic Page Lists (DPL) to have the list automatically updated when a new article is published, but it doesn't support images - we'd have to do all that manually, which takes a lot of time, and even then I think it would look a bit clunky.
  • About the headlines in the boxes (which we tend to call "leads") = Yeah, I would prefer the images to be larger, although it may be tricky to make the overall formatting look good, as images come in all shapes and sizes. (For instance, with the current layout, if we had one headline with a very narrow image and one with a very wide image, it wouldn't be to noticeable. If the images were larger - i.e., took up the entire width of the headline box - this would look far more out of place, IMHO.)
  • Third point: We already have this, to some extent. In case of breaking news, we have a special parameter we can put above one of the headline boxes that reads "BREAKING NEWS", which serves pretty much the same purpose. I suppose an extra bar may be added, although it might be redundant.
  • One other point, remember that we're working within the limitations of wiki-formatting here. Unlike other large websites like BBC, CNN, etc., we don't have the luxury of enabling fancy scripts to do all this work for us. We do have some scripts, but most are rather basic, and writing up more elaborate ones like what BBC has would take considerable efforts, due to the special considerations and difficulties that wiki-style formatting poses. Also, the project has only have two or three contributors capable of writing up proper scripts - that is a limitation as well.
  • Cheers, Tempodivalse [talk] 01:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you were looking for something like {{Ticker}}, which produces the following?
That used to be on the Main Page, but apparently caused problems for some users. (I have a slightly adapted version on my userpage which only displays breaking news if any is available, as on the BBC) Δενδοδγε τ\c 22:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I might create something to see what you guys think...sound alright to you? Tjc6 (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
We're always open to suggestions, if you want to knock something up in your userspace. Δενδοδγε τ\c 15:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not aware of the ticker causing problems, just that lots of people didn't like it. Bawolff 19:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Tjc6: If you have the wikicode-fu to understand our current main page, and improve on it, please go ahead and create an alternative design proposal. The reality is that most designs evolve, or a dramatically different design appeals to a large number of people, then must-have items from the prior design are incorporated. Remember: Unlike other sites you might see news on, we don't have advertisers to please with forcing multiple page views. We do need to have a workable design for updates. It should consider that leading-edge developments will be to provide content on mobile devices. Our graphics-lite version is a lot closer to managing that than a flash-infested monstrosity. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikinews Hotline via Google Voice

I was able to score an invite for this secondary account I've setup (already have Google Voice for my Gmail) because Google is giving invites to all college students with an .edu email address.

Luckily, this is free, unlike the old hotline mailbox, which Ilya set up and graciously paid for out of his own pocket. I feel this is better for us because Google voice offers transcription of people's call which can help with interviews and breaking news when a reporter is on the scene of an event. The transcript can be pulled from here, edited for grammar spelling (the transcript is good but not great!)

Unfortunately, Google at the moment doesn't offer toll-free numbers, but you can still choose your own number, just long-distance charges will apply. Here's a few potential choices:

  • (312) 945-6397 = (312) WIK-NEWS (Chicago)
  • (440) 847-9454 = (440) TIP-WIKI (Trinity, Ohio)
  • (619) 796-5463 = (619) 7WN-LINE
  • (310) 896-5463 = (310) 8WN-LINE (Redondo, CA)

Feedback please... --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This is very nice of Google. (Since long distance charges apply, does Google get a share of the cash to pay for its services?) The Trinity Ohio one looks to be the nicest number, though the Chicago one, in a major metropolitan area, would save more people money. Do you recall that the line was barely used, despite being widely promoted on-wiki? I never understood why: perhaps it is an inevitable result of the small size of the Wikinews community. Transcription may help, especially if there was a way to automatically make text available to editors. --InfantGorilla (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • This looks like quite a good idea to trial something like this. How easy, with Google's service, is it to actually have the line "manned"? I.e. when some Wikinewsies are available, they can be 'pooled' as having stuff directed to their PC? --Brian McNeil / talk 16:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "Manned" as your suggesting is essentially impossible. Google Voice is just a proxy for phone calls, essentially. You call it, and it forwards the call to your home, cell, work, whatever (ring-all). It doesn't translate from phone to VoIP (at least in a manner that is accessible on your computer). Even if it did, whats the point in manning a phone number that no one uses? --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • That's not true. I have my GV number hooked up to my Asterisk box via SIP, and it was pretty easy to setup to boot. terinjokes | Talk 09:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Accredited Reporters' T-shirts

I have found a local print company that does print-to-fabric T-shirts. That is, it doesn't go to shit like iron-on, it doesn't crack like screen print.

Who is interested in a "PRESS" T-shirt? The more I can order at once, the cheaper they will be. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a couple --RockerballAustralia c 10:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  • They'll be front & rear printed. I'll start working on the design over the next couple of days. Personally, I'm wanting two. However, there's a need to have at least eleven ordered up to get a decent discount. I really want to get some good ones done, and the guy that owns the shop was really nice about explaining stuff. I'd be really happy to put a fair bit of business his way. On that basis, I'll have a few words with Kul about what requirements the WMF would impose for use of the WP logo. I'm sure the shop (which is in Edinburgh city centre) would be delighted to do Scotland-specific Wikipedia ones and pay a pound or two to the WMF for the privilege. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Do you need to poke Kul? — μ 12:32, May 28 2010 (UTC)

twinkle

I dislike the current warning gadget, and I really like Twinkle. Since WN uses a reduced warning system, not much work would be needed to import the required templates. 4-5 block templates, 2-3 welcomes, 10-15 single issue warnings (I can specify), and 4-5? warnings. There are a few others that might be needed. As part of that, I would need admin (for a few hours) to import the necessary templates. So, 1. Does WN want Twinkle? 2. Which warnings does WN want? and 3. is WN ok with me doing the imports? Griffinofwales (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose Wikinews is not much vandalized recurrently. Twinkle is awful. We don't even need the rollback function. UserMessages works well, and some more warning templates, if needed, must be fulfilled by Bawolff. Again. UserMessages does everything we really need, if you don't like it, try using ImportScript et cetera. --Diego Grez return fire 03:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Warnings
Block templates
Notices
Welcomes

I think these are all the necessary templates. Comments anyone? —Mikemoral♪♫ 03:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment, I'd like to point out that we have our own mini-version of Twinkle, "User Messages" (in prefs) which serves pretty much the same purpose. I don't really know that we need another gadget to do the same thing, but don't have strong opinions either way. *shrug* Tempodivalse [talk] 03:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment our warning templates suck. Most of them use such strong language that i would block the person before leaving that strong a warning on their talk page. We lack templates for simple test like edits but is stronger than {{test}}. In general i write the warning notices out by hand rather than use a template. Bawolff 09:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Also why do you need admin to import templates? Bawolff 09:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Import is enabled for editors? Griffinofwales (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
No, but it is enabled for Admins, Importers, and Transwiki importers. --Diego Grez return fire 22:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Then I do need admin to import. Much quicker, plus I would only import the one revision. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed. We already have this; no need to have it again. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 10:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
    • If you want Twinkle, why not install it in your vector.js and tweak the links to exisiting templates? It's probably just a simple find & replace. — μ 12:23, May 28 2010 (UTC)
btw, there's no limit to the number of gadgets we can have, so if someone takes the time to import it, we might as well make it a gadget, and then people who don't want to use it don't have to. (sidenote: there was a previous import attempt. it got deleted due to what I currently believe was fud). Bawolff 12:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, where are you trying to extract the templates. Wikipedia is not compatible with CC-BY-3.0. --Diego Grez (alternate account) alt. talk 13:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
/me notes that we aren't licensed under cc-by-3 :P. and that has never stopped anyone before. Bawolff 14:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikinews Breaking News Mailing List

What would you guys think of a breaking-news mailing list? Kind of like CNN and the major networks have. We'd have to limit posting to a small group, (administrators?), but I think it would be a great addition for us. (By the way, sorry for the shortness of this. I've been writing practice papers for finals, and I'm a little burned out at the moment.) --Thunderhead (t - e - c) 20:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Err... scoop? Δενδοδγε τ\c 21:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Which was recently cleaned. It is currently set up as a distribution list, spam filtering is not ultra-high-tech, and you need to do some of your own.
If you mean you want something else, then use wikinews-l - it's really quiet as it is. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talkmain talk 01:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Besides, I'd have thought IRC is better for co-ordination of breaking news efforts. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Sandman, a mailing list isn't the best way to inform people of breaking news, since large threads over email are so unwieldy and it's easy to lose the ... ahem ... thread. :b IRC is best, followed by talk page. Tempodivalse [talk] 13:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think thats what he means. I think he means have a list intended for readers where we post breaking [wiki]news articles to, not a list for discussion (p.s. i disagree with tempo's assesment of lists in that regard). I think it might be something to look into. The more ways to get Wikinews content to the readers the better. (Of course there is the question of what is breaking news). Bawolff 18:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • /slap Bawolff.
Not something that can end up with "BREAKING! Glenn Beck unzips fly." FFS! We used to get the print-ed on iTunes, and sundry. A mailing list? Those are for the curmudgeonly of the world such as myself. We'd be better off posting to Usenet. I can arrange a live feed of all published articles to news://alt.hackers.malicious. :P --Brian McNeil / talk 23:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I've been meaning to ask how that was set up and the PE RSS feed also. —Mikemoral♪♫ 01:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Print eddition rss feed was set up by MrM I think (although it could of been someone else). He's now long retired. I could probably set up something on the toolserver if you want. Mailing lists are typically set up by devs via filing a bug request (you need community concensuss) Bawolff 01:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)