Wikinews:Water cooler/proposals/archives/2011/February

Wikinews:Wikinews Press Photo 2011

So, You are welcome to nominate the best photos in pl and other Wikinews used in articles in 2010. Przykuta (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

We have the final round. Let's choose the best photo: pl:Wikinews:Wikinews Press Photo 2011/Finał. Best regards. Przykuta (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Cut back on leads.

I propose that we cut the back the leads on the main page from 5 to 3. Right now, with our current output... 5 leads is a bit too much, articles have been sitting on the main page for up to 96 hours as I saw a week or two ago. I don't propose that {{Lead article 4}} and {{Lead article 5}} be deleted, but just taken off the main page and made inactive until our output returns to better levels which warrants having 5 leads. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

We just did that, briefly. Three doesn't work very well, being not flexible enough, so that the moment our output goes up even momentarily, we want five again; and manually toggling the number of leads between three and five is clumsy.

I suggest that for now, we take the time we would spend discussing this, and instead spend it writing and reviewing articles. Thus raising our output. (I made that mistake myself, above (not, not above; it was on the policy water cooler); better to spend time solving the problem than treating the symptom.) --Pi zero (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

How about if the output falls below five articles, we switch to using two blank articles for Lead 4 and Lead 5? -- kamnet (talk) 08:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Op-Ed? I recommend...

I understand why Wikinews would want to keep opinion out of it's venue, though the redirect to blogging is a little bit insulting. Wikimedia has proliferated from Wikipedia to many other application sites. Why not a "Wikioped," "Wikiopinion," "Wikinewsanalysis," or similar?

Wikimedia authorities or delegated administrators at such a site could/should then ride herd on unmitigated entries. The first stage of any such site would be noisy, but would also be ruled by you. With a little time and astute administration, a second stage of site life would occur: Several opinionmakers--new, reliable, diverse, uncompensated/unbeholden--probably would emerge from the cacophony. Though clearly an advantage of web-based media is an ability to inject new apps and evolve quickly with technology or information substance, I envision a third, more settled stage. In the third stage, Wikioped (or Wikiopinion, or other name as appropriate) would retain a set of regular contributors for about two-thirds of content, with one-third invited guests based on closer scrutiny (perhaps submission of a trial entry and CV/bio). In all cases, previously well-established op-ed writers and columnists could be excluded--unless they choose to go primarily independent, frequently with "Wikiopinion," and with only weak ties to any other outlet.

A potential co-evolved path could include a "Wikiforum," which would be a place for comments ruled by Wikimedia administrators. Don't you get sick of wading through the unfiltered b.s. on all the news comments pages, or forum discussion sites, or even blogs to find only a few good nuggets? I do, and so do many others. And though there are some discussion sites, particularly some very good blogs, mostly they are now little more than a vent for blowhards to release pressure into. "Wikiforum" could be the gold standard instead. Professional journalism and media outlets online count on those others being shallow, poorly informed, and noisy, so they stand apart from that crowd. Wikipedia and other Wikimedia sites have successfully use certain dynamics available only to online media in order to establish the reputation as the best reference source among sources, a gold standard of sorts. I believe the same could work for Wikiopinion.

Much of the rules for a Wikiopinion plus Wikiforum (or a merged pair) could be written into terms of service, and evolve right along with the overall learning curve.

The three stage Wikiopinion evolution, plus "Wikiforum," could take six months or three years, but odds are it would happen sooner than later. I believe this to be another potential Wikimedia win-win -- "build it and they will come." It would provide something valuable and currently unavailable: A collective place for new, good voices (and only good comments) about the news.

• I don't think a "Wikiopinion" project will ever occur, at least not by Wikimedia's side. Note the strong neutral point of view policy the foundation has (not linking to the official one, but this one works anyway). --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 01:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Who within WMF decides what is good and not good? What standards are used? I can tell you now exactly how it will go down. Somebody will get popular with one type of view point. Those who disagree will demand equal footing and opportunity to respond. Supporters of both sides will break out in flame wars. Eventually somebody is going to say something that is over-the-top and it will require a moderator to put a stop to it. At that moment people will then start accusing the moderators of being biased and will demand that they be removed and replaced with somebody less biased, which will then result in others targeting WMF and claiming that they're taking away the free speech rights of others and that they should be boycotted until some sort of "justice" is done. Once the mob leaves, the site will be finished and a former shell of itself.

On the upside, maybe Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann will take a swipe at it and drive some traffic to the site. ;-) -- kamnet (talk) 08:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Wikinews does not do editorials, op-eds, reviews, trashy gossip or other such nonsense. You want that? Lease some hosting and write what you like there; you devoted sufficient excess verbiage asking for something forbidden by policy to make a couple of articles. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 08:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

move "Share this" to top ?

right now on articles, the "Share this:" box is at the bottom of the page (email, facebook, reddit, etc)

should we move it to the top?
im thinking it might encourage more use?

also, maybe move twitter to before or after facebook, seeing as how popular twitter is at the moment?
also, why doesnt wikipedia have a "share this" at the top of its articles? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.166.117.72 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 22 February 2011

Please sign your posts so we can more easily see who makes suggestions? :-)

I just tried the social bookmarking tool and I noticed an issue. Twitter is converting the '+' sign to a space, and articles are not being properly linked by Twitter. Users may try to remove the space, considering it a typo, and won't be able to reach the article. Can we either eliminate the plus sign or find a way to make sure Twitter encodes it? -- kamnet (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't move it to the top. --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 21:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Why not? That would help us attracting more users (and attention), perhaps in a similar box, but more compact, at the right of the title. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 21:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Putting the share at the top won't attract more users, and is a massive undertaking. Content should always take precedence; and, the social bookmarks template is included through the published template. Any change to reposition involves editing every article, or editing ultra-high usage templates, thus forcing a huge database update on every single article. Lastly, the logical position is at the end; people should not be sharing something they've not read. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)