Wikinews:Water cooler/proposals/archives/2015/April
 |
This is an archive of past discussions from Wikinews:Water cooler/proposals/archives/2015. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current page. |
Possibility of a "Sister projects" report in the Wikipedia Signpost
Hello, all I'm a volunteer at the Wikipedia Signpost, the Wikimedia movement's biggest internal newspaper. Almost all of our coverage focuses on Wikipedia, with occasional coverage of Commons, the Meta-Wiki, MediaWiki, Wikidata, the the Wikimedia Labs; we have little to nothing to say about Wiktionary, Wikiquote, Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikispecies, Wikinews, Wikiversity, or Wikivoyage. I'm interested in writing a special long-form "sister projects" report to try and address this shortfall. Is there anyone experienced in the Wikinews project with whom I can speak with, perhaps over Skype, about the mission, organization, history, successes, troubles, and foibles of being a contributor to this project? If so, please drop me a line at my English Wikipedia talk page. Thanks! ResMar 21:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- We don't know much about Wikiversity here, since this is Wikinews.
- Unfortunately, given the history of Signpost's coverage of Wikinews, at this point anyone wanting in good will to cover Wikinews for Signpost would have the same problem as the boy who cried wolf. --Pi zero (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- re: Wikiversity. I wish I had the excuse that I was tired, but no, I left the computer, went to eat lunch, came back, forgot I had to change that bit, and cross-posted. Well, I've fixed it now. Time to navigate around, again. Tut. Resident Mario (discuss • contribs) 00:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Stuff like that happens. --Pi zero (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Pi zero: I'm aware of this, but surely comments from the community itself would be nice to see for others not involved, and reinforce your case going forward? Resident Mario (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Resident Mario: There is no "case" to be made, because Wikipedia has no claim to sit in judgement of Wikinews. Didn't Rita Skeeter use similar reasoning when trying to persuade people to give her interviews? The reasoning is a non-starter unless the prospective interviewee has grounds to trust Signpost to run fair coverage, and that's where history is against you. Signpost's track record is of consistently biased coverage of Wikinews. We generally don't even bother to comment at Signpost on distortions run there, because, why put time and effort into commenting in a forum that's evidently a hotbed of sororicidal anti-Wikinews sentiment, when the time and effort could be productively spent contributing to Wikinews? As I've remarked from time to time, I don't see a functional notion of neutrality at Signpost — it's a newsletter, so neither the Wikipedian approach to neutrality nor the Wikinewsie approach seems applicable. --Pi zero (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Pi zero: I'm unaware of and entirely disinterested in whatever history of entangement it is that you have with the Signpost. You can take your issues with the Signpost up with different editors than I—I'm here to write copy, same as you, in a slightly different venue. I take it that you will refuse to help with this particular project, but can you direct me to someone else who might be more willing? Resident Mario (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Resident Mario: am I/are we to understand from your remarks that those who gave us plenty of grief over the years have moved to doing other things, on or off wiki? --RockerballAustralia contribs 03:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- @RockerballAustralia: I don't know what the grief you speak of is, so I can't say. Resident Mario (talk) 03:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Resident Mario: This (plus the links there in) pretty much sums it up. --RockerballAustralia contribs 03:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- @RockerballAustralia: You have to realize that the Signpost doesn't take official journalistic positions on things. You, too, can publish an op-ed: see our submission guidelines. We want to be a voice for people expressing their opinions, and we're not exactly aggressively engaged in culling viewpoints. We'd published an op-ed critical of Commons] a while ago, and one critical of Meta a while ago. The difference is that, in the former case, a multitude of users rose up in its defense. Resident Mario (talk) 04:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Resident Mario: This (plus the links there in) pretty much sums it up. --RockerballAustralia contribs 03:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- @RockerballAustralia: I don't know what the grief you speak of is, so I can't say. Resident Mario (talk) 03:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Resident Mario: am I/are we to understand from your remarks that those who gave us plenty of grief over the years have moved to doing other things, on or off wiki? --RockerballAustralia contribs 03:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Pi zero: I'm unaware of and entirely disinterested in whatever history of entangement it is that you have with the Signpost. You can take your issues with the Signpost up with different editors than I—I'm here to write copy, same as you, in a slightly different venue. I take it that you will refuse to help with this particular project, but can you direct me to someone else who might be more willing? Resident Mario (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Resident Mario: There is no "case" to be made, because Wikipedia has no claim to sit in judgement of Wikinews. Didn't Rita Skeeter use similar reasoning when trying to persuade people to give her interviews? The reasoning is a non-starter unless the prospective interviewee has grounds to trust Signpost to run fair coverage, and that's where history is against you. Signpost's track record is of consistently biased coverage of Wikinews. We generally don't even bother to comment at Signpost on distortions run there, because, why put time and effort into commenting in a forum that's evidently a hotbed of sororicidal anti-Wikinews sentiment, when the time and effort could be productively spent contributing to Wikinews? As I've remarked from time to time, I don't see a functional notion of neutrality at Signpost — it's a newsletter, so neither the Wikipedian approach to neutrality nor the Wikinewsie approach seems applicable. --Pi zero (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Pi zero: I'm aware of this, but surely comments from the community itself would be nice to see for others not involved, and reinforce your case going forward? Resident Mario (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Stuff like that happens. --Pi zero (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- re: Wikiversity. I wish I had the excuse that I was tired, but no, I left the computer, went to eat lunch, came back, forgot I had to change that bit, and cross-posted. Well, I've fixed it now. Time to navigate around, again. Tut. Resident Mario (discuss • contribs) 00:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Resident Mario: I'd leave it. These are the people who called us "Those shitheads at the Signpost" little more than a year ago. Tony1 (talk) 10:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Resident Mario: I'm aware not everyone associated with Signpost is a would-be sororicide; I'm just alerting you to the magnitude of the historical problem you're facing here. You should be somewhat aware of what you're stepping into (or, stepping in :-). Some people associated with Signpost are would-be sororicides, as a matter of public record; we've just heard from one of those (the last time he came by here, that I recall, he openly admitted he was just here to troll); and that position has long dominated Signpost's de facto editorial stance. Not just in editorials. As I said, part of the problem is a lack of a working approach to neutrality for a newsletter. The Wikipedia approach of seeking a long-term balance of views can't work when things get "published" once and for all; and the Wikinews approach of reporting only facts doesn't work when commentary is viewed as part of the mission of a newsletter. I can think off hand of another aspect of Wikinews neutrality that could be applied to Signpost; but it wouldn't be an overall solution to the problem. --Pi zero (talk) 13:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Referring obliquely to Signpost writers as dogshit (the low, cheap joke: "stepping in") is very much the Brian McNeil/Pi zero style; it underpins en.WN's xenophobic attitude to the rest of the movement—particularly the Wikipedias. I'm sorry to see that it's as bad as it ever was. Tony1 (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Groan. This drama is too much. I'm not out to change the publication model. Nor am I out to mudsling. I just want to write a fluff piece on sister projects. It's really not so hard... Resident Mario (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Resident Mario: Groan indeed. A fluff piece would be good from someone who hasn't gotten involved in the slinging (and doesn't have excess trolling in their history). Flick me an email and I'll see what I can do. (Address is on the user page). --RockerballAustralia contribs 14:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Rockerball, looks like you are the troll and the mudslinger. I'm sorry to see this. Tony1 (talk) 01:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Quit it. Resident Mario (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Rockerball, looks like you are the troll and the mudslinger. I'm sorry to see this. Tony1 (talk) 01:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Resident Mario: Groan indeed. A fluff piece would be good from someone who hasn't gotten involved in the slinging (and doesn't have excess trolling in their history). Flick me an email and I'll see what I can do. (Address is on the user page). --RockerballAustralia contribs 14:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Groan. This drama is too much. I'm not out to change the publication model. Nor am I out to mudsling. I just want to write a fluff piece on sister projects. It's really not so hard... Resident Mario (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Referring obliquely to Signpost writers as dogshit (the low, cheap joke: "stepping in") is very much the Brian McNeil/Pi zero style; it underpins en.WN's xenophobic attitude to the rest of the movement—particularly the Wikipedias. I'm sorry to see that it's as bad as it ever was. Tony1 (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Resident Mario: I'm aware not everyone associated with Signpost is a would-be sororicide; I'm just alerting you to the magnitude of the historical problem you're facing here. You should be somewhat aware of what you're stepping into (or, stepping in :-). Some people associated with Signpost are would-be sororicides, as a matter of public record; we've just heard from one of those (the last time he came by here, that I recall, he openly admitted he was just here to troll); and that position has long dominated Signpost's de facto editorial stance. Not just in editorials. As I said, part of the problem is a lack of a working approach to neutrality for a newsletter. The Wikipedia approach of seeking a long-term balance of views can't work when things get "published" once and for all; and the Wikinews approach of reporting only facts doesn't work when commentary is viewed as part of the mission of a newsletter. I can think off hand of another aspect of Wikinews neutrality that could be applied to Signpost; but it wouldn't be an overall solution to the problem. --Pi zero (talk) 13:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
United Kingdom general election, 2015, 7th May 2015
Hi, various Wikimedians are getting together to cover the UK General election results on 7th/8th May. Bearing in mind this election is likely to throw up some interesting results particularly in Scotland, it would be good to make sure that Wikinews is also involved. Wikimedia UK is organising an editathon in London, which might also be an opportunity to introduce existing Wikimedians to the joys of Wikinews. Fabian Tompsett (WMUK) (talk) 10:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Subject to work and personal commitments, I will hopefully be there and can help people edit Wikinews and/or review their contributions for publication. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)