Wikinews:Water cooler/proposals/archives/2023/March

Specialty coffee expo in Portland

Next month I will be attending a coffee expo in Portland, Oregon. In the specialty coffee industry, the Specialty Coffee Expo and the talks given as part of the Re:co symposium are a big deal. I plan on covering the event for personal reasons (for my YouTube channel, blog, etc) but I could also contribute material to Wikinews, as original reporting. I'll be doing interviews, filming and photographing the event, etc.

Is that event noteworthy enough for Wikinews? Category:Portland,_Oregon seems a bit lifeless. I know many businesses in the city want to re-energize downtown after COVID and protests took a toll.[1]

A search for articles containing 'coffee' returns a few articles related to the industry, i.e., about Starbucks, or Tim Hortons.

Any thoughts or recommendations?

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

It's a bit niche, but it certainly clears WN:CARCRASH. I mean, look at the kind of OR we usually do — meaning OR OR, not just interviews: some Russian dude giving presentations on his travels in Crimea, the exciting happenings of women's cricket finals...of one region of one Australian state, ditto for men's rugby, people protesting in some small town in Australia — that takes you back more than a year. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but, by comparison yours would certainly be newsworthy.

It would also be interesting if, as I suspect, there will be no serious media presence. That, plus videos, interviews, helpful context for people who don't know much about specialty coffee, and you've got an FA in the making. Heavy Water (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Like Heavy Water said, I'd consider it newsworthy, too. Some of our WN:OR covers horror expos, furry conventions, etc. Video and photos would leave little doubt that you actually attended the event even if you are not accredited yet. Some of my own OR has covered minor local events such as a PETA protest and a water main break. I am not accredited, either. Cheers, SVTCobra 22:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@wikinews Twitter

Who has access to post articles to the wikinews Twitter account? Are we able to automate it so that every time an article is published, it is announced to the Twitter account? This may help with the problem Heavy Water mentions in the writing contest announcement above.

The Twitter account has over 5,000 followers so posting regular and timely updates to it would help improve Wikinews' relevance I think.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright: It is automated, luckily, thanks to Easy Peer Review, which sends all articles to the feed upon publication. The problem, as per Wikinews talk:Social media#Issues: since February, the feed has not been updated. Now, reexamining this, I realize the issue may well lie in the gadget, so pinging @Bawolff (the creator of EzPR) instead of the three long-inactive account managers. Heavy Water (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea about how the twitter thing is setup. All i know about is EzPR and the RSS feeds. Is the twitter bot reading things from the RSS feed? If so, i don't see anything wrong the with the RSS feed. Bawolff ☺☻ 08:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Your name??

This isn't a MAJOR proposal, just something I am mulling over. It has been an unofficial policy here for some time, that reporters using their proper name in an article is, at best, terribly gauche. I get it. People want a pinch of glory -- Heck, me included. 'Regular' print sources usually put the reporter's name at the top boiler plate of each article. Instead of (quite oddly, I might add) inserting it into the beginning of the lede, what if we do a micro-modification to our autoformatting that can (if desired) slip one's name into the top/bottom or whatever of the article? This can be done, quite easily I am sure.
In the article-proper, I just LARGELY CRINGE at anything broader than: "On Monday, Wikinews interviewed the inventor of the widget..." Comments? Ideas? Thoughts?--Bddpaux (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

We could change the Wikinewsie cats-e.g., Category:Bddpaux (Wikinewsie)-into ones that display in the categories sections of articles. They're currently invisible, so you can't find them in articles. Heavy Water (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I think if proper names are added to articles, Wikinews should have a way of verifying the name+person relationship to avoid problems such as impersonation, but also to assign more responsibility to the writer, i.e., give writers skin in the game with respect to their reputation being on the line. I assume some sort of verification happens before credentials are given. Is that correct?

I feel that if more Wikipedians used their real names it would cut down on the shenanigans that a name de plume make easier.

It's an interesting idea. In the case of multiple editors, they can be listed in order of contribution, similar to how research papers order authors with the principle investigator listed first.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

A. We shouldn't be elevating some contributions over others. Take this 2013 FA, one of a series that used a similar process: one user wrote the questions in English, another translated them into Spanish, did the actual interview, and translated the answers back into English, before the first user copyedited them (the second was not a native English speaker, to my understanding). Whose contributions were more valuable? And: does everyone working on a research paper really always get fair credit? Or are there power dynamics at work? I would argue even fixing a typo is an elevation of Wikinews' professionalism.

B. What exactly do you mean by verification? The understanding for an accreditation request is that everything you say about yourself when applying is true, unless you state your use of a pseudonym (which may require WMF disclosures). Lying about it would be grounds for revocation of credentials.

C. I was talking about usernames specifically. Bddpaux takes issue with things like "Wikinews reporter Patrick Gillett caught up with him..." because the author's name's been placed in the mainspace.

D. Although I don't think you're proposing this, I should note I strongly oppose any measure to require even OR reporters to identify themselves to anyone, anywhere. It contradicts the ideals of Wikimedia to allow anyone to edit — and consider people unfortunate enough to live under repressive regimes, like this. Should we require them to even identify themselves to the WMF? Heavy Water (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Speaking of repressive measures, there's this in recent news. SVTCobra 23:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The next day he renounced it...for now. Shit, this is crazy. Heavy Water (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Notably, he didn't say he wouldn't sign it if it passed. SVTCobra 02:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I am definitely not proposing wikinews verify the average editors' identity. I previously lived (for years) in Singapore where politicians can legally sue citizens for defamation[2]. I have also lived in Indonesia, where similar laws exist. I am sympathetic to cases such as those.

I was responding to this statement; "what if we do a micro-modification to our autoformatting that can (if desired) slip one's name into the top/bottom or whatever of the article?" I do see a benefit in figuring out a way to give authors credit for hard work. We do that before granting reviewer rights. Reviewers have done the hard work of demonstrating value to the project; value in knowing policies, abiding by policies, enforcing policies, working with the community, generating quality content, etc. That value elevates reviewers above regular editors in a hierarchy. I also (mis?)understood the "if desired" statement to mean if all editors/authors of a given article desire.

Lastly — not to poke the bear, but for the sake of good debate — are there not power dynamics in play in the reviewing process? Can't reviewers choose what to review and what not to review? That is a power dynamic and the project often benefits from it. You (Heavy Water) have demonstrated to me that you use your power justly. You have used your power to ensure that mistakes I have made in articles didn't make it into publication. That is a justified and valid use of your power (and very much appreciated, thank you). For that reason, I trust you with that power. You could just as easily have denied my review requests by simply saying "RTFM" but you didn't. You worked with me. So the way you exercised your power resulted in increased value for the project. If you want to get rid of power dynamics, relinquish your reviewer status and re-join us plebs. ツ That comment is very much tongue-in-cheek! My point is we can't get rid of power dynamics. But we can make sure they result in a net-positive for the project and also that we are ever-vigilant in their just & righteous use.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't think so, I was just expressing my opinion on that (I think that was what Bddpaux meant by "if desired"). I see review as equal to the writing of the article; we humans do make mistakes and that's why everyone's article's are reviewed in the same process, and usually get improved, too. But thank you for the compliment. Heavy Water (talk) 02:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I apologize if me bringing up the Florida legislative proposal felt like an attack on what you said. I do not think you endorse such measures. That said, I do differ in opinion on your 'skin in the game' argument. As an independent author/researcher you have a certain freedom others might not have. For the better part of two decades I have hid my identity, in part so employers wouldn't know I was spending time at work editing Wikinews. For me, and probably for contributors from far less free societies, the 'skin' invested can be pretty deep; even if unintentionally so. Cheers, SVTCobra 02:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

No apology necessary. It did not feel like an attack. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 04:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm finding it more neutral to include 'Wikinews interviewed ... X ... about Y' than to include a name. I'm not sure why. Perhaps because there are no opinion pieces here in the first place anyway.

When reading this discussion, I had a related question: doesn't journalist protection law require that a journalist identity is kept hidden from the public? How does this work? Gryllida (talk) 04:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Journalist Protection Act? Either way, I am inclined to think you mean to refer to the fact that journalists are allowed to protect their sources. The journalist can quote an unnamed source and not be forced to identify said source in a defamation or other lawsuit. Cheers, SVTCobra 06:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Implementing global abuse filters

Note: English Wikinews would be affected by an ongoing proposal on Meta-Wiki to enable global abuse filters to have local effects. A list of the global edit filters can be found here. Three filters are set to block users or block autopromotion, and a good number are set to either disallow edits or warn editors about certain sorts of edits. The proposal on Meta would require large wikis to opt-out of global edit filters if they do not want them, and I would like to start a discussion around whether or not we think that implementing these global edit filters are wise for Wikinews. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:04, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments

I'd rather ask local sysops on this matter, since they are the ones handling the filters presently. One should note the English Wikinews has long had an independent spirit, for reasons like this, this, this (The Signpost's coverage, not just the short-lived OpenGlobe, no offense Red-tailed hawk, though I know you weren't there then), and this, and that would have influenced the non-GS decision. The admin action situation is not that bad now; we have two active admins, and there's no imperative for spam/vandalism/etc. to be deleted immediately. --Heavy Water (talk) 03:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

On the whole, I'm not against the idea of implementing global filters, at least with the presumption that the en.wikinews community could opt out in the future if it decides to. Another consideration for managing the abuse filter is for a Wikinewsie to get the abuse filter helper privilege to make copying in filters from other wikis. I don't believe there's many if any currently active editors who are capable in managing the filters. Though I do see how enabling/not opting out of the global filters adds perhaps an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy in dealing with Meta. (I guess it should be mentioned I was a participant in the OpenGlobe experiment, largely to see how else a citizen journalism wiki could try to flourish). —chaetodipus (talk · contribs) 06:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Being a relative newcomer to the project, I have both an outsiders view and a poorly informed view. Take this with a grain of salt: On one hand, this seems like a solution looking for a problem. I haven't seen a lot of unmanaged vandalism here so far. Articles flow through a process that maintains relatively tight control over who can edit which articles and when. I also agree with and echo Heavy Water's comment above; what do local admin experience and what would they prefer? On the other hand, only two active admins may not be enough if the situation changes and unexpectedly there is an influx of vandalism. It's easy to imagine a situation where an article commenting on the war in Ukraine strikes a nerve and one side decides to vandalize the site in retaliation. Maybe the more pressing concern is the low likelihood of that article being written, reviewed, and published in the first place[3]. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 13:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I admit that I wasn't around for the time of the project fork, nor was I aware that the WMF was spiking stories. I've struck my comment above (for now) while discussion is ongoing.
I agree that most vandalism does not need immediate cleanup, but some vandalism does when it exposes a user's sensitive personal information in a targeted attack. I do have concerns about the sort of attack that caused me to be given emergency global rollbacker (after I hit a rate limit while reverting/deleting ~400 edits in the span of three hours) could happen again while both active admins are offline. Perhaps the solution here would be to do something narrower, like enabling a local rollbacker user-right, but I do think that the project needs to be a little more robust in our ability to respond to these sorts of attacks. A customized form of the global rollback user role, with the privileges autopatrol, autoreviewrestore, markbotedits, and suppressredirect all removed, seems like it might be a good place to start if we want to create a rollbacker group. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I certainly wasn't around then either, I only read about it. Heavy Water (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Votes

• Support. Most admins (including from this wiki) from my experience struggle in handling filters, and many of the LTAs that roam around here also do the same globally. By enabling abuse filters globally, LTAs can be blocked globally, often by members who are well-versed in writing filters and handling LTAs. Similarly, I strongly encourage this wiki to opt-in into global sysops; I've seen multiple instances in where stewards are hesitant to help due to this wiki being opted-out of GS. Leaderboard (talk) 07:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Support per Leaderboard. I also support opting into global sysops, since we have had issues in the past with the stewards being able to combat vandalism while all of our admins are away or asleep. I think that global sysops should be easily able to handle vandalism on Wikinews, and that they have the wisdom to not do things that they should not do (like reviewing news stories). I do have concerns about the extent to which meta admins may make errors that affect Wikinews, but I think the benefit outweighs the cost in light of the relatively small number of active filter-maintaining admins here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Struck (for now) per comment by Heavy Water. I have to ponder this more. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Submission to Wikimania 2023

Hi,

I'd like to make a submission to Wikimania 2023, about the 'Lbot' news writing software (link).

It will be for 30 minutes, type "Demonstration" ("In these sessions, the audience is given a live presentation or demonstration, such as technological innovation."),

Title: New draft writing with a chatbot demonstrated for Wikinews

Track: Technology

Language: English

Abstract: 'Lbot' is a chat bot, such as on the text-based IRC chat protocol, that guides you through the process of writing a new article. At Wikinews, the provided guidance includes collection of sources, evaluation of news freshness, and answering 5Ws in the first paragraph. The same software could be utilized for writing new articles at Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and other projects; perhaps packaged for Android; translated to other languages; and it could also be extended to include AI-based or other semi-automatic assistance with filling in new article categories and sources search.

Description: In this session, the process of using the Lbot chat bot will be shown to achieve completion of one new article at Wikinews, a sister of Wikipedia. At the end of the writing, the new article will be added to the wiki. Possible procedures for altering Lbot to make it suitable for other projects, or other languages will be shown so that interested volunteers can adopt it to their projects. Feedback venues will be shown so that the audience may write their feedback and send improvements to Lbot, and share their stories.

How does it relate to Diversity Collaboration Future: The demonstrated software will allow to include people who have common deficiencies such as

• you do not have one complete 30 minute block for writing a new draft for a Wikimedia project
• you do not have time to read the project rules and policies before writing your first draft, or find the project rules confusing
• you prefer chatting with a real person over creating a draft with a new draft wizard

Hopefully, this will helps make contributors from diverse backgrounds more comfortable with creating a new draft. Also, at a communication platform, it will be easier for participants to collaborate during the process of draft writing, as helpers will be able to talk in the chat and suggest improvements to the written text.

Experience in public speaking: Off-wiki experience presenting technical content and running a tutorial for a small class with about 30 participants in person or up to 6 participants online.

Format: Either hybrid; online live streamed and audience can interact with presenter in real time; or pre-recorded and the audience can not interact with presenter in real time. I chose the last option as I don't know whether I will be available to do this myself in live mode at the right day at the right time.

I will need to submit it before the 28th of March. Please let me know if you have any thoughts about the text above or the whole idea of showing Lbot to the wider audience.

Would you like to be a Co-Speaker? Would you like to suggest improvements to the above? Please let me know :-)

Regards, -- Gryllida (talk) 04:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Relevant link: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2023:Program/Submissions Gryllida (talk) 04:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@Gryllida: Looks good! I'm glad we'll be represented this year. Heavy Water (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Submitted. Gryllida (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

https://pretalx.com/wm2023/talk/review/9D99ZEX7GJXLCWMP9WXHWBX8GP8MFQ37 Gryllida (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I know this reply is late as the entry is already submitted, but I would have included more in the How does it relate to Diversity Collaboration Future. For example it could be invaluable to non-native speakers of English (well, here, but similarly to whichever language edition of Wikinews). Cheers, SVTCobra 07:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)