Wikinews:Water cooler/technical/Archive/4

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

Cologne Blue Skin[edit]

When you Cologne Blue skin, it says "The Free Encyclopedia" underneath the word Wikinews. Saxsux 19:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Legality of market data?[edit]

Has anyone verified the legality of the stock market data? On Yahoo Finance in particular, you must agree to NASD-supplied rules, certifying that you are a non-professional investor (investment act of 1934, I think) and that the data is only for your private use. I used to work at CNN.com, way back when it was new to the 'net; one of the things I dealt with there were the stock market feeds -- I did cnn.com's first stock quote CGI. And from dealing with all the legalese related the feeds, I know that companies do take stock market data ownership pretty seriously. I would think that a sufficiently motivated person could coax free stock market data out of some legitimate source, under the auspices of "for the public good." jgarzik 05:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand this comment. Are you suggesting that there is some type of copyright protection for raw, factual data?
If I started a service showing the price of chili at Wendy's outlets across the country, could I sue someone who republished the prices I had gathered? Could Wendy's sue me because I was publishing the price of their chili?
The rules you point to are referring to the proprietary interest in the real-time value of a market index. Once that data is historical, it loses the value-add of timeliness. Finally, all of the quoted indices are purely factual composites or averages of publically traded stocks.
Hopefully a qualified legal professional will explain some of the details of this case for us non-lawyers, but it's interesting to consider your question, so thanks for asking. — DV 09:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
First of all, IANAL :) I do not mean to suggest that there is copyright protection for raw facts.
Rather, I mean to imply that the _method_ of gathering such data could potentially violate some agreement that the data contributor agreed to, at least with U.S. market data. i.e. "how you got it" is more relevant than actually the data itself.
Anyway, since I really want Wikinews to succeed, I continue to worry about this area. — jgarzik 20:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Following up to my own post, a Google search turned me to FindLaw, where I found the following:

(a) Article I, 8, cl. 8, of the Constitution mandates originality as a prerequisite for copyright protection. The constitutional requirement necessitates independent creation plus a modicum of creativity. Since facts do not owe their origin to an act of authorship, they are not original, and thus are not copyrightable. Although a compilation of facts may possess the requisite originality because the author typically chooses which facts to include, in what order to place them, and how to arrange the data so that readers may use them effectively, copyright protection extends only to those components of the work that are original to the author, not to the facts themselves. This fact/expression dichotomy severely limits the scope of protection in fact-based works.

Even something as simple as closing numbers of the stock market are really compilations by a commercial company of an enormous amount of data, which is then averaged according to a specific set of criteria set by a commercial company (Dow Jones indices, NASDAQ index, etc.). — jgarzik 22:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I remarked elsewhere on this page, a "misappropriation of hot news" exemption does exist that may apply here (see http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/linking/doctrine/ and elsewhere). It limits the amount of real-time factual information that you can appropriate from others (as I understand it, but I am not a lawyer, either). DouglasGreen 17:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Beware that some European countries (I think, the whole EU at least) recognize a special protection for databases. That is, copying small or moderate-sized data from a database is legal, but copying the database in bulk quantities, with its structure etc., exposes you to litigation from the creator of the database. Submarine 06:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Readership stats available?[edit]

Is there any collated data on Wikinews traffic, such as number of page views per day?

When doing original reporting, this could help greatly if we could tell our interviewee "<nnn> people look at Wikinews every day". — jgarzik

Alexa provides a little data: Alexa Wikinews. → CGorman (Talk) 20:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If I read that right, it says over 2 million pageviews per day? That seems much higher than I would have expected. I'm guessing that includes all of the edits and Water cooler conversations, and not just people reading articles (the number interviewee's would like to hear). — jgarzik 20:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think you have misread the graph, which is a bit confusing and hard to read. To summarize it for you, the Alexa data records users behavior who use the Alexa toolbar. They find that:

  • Wikinews popularity is sharply increasing, from nothing back in November when it got started, to the top 15,000 or 20,000 sites in popularity today. That's not too shabby; the place I work for is not even in the top 100,000, and they've been in business since the 1970s. :-) By comparison, Wikipedia is in the top 100 of web sites and also rising rather quickly, today at #71.
  • Reach per million users refers to how much of total web traffic visits us. Currently somewhere between 0.005% and 0.01% of web surfers visit us. Wikipedia gets 100 times that. Of course, they probably have 100 times the users that Wikinews does with a several years head-start.
  • The average user at Wikinews visits 2.5 to 4 pages, compared to about 4 pages for Wikipedia, so not a big difference there.

It also has some interesting figures comparing the different languages. 74% of users visit English Wikinews currently, followed by 10% German and then the others.

I am not sure how all that translates into number of viewers per day, but I am pretty sure it is not 2 million per day. DouglasGreen 17:49, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I dug up a little more information. MSNBC is current #2 on the Alexa.com site, and the top news site overall. It currently reaches about 28% of web users (280,000/1,000,000). I found an article from 2003 stating that "MSNBC.com typically supports a daily hit rate ranging from 75,000 to 125,000 concurrent users." [1]. Notice particularly they are talking about "concurrent users", that is people who are on the website at the same time, not total visitors per day. As a young upstart of a site, Wikinews doesn't get anywhere near that. My guess would be something like hundreds of concurrent users, with a few thousand visitors daily. But that's just a guess, really. DouglasGreen 18:14, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've been having a look as well. A British broadsheet newspaper website gets around ten times the traffic we do. The RSS feed, btw, has a circulation of just over 800. It had been growing steadily in recent weeks, then jumped by about 100 after the Wired story, but hasn't really grown at all this week :( Dan100 (Talk) 19:18, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, give it time.  :-) DouglasGreen 23:54, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews and Editorials: A technical solution[edit]

Wikinews does not wish to have POV articles in the main namespace. However, Reviews of movies, shows, music, books, and so on are some of the most-often asked for genres of articles which we do not currently support. The other, of course, is editorials.

I have spoken with the developers and they are willing to set up additional namespaces, Reviews: and Editorials:, which would allow these articles to be included on Wikinews. Would adding these name spaces be an improvement to the site? I believe so, for the following reasons:

  • Almost 100% of the inquiries about article types we do not support fall into one of these two classes
  • Analysis of news events is not currently possible, and provides the other part of journalism which is sorely lacking.

Should Wikinews add this technical solution? - / 05:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Particularly, I don't like the name 'editorial'. It implies some measure of authority over the publishing process, and here we aim to remove that. Perhaps if you tried your suggestion again with 'opinion' or 'point of view' as the suggested title.
Personally, I have always envisioned that the discussion page of an article allows for opinion discussoins, and users have their own User:<username> space where I would accept people to post such opinion articles.
I think it's a good solution, because the User:<username>/ prefix makes it 100% clear that it is User:blah talking, and not endorsed by wikinews. That is the greatest danger, that an opinion piece, though clearly labelled as such, is interpreted by a reader as being 'Wikinews' opinion, not 'User x' opinion.
Perhaps this can be catered by making a new page Wikinews:User pages and let people list there what of their own pages they would like other people to read. This page could be linked to from the front page, or from watercooler, but I would not like to see the names of the articles indexed anywhere (at all!) except in Wikinews:User pages. This raises a new question though, about use of category indexing on user pages .. can of worms. I think perhaps we should just concentrate on news.
I don't see any need for wikinews to provide more than this, perhaps just using what you have available more and generating some cultural artifacts (eg user guide) that informs new users of this possibility.
I think we have too small a user base right now to split efforts off into the opinion realm.
I do think that wiki-style discussion on opinion matters can be good and useful, but I am not sure that such articles would be good drawcards. They are likely to degenerate into what some call 'edit wars' or 'flame wars'.
I don't think this genre fits well with the overall wikimedia policy of NPOV and I wonder if it might attract some criticism from the people who provide the wikinews system. I suspect that any such news analysis that falls within the realm of NPOV would be acceptable at wikipedia if very in-depth, or here as a news article if mildly in-depth and well referenced. - Simeon 03:11, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to see both reviews and editorials. But, we need to think of a couple of issues:
  1. Neither reviews or editorials are something that is fit for open, wiki style. Usually people want to express their own ideas, and I am not sure if collaborative work is any good in these situations. How can we deal with this?
  2. Another problem is quality control. How can we make sure that these articles conform to some basic standards? Like I said, I really like the idea, and I am all for it, as long as we can sort this out. --Dcabrilo 05:45, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am opposed to reviews and editorials on Wikinews, even in a separate namespace. I think Amgine is right that reviews and editorials are popular ideas, but I don't think that popular is the same as good. It seems like deliberately hosting flamewars, and I fear that it will drive away people interested in publishing NPOV news. To me, delivering NPOV news is an extremely worthy goal, and I don't want to risk that for the sake of a service that is, in my opinion, less valuable. Blogs already do the job fine. I would not be opposed to it in a totally separate namespace-- wikibias.org is currently available, but given how much trouble we have agreeing on facts, agreeing on opinions seems hopeless. Pingswept 06:42, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • NPOV and reviews and editorials don't really go together, as both are by their very nature written from a single PoV. Reviews of arts are always subjective, while editorials are inherently opinion pieces and blogs already make an excellent publication platform for that.
And as stated, the collaborative wikis doesn't lend itself to such articles. So, no, I don't think we should do it! Dan100 (Talk) 08:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Romanian Wikinews currently has an editorial system, where contributors theoretically take turns at writing editorials. In practise, since the community is very small, one person actually writes the editorial. So, I think it could work, but with a larger community it could be contentious. A lot of the time I've found myself not agreeing 100% with the editorials that Romihaitza has written at ro.wikinews. However, I've found that editorials can actually be written in a fairly NPOV style, in the sense of editorials that don't necessarily argue a certain point of view, but actually inform and look into a certain fact. They can sometimes give very interesting glimpses into certain ideas, and are therefore very useful to have. Do I support them over here for en.wikinews? Not really. I just think that, because we're a large community, people would disagree to much over editorials, and, as Pingswept said, we already disagree on coverage and inclusion of certain facts. When it comes to points of view, we're bound to disagree more. Ronline 09:32, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opinion pieces are simply out. NPOV is non-negotiable. So in that respect, reviews and editorials are out, too. As for background articles (i.e. articles that "inform and look into a certain fact"): Wikipedia is already very good at background and analysis articles, and I think that we should make use of Wikipedia rather than duplicate it. A huge encyclopaedia sitting right next door is one of our primary assets. (Just as a consolidated news service sitting right next door, saving Wikipedia the chore of quoting individual news sources — by linking to our Sir John Mills dies at 97 coverage, w:John Mills was saved the bother of linking to individual news services as sources — is becoming one of Wikipedia's primary assets.) Reviews we can do, as long as we do them in the form of news summaries, reporting other people's reviews. There's room for a review section in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy movie in theaters, to pick a recent example, citing movie critics' reactions, just as we have done "Reactions" sections in other articles. As such, there's no need for any technical measures. Uncle G 10:56, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think reviews are important, but need to be done as either just the facts style, or with quotes and fallowing original reporting standards (In normal name space). Another option if we have a new name space is to have a policy of not allowing changes to the substance of the review, only allowing things like spelling and grammar changes. --Cspurrier 22:13, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the issue of Reviews, I'll have to agree with a lot of people here: it can never be fully NPOV, it is by it's nature not a collaborative process, it is already covered by the blog community, and it could incite editwars. Of course, like Simeon suggested, there is nothing stopping wikinewsies from creating reviews in their user page or /sub pages. Even a link to such reviews in the main namespace might be considered, providing we can link to more than just one review so that readers don't find a single oppinionated text.
    On the issue of editorials, I'm a little fuzzy as to what is exactly ment by this. Are we talking about a review of news over a certain timespan, a certain issue or subject, or a summary, providing both sides of the story and maintaining NPoV? If I were the to take the only thing I know on wikinews to be near it, Eloquence's State of the Wiki reports, as an example, my answer would be: most definitely not. The danger of missing important fact, not giving a certain side of the story enough attention is simply to great, escpecially when written by only a single person, as is the case with the SotW.
    But if by editorial, something more in the lines of an in-depth documentary of a subject or incident or related string of news stories, then I'd be very open to the idea. With this I imagine some like the summary of the Chili Finger Incident, but with additional information and research not covered in the news stories themselves. And I also feel these articles do not belong on wikipedia, though they may be a very important feature to the wikipedia in the future if we can make it work. After all, in-depth research is an important side to (investigative) journalism that we almost entirely lack here at WN. We have articles that include live coverage by wikinewsies at the scene and we have articles that summarize information taken from other news provider. What we don't have, si articles that feature some old-fashion "digging" done by a wikinewsie, shedding an interely new light on a current developement without actually providing new information. These kinds of articles have a far lesser chance of violating NPoV, as research can easily be verified.
    This latter type of articles shouldn't only be allowed on WN, it is sorely needed. It doesn't need its own namespace and it needn't be hosted on wikipedia either. It is, in my opinion, the responsibility of WN to cover such research. -- Redge (Talk) 23:06, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quandaries -- Editorial: (the official opinon of the staff/or editorial board or author) is impossible since Wikinews does not have a static "staff" per se and would most likely take of vote of the Wikimedia Foundation board to exempt Wikinews from the NPOV mandate. Review: A value judgement and/or call to (in)action of the reader by the author is inherently POV. BUT - we could create a survey of prominent editorials or an index of leading authority opinions that could be NPOV - something like what I started with Wikinews:Film reviews but let languish. -- Davodd | Talk 23:35, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then perhaps we can agree on new terms for the proposed article type that we can all be happy with, and avoid the negatively charged labels Review and Editorial. -- Redge (Talk) 23:41, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


wikt:Editorial
A article in a periodical (such as a newspaper) giving the opinion of its editors on a given topic or current event.
An example might be an essay on the apparent contradictions between drug policy statements and military actions in Afghanistan by the Bush administration. Generally, an editorial has a specific opinion or argument to support, question, or justify.
wikt:Review
2. An account intended as a critical evaluation of a text or a piece of work.
5. A survey of the available items or material.
An example might be a critique of a recent book of general interest to the Wikinews audience, for example the soon-to-be-released latest addition to the Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling.
Some other examples currently on Wikinews:

As has been pointed out, NPOV is non-negotiable, so editorials are never going to happen. That's not a great loss, in my opinion. Reviews, however, that do not draw conclusions (eg saying "the new version of OSX has this new feature and that new feature") are fine. Dan100 (Talk) 20:41, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I vote "No". The site needs all of our energies for reporting news and stopping vandalism at this time. As Dan100 often says; if you want to express an opinion; "Get a Blog". Paulrevere2005 12:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see reviews of new music and movies on Wikinews. POV is not a problem as long as it's kept on talk page. The main page could contain just the general information on the record/movie, and the talk page contains editors' reviews. Cool, eh? Or maybe try to do "collaborative NPOV reviews"? It should be possible, even if no one did it before! Grue 15:53, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

News Dossiers[edit]

In the spirit of Be Bold, I just finished what I believe to be our first real News Dossier: the Chili Finger Incident. It features a sepperate category, infobox and a complete summary of the news items and pictures used. I also changed the wikipedia entry for Anna Ayala to link to there with a new template for news dossiers.

Few things that could be done:

  • The dossier needs to be updated
  • More pictures can be added if they are available
  • If we decide we like this format, we could use it on other subjects that have a lot of items on WN

So let me know what you think. -- Redge (Talk) 14:47, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first we did was: 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami - although your layout looks good. -- Davodd | Talk 08:18, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me: second Dossier. Although the tsunami article does not include a summary, it has some features lacking in Chili Finger. But then, it was a much larger scaled event. But perhaps we can set up some standard format for news dossiers, incuraging their use in the future? -- Redge (Talk) 20:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should. Makes it easier to set up. Perhaps something like the WikiProject template that is used on Wikipedia? Lyellin 22:00, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weather Bot[edit]

Now that DV's gone, a matter is up for debate: who'll host the weatherbot? We've already had some enthusiastic respons to it, and requests for cities to be added. We'll need to resolve this first, however. -- Redge (Talk) 20:31, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think DV volunteered to keep running the WeatherBot for now. I have a computer free to run it quietly — I'll email him this weekend about it. -- IlyaHaykinson 00:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you still need a weather bot host, i have a linux web server i can run it on, if it runs of linux, leave a message on my talk page if you need me to host it.--Ryan524 17:34, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page diff should also display comment[edit]

When a user selects 'compare versions' on the history page, the resulting diff page should show at the top the comment field(s) associated with the page diff. This will be very helpful, particularly it means one can give a url to a diff and have the readers see all the associated comments from the changes in the diff, very useful. - Simeon 09:36, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean with comment? The Summury entered with that editing? This is show AnyFile 20:31, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If the summary: is what he is talking about, I think this a great idea. You may consider posting this to MediaZilla at http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/ --Cspurrier 20:40, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The edit summary of the first and last pages in the diff are already shown. So, I'm not sure what is being asked here. - / 23:12, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
I guess they are, I never noticed it before, thanks. From rereading what he asked for it sounds like he wants the talk page to be displayed. --Cspurrier 23:23, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RSS -> live bookmarks code[edit]

<link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" title="RSS" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/WikinewsLatestNews" />
Please put this in the head portion of the xhtml... For this feature seen in Firefox. Thanks! Ross Uber 00:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have been unable to find a method to do this in Mediawiki without hacking the software, which I do not have access to do. There are a couple Mediawiki feature requests which may be related to this, especially Bug 522, so this may be added to the system at some point. - / 16:44, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Measuring the audience[edit]

May I measure the audience (or traffic) of Wikinews in other languages separatelly? How can I do that?

Measuring the audience[edit]

May I measure the audience (or traffic) of Wikinews in other languages separatelly? How can I do that? --Carlosar 20:32, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes[edit]

I've started Wikinews:Template messages/Infoboxes, as a central place to list reusable infobox templates. - Borofkin 04:46, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

www.wikinews.com goes to the wrong place[edit]

look where http://www.wikinews.com goes. I don't know if www.wikinews.com is owned by wikimedia or not, but most people would go to .com if someone told them to go to wikinews. Most (non-technical) people associate websites with .com , .ca/.us/.uk/insert country tld here, and then .org (maybe). Hope this is in thr right section. Bawolff 23:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


New Layout[edit]

I've designed a new view for the front page, using DPL, at User:Redge/Sandbox 1. For some color variations, try User:Redge/Sandbox 1/Pink, User:Redge/Sandbox 1/Green, User:Redge/Sandbox 1/Blue and User:Redge/Sandbox 1/Yellow, or make your own theme. I´ve also created an extended version which displayes all the headlines the current Main Page does, and filled the right column up with some background info. The result is a rather lenghthy but very complete Sandbox 2. Very anxious to here what everyong thinks. Perhaps it can some day be put to use. So far, I'm the only person using it. -- Redge (Talk) 20:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I noticed the test page work you were doing a couple weeks ago. I like how crisp and clean it looks up top. I also like the way the topics are revealed which shows the breath of reporting done here. I think only 2 days of headlines is necessary. Good stuff! Hope to see it implemented in some form. -Edbrown05 21:20, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like eliminating the per-day sections. DPL doesn't reflect the chronological order of events being reported, and isn't a substitute for per-day lists. The second sandbox is better in that regard. The second sandbox is also better in that it retains the links to the archives. I do like bringing more emphasis to the topics and regions to the main page. Both of your sandboxes are missing links to Wikinews:Submit a story, Wikinews:The Newsroom, and Wikinews:Workspace, which I think should be retained on any proposed replacement for Main Page. I disagree with Edbrown05 on the number of days. I think that, at the current rate of new articles, 4 days is better than 2. Having just 2 days' worth would result in the regions and topics overwhelming the days. This way, there is more balance. One further note: A 3 column format only works well at high display resolutions. Uncle G 00:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As Uncle G says, we really do need to keep the per-day Latest news listing. Dan100 (Talk) 16:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And DPLs just aren't ready for the Main Page. I clicked one story on Redge's test page, Mars Lander wesbite opens, and it was from Jan 17! Dan100 (Talk) 17:22, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I do like the colours and design of Sandbox 1 more than our existing Main Page though Dan100 (Talk) 17:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • For me, I really like all of the layouts. I particularly like the idea of reducing the daily news to 1 or 2 days, and bringing back topical sections. Here are a couple my nit-picky comments, minor things you might consider implementing:
    • As shown with the current lead article, many images use a white background instead of transparent background, and they consequently show very poorly against a colored back ground. For the lead article boxes, perhaps it would be better to have only slightly off-white background.
    • As a resolution for the multiple latest days, a small menu to the last three days archives might be used?
I'll see if I have time to put together a 2.5 column layout, with a different approach to some of items you have in the right column. And thanks again for pushing forward with main page layouts! - / 00:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
  • You should add this to the design contest
I'd like to add that Sandbox two doesn't use DPl for the latest news left hand column, but instead uses the {{LatestNews}} currently used in the Main Page. DPL might be perfected in the future (I've heared of plans to use publish date in stead of latest edit date), but the page doesn't rely on it completely. As for the other commoents: thanks for the input, I'll try and work it in as best I can. -- Redge (Talk) 18:00, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've added in some links at the top and brought the color back to more white. Any other comments? -- Redge (Talk) 08:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I like the changes you made a lot --Cspurrier 23:31, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I realise this is more suited for Talk:Main Page, but the discussion seems to die down there on a periodic basis, so I'll move it here untill it's resolved. I still think the new layout is ready to be used as Main Page. -- Redge (Talk) 16:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I like the colours and the boldness but think there's far too many categories & headlines - prefer the style where categories or places are in a box and you follow them if you want to. The frontpage should be for the top/breaking news stories, this looks too much like an automated news sorting service. Isn't it also likely to get rather repetitive? ClareWhite 14:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It may be kind of repetitive, but it also complete. It gives al kind of readers the news they want on a single page, encourages them to find out more. I've wound it down a bit by bringing the DPL count back to 3. -- Redge (Talk) 15:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Completeness is all good but not for the front page. It's overwhelming. The front page should be the shop window that makes people want to explore more. Stories should be ranked by the interest people show in them and when the contributions get too big to display everything there will need to be some creative ideas about ranking them. I think the rest of the design is great, but I just think it's too much like a portal rather than a living news beast :) ClareWhite 09:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not too fond of the yellow boxes. Anyway, in the U.S. "yellow" and journalism have bad commmonations. See: yellow journalism. -- Davodd | Talk 21:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

copyright link in source points to gfdl but wikinews is PD[edit]

In the html source for wikinews there is the tag 

     <link rel="copyright" href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html" />

which points to the GFDL as the copyright, but wikinews is actually Public Domain. Bawolff 18:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know. But I don't think it really bothers anyone, and I've no idea how to change it :-). Dan100 (Talk) 17:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Why does the Wikinews logo blink off then quickly on again when I roll my cursor either on or off of it in Win 2000 IE 5.0? - dcljr 22:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know - but one solution (admittedly a trite answer) is to try a different browser. I appreciate that may not be possible if you're at work. Dan100 (Talk) 17:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New Developing Stories and Latest News system[edit]

We've been getting complaints that it's difficult to move an article from Developing stories to Latest news. In response to that, I've implemented a system where all that a user need to do to have an article display in either Developing stories or Latest news is take advantage of the {{Date}} tag (already widely implemented), and have either {{Develop}} or {{Publish}} at the bottom of the page. This is achieved through a special MediaWiki feature called DynamicPageList. And the best part is, if someone changes the title of an article, the list is automatically updated! Hopefully everyone likes the new, easier system! NGerda 05:02, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I like. The only thing it doesn't do is flag articles that contain original reporting. Also, is the "Add article" link on Developing Stores needed now? - Borofkin 05:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your nice comments. The reason I left the "Add article" link is so new users can add their story as a link, which is how many of them figure out how to write on Wikinews. NGerda 05:42, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. So does this mean that we are closer to protecting the front-page templates, thus making us less vulnerable to vandalism? - Borofkin 06:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Quite possibly, now that it's all automated. The Lead stories should remain open, though, however, eventually we might have a voting process for lead articles. NGerda 07:06, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
This looks much easier. I'd like to see voting for lead stories too although it would probably be most effective once there is a greater mass of participating readers ClareWhite 14:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

DPLs do not work on the main page (this is exactly the same proposal made a few weeks ago by Kevin Baas). It completely jumbles up the Main Page, which makes it extremely hard to follow what's new. Dan100 (Talk) 17:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How does it "jumble up" the main page? NGerda 17:02, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
See here. I also refer you to here, and all the objections raised there. Dan100 (Talk) 17:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You do realise DPLs list by time of last edit, not the time the category was added, don't you? Dan100 (Talk) 17:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It was by date and stage category. NGerda 17:08, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Exactly - which means the list of news on any given day is totally random, and, if you read my link, mystifying to readers. Our readers come first before any technical jiggery-pokery. Dan100 (Talk) 17:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please raise those concerns to the MediaWiki people at #mediawiki. This system is being used to make it easier for new users to write articles. NGerda 17:12, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
The developers have known about this for months - we've had these discussions several times, long before you arrived. Either they don't view it as a high enough priority (likely, with 1.5 in test), or it's technically impossible (I don't know). In fact 1.5 may impact DPLs - that's worth investigating before trying this out. Dan100 (Talk) 17:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm not going to say much -- except that I like the phrase "jiggery-pokery" and will be using it frequently now. Oh, and as cool as the DPL thing is, in retrospect, changes to the layout or the mechanics of the main page might better be discussed before implementation than after -- if that's not policy, it should be. --Chiacomo (talk) 17:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. And there may be advantages to having the day's news be organized my most recent edit. NGerda 17:16, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
I prefer an automated system, it's simpler to use and will promote Wikinews. In the future we can add more dynamic pages using tags such as Science, Technology, Medicine, this would open up the realm of personalized news pages using dynamic page lists. Jumbled up? No, I like that it moves articles edited most recently to the top: I may be able to tell when an older article has been updated with new information. Usurper 17:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Except people don't want that - they want a logical list. You also haven't said how you intend to highlight original reporting, a very good recent addition by our founder. Dan100 (Talk) 17:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Um, apparently the people do want that, Dan. Look above. Original reporting can easily be highlighted with the right-side table I've created. NGerda 18:11, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Um, is there also a problem with caching? - Borofkin 00:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Same problem as all Templates on the Main Page. NGerda

Except that they do not contain our content! You also overlook the fact that many/most experienced editors write their stories off-line then upload straight to the day page - a process impossible with your changes. BTW I note Usurper has only been here five days, and has little knowledge of the site - as demonstrated be the fact we already have DPL pages for Science etc - I made them! Dan100 (Talk) 07:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dan, I was referring to Latest news and Developing stories, which do have our content and to view the latest version you do need to hit "Refresh". NGerda 15:08, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments Dan, but yes I do know that now. I didn't know it because I never bothered to -check- how the stats were done. Oh noes, just because I just joined I don't deserve an opinion! OH NOES! Hey Dan100, is this a Wiki or an oligarchy? Do you even listen to the other opinions because the consensus is that you're the only one who cares. Usurper 16:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I must also point out that I would find it impossible to continue updating the RSS feed - it would be too hard to try and sort out what's new and what's not. The feed serves 1,100 readers - that's a lot of people to piss off. Dan100 (Talk) 07:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I mean, have you never heard of getting consensus? And what is the rush? Dan100 (Talk) 07:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We're trying this out to see if it works, and apparently it is.
"You also overlook the fact that many/most experienced editors write their stories off-line then upload straight to the day page" - yep, i've written 120 stories offline and want to continue to do so; I have my own system of doing things that allows me to write quickly and I prefer it. It works perfectly with the existing system. → CGorman (Talk) 10:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You can still add stories manually with this system; the story will be automatically added once you add the

Share this:  E-mail this story Share on Facebook Share on reddit.com Share on LinkedIn.com Share on twitter.com 

tag. NGerda 15:08, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I will put the RSS feed back in — it contained Dan100's non-latest-story post one of the days, so it was fair to take it out for a few days. Dan, I think you might have put a post meant for your normal blog there by accident. As for the DPL: I think it's worth experimenting with the DPLs on the homepage. However I see the concerns about listing in this semi-random manner. I would like to see if it would work, so what I will do ASAP then is investigate allowing stories to be listed in the DPL by date of category addition. I will have an answer this weekend. NGerda — let's wait on the experiment until after I test that new sort method? -- IlyaHaykinson 13:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New editors have already gotten accustomed to the system, so what should we do? NGerda 15:08, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Apparently the RSS feed has already been put back in. -- IlyaHaykinson 13:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Concensus! I see your concern, somewhat, NGerda, but we're a wiki, let's come to consensus before we change things, especially something as big as the main page and editing systems. In the past, we've had very long discussions about changing them- and have not, more often than have. I'd favor making sure we're on the old system, then using a temp page to test out the new idea, and allow for discussion here. Also, keep in mind that older uses have an idea of the dynamics of the site, whereas new ones have not used it yet- there will always be new users who are not accustomed to something at the beginning. Lyellin 15:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
New users had been airing concerns about how difficult it is to move a story from "Developing stories" to "Latest news". I've created a Temp Main Page that's unblocked, a temp "Developing stories" and "Latest news". We can work from here. NGerda 15:24, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Just because new users have been airing concerns does not mean we need to change the system completely, and immediatly. New users have aired concerns over NPOV and such? Do we change? Not nessicarily. We discuss. That discussion, about how to move things, has been going on for a long, long time. And in reality, it's not that hard at all, comparitively to the first few systems in place, when this site started. The key is that those may be valid conerns, but they need to be discussed, not acted upon almost unilaterally. Lyellin 16:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See the Temp Main Page.

DPL Conversation[edit]

I like the idea of DPLs but as is they are not ready to be used on the main page. The sorting by last edit is a major downside to DPLs and makes them very bad for use on the main page. The DPL system is also a hard one for newbies to learn. DPLs also make it easier for a junk story to make it to the main page. You can tell when a story has been added by the fact that the day page has been edited, with DPLs the only way to tell is by reloading the main page and hopeing you notice it. --Cspurrier 19:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

DPLs are much easier for newbies- all they have to do to get their story on Latest news or Developing stories is put a {{Develop}} or {{Publish}} tag at the bottom of the article. The advantage of DPLs displaying the most recently edited story of the day at the top is that it highlights articles with more recent activity, which sometimes means a n update was made to an article. NGerda 20:20, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
NGerda, you're turning a bug into a feature. Using DPLs on the main page is a great idea, but it needs to be attached to the {{date}} tag, not to the last edit. Thats just WAY WAY too chaotic. People on RSS will be redownloading the same articles over and over again, things will show up in the wrong days, and articles from weeks ago that needed minor editing for posterity would end up showing on the latest news. I will support the use of DPLs on the main page only when the bugs can be worked out. --RossKoepke 21:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As the first entry says, I am using the {{Date}} tag. Articles are grouped by date. NGerda 21:30, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
I think, but don't quote me, is that even using the date tag, the articles still sort by most recent edit, (people who know DPL better than I correct me if I'm wrong). In that case, the bug issue is still there NGerda. I'd also ask that we not start a voting page till we have a fuller discussion o fhtis issue. 68.32.193.91 21:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) That was me. Lyellin 21:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Users other than myself have pointed out that there are advantages to having the most recently-changed article display first. It may indicated an update to a story. The initial voting will be to test out this system for a week, and at the end of that week, to vote on the system itself. NGerda 21:35, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
I would wish to write a fuller response, but I am about to run out the door. Please, votes are only viable if the entire community is going to be invovled, especially when people start soliciting votes. We don't need to do a vote currently, we need to get opinions and views. I know you like change NGerda. You've done some amazing things for the site, I thank you, but slow down. Discussion is what makes a wiki, and we can discuss this. Users other than myself have disagreed with you. So let's talk and try to figure out a solution - a vote won't change anything. Lyellin 21:37, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thank you Lyellin, I'll slow down now. I've created an outline so people can add their concerns to a list, which should help them get addressed. :) NGerda 21:38, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
I was wrong on my earlier mark. The arragement of links will only change within each day, articles wont "crossover" between days, therefore...I don't see a problem. The arrangement of articles within a day doesn't make any difference whatsoever, and I don't believe WikiNews even has an official RSS feed. --RossKoepke 15:13, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Ross, I think I need to clarify that. Each DynamicPageLists only affects one day, so it's only the articles within that day that get sorted by last edit. Since we are only publishing 4-6 articles per day right now, I don't see this as a major issue. By the time we are publishing 10-15 articles per day, I'm sure the DPL sorting issue will be all sorted out  :) NGerda 22:32, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Also, see Wikinews:Automated article listing poll. NOTE: Not really a poll (for a while). NGerda 22:35, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

As I've said before, if a reader checks the site in the morning, then comes back sometime later, it is very hard to see which stories are new if the order is constantly changing on the front page (yes, even if it's just within one day). Some days we have a dozen articles - how could someone possibly remember what was listed before, then sort through that list to see what's new? Our readers must come first. Dan100 (Talk) 11:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe this has been proposed before, but may I suggest we re-build the topic main page (using DPL to sort the latest articles in each topic) but with a Latest News box (limited to 36 hours, so at noon UTC it becomes just today's articles) just under the lead article? This allows us to implement Category:Published for the main page, it lets our regular readers pick up on the latest additions to the archives, and at the same time allows readers to focus on their topics of interest from the main page. It would also remove the real-estate eating topic/region menu. Redge built several layouts which might be considered, and which had received general approval last May.
In the meantime, having looked over the automated article listing program it appears to me to not actually reduce the amount of workload (the same number of edits need to be done, although to fewer pages), while at the same time complexifying the system - making it significantly more difficult for people who do not wish to use the new system. - / 21:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Every single new article on Wikinews already uses the system. All that the system is for editors is the {{date}} tag and the {{Publish}} or {{Develop}} tag, which is already implemented. This new system just removes the tedious steps of adding and removing articles from Developing stories and Latest news. That's all it does. NGerda 21:25, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Technical solutions and proposals are implemented when possible. The solutions page is a good place to see what has been done or found to make life on Wikinews a bit easier.

Random thought[edit]

Since I never use it myself, I am probably myopic in the next question: Does the Random page link in the nav bar - with its current functionality - serve any useful purpose for this news site? If not, should we replace it with a more useful link? -- Davodd | Talk 03:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind having that link to the real-time chat. I think that functionality is important for this quick-turn-around site. -- IlyaHaykinson 03:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
We do already have the a link to RTC in the sitenotice (which is really a "how to contact us" menu, and is a very good thing imho). But yeah, we certainly don't need the Random page link though - I've thought that before myself. I have no idea how to remove it though! Can anyone think of something else it could point to? Dan100 (Talk) 09:18, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Maybe it can point to an index to aid the reader - such as a SectionMenu-type page. -- Davodd | Talk 19:05, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You inspired me to redo the whole navmenu. So if people hate it, it's *your* fault :-) Dan100 (Talk) 22:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I like the new nav menu. index is way more useful then random page. Bawolff
Yes it looks and works better. Good job. -- Davodd | Talk June 28, 2005 06:34 (UTC)

tooltip for nav menu is incorect[edit]

the tool tip for the navagation menu are mixed up, wrong tool-tip for link.Bawolff 22:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fixed --Cspurrier 00:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! I'd missed that. Dan100 (Talk) 07:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

MediaWiki upgrade[edit]

Well, we're running on MediaWiki 1.5 beta 1, and the DPL still works. That's a good thing :-) -- IlyaHaykinson 26 June 2005 17:50 (UTC)

What kind of cool new features does 1.5 bring to the average editor? --Chiacomo (talk) 26 June 2005 18:37 (UTC)
I cannot say the same thing at the Spanish-language Wikinews. Julián Ortega 26 June 2005 19:33 (UTC)
What does not work on es.wikinews? Ilya: w00t! great job! The RSS feed / <catnews> died with the upgrade. - / 26 June 2005 19:57 (UTC)

Whats with the print tab? I thought printing already worked with stylesheets. The show changes button when editing looks cool. thats about all I noticed so far. oh, and image pages look more organized which is good. Bawolff 26 June 2005 20:54 (UTC)

Yeah, the print tab just makes it explicit. A lot of people didn't realise it went to a 'printable' page upon printing straight from the page.
I've noticed a few funky new things - the new images gallery is sweet (someone's going to tell me that was always there now, aren't they?! ;-) ). Anyway the big thing about 1.5 is that it's easier on the db servers, which equals a faster site. Dan100 (Talk) 26 June 2005 23:12 (UTC)
Then do you think we can have page counting turned back on? And this darned thing makes me preview my edit before it submits it. Any ideas on how to turn that off? NGerda June 26, 2005 23:18 (UTC)
Oh but there's a few downers - the rc dumpers are broken, as are Kate's tools (again). I'd just moved into second place on edit counts and was closing Amgine, too ;-) Dan100 (Talk) 26 June 2005 23:15 (UTC)

Well, I guess the DPL bug in Spanish-language Wikinews was fixed. Thanks! Julián Ortega 27 June 2005 15:21 (UTC)

Warning about MediaWiki 1.5 edit conflict bug
WARNING: As noted in MediaWiki bug 2572, if you encounter an edit conflict warning screen your changes will have been saved nonetheless. If you encounter an edit conflict, please check the edit history of the article and restore the conflicting edits that you have overwritten.

I'm getting 

  Fatal error: Call to a member function on a non-object in      /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/includes/EditPage.php on line 498

when i preview a page with an image and a caption. (specificly: [[image:US_Supreme_Court_Building.jpg|300px|right|thumb|US Supreme Court Building]]) Bawolff 29 June 2005 05:36 (UTC)

DynamicPageList update[edit]

So it appears that the upgrade didn't actually work with the DPL, it only looked like it worked because the old tables weren't deleted.

I upgraded the DPL. Please see new documentation at the Meta DynamicPageList documentation.

Brief summary:

  • added notcategory parameter to exclude pages in certain categories
  • default order now by date of addition to category, old order still accessible
  • controllable sort direction
  • suppresserrors=true to remove the warnings about no results, etc
  • mode parameter to control presentation (unordered list, ordered list, no list)

Read the docs for more. -- IlyaHaykinson 27 June 2005 05:05 (UTC)

Perhaps in the future you could make it possible to let DPL generate a list with dates, formatted for instance like this:
-- Redge (Talk) 30 June 2005 11:46 (UTC)

Possibility for DPLs on Main Page[edit]

As IlyaHaykinson points out above, the issues the community was concerned about with DPLs has been fixed with MediaWiki 1.5. Now, Sorting by category addition is available, as well as an option to not display an error message if no articles fit the description. Because of this, there is no need to maintain the system any more than is currently done when we add a new day to the top of Latest news. I would like to hear what the community has to say about this before implementing it. The system can be previewed at Main Page/Temp. -- NGerda June 27, 2005 21:28 (UTC)

So will the last edited article still be at the top of the list? --Chiacomo (talk) 27 June 2005 21:34 (UTC)
Nope. They are listed by category addition :) NGerda June 27, 2005 21:43 (UTC)
A demonstration in your user space, perhaps, is in order -- the coolness factor may be overwhelming. --Chiacomo (talk) 27 June 2005 21:45 (UTC) I'm an idiot and didn't read all of NGerda's comments in the original message above.. --Chiacomo (talk) 27 June 2005 21:50 (UTC)
The upgrade to DPL by Ilya actually allows the list to be sorted a couple of different ways. Check out the documentation at DynamicPageList on meta. /
NGerda: There are many other issues involved in modifying the main page to use DPL, as has been a running discussion on Talk:Main Page since the inception of Wikinews. I believe the current state of the discussions is to add back some level of the topic-based main page with the latest news (but reduced in length) at the top of the page. That said, there are still considerations for ease of integration to be made. - / 27 June 2005 21:45 (UTC)

I actually think that the time is ripe for an automatic listing procedure. I think Main Page/Temp looks great, and is probably very usable to newbies — just mark an article as "published" and it appears (well, after a cache refresh). -- IlyaHaykinson 27 June 2005 21:52 (UTC)

The cache refresh is already required to view changes on the Main Page ;) NGerda June 27, 2005 22:04 (UTC)
There are two primary reasons I oppose the automation process under the current proposal:
  • There is no way to create the initial article link using an automated process.
    Although it is possible to use the "manual entry" nested template, this creates two lists, and (assuming the process is integrated, and each file then gets the correct category applied) the resulting article will be listed in both. Which then requires going back and editing the manual list so the automated list will work by itself... In short, exactly the same number of edits as the current system. Plus the additional level of complexity. And the need for extra watchfulness to make sure newbies are following the process. And offending people who prefer to work manually.
  • To accomodate manual entry there will be two lists.
    Because there must be a way to manually enter initial links, there will always be two lists. Two places for articles to be found. Multiple ways to initiate errors. A top list and a lower list. New potential vandalism exploits. More-deeply nested templates, where subtle vandalism will be more difficult to detect or revert.
These are not my only objections to the proposed system, but I do not see how these can be overcome. - / 28 June 2005 06:52 (UTC)

I think that Developing Stories etc should continue to be manual, but that the listing of published stories should be converted to automatic. The only time we edit those pages is when we publish stories. It'd be easier to do that via the publish template inclusion only. -- IlyaHaykinson 28 June 2005 06:56 (UTC)

On this we are in complete agreement. - / 28 June 2005 07:00 (UTC)
Ok. So let's change the Wikinews:YYYY/Month/DD pages to have the DPL, as NGerda has been using them, and then talk about automating other parts after the dust settles? -- IlyaHaykinson 28 June 2005 07:04 (UTC)

DPLs installed[edit]

Blimey, I've been on-one this morning!

Basically, now DPLs work sanely, I think they're great. So I've DPL'ed the day page and Developing stories. But, I have also created Wikinews:Story upload for 'uploaders' and updated all instructions on the site (afaik) to so people can work out what the hell is going on :-).

There's little point in doing this change half-heartedly - just using DPL on the Main page and not on Developing doesn't make life for editors much easier, as Developing still needed cleaning out. So let's do it properly. I expect lots of people will be caught out by this but 1. better to do it now and get it over with 2. more experienced editors can help out confused newbies until people get used to it.

There are still some issues - we can't highlight ORing on the main page very easily (never mind, I don't think that's a big enough problem not to do this), and stuff on Developing is no longer dated. However, we should be fixing stuff up and publishing stories on Developing quickly, and anyway, lower on the list=older so it shouldn't be too hard to spot the oldies going stale.

Also, creating a new day page is more of an PITA. I think it's worth setting the day before's page up in advance so adding a new day is just as easy as it is now (ie just changing the dates on Latest news).

If you do feel the need to RV me, PLEASE use my user contributions and make a THOROUGH job of it - I do not want the instructions to get out of sync with the site. (But don't don't go back too far on 'Writing an article' - I updated the image section instructions after putting about 'publish' - oops.) However hopefully no-one will want to do that, or if you do, talk about it here first! Dan100 (Talk) 28 June 2005 12:30 (UTC)

Developing stories - should it use DPLs?[edit]

I note that NGerda has changed Developing stories so it's divided by days. I regard this as a backwards step - now someone has redo all the dates in that template everyday, which is an arse. Dan100 (Talk) 28 June 2005 17:03 (UTC)

All that someone has to do is make all of the numbers one higher (e.g. 26-27), which is as much of a pain as adding a new day to Latest news. NGerda June 28, 2005 17:06 (UTC)

I still think the use of DPLs for Developing stories is a bad idea. It is confusing, unnecessary and almost impossible for a newbie to use --Cspurrier 28 June 2005 20:19 (UTC)

I can't see how it's anymore confusing than any other use of DPLs. I also made great care that the instructions fully explained for newbies how to use the system. Did you read all the changes I made to the instructions? Dan100 (Talk) 28 June 2005 21:47 (UTC)
I did read your instructions, if using DPLs on devloping offered some great benefit, I would say go for it, but it only makes things harder. --Cspurrier 28 June 2005 21:51 (UTC)

What it comes down to, I believe, is this: Which is easier for the newbie to use? Yes, it's going to be tougher for us to get used to as we're used to the old way, but is this one better for new users? I believe it is. Simply, check this diff for Wikinews:Writing an article (which if a newbie doesn't follow, they are never going to get anywhere anyway). Which version is easier?

In the old method, you have to create a link and put in *Month DD as well - not so in the new system. In the new, a user does have to include {{developing}}, but the warning on Wikinews:Story upload clearly states this (and this is also highlighted in the revised instructions on Wikinews:Writing an article). Finally, publishing a story merely involves changing one template to another - and DS does not then need editing to remove the story, as is demanded now.

I also think there's a big advantage to a simple coherent system - a story either has {{developing}} or {{publish}} on it - that is consistent, simple, and easy to understand. Dan100 (Talk) 28 June 2005 23:46 (UTC)

As I have explained to you in other venues, it is my opinion that there should be no requirement to use this system in order for an article to be listed on the developing stories template on the main page. Furthermore, it is an unnecessary additional step which does not actually save any edits. Whether the initial link is created on the story upload system or on the developing stories template makes absolutely no difference to the amount of actual work involved in creating an article, and eventually removing it's initial link.
Furthermore, this system will result in articles which are not linked anywhere on the site, relying on their membership in categories to get them listed anywhere. If those categories were removed from the articles (by, as an example, a vandal) they would all become instantly orphaned. It can also be used to mess with the category-added date, in ways I'm sure you can figure out (especially consider the vulnerability the published template will engender.)
Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds... or some such famous phrasing. Inclusivity is one of the standards of Wiki. - / 29 June 2005 00:03 (UTC)
  • If the initial link did not have to be created on the story upload system, I would support DPLs for both developing and published articles. I think that creating a new story from a better template and giving it the {{develop}} or {{publish}} tags is a good thing; however, don't forget about the {{date}} template; that's a necessary component as well that newbies will need to remember to put on the stories. It's just as important that they use the date template as the develop/publish template, as I understand it. To address Amgine's concern of orphaned stories, I would suggest that we set up a special: page to list all untagged stories. If we have this, we can quickly find and tag all the orphaned stories. - McCart42 (talk) June 29, 2005 00:08 (UTC)

Until there is some consensus on this proposal, could we avoid changing the template to avoid edit/revert wars? - / 29 June 2005 00:28 (UTC)

In the interests of inclusivity, let's run both systems in parallel - therefore there is no 'requirement' to use the system, and whoever wants to use whichever system, can.
I will keep an eye on Newpage for orphans - something I anticipated having to do anyway, as I said above. Amgine, you seem to be raising more and more desperate objections - vandals removing cats from pages? Well if they do that now we're already screwed because of the number of DPLs and cats we already use. This seems to be more of an objection to DPLs in general than to anything specifically here.
And I'm not terribly impressed with your dismissal of a valid point about consistency of operation with Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...?! Perhaps you think people should be allowed to drive on which ever side of the road they feel like? (That would be inclusive!). You have made great play about how easy things should be (quite rightly), yet you now think this bad thing?
You can continue to use your old system (and anyone else can), and the rest of us can use the new one. You are free, of course, to register objections, but please do not attempt to start a lame edit war with me. You are so predictable that I even asked you not to revert me, but you ignorned me and did it anyway. Dan100 (Talk) 29 June 2005 09:12 (UTC)
I really do wish to avoid an edit war, as usual. I would much prefer if we reached a compromise before changing things which we know will cause conflicts. But that's a difference in approach to conflict resolution.
I would prefer not running both systems in parallel, as you describe it, for the simple reason that the main page will regularly carry duplicate links to articles in the Developing stories template. If an article is created using the DS, and the author then adds the developing template, it will be listed twice. But I'm not interested in edit warring about it at this moment. - / 29 June 2005 09:21 (UTC)

DPL use on the Main Page[edit]

I fixed the Developing stories sorting-by-date issue, and I think it's looks nicer than even our manual system. :) One thing I am concerned about, though is the Template:Story upload. No offense to Dan100, but I think the title needs to be changed to something more like "Submit article". I dunno. What do you guys think? - (NGerda forgot to sign, 11:57, June 28, 2005)

Who wrote this?
Anyway, I chose the name as it seems pretty self-descriptive - and discarded the idea of anything with 'submit' in the name as it could be confused with Submit a story.
The upload page is now (hopefully) back at Wikinews:Story upload because there are a lot of direct html links to editing that page across the site (as I said, I updated all site instructions too). So please don't move it, as you'll bugger everything up!
If you can come up with non-trivial reasons for moving that page (does the name really matter?!), tell me and I'll do it properly. Dan100 (Talk) 28 June 2005 16:59 (UTC)
Oh, now I know who you are. Re developing stories by day, see my comments above Dan100 (Talk) 28 June 2005 17:04 (UTC)

I've discovered one minor drawback to using exclusively DPL for the daily archives: the mediawiki software flags all the articles as orphans since nothing links to the articles. There is a solution which can work around this - use the DPL in the latest news template, and someone volunteer to manually update to the archive page from the latest news template. This will create at least a single link to each article. - / 30 June 2005 17:53 (UTC)

Page moves cause an article to jump to top of DPL[edit]

Just an observation that you are probably already aware of: when you move an article it is (I suppose) added to the category under the new name, so it jumps back to the top. See for example International Whaling Commission adjourns for private talks. - Borofkin 29 June 2005 00:48 (UTC)

This is true. Unfortunately, moving a page is equivalent to creating a new page and putting it into a category. There is nothing simple that I can do here. -- IlyaHaykinson 8 July 2005 01:51 (UTC)
Is this something we can work on fixing for the next build of MediaWiki? -- NGerda July 8, 2005 01:57 (UTC)

We definitely need to resolve this at some point; not just moving but adding something to the category moves it to the top of a "Latest News" DPL in that category. For instance, I noticed that the 5-year-old girl handcuffed by Florida police story didn't have Category:Florida on it, so I added it. Then, when I visited the category page, I noticed that it got placed at the top of the "Latest News" section, above stories about Hurricane Dennis! This is a big problem. Those lists should be sorted by article date, not creation/insertion date. - McCart42 (talk) 20:40, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

They should actually be sorted by the time the article was published. I'll see what I can do. -- NGerda 20:42, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

A technical solution for the DPL developing template[edit]

The discussions regarding changing the current developing template over to an exclusively DynamicPageList version has become over-heated, for which I take the blame.

I have come up with a potential technical solution which may resolve some concerns regarding inclusivity and simplicity. Using the upgraded version of DPL allows excluding a category, so publishing lists do not include (as an example) disputed articles. If the DPL were restricted to only main article namespace and allowed to search only for articles which are not in the published category (currently the system requires at least one category to search), then it could find all articles which are not published - including all developing articles.

With this change my primary objections to using DPL on the Developing stories template would be answered, with the exception of a mainpage link to creating an initial article link. This latter could easily be resolved, I'm sure.

There are, undoubtedly, dozens of articles which are not categorized in the article namespace. I'm willing to clean up the backlog if this will resolve the issues we're currently facing. - / 30 June 2005 21:51 (UTC)

You do realise that's well over 1,000 articles, don't you? Probably closer to 2,000.
I also expect that people will continue to use the developing tag, as it clearly highlights the status of a story and contains clear instructions on how to publish an article once it is ready.
a mainpage link to creating an initial article link - already exists, in two places in fact. Dan100 (Talk) 30 June 2005 22:00 (UTC)
<grin> Three, if you include SAS. But I mean someplace on the main page where a user can get the immediate feedback of a redlink - to see their edit has immediate effect on the main page. This could be as simple as the current manual list (regularly cleaned out, since no article which is not published would not be listed in the DPL list).
Using the developing tag would still be possible, and might be used for contributors to specifically request attention by editors, but would not be required (or even necessary) for an article to be listed on the developing stories template. - / 30 June 2005 22:06 (UTC)

what happened to browse by section?[edit]

what happened to browse by section, now its comunity portal? Bawolff 1 July 2005 18:59 (UTC)

MediaWiki behaves very erratically when the servers are under high load. This is one example of erratic behavior. Under high load, the software sometimes uses the default user interface messages instead of the customizations in the MediaWiki: namespaces. Try reloading, and in most cases, it should be back to normal.--Eloquence 2 July 2005 16:39 (UTC)

Headline section double entry of a news story[edit]

I tripped...

I manually posted the Judge orders Baltimore City prison to produce plan for improvement to the July 2 headline section before removing the developing tag. When I realized I hadn't changed the tag to publish, I changed the developing to publish while it was already in the headline section.

Later I noticed the story was listed twice, probably because I listed the story manually and later changed the tag. This is currently confusing to me and I'm hoping that my efforts to straighten it out succeeded.

The trouble I experience with using what I suppose are DynamicPageList develop and publish tags, is that due to the latency of the server, the user experiences uncertainty for a period of time. I'm not even certain if what I'm talking about is accurate! -Edbrown05 2 July 2005 07:09 (UTC)

The manual list has been removed now, so that solves one of the problems. The other issue you were referring to, the caching delay associated with DPLs, is a non-issue since users must hard-refresh the main page anyways to view any changes to templates. NGerda July 2, 2005 18:39 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Water_cooler/technical/Archive/4&oldid=869551"