Are there "regional editions" of Wikinews? For example, would a person see a different version depending on whether they access Wikinews from, say, the USA, Canada, or England? I'm asking this because I'm surprised at how much of what I see here seems to be from my area. Thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- No, we don't have regional editions. The reason that we have so many articles from certain regions is because contributors like to write about there own area. Anonymous101talk 16:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Nope. Just me, BloodRedSandman, and Pi Zero cracking the whip and beating news articles out of you. ;-) --Brian McNeil / talk 19:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Whip! Task forces/WikiProjects don't really tend to work on WN, where we collectively tend to write whatever stories grab our attention at the time. Obviously, there are clear trends in each individual's reporting but for the most part we never tie ourselves to coverage of any specific area. There was an Australian project that worked well for a while, but it eventually became inactive. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Good point people for Wikinews to help new users?
Hi everyone. I'm looking to gather 1-3 contacts for Wikinews who would be interested in serving as point people for new editors from Wikipedia. I don't expect that it'll be too time consuming, but, just in case we have a new editor stop by the Teahouse who expresses interest in participating in media contributions and you can be friendly and welcome them and perhaps direct them to an area that might interest them. You're welcome to respond here, or even better, on my talk page if you're interested in being added to this list. Thanks :D SarahStierch (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I believe any changes made to the section that describes admins' authority should be specific, explicitly outlining their privileges.
I believe the version proposed by Pi zero is vague enough to be abused as in "I think I am right because I am me/an admin and you are wrong because you are you/not an admin, so I can voice negative opinions about you freely but you are engaging in misconduct if you reciprocate." It could be abused to exclude people based on disagreements rather than on policy. "I have three friends and we say we matter and you don't." This is based on my own experience here on Wikinews.
I highly, highly recommend that actual changes to Wikinews policy wait until after the global pandemic has passed, though I encourage Pi zero and anyone else who wants to to prepare their ideas in Wikinews essays and propose them for use as guidelines a few months down the line. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- There's no change to policy involved here. The policies exist. This page is merely offering a few explanations. (Now that you've drawn my attention to it, I see there are a few other bits that ought to be updated; some things have changed since a bunch of this was written.) --Pi zero (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree that the changes you are making are not substantive. They are substantive and the should be discussed first. Changing the wording from making no mention of "reputation" to adding the undefined and vague term "reputation," which can be abused, is a substantive change.
- If the community believes that these policies are out of date, then we should all work out a wording ahead of time.
- You're allowed to be WN:BOLD for changes that you sincerely believe no one will mind, but I'm telling you that I mind.
- That's two reverts. I don't plan another one for the immediate future, per our policies. However, consider this: You'll probably get your way. If you make a formal proposal, how many people will support you just because it's you doing it? Then you will have the satisfaction of knowing you went about it in the right way, and probably some improvements from me along the way. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
The introduction of the word "reputation" concerns me. It is clearly important to the proposer, but I feel that unless it is defined very strictly (it would take more than a link to WN:NEVERASSUME, which the proposer did think to provide), it could be abused. Anyone could accuse anyone of anything by interpreting that word in a different way each time. Although it would be my preference to leave the word out entirely, if it goes in, WN:REPUTATION should be clearly and concretely defined first. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- Darkfrog24 (t · c · b), already documented, see the link and Wikinews:Code of Ethics> please do not edit war or you may be blocked Gryllida (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- Your comment about edit warring is unnecessary.
- You've linked to the page on ethics, which does not contain the word "reputation." Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- Reputation is defined as "what somebody is known for"; this supports "never assume" by encouraging the contributors to only draw conclusion based on what they saw and know, rather than by making unnecessary assumptions.
- Example: Seeing someone is competent at reading a Spanish source in one place and report accurately from them and consistently for some time, that person can be deemed competent in reading Spanish sources. This is their reputation and is what they are known for.
- Another example: someone is not a native English speaker and misunderstood a source. This was explained to them and they didn't make this mistake again, but in their next article they made another mistake because of a vocabulary barrier. This person gains reputation as a foreigner who is starting to expose themselves to a new language. If it becomes known what is their native language, this becomes added to the reputation, and other people speaking the same language may be able to assist further.
- This is why the link is there. I do not think this should unnecessarily bother anyone; it is simply a statement saying that a person is known for what they visibly do on here, something glaringly obvious and I simply do not see how else it should work. Gryllida (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yes but known by whom? And where is the line between something that is true/known and merely believed? People can be wrong.
- I think the thing to do is to create an essay WN:REPUTATION to define all this. If I asked "Do you think drafters should have to address someone of higher 'reputation' as 'Enlightened Master'?" you'd probably say no, but the question "Do admins get to call drafters 'ignorant'?" came up today, and you clearly think they do. I'm feeling an undercurrent of "If you're a reviewer/admin," then you are by definition never wrong and anyone who says you are wrong is committing misconduct" and I don't think that would be good for the site. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
You were not called an ignorant, Darkfrog24. Stop deliberately misrepresenting that. Your decision to not know the truth and call my admin action an abuse of the rights is dripping with ignorance, for which you have shown no interest knowing what the truth is. Anyone who comments about something they don't even know about is indeed ignorant about that topic. This is not a place to put your questions. Please do so at the appropriate place.
19:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)