Wikinews talk:WNN:Proposal

Initial Revision

This is my initial revision of the proposal -- please discuss changes here using proper headings for individual topics. --Chiacomo 20:47, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia content

How does including spoken Wikipedia articles sound? Wikipedians have already done a lot of work on it. We can have segments of Wikipedia content. I know it's not exactly news, but it is informational and would make WNN less "dry." --Dcabrilo 22:21, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And here is a link: Spoken Articles. --Dcabrilo 22:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent idea -- Full Reports and Briefs already include snippets from WP. We could certainly include full-length articles, especially if they're relevant to current news topics. If there's no immediate objection I or someone can change the schedule. --Chiacomo 22:28, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Could wikipedia content also be included in Briefs and Full Reports (already being done in Audio Wikinews). Selected anniversaries, quick facts, mentions of features articles, and of course, current events might be included... Any objections? --Chiacomo 05:49, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some of it already is. I would not object at all to keeping it and expanding it. --Dcabrilo 11:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A Full Report could be something more than just a recitation of all the news for a certain date -- the report could cite wikipedia articles to provide context for current events... For example, if the wikinews article discussed something the US Senate were doing, one might include wikipedia content explaining Senate procedure. In this way, a Full Report might be more engaging (NGerda's word and I like it...) to listeners and provide context they might not get otherwise... This would require more production time on the part of the contributor/anchor, but, this is a "Full Report". I imagine segments, or "shows", running to 10-15 minutes with perhaps a brief PD Music break... I'm just rambling, but what do you think? --Chiacomo (talk) 15:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Capitalisation of the name

Is there any reason why the "N" is capitalised? i.e. why not "Wikinews Network" - Borofkin 07:19, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's capitalized to create the WNN. NGerda 07:36, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Purpose of this proposal?

I claim no special authority or ownership of this proposal, but, when I wrote the initial revision, I understood the purpose was to establish the inital broadcast schedule (and by extension, content) of WNN. By initial, I mean that this schedule will stand until the network evolves and, perhaps, another proposal is presented and agreed upon. Is this not the purpose of this proposal? Again, this was my purpose in the original revision. Does there need to be a broader proposal for WNN? I personally don't think it is necessary, as WNN's initial broadcasts seem "a given" -- future broadcasts and the possible move to WikiMedia servers, I thought, would occur after the network establishes/proves itself. --Chiacomo 20:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are mistaken in that the proposal was for the initial broadcast schedule. The network as a whole needs to be approved by the community. NGerda 20:56, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

An additional comment to precede the one below: I wrote the initial revision after the conversation on the #WNN channel; the consensus there being that a proposal for a schedule should be developed -- this proposal. Another example, perhaps, of the assertion that IRC is not Wiki. --Chiacomo (talk) 21:08, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps someone should write a proposal for the creation of the network (although it already appears to have been created) -- which should include much information which is not included here including the actual purpose of the network (why do we need this), etc... I do believe, however, that if the community supports the schedule and content, that would constitute de facto support of the network. In that case, a seperate proposal might not be necessary. --Chiacomo (talk) 21:04, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dude, this proposal is the WikiNews Network proposal. It's WikiNews Network/Proposal, remember? The schedule proposal can be separate, but it is pretty well covered in this proposal.

"Dude", I think I will simply take a step back and see how events develop -- you seem to understand the process, to be concientious about forming consensus, and to have things well in hand. Let me know if I can help in some way. Do know that I support the WNN project generally; you also are aware of my reservations. --Chiacomo (talk) 05:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yup, and enjoy life Chia! :) NGerda 17:54, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I really enjoy life -- and poking you good-naturedly with my "objections and reservations stick"... :P --Chiacomo (talk) 04:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Shows"

I would really go without these shows where people get allocated time for their own stuff, both in proposal and really ever. --Dcabrilo 04:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why is that, Pechorin? I think it's a nice way for people to tune in at scheduled times for their preferred show. NGerda 04:04, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Can you first clarify what kind of shows these would be? If it's anything live and done by one person, then it will be very problematic. One person cannot present things in NPOV way. Everybody has a point of view, and even you include two or three of them, the host of the show still has the power to decide what airs and what doesn't. Besides, it's not really "wiki" to have one person creating actual content. --Dcabrilo 04:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It has been clarified. Wikinews World Report is a live World News segment with live field reports from Wikinews reporters from around the world. NGerda 04:28, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I think you guys are doing great work here with Audio Wikinews. You need to do a lot more to explain how anything "live" is going to work, however. If you are doing anything other than reading community-generated wiki content, then it represents a significant departure from the Wikimedia model. - Borofkin 04:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Live" simply means a live host that connects various Wikinews reporters from around the world to have a discussion about world events. At first, we will only cover non-controversial events, such as earthquakes, to ensure NPOV status. This kind of programming allows for Wikinews reporters to get more involved, and encourages WNN listeners to tune it at certain times, therefore inspiring participation in the network. I appreciate your concerns, and we are working on preparing a demo show to demonstrate what this report will be. Please, if you have any other problems or concerns, do not hesitate to leave a message here or on my talk page. And happy editing! NGerda 04:50, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that it is safe to leave to certain users to do stories on their own. Even if an event is contraversial, the reporter may not present facts accurately. Also, even earthquakes can become POV. E.g. if a reporter starts telling about government's reaction. The bottomline is that, like Borofkin said, it's not really what Wikinews is all about - collaborative work to present accurate and NPOV news. If somebody wants to do a show of their own, they can simply use Wikinews' material (recorded or not), but it should not be on WNN. There is nothing to prevent live reporters from expressing POV and/or misrepresent the facts. I do wish to hear from other users about this. --Dcabrilo 05:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I could easily accept and support a pre-recorded "show" where wikinews reporters present their stories, as edited and {{publish}}ed on wikinews, including any quotes used in the articles from sources. The quality of the program would certainly be better, as guests wouldn't have to worry about the "uhms", "ahs", and so-forth associated with live broadcasting because the program could and would be audio edited to its greatest potential. There is no reason that this pre-recorded show (that would, of course, be uploaded to commons and could be listened to before or after actual broadcast on WNN) could not run (only?) during a designated time slot on WNN thereby encouraging WNN listeners to "tune in" at certain times. Reporters would be just as involved in this scenario, too, I think, as it would be their voice on-air with the information they gathered. The community of editors would have time to NPOV and edit the article before it was broadcast and would conform, in my mind, to the wikimedia model. I'm sure there's something I've overlooked. --Chiacomo (talk) 05:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The just is something about a report being live. In regards to NPOV, users have mentioned that we would need to interview everyone with an opinion on an issue for the report to be NPOV. This is simply not true. Look at any Wikinews article. In many cases, only one person is quoted, yet this passes the NPOV test. This show will be no different. We could possibly reach a middle-ground by having the Monday and Wednesday shows be prerecorded, and the Friday show be live. NGerda 05:47, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

But, written articles are there to edit, and often are edited to make it (more) NPOV. Live shows as such simply cannot be edited and represent views of only one person, without community input. --Dcabrilo 06:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When you look at an article, it is in a live form. It is up to you to fix it. Live shows can easily be edited an rebroadcast, just as regular articles are. NGerda 07:08, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that's a fair comparison. First of all, radio has a different format. Once people hear it, there is chance they will not listen to the revised format. Also, hardly anybody is going to have transcript to those shows in other to edit them. The best we can achieve is to have somebody refuting what was said - which is in a way similar to edit war, but with another flaw that what was once said - cannot be changed (somebody else may do a different show, but nothing changes what one person said). I will not stand for shows where one person puts both an agenda and contents on. I don't think that most of the community would and I am sure that Wikimedia would not agree to host something where there is so much potential for POV. I agree that some of those shows would be high quality and NPOV, but we can hardly generalize and say that they all will be. Another concern is that recording a radio show requires a whole lot more than writing an article. For somebody to write an article, one needs exactly the same equipment as to read them, as well as some time and knowledge. For one to record something, they need a whole lot more time, equipment and badwidth. I am very sure thatin this case we would get a small group of contributors who would do all the shows. Also, many people do not have broadband in order to upload audio files. Nick, I do respect your enthusiasm on this, but I do think it's way too optimistic and not really wikiway. Anyway, if you wish, we could create an informal poll on this. I think it would give us a right idea of what community expects of WNN. --Dcabrilo 07:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All I'm suggesting at this point is that I create a demo to see if it works, before we immediately dismiss it. NGerda 15:12, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, that's fair enough. Keep us posted :) --Dcabrilo 22:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think that you should stop what you are doing, but you should be aware that something like this could be controversial. It could even attract the attention of the Foundation, and we all know what *that* means (actually, I don't know what that means, but it certainly sounds ominous). - Borofkin 00:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am aware that something like this could be controversial. Look up. NGerda 00:29, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

User shows in proposal

I removed User shows from proposal, for now, as it seems that NGerda was the only one supporting them here. If NGerda does some demo material and manages to rally support of the community for them, the wording is still in history to be returned :) --Dcabrilo 20:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well done. --Chiacomo (talk) 21:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Demo material

I've recorded a live demo of Wikinews World Report with Ross Koepke, and demonstrated the ability to edit live reports. The edited file was uploaded less than 20 minutes after the actual recording, showing that it is really easy to edit live reports and rebroadcast them. I think we're on the verge of something great here. Enjoy!

• Live version
• Edited version

I personally don't see what it demonstrates. The article about it was written. Why not just read it? If you need to clarify things, that's why we are a wiki. Here is what I see as potential problems right now:

• The person doing an interview may not be well informed or may have an agenda, so the questions he/she asks can be loaded or just plain irrelevant.
• The person giving an interview can say whatever they want - blatant POV or factually incorrect things - without anybody in the Wikinews community being able to do anything about it. Unless of course, the script was prewritten, but that's not really a live interview anymore.

I don't see how this is better then simply reading news after they have been written and went thru a wiki-process. I really don't. Do tell me if I am missing something, because I am still open to the idea, just not worked up really.--Dcabrilo 03:53, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dcabrilo, one of the main things I demonstrated with this is the potential to edit out POV, just as Wikinews edits out POV. Articles at Wikinews are live, and the POV gets edited out over time. This same principal should be applied to live shows on WNN. Secondly, the purpose of a live interview is to shed light on things missed in the article, or to serve the article up in a different fashion than a written article. In the future, we could do live interviews with various experts in fields mentioned in an article, making sure we properly and fairly represent both sides of an issue, and then use parts of those interviews in the article itself. It is fair to compare a live interview with a live Wikinews article. Wikinews articles, in general, represent two sides of an issue. They are still considered NPOV. With live interviews, we will make sure that we represent the same, if not more, number of views as expressed in a Wikinews article deemed NPOV. Peace. NGerda 04:12, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

How does this article exactly show that we can edit out POV from a live interview? Also, how do we protect against incorrect statements? Who can exactly choose whom to interview live in order to get different POVs? I propose that we interview people that we would, and if the quote is appropriate, use it in the article. Then when the news report is edited, just use their voice. But I just don't see how a host to a show can guarantee NPOV and factual correctnes. I really don't see the wiki process in this kind of shows. --Dcabrilo 05:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am merely demonstrating that a live audio report can easily be edited (for whatever reason, including POV) in a reasonable time frame, and then be rebroadcast; just like any Wikinews article. The Wiki process is being worked on; eventually it will be set up to that the subjects covered are wiki, the guests chosen are wiki, the questions asked are wiki, and once the show is broadcast, the show is then wikifiable, and it can be rebroadcast. It is only fair to compare Wikinews broadcasts to Wikinews articles. NGerda 06:17, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I like your idea about the voice quotes/article quotes. That makes perfect sense. --Chiacomo (talk) 05:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why just WNN? Why not an entire WikiCast framework?

Hi,

Been reading about WNN and having had some disscussions in the #WNN IRC chatroom, I'd like to put in a suggestion for a BIG idea

The BIG idea is to use WNN as the basis for developing a a larger WikiCasting framework so that multiple indepdent and diverse 'stations' can brodcast original programming in co-oprative and co-ordinated manner

I would also appreciate it if someone more aware of how to make formal proposals for new projects could make some comments or suggestion on how the WikiCasting idea could be developed.

The reason for wanting to have WikiCast stations is so that there is a choice in an era where broadcasting is becoming increasingly dominated by large entites.

We should start out with just one station, and as participation grows and kinks are worked out, we can totally expand. -- NGerda 18:24, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, it's nice to start somewhere. We are building the system in such a way that other projects could use and take on the concepts and code, but it's nice to have a specific project to start such a thing off with. --Kyelewis 07:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

"Broadcast Admin" Questions

1. What is the rationale behind the creation of a new class of sysop with the establishment of Broadcast Admins? 2. How, specifically, would their position differ from that of current WN Admins? 3. What could a Broadcast Admin do that a WN Admin would not be allowed to do? 4. Are any current users "grandfathered" in as Broadcast Admins under this proposal without a community vote? 5. Who is empowered after the community vote to promote an individual to Broadcast Admin status? -- Davodd | Talk 18:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Broadcast admins will have the ability to stop any program durring broadcast in the event it gets too POV or is just audio-vandalism. I (Ryan524) would become a broadcast admin upon approval of WNN, just as Eloquence was the inital syaop when the wikimedia foundation apporved wikines (because Eloquence proposed wikinews, and i am the proposer of WNN). I would also give the password to the web based icecast admin center to anyone voted to become a broadcast admin, with that password they can login to a web-based system where they can carry out duties, such as having the ability to stop any broadcast ect. Myself or any other broadcast admin could possibly be removed from power with a community vote (if the admin abuses admin powers) just as a wiki admins who abuses the power can loose his/here powers.--Ryan524 19:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate for admins to have a right to decide what's POV and what's not. --Dejan Čabrilo 19:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

They don't have to decide, its already known, what POV is, just as wiki admins enforce policies on the wiki broadcast admins enforce policies on brodcasts, the admins are chosen by the community as trusted members, and the community can still chat with the admins saying you know last time this show was on, it really seemed to get POV or why did you cutoff that last show? ect. But the powere to cut off a broadcast couldn't be given to everyone or it would be abused.--Ryan524 19:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

You probably pointed out the greatest flaw of "live shows" and "user shows" in general right there. --Dejan Čabrilo 23:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The reason "Broadcast Admin" was included in the proposal is that it might not be appropriate for everyone who should control a stream's functions to neccesarily have complete sysop control over the entire wiki. It is designed as a sub-set of admin functionality, rather than a seperate set of powers. --Kyelewis 07:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

'Mod Points' System?

In the same style as digg or other systems that use "points" to mod things, could this be something that would put people more at ease about wiki moderating of WNN content? Kyelewis 06:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean mod points syetm?--Ryan524 07:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The concept is that the community votes on whether a piece is good or bad, and it effectively becomes played if it is within the more popular of the current set, or less played (or perhaps not played at all) if it is in the least popular of the current set.Kyelewis 07:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I dunnno if that would be best, if somebody signs up for a show, they expect to be broadcasting then, however people can vote to remove a show from the WNN schedule.--Ryan524 07:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

My initial thought would have been for new shows to start of neutrally. However, this brought around a new set of thinking. New Shows might initially be recorded by the system and possibly played on a seperate "new broadcasts" stream, which is a similar concept to a show 'in development' or an audio article 'in development'. The community can then vote or through whatever similar to existing concept, 'publish' the article or show to the WNN stream. --Kyelewis 07:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Proposal modifications

User shows

As the proposal failed as is, and one of the issue seems to be user shows. For now, it seems they would have to be sacked for following reasons:

• They are a one man thing. Although everybody is allowed to submit shows (if it passes some kind of vote, perhaps?) it is not collaborative work, and looks more like Ohmynews or Indymedia where one person submits a story, but it's not open to community input. It also depends on one person's competence.
• Wikinews is about news. It's not about debate, opinions, one man analysis, entertainment, etc. Whatever a person submits as a show should be news, and that can as well be written as a normal article and then recorded.
• We would sooner or later run into conflicts. Who gets to get a slot, and which slot. Presumably, people will want to do things in the best time of their time zone, and no two shows can run at once.

The bottom line: this is hardly something that can be streched enough in a direction to make it acceptable by most users. World Report, for example, is de facto Nick's (NGerda) show. The program is interesting and has potential, but not for Wikinews. It is simply not editable. Interviews would have a great potential, but only if interviews were embedded into actual articles. --Dejan Čabrilo 05:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• To be honest, I don't think anything is going to shift me from my opinion that this is Wikinews, that is to say, a text-based wiki reporting news. Spoken recordings of existing articles - OK - anything more than that - start a new WMF project. Dan100 (Talk) 09:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Dejan, how did you get the impression that this was a "one man show"? I have stated repeatedly that WikiNews Network and Wikinews World Report are completely open to collaboration and community involvement. I even set out an open request for collaboration on the next Wikinews World Report, and invited others to host the show themselves. And about timing conflicts, many suggestions have been made as to expanding WNN into many localized networks targeted at respective geographic regions. Hopefully we can work this out. Regards, NGerda 04:04, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Beyond what you have said, there is nothing to show for it. You repeatedly keep saying how shows are Wiki, etc. but apparently most of us here disagree and can't see it working. You have not addressed any of our concerns, except for replying assuring us that there is something that we just can't see, but is there. --Dejan Čabrilo 04:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Dejan, I can prove that these shows are wiki if people would contribute. I have an entire system in place for contributing and collaborating on shows at all levels at Wikinews:Audio Wikinews/Wikinews World Report/August 5, 2005, and I made a link to it asking for contributions on the Wikinews Media menu, which you promptly deleted. All I am asking for is community involvement to show that this is indeed wiki; and the idea behind wiki is community involvement, which so far has been limited to Kye, Mr. M, and me. -- NGerda 04:56, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Broadcast admins

This still needs explanation. If we were either to stream or have on-demand kind of content, somebody needs to be there with access and technical knowledge of how to do it. So, how do we plan to do it? --Dejan Čabrilo 05:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

We would elect Broadcast admins the same way we elect regular admins. They would have a technical knowledge of the system and would be able to boot shows in necessary circumstances. This is all described in the proposal. Regards, NGerda 04:05, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Stream vs. on-demand

I wish somebody explained both technologies in detail and gave pros and cons. --Dejan Čabrilo 05:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can explain the basics - on-demand is the user pulling the content when they want it (I think podcasting - pushing the content via RSS for later listening - falls in the same category). Streaming is just connecting to a live stream (a la the BBC radio feeds).

On-demand is very easy to do - Spoken Wikipedia/Wikinews is this, and podcasting is trivial to set up (I think MrM has done this, I've done it too but with the lack of content, didn't bother telling anyone :-) ).

Streaming requires a server running streaming software and is more complex, and not possible with MediaWiki. If anyone wants that sort of technology, no-one will code it for you - you'll have to write it yourself! Dan100 (Talk) 10:06, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Dan, we already have a system in testing that is a MediaWiki-based streaming server manager. It is available here. -- NGerda 04:08, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

My view

It seems that this proposal is aimed at creating an entertaining network, à la CNN or FOX. I.e. engaging interviews, shows, etc. Also, it seems likely to become a place for people to fulfil their need for personal expression. Wikinews should be a place to get pure information, and we are here to write that information. We all have a place here to set agenda we feel needs to be represented more, but just like we can't claim articles we contribute to as our own, we should not be able to claim air space for ourselves.

I do think WNN has a potential, but only as a place to collect all of our written work. Also, we should probably concentrate more on creating Audio Wikinews good and stable and somewhat standardized before we proceed to WNN. --Dejan Čabrilo 05:24, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• This: It seems that this proposal is aimed at creating an entertaining network, à la CNN or FOX. I.e. engaging interviews, shows, etc. Also, it seems likely to become a place for people to fulfil their need for personal expression - sums up exactly why I see no future for WNN, certainly not as something freeloading on the back of Wikinews. Audio Wikinews already has the potential to provide all the on-demand audio we could want. Dan100 (Talk) 10:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

This is a very unfortunate misconception of what WNN is proposed to be. One of my goals with WNN is to be the opposite of an entertainment network like FOX or CNN. And the reason I see its potential as a Wikinews subproject is that Wikinews is the opposite of the online versions of these news sources. This is by no means "a place for people to fulfil their need for personal expression". I don't understand how you got that impression, but I assure you it is in no way what this proposal implies. Best regards, NGerda 04:12, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

INRE: "One of my goals with WNN..." - You do realize that if this is approved, you would have to relinquish all control and ownership claims over any aspect of WNN to the community, including its name, schedule, programming and format. -- Davodd | Talk 08:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes Davodd, and I have set all of this up so the community has control over it like any other wiki project. My statement above was the reasoning behind my persona involvement in the project, not necessarily what I will contribute to it. -- NGerda 02:51, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Update

A streaming Vorbis audio server (for proof-of-concept) will be functional sometime before the 4th quarter of this year. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 20:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)