Wikinews talk:Welcommittee

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


Is there any way that we could possibly create a template, such as {[helpme}} WP that would add users to a category which would appear on this page? Thunderhead(talk) 06:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a very good idea!--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Voila: Template:Helpme.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I added a DPL. Thunderhead(talk) 01:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clean out[edit]

I think we need to clean the list of helpers out as we dont want new people asking people who are not present for help - wouldnt exactly be the best introduction. Anyone else agree??--Markie 19:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your right. (It seems like I just did that not too long ago). Bawolff 23:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right then as per this talk add your name to the list below to be added onto the NEW welcommitte list.

Past Welcommittee members[edit]

These were removed in good faith, because they hadn't been active for at least 3 months, and failed to re-enlist themselves in the section above, in the spirit of the previous discussion.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia charged with "bad information"

Hi, I posted a headline in accord with main page policy, and then I was illogically and unrepentently criticized for just posting a headline, even after explaining and asking for an alternative. In addition to the illogical criticism, this editor engaged in a content dispute for which he had no evidence (sensationalism).

This was a bad experience for me, that felt like being trolled. Right now I feel like telling others to avoid Wikinews. Is he just "one of those editors" to ignore/avoid, or worse, is he entrenched here, so I definitely need to warn others away? Milo 00:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, I don't think it would be fair to scare other users away because of your bad experience: there are other users here who came from Wikipedia, such as myself, who have decided to stay because of the friendly atmosphere. It's true that some users have a bad experience the first time they come here: we should work very hard to improve this, but we won't be able to show how we can do better if you tell others not to come; let them come if they want, and let them judge for themselves.
I'm sorry that your first experience was one were you felt bitten as a newbie, please don't judge us just on the basis of a single incident.
Enjoy wiki,
--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm new here, so....[edit]

I need a quickie orientation, if someone wouldn't mind. I'm an experienced Wikipedian so know my way around their guidelines and policies, but I've been interested in the possibilities of WikiNews for a while now so I'd like to learn the ropes; or how the ropes differ from those in Wikipedia, and how many leaps there are from proposal to published (as I seem to gather, roaming the introductory pages, there is such a process). I've only done minor edits on any WikiNews articles, so don't know if there's a distinct MOS or how anything like NPOV applies or what it is. There is of course a host of content across Wikipedia articles that is more current events, rather than being encyclopedic in nature; it is episodic, and I've wondered aloud at times if there could be a "move to WikiNews" template; sometimes it's whole articles, as with one now-deleted one on the snowmobiler deaths by avalanche near Revelstoke, British Columbia, last year or the one before; having a "see items in WikiNews" template to replace the material moved to Wikinews would help increase traffic, and participation, here at WikiNews, no?

I posted in response to Beleaguered British Columbia Premier resigns, partly asking what the "local rules" here were for the use of news blogs and political commentary/research blogs as news sources, and why that's important in British Columbia because of the unreliability of the major media, and their incompleteness of coverage on a range of important issues. Can only major media outlets be used as citation here, or any recognized source of reliable information and critique? In BC this isn't just journalist blogs or independent journalists, but also a vibrant political-blogging community, on all sides of the place's complex political spectrum. I realize now the article is about the resignation in particular, and wouldn't be added to like a Wikipedia article, rather follow-up headlines/articles are needed. Events are unfolding quickly in the now-buzzing Liberal leadership race, and an extendable (rather than fixed) article, tracking promises and statements made by teh candidates, and keeping track of news/background items on them that emerge (it's gonna get nasty, there'll be lots of mud, and there's lots of mud to be tossed, too). There's also a body of news items on policies unveiled, or which preceded, the resignation speech, which Campbell has brought to the fore - some like the new NRO Ministry they were not consulted on, like so much else, the destruction of the pharmaceutical regulation branch, cuts to child services sand other ministries, and talking more loudly than ever of the bright future that the partnership between goevrnment and business will bring to British Columbia etc etc - these news items are increasingly in the major media, but near-always after they come out in the blogs.

Another article could be the growth of dissent against the BC Rail guilty plea and its aftermath, and the mounting calls for a public inquiry into BC Rail, and now warnings that BC Hydro is being deliberately driven into bankruptcy so as to justify privatizing it - all set in motion even before the new Premier takes power in February (or perhaps March, he'll be "Premier-anointed", rather than Premier-Elect from the leadership convention to the time he hits Government House and gets the mandate from the L-G). There's also a possibility of a relatively snap election after the leadership convention, as Kevin Falcon, who just announced his candidacy, has suggested moving the HST referendum forward to June - in spite of mainstream media obfuscation that the next election will necessarily be on the fixed election date in 2013, but that just doesn't have to be so, at all, at all. And there still could be a caucus revolt, especially with Campbell hanging on like he is, and the way he is (amok), that could precipitate a minority government - a lot will hang in the balance at the leadership convention; depending on who wins the fracture in the party may not heal; better to avoid that and call an early election and rely on a sell job in the media, and hope that third party that's expected doesn't come out of anywhere; the NDP are in leadership uncertainty and their own leadership review convention is in November of next year, so part of the reason for Falcon's suggestion of moving up the HST referendum to June is potential election timing, as some columnists did speculate an early election would snafu the NDP, forcing them to go to election with an unpopular leader (she's not as low as Campbell, but she's low).

People don't want a government that got into power just by inheriting it from someone who had to resign under pressure of corruption charges and highly unpopular policies and too many broken promises (even for one year) to list here. The Liberals know this, hence talk of an election, and easing public impatience over the timing of the HST referendum - which was another unpopular move by Campbell, seen as delay for delay's sake. An election would also head off the very strong possibility of fracture of the Liberal caucus; the "rebels" are in a wait and see position, but many may follow Bill Bennett out of caucus, and it would only take five to give Carole James a shot at paying a visit to Government House; not having a sitting has been away to avoid both debate and the possibility of an actual vote of confidence being called on some hot issue (there's a lot of Liberals backbenchers that have had a lot of hard explaining, and dodging anger, to do with their constituents). BC Rail/Basi-Virk and BC Hydro and the highways and bridge contracts, the NRO - people are really mad, and this is only partly reflected in teh major media (though there's more and more admission of it). I guess what I'm saying, by explaining all this, that there's a lot of news coming from BC, some of it very hot-wire in terms of scandal or allegation, and probably the emergence of a new political party just as there has also been the emergence of an alternative media in blogspace.

Please note, I don't mean to blog here, and I intend to be as de-POV in any article writing as possible (though I do object to overly "soft" language, avoidance etc), I'm here intending to learn what it is to be a wiki-journalist and do proper news articles - I don't have my own blog (I have its name and may use it yet), but partake in other blogs and forums under this same username - and I don't have time to write a lot of these articles myself - alone - though would gladly collaborate with experienced WikiNewsers to keep track of important news. But I also want to know, as I said, about the nature of RS and VS here, or whatever equivalent policies/guidelines there are; and I'm not big on using complex citation templates...and while I realize editorializing in content is not in the mandate, and certainly not invective, I hope there's also policies about not "dumbing-down" coverage or summaries which bias in one direction or another....but I'd expect that reporting on what various columnists have said, or notable bloggers revealed or researched, should have equal weight with what the corporate media publishes....

I'm also "up" on current events in general, though I follow Canadian federal politics with the usual casual disinterest, and distaste, that is typical of most British Columbians; BC's politics are so much more....aggravating; but I may also take interest in certain international events articles; my thing is history, and geography, so particularities of reference or account that occur in news articles e.g. with historical background passages that may be in error in some way. I'll try and read around WikiNews more and see what I can contribute, or propose....but also, given pointers to a handy-dandy quick guide to how to write/sumbit a Wikinews article that I can also show to other writers, journalists and what their limitations are; the bloggers in particular I know would have to rein in their language; the point is to repreesent facts without editorial comment save editorial comment that exists elsewhere. But say, if this one professor I know wanted to submit an article, where's a quick guide for him to its ruling guidelines/parameters, and on exactly, er, which of the many pages there are here does he propose it....most people I think need a "quicker path" in to somewhere saying "hi, please submit your news copy here and citations, we'll launch it on the process for you and help you get it done". Being newbie-friendly, perhaps, but also to encourage some very dedicated "citizen journalists", as they've been called in BC, and give them a common focus/arena.

Some articles, like the unfolding story of the highways and infrastructure contracts, or as mentioned the Liberal leadership race, or any new Campbell post-resignatino policies, are not so much news as "keeping track of the mileage" on certain issues....could there be anything like, maybe WikiJournal, or WikiLog - or WikiMagazine, a wiki arena for Op-Ed type materials? BTW I also think there should be a "move to WikiTravel" template simllar to the "moved to WikiNews" suggestion above, given the amount of tourism-spam (and eco-spam, for that matter) that plague various Wikipedia articles (towns and parks mostly, in BC anyway).

Sorry just daydreaming in technicolour but like I say the possibilities of wikinews for being a dynamic news "wire" or information clearing-house are rather staggering; whether it's avalanche news or political/economic/social news. Another bout of Canadian news about to come down the pipe...or rather, the cable, that is.... some of which may very well be about British Columbia, i.e. the WikiLeaks cables, of which there are 2,350 concerning Canada. I've been waiting with baited breath; certainly a priority article proposal for the Canada project here would be prepping to pounce once those are released, and providing a full summary here (not editorializing the arch-summaries given in the major media; nearly eerything they're saying, and the politicians are saying, is trying to downplay the impact....but the WikiLeaks release-inertia is not going to leave Canada untouched, mark my words). If there's anyone here keeping direct track of the releases, please advise me - I'd be into helping with their coverage here....I'll read through teh collaboration process and other pages later; I jut wanted to cut to the quick and ask for a hand up, or in....I spend a lot of my day in Wikipedia that could probably be a lot better and more valuably spent here in WikiNews....(I hope there's not as much code/format-tweaking going on here as there, I'm interested in content, not design....). I know there's no formal connection between WikiNews and WikiLeaks, of course, just wanted to clarify that. But the time for a public news arena has come; making it more user-friendly, to encourage more participation and a role for it in the spreading and full coverage/integration of news, whether local or global; I know there's only so many Wiki-elves to go around....but with teh right cookies and milk "you" could probably get a lot more elves around, some of them very talented ones. Break enough big news stories, too, and WikiNews could become "hot" or "cool", whichever, sort of like a global news digest that, like Wikipedia, "anyone can edit"...well, not quite. And it's those "not quites" I want to know about, and how to make it easier for people not as used to Wiki environments as I am....05:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I only read the start of your thing (I only have a couple minutes right now, I'll try to read the rest later). Some initial helpful hints though - Wikinews is similar to 'pedia in many ways, but its also different in many ways (as you noted). Articles tend to be developed by a single person, (although collaboration is encouraged, it just doesn't happen to the same extent). Our equivelent to the manual of style is Wikinews:Style guide. Timeliness is also an area where we differ from wikipedia, since events that happened months ago aren't really news. Last of all, as a general rule preferred capitalization of Wikinews is with the n lowercase (Some people care about that a lot, others not so much). If you havn't already found it, Wikinews:For Wikipedians might be useful to you. Cheers. Bawolff 05:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New here, and...[edit]

I'm an experienced Wikipedian, but I'm new to Wikinews. All I'm curious is: even though I am somewhat aware of the time, I'm curious on if a page on something from August 5 (2012) would be news. I'm just wondering about this because I wanted to write about the Pocono Raceway lightning strikes from August 5, which killed 1 and injured 9. Though this was 6 days ago, would this warrant an article here, or is it considered old news/stale? ZappaOMati (talk) 01:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 5 would be a bit dated unless there was something in the past day or so that would make it fresh. Synth articles generally need to be submitted within 24 to 48 hours at the outside. Original reporting has a bit more leeway. --LauraHale (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As Laura said......dig around a bit and see if something (maybe re: the investigation into the fire??) has bubbled up today or yesterday.....?--Bddpaux (talk) 02:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of possible interest: Wikinews:For Wikipedians. --Pi zero (talk) 02:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been swimming around Yahoo for a while, and I found a small handful of sources from less than 24 hours ago (as of 02:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)). ZappaOMati 02:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind, what matters is when new information came to light, not necessarily the publication dates on source articles. --Pi zero (talk) 02:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. That. If there is a sporting event, for example as I tend to write sports, that is played on Friday night, it might not get reported on until Monday. Thus, it makes sense for a synthesis article to be submitted on Tuesday and still be timely. --LauraHale (talk) 03:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on the nature of the sporting event. On the other hand, an article from, say, AP, may continue to appear under successively later publication dates, but there's nothing new in it so the date that matters is when its content was first available. --Pi zero (talk) 03:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the event was the 2012 Pennsylvania 400, a NASCAR race. As for the sources, I'll deal with it later. ZappaOMati 03:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hm? For a Wikinews synthesis article, start with the sources. --Pi zero (talk) 04:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, do you know that when I said that, it was 9 pm here where I live? I was getting tired, so when I said that I'll deal with it later, I meant tomorrow (or today, as it is 7:35 in the morning right now). ZappaOMati 14:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, syntactic ambiguity. :-)  Noted. And it was midnight where I live (nearly 1am, when I replied).
Just trying to avoid misunderstandings; it's easier if one can be sure these things are understood ahead of time rather than try to straighten them out later after they've started sliding sideways. --Pi zero (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
.....and, I haven't been engaged in Civic Journalism long enough yet to have my own sayings, but if I did, my main one would be this: Don't marry your story! Get it, write it, submit it and move on! --Bddpaux (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So is it alright for me to try to write the article now, or is it maybe too soon/late? The 2012 Finger Lakes 355 at The Glen starts tomorrow (according to here in California). ZappaOMati 01:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it. Even if it doesnt get published, going through the review process is still useful for resubmission or writing new articles. My first one didn't get published either. --LauraHale (talk) 04:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly not too early.....not by a long shot......BUT, pick your news event you're writing about carefully. Will it be, 'The Race started', 'So and so won the race', 'so and so is picked to win the race'.......see what I mean? What is the event......I saw the Wikipedia article......(seems a bit odd to have an entire encyclopedia article about one race.....but that's just me)'ll need to determine what exactly the "news" is you're going to talk about, and write about that. --Bddpaux (talk) 02:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I already have my news event, which is located at the "Lightning strikes" section. I'm only intending on mentioning the race winner a few times, as he did state that he heard the strike. I'm not planning on writing all those crazy predictions and what-not. Overall, the title (for now) would be "Lightning strikes at Pocono Raceway kills one, injures nine". ZappaOMati 02:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds newsworthy. ....and on the topic of catch-phrases......If it bleeds, it leads. --Bddpaux (talk) 05:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright guys, I just created the page. Lightning strikes Pocono Raceway killing 1, injuring 9. ZappaOMati 16:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to submit it for review; that's part of what the {{develop}} tag is for, to provide a button with which to submit. --Pi zero (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Woops, guess I forgot. ZappaOMati 16:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You led, particularly in the title, with the oldest part of the story; so old it's history now, not news. -- (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]