Talk:Wikinews interviews team behind the 2,000th featured Wikipedia article

Note

{{original}} refers to the intro text, and obviously {{interview}} refers to the interview. Cirt - (talk) 11:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I see that {{original}} was removed from the Sources subsection, nevermind, I forgot that the {{interview}} tag has a bit of text about original reporting in there, as well. Cirt - (talk) 11:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible sources

Found some of these at w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Murder Madness and Mayhem#External interest and discussion, might be good secondary sources for background/discussion/analysis for this article:

• "Wikification" — Lumpenprofessoriat, April 2, 2008
• Larry Sanger. "This founder’s vision has not yet become reality" — Citizendium Blog, April 1, 2008
• Mark A. Wilson. "Professors Should Embrace Wikipedia" — Inside Higher Ed, April 1, 2008
• Jon Beasley-Murray. "Wikipedia" — Posthegemony, March 18, 2008
• Brian Lamb. "Is murder, madness and mayhem the future of higher education?" — Abject Learning, March 18, 2008
• Karen Munro. "Using Wikipedia to Re-envision the Term Paper" — Karen Munro, E-Learning Librarian, March 18, 2008
• Barbara Ganley. "Building a Course, Weaving a Story: Writing the Experience" — bgblogging, March 18, 2008
• Brian Lamb. "Wikipedia and new media literacies - a perfect test case is already underway" — Abject Learning, January 29, 2008

FYI

As a disclosure, I should note that I am involved in the "Murder Madness and Mayhem" project, by way of being the "Good Article" Reviewer for the article Augusto Roa Bastos. Cirt - (talk) 11:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Licensing

For re-use on Wikipedia I would like to request that all contributors dual-license material CC-BY-25 and GFDL. Please follow the given example. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

---

• I hereby license all my contributions to this article (mainly questions) under GFDL in addition to Wikinews' CC-BY-2.5 license. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• I hereby license all my contributions to this article under GFDL in addition to Wikinews' CC-BY-2.5 license. (Though my contributions to this article were mainly minor formatting and stylistic, but oh well.) Cirt - (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• I hereby license all my contributions to this article under GFDL in addition to Wikinews' CC-BY-2.5 license. --Jbmurray - (talk) 01:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• I hereby license all my contributions to this article (mainly questions) under GFDL in addition to Wikinews' CC-BY-2.5 license. -WikiBlue - (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

---

• I hereby license all my contributions to this article under GFDL in addition to Wikinews' CC-BY-2.5 license.--Katekonyk - (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• I hereby license all my contributions to this article under GFDL in addition to Wikinews' CC-BY-2.5 license--Mfreud - (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• I hereby license all my contributions to this article under GFDL in addition to Wikinews' CC-BY-2.5 license. --Eecono - (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost

I agree that this is suited for the Wikipedia Signpost. But I wonder if it suitable for Wikinews. Is it really newsworthy? Is this such an accomplishment that people should be interviewed? --SVTCobra 17:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is notable more for being an academic project making use of WMF projects. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Miscellanious bits and pieces

Monica, the word "weary" appears in your first answer in the section for students. I suspect you meant "wary"? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Good call. I was wondering about that word.  :) --Jbmurray - (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking good

This is starting to look pretty good with the answers coming in from the students. Could it be a Wikinews Featured article? ;-) --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Is that a joke? Are there such things? We'd have the double! --Jbmurray - (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Is everything in/done? Cirt - (talk) 22:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• We do indeed have WN:FA. :-) And I think this meets most of the criteria. There's been three Wikinews contributors worked on it (although I was the one wrote most of the questions). The interviewees edited it to introduce their answers, it has pictures and graphics, is in-depth, and although the content may only have a large audience among Wikimedians it covers a significant milestone for a WMF project.

There's a list on the WN:FA page of all those that have made it, and the process of getting there is slow, but I'm personally rather pleased with how this has worked out and believe the finished product is something that reads well and is easy to get through to the finish. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 10:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks for all your work on this. --Jbmurray - (talk) 07:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Quoting from the Communications Committee mailing list...

Brian, the interview was a great read, kudos to everyone who worked on it.

This is from Erik Moeller, the Deputy Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation. He has drafted a piece on this to go on the Foundation's new blog, and the aforementioned kudos has to mainly go to you and your fellow interviewees. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 08:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Erik Moeller. "From the Projects: 2,000th Featured English Wikipedia Article" — Wikimedia Foundation, April 14, 2008

From the blog post: "Wikinews has a fascinating interview with Beasley-Murray and two participating students." Cirt - (talk) 08:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Additions to article past date of publish

This article was published April 13, 2008. Let's try to avoid major content additions to this article past its date of publish. Cirt - (talk) 03:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article

Since this was voted a featured article (It's been more than a week), somebody should add the "FA" tag to it. --WNewsReporter (talk) 07:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Seems to have been done--SVTCobra 18:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Typo

{{editprotected}}
The article says "it's own". Either the quote is correct and [sic] should be added; or the quote is incorrect and it should be changed to "its own". Van der Hoorn (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Done — Gopher65_talk 21:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)