User:David Shankbone/Wikinews

The most important question we are faced with: what is Wikinews? There are two competing visions. One is of Wikinews as a news aggregator, that filters stories down to basic facts like the Associated Press; citizens around the world reporting instead of professional correspondents. The problem is that it never materialized, and the side has lacked the "correspondents" that would make us anything resembling the AP. Instead, we had to suffice with taking wire stories or mainstream media stories and creating news stories from those written by other people. There is nothing wrong with those stories, indeed, they are the lifeblood of this site and we need them. But we need more.

The second vision is what I call WikiNewsweek.com. I think this site is far more interesting if the longer vision is of a fully-functioning alternative to Newsweek.com produced by citizens. Instead of seeing Wikinews as a wire service, or an aggregator, my personal vision is of a news magazine whose news articles are written in NPOV. News articles. Essentially, the non-interview content we have now. WikiNewsweek.com, in the long haul, will work to be a citizen-run news magazine, like Newsweek, with breaking news, but also with entertainment guides (I'm sure someone, somewhere would like to write something about what's on television that week, or what movies are coming out), interviews, features, reviews, polls, and a section about what is happening at Wikipedia (ArbCom, ANI, COI, new articles, etc.)

But things need to happen slowly. We can't be BAM! Newsweek.com. I think we need to experiment bit-by-bit because some ideas will work and some will not. We need to involve the Wikimedia Foundation to ensure compliance with their policies. We need to think logistics, but if we can pull it off, and stay true to our core purpose and policies, then I think we could create something groundbreaking.

Editorials

This is my very rough sketchy idea:

We create Wikinews:Editorials Bureau
Editorials will serve as a place for people to brainstorm ideas, themes and current events that they would like to see addressed.
Threads on Wikinews talk:Editorials will develop questions and issues they would like to see addressed, and who they would like to invite to write a short, 500-1000 word editorial on the topic. For instance, one thread might have "Consumerism" as a topic and they want Reverend Billy to write about "Consumerism in the Second Millennium" and a counter-point guest would be someone from the Federation of American Malls, or something. Another thread might want to ask two economic analysts to discuss the merits or pitfalls of the Flat Tax.
Once a thread has come up with a theme/question and a list of people they would like to invite to write on the subject, their Editorial Proposal is put up for a vote by the community. It is a simple up or down vote.

Why this does not harm our policies:

NPOV is a policy that is relevant for news reporting, but does not apply to interviews, editorials, reviews, etc.
A citizen news site should allow for communal consensus to function in an editorial capacity, thus fulfilling a vital role of most news organizations
By inviting differing views, although not all views, we allow the reader to recognize that issues are multi-dimensional.
Interviews with notable people, such as the President of Israel, are undeniably news. But they are undeniably that person's opinion throughout. Thus, inviting two competing viewpoints to discuss an issue is essentially the same thing.

Why we need to do this:

Wikinews risks becoming an anachronism. News sites today are more dynamic, and we exist to be a place where anybody can write the news. Making editorial decision on who will present opinions to us (perhaps one day it will be an honor to be invited by Wikinews to write about an issue for their readers) is still giving citizens a hand in the writing of the news. Even more interesting, they can write news stories, but they can also take part in the editorial decision-making process. I think as a first step towards WikiNewsweek.com, this concept will attract more contributors, make the site more interesting, and will breath new life into what has become a fledgling sapling in the shadow of the Great Oak of Wikipedia.

Suggestions and Comments About Rules

Unless I have misunderstood, I agree with the idea (item 1) of an Editorial Bureau where people generate proposals (item 2). I would suggest that the rules only allows proposals to develop under consensus or a majority vote, that would prevent editorials from becoming just another opinion tab. Further, I agree with an invitation only election system (item 3) to determine who writes the editorials; although, the potential problem is that a certain amount of bias could be built into that system. For instance, if a group of people in the U.S.A. outnumber other groups at the English Wikinews sight, they could usurp other editorial viewpoints by only allowing users known to have a bias toward that majority. Perhaps the solution to that is already stated in item 3 where counter-point guests are mentioned. I would suggest another rule (item 5): Each editorial is designated with a disclaimer indemnifying Wikinews in such a way that protects Wikinews. That would require some sort of professional legal assistance to create the disclaimer. Charlessauer - (talk) 09:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Can this go here, or should it be moved to the talk page? Anyways, I like the idea of having editorials, a debate between two persons would also be very nice. I would like to see maybe in 2020 election, Wikinews hosting it's own presidential primary debates with major candidates. Heck, who knows within a few years we could be have a debate with minor party candidates filling a gap that the regular media doesn't. --TUFKAAP - (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I think if we can get a well-run Wikinews:Editorials Bureau it can coordinate some kind of debate format in the next Presidential election, like YouTube, Facebook, et. al. --David Shankbone - (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest if you want to create such a site then you launch it yourself rather than trying to turn Wikinews into your "personal vision", something which the WMF will never see appropriate. NPOV is a key principle and when we start allow content to opt out of this we are asking for trouble. One of the ideas behind Wikinews is that is does draw on articles by other news agencies with the intention of presenting material in a neutral position which other agencies might not do so. Interviews past, future, or present, should and can comply with NPOV despite it being based upon the opinion of one person or group. If, for example, you interview someone from "Anonymous" then you should at the end be summarising the opposing view of the Church of Scientology. Doing so provides a more balanced article and gives the reader an improved sense of the context of what is being said.

Last weekends Scientology protests provide an indication of the potential for the project. Wikinews was able to provide coverage and photos from many different locations worldwide, showing how when we work together we produce good results. Rather than looking for something new for the site to do which is leading us away from the aims of the project, we should recognise that things will take time to develop. Most (all?) of us are taking our first steps in journalism and we can't expect to be competing with the likes of the BBC just yet. Why is this discussion concerning a significant proposal taking place in a user's space? Adambro - (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Adambro, in case you haven't noticed, a lot of people want to discuss this idea for Wikinews. A lot of people feel our policies for NPOV for news articles does not counteract coming up with an editorial process to create more original content that is news related. As far as the Userspace, right now nothing is being proposed, ideas are simply being discussed. Where we create the idea to propose to the wider Wikinews community for a vote is irrelevant. Anyone is welcome to participate, and once the idea is more fully formed into something that can be proposed, then will move to it to the water cooler. --David Shankbone - (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"NPOV is a policy that is relevant for news reporting, but does not apply to interviews, editorials, reviews, etc." Too me that reads like, NPOV is a policy relevant to everything, unless its inconvenient, then it is relevent to whatever we want it to be. The whole idea behind npov is that it is universal; If you sneeze, then you better sneeze neutrally. The loophole being non-main namespace stuff (e.g.user space editorials). Anyways, I have concerns this is a slippery slope, and you definitly would have to rewrite npov for this, it can't just not apply to some sections. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

But NPOV is sacrosanct for facts-based reporting. Why is everything we do on here have to be facts-based reporting? That is not the end all and be all of this site. We want to be a news site, and news sites carry editorials. It's standard, especially if they are notable. It's really not that different from an interview now. --David Shankbone - (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is my editorial: I find it odd that Wikinews, Wikipedia and all of the other Wikis appear to be based on the precedence of open source software, yet they simultaneously appear to be dominated by groups that fear for the usurpation of original ideas, mainstream innovation, and research. In contrast, open source software attempts to be innovative, original and driven by research and a commitment to maintenance. Wikis, in contrast, rather than fostering pro bono work, tend to foster ad hoc work. The NPOV policy assertion against something that is relatively benign, like book reviews, sports commentaries, or even editorials where those have known controls and disclaimers exemplifies this assertion, since Wikinews already allows unedited and even anonymous opinions under an “opinion tab”. Charlessauer - (talk) 09:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

My Two Cents

Firstly, let me spell out that I'm not out-and-out opposed to this idea, and I thank David Shankbone for bringing up this proposal. However, I do have a number of concerns:

Editorials, by definition, are not NPOV. They exist to push a POV. I'm not sure how much the foundation would enjoy us declaring a swathe of pages to be exempt from that policy.
With regards to POV, what safeguards will be put in place to ensure that the Editorials Bureau is not hijacked by users of a particular political persuasion? I'm not comfortable with the idea of Wikinews constantly shifting large volumes of far-left/far-right/far-libertarian editorial content out of the door, all rubber-stamped by an Editorial Bureau dominated by that particular ideology. Most community-driven news sites I've seen have fallen into this trap sooner or later.
Even aside from the ideological position, the system proposed seems open to abuse via sockpuppets, tactical voting, etc etc.

How do you propose to deal with these issues? Lankiveil - (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC).

Good questions.

1 & 2. The question this begs is: what are interviews? Granted, there is the interviewer there in theory, but interviews are very difficult to conduct, especially when you are doing them live and with someone who is media savvy. You can ask certain questions, but short of yelling, "Damn you, just answer what I asked!" the interview is essentially a platform for someone notable in some regard to give their take on something--their life, their career, their country... Editorials will be considered, and will be invited. Theoretically, we will ask people who will address substantive points from their perspective. We can do introductions explaining they were asked to write on this topic. What if we had the opportunity to have the Dalai Lama write about Tibet? How would an editorial on here not be newsworthy and something we should publish. There are more ways to skin an NPOV Cat than just in the AP news wire stories. For instance: An introduction that explained the nuance in the issue. Or an invited response to an editorial, where we send it to someone notable and ask them to respond to it (The UN Ambassador to China, e.g.). The idea is that people are considered in what they want to know about--"Tell me about the Flat Tax"--and who they ask, and it gives us a chance to examine the issue and also have a citizen-generated editorial process. Also: there is no news organization that does not carry editorials...I don't see why NPOV is a problem here when there are ways to address that, including interpreting what types of stories NPOV applies to. Mind you, my Israeli reporting, which was not all NPOV, was supported by the Foundation.

3. The dangers posed by sockpuppets and IPs to the Editorials Bureau is no greater than any other internal process that we or Wikipedia deals with. Clearly SPAs will be spotted, and dealt with in the same way they are dealt with when trying to write a POV story. It's not a particular concern of mine as it's been dealt with remarkably well across Wiki projects.

Lastly, I think all editorials should be marked clearly as such. I would even prefer to have a different colored background, maybe a light yellow, so that people don't mistake them for news articles. --David Shankbone - (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thats not a bad idea. sort of like PD help on on mediawiki wiki. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Something to highlight that it is different. An editorial should be interesting and written by someone notable, but also make it clear this is not part of our facts-based reporting. I think it would work well. --David Shankbone - (talk) 01:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that the precedence for this already exists on Wikinews in the form of an opinion tab; however, the opinion tab appears to be the worst case scenario and demonstrates precisely all of the fears expressed by those in favor of maintaining strict NPOV. With the appearance of an opinion tab, editorials already exist strictly without rules. Editorials, then, offer a better solution than the opinion tab because of the rules-based controls. Charlessauer - (talk) 09:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

My three euro cents

about POV
How do you manage trials as POV editorial open the door to justice court ?
How do you manage agent pressure : "Speak of my book, my movie ...".
Everyone wants to write POV and editorials, how do you choose people?
Wikinews have plenty administrators, why create a new team ? We could Change their names to "editorial manager".
How do you manage if "Editorials Bureau is hijacked by users of a particular political or faith persuasion" ? If we leave them write their POV, they'll free to write all they want, we could'nt stop them anymore. Just war. It's a real concern vote or consensus can't control.
POV news is everywhere, NPOV news is just Wikinews. If we open POV to Wikinews, why people'ld come to read and write on Wikinews more than all tha others POV news media ?
about interviews, book (movie,...) reviews
For me, interviews and reviews are just a way to fill pages of newspaper and time on news channels. Real and interresting news are a rare thing, but newspapers (for example) need to sell EACH day so they invented crosswords, strips,...
Wikinews have no need to fill something, Wikinews role is to report (get back to people) events. No event no news. it's okay.
Why do you want to create news when there's no news ? It's not Wikinews job.
book (movie,...) reviews are just advertisment,
about developing wikinews audience.
We need an open and clear support of the Wikimedia board and Wikimedia chapter.
More important : No more news on Wikipedia. It's the more difficult, i agree.
Promote why NPOV news are more important for citizen than POV news. (much more difficult)
Why not limit editorials to some invited people (well know people outside wikinews) on a specific controled subject (Citizen journalism, for example ?)
about enforcing wikinews.
We need to unit all the Wikinews under the same goal.
We need (at least) a workshop and a full session about during Wikimania.

Jacques Divol - (talk) 11:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to grab onto Jacques last point as the crucial one; WN:WM2008 has been set up for people to contribute material intended for use at Wikimania. This is the place we want to get some of our key people to for a serious face-to-face discussion with people like Jimmy and Sue. I'd like to see at least three or four Wikinewsies on the ground covering the event and doing talks/panels/workshops. We need to hijack at least half a day at the event to promote our project and have at least one of the attendant Wikinewsies off the panel and doing the OR on our material. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 11:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless the Alexandria Tourism Bureau wants to bring me over Wikimania, I don't think I can swing the cost as much as I would like to; however, if such a workshop is made available, I have access to teleconference capabilities and would enjoy taking part. --David Shankbone - (talk) 16:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't afford it either - due to not working from illness and dumping my last contract as the biggest pile of manure I'd seen in over 20 years. I'm hoping some of us can get sponsored to attend. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

There's always the possibility of you both registering for scholarships. No information has been added about this yet, but you can keep track of wm2008:Scholarships for when it becomes available. (→Zachary) 17:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, Brian. I'm with you. It's only been through Wiki work I have been able to have a proper vacation (Rio, not Israel) since December of 2005, when I went to the Cotswolds for a wedding. How can we all be so smart and so broke? --David Shankbone - (talk) 17:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Newcomer's $.02

I like David's vision of a Wikinewsweek a lot. What strikes me as a total newcomer to the scene is what an under utilized resource this remarkable site is. I think broadening it out to include features that other news sources like newspapers have is an excellent idea. I particularly think having clearly marked editorials and book reviews (or analyses if you wish) is a good idea. The more easily accessible content this site has, the more traffic, the more participants. While I heartily approve of trying for NPOV it is very useful to keep in mind that there really is no such thing. In cases of discussion of issues like books and movies, having a stated POV with information about who is writing the review/analysis can be more useful than a purported NPOV because it gives readers a chance to judge who is giving information rather than dealing with a homogenized mass of facts (bias times five is still bias, however nicely edited). I also think it is important to recognize even the Old Grey Lady herself, the NYT is going towards more and more POV material, including blogs. And their most important POV pieces, their Op-Ed columns, are typically the most popular pieces in the journal. Both liberal and conservative POVs are widely read.

Two general suggestions. First, I would love to see a lot more really local news, everything from school board meetings to high school football games to coverage of small conferences. I think Brock's coverage of events in Taipei is an excellent model for this, especially with his photographs. Somebody commented in some discussion that the way cub reporters get experience is by doing summaries from news sources. This is in fact a very limited part of most newspapers. The bread and butter for most new reporters are local beats, the police beat, weddings and funerals, the local education scene. Would it be possible to set up a "Local" or "Regional" portal that is designed for little stories that are organized by state or locality. New York City news, Wyoming news etc, should all be reachable and regularly updated. This plan would bring with it a number of bonuses including giving an outlet for writers anywhere (you don't need a big budget to cover a local school board meeting). This develops a cadre of local reporters (can you say "I worked for my high school newspaper and think writing for Wikinews would be great!") that can then be drawn upon for reporting important stories where ever they happen. Reporting local also means page views. If Wikinews is the only source for the zoning fight in the Wichita city council, all 84 people interested in the issue will look at the article.

Second, there are national and international stories with very local ramifications that can be addressed very profitably by a group of people in different places. The Anonymous protests are an example of such a group effort but I was thinking that a series of articles on prostitution in different places would be very useful addition to the general discussion and would generate interest. The Eliot Spitzer mess has brought the question to center front and lots of different points of view and information are coming out that would be useful to publish and synthesize in interesting ways (if anybody needs it, I can do graphs and charts of numerical information so we could summarize data from a number of different sources).

Leila Monaghan - (talk) 03:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)