LinkedInEdit

Are we sure I can’t use LinkedIn as a source, just because you can’t access it without an account? I’m severely limited in my Sirr article to what can be gathered from a profile which was last updated a decade ago. JJLiu112 (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

No, that is not why we can't use it. LinkedIn hides things behind paywall, and that is what is discouraged and well, we need to find other ways to investigate.
•–• 18:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
That is true, however: Once a reporter is accredited, when they document (Talk page or via Scoop or whatever) that they saw/heard/read something, that is the verification. So, even something that is paywall'd, does NOT automatically disqualify it as a decent source. Now, historically, we want our readers to be able to visit/use/go to that source, sure.....but paywall doesn't NOT automatically make it non-usable. Just for the record. Of course, we require 2 sources.....so, if EVERYTHING in the article is just what the reporter says they saw/heard/read, that doesn't quite cut the mustard. It is a critical distinction.--Bddpaux (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Could I have another admin's word on this? --JJLiu112 (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with admins. Please do not confuse between admins and reviewers. But no, whatever they hear is not verification, it is evidence. And that needs to be verified by the reviewer. And if a reviewer cannot verify the notes, records or recordings about an alleged incident, that is not considered okay. I had given the example before and i say it again, if i claim to have seen a message sent by Leo Messi and I write an OR about it; if I cannot back my claims, in pizero's own words, "there is no reason to consider those trustworthy." Our trust in ARs is for their notes, not for the facts they found. After all, they are looking for facts, not Joseph Smith's golden tablets.
117.198.177.144 (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Not sure who wrote that, but as is often the case, things are merely being re-worded here for the sake of talk. Yes: things must be verified. You bet. Yep. Sure thing. I (as an accredited reporter here) watched live stream/live feeds of things, etc. I wrote down word-for-word what was happening or being said. My notes were placed on the talk page. Those notes were approved by the late Pi Zero (or whomever) as source material. Why? Because I have been vetted as a trustworthy person. That is how I became an accredited reporter. My notes, taken in real-time, serve to back my claims, because the community here has stamped me as 'approved'. In the spirit, we shouldn't get too wrapped up with paywalled sources, because all of that can be problematic. My notes ARE the evidence. Reading the notes is THE ACT of verifying the notes. This is also why we need 2 sources. If I saw Joe drop his spoon on the floor, and photographed it and made notes about it, if there is no other 'source material' to back up the basics of what I'm writing, then it probably wasn't/isn't newsworthy.--Bddpaux (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
You being vetted as trustworthy does not absolve you from requiring to provide evidence. When reviewing your notes, I am trusting the source you used and your memory. Writing about something from a paywalled source and publishing it requires to put my faith in something I cannot myself see, let alone verify. And that is unacceptable. Gaining access to something which the reviewer is barred, and people generally are barred, is inadmissible. The reporter is trying to report without bias in an ideal case, factual; however, the info they provide is still dependent on the source they see. And paywall is a strict no. You want to go ahead and consider it by putting trust in it; go ahead. But I won't consider it verified should the information not be accessible to me. And that is precisely why we avoid the situation of ARs using "Oh believe me, I saw it" situation when they report something that cannot be verified from sources.
117.198.177.144 (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
As I've tried to make clear, I'm not a big fan of paywalled sources, here or anywhere for that matter. But let's make it simple:before today, have we had any policies that specifically address the topic in terms of guidance for sources?--Bddpaux (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunate, considering that seems to be the most complete source of his work history. --JJLiu112 (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
While I'm here, I'd like to give you a heads-up, there's another OR coming pretty soon (interview on Thursday, probably will start writing it later that day), and I don't want there to be too much of a backlog, so if you could put the Sirr article further up your priority queue that'd be great. --JJLiu112 (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Remind meEdit

.....it's fuzzy: What is the proper way to Wikilink stuff in an article? The syntax, I mean.--Bddpaux (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

You should be using {{w}} for wikilinking. {{wikt}} if you want to link to wiktionary. {{w|Foo}} will create a wikilink to Wikipedia page foo, if [[Foo]] does not exist. If it does, it will link to local page. {{w|Foo|Bar}} will create a link to foo, but the display text will be Bar. {{w|Foo|anchor=SomeSection}} will like to the subsection "SomeSection" of the page foo.
•–• 04:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I get it now. Thanks. And: that new 'Revision Slider' thing is cool! I don't know who made it, but I like it!--Bddpaux (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I have never figured out its use, and quite frankly, it just slows up the page so I don't use that.
•–• 16:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

When you get a moment..........Edit

Could you ask Gryllida to check her Talk page....I requested a 'Crat take action and it appears we currently only have one.--Bddpaux (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

She's been around here recently, but seemingly no action taken re: the RfP stuff. I contacted at least 4 Stewards at Meta, and only 1 replied. They wouldn't take action because we have a 'crat. But: well.........whatevs.......I guess we just wait......for who knows how long?--Bddpaux (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
She said she will look soon. However, if you do want to message her in real time, consider joining IRC. Use irc.libera.chat as server, and use a username bddpaux and then type "/j #wn-reporters". Depending on the time, you will find LivelyRatification, gry, mikemoral and me there. Mike is on #wikinews and #wikinews-en too.
•–• 15:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
CC @Bddpaux:.
•–• 15:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Please review my articleEdit

Please review Floods in central China kill 25 when you can. Pizza0614 (talk) 00:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

ThanksEdit

Thanks for changing the categories for my user cat! —chaetodipus (talk · contribs) 01:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Moving the cats was easy. Wikifying and fixing the sources was the annoying part. In case if you use pywikibot, the command is: `python3 pwb.py category move -from:"Mikemoral (Wikinewsie)" -to:"Chaetodipus (Wikinewsie)" -pt:0`. Make sure you use special:BotPasswords and enable editing protected pages. They need to be manually sighted.
•–• 04:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

OK.......Edit

Go here: Wikinews:Credential verification Why is my email address wrong, but yours isn't?--Bddpaux (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bddpaux: it was manually changed.
103.48.105.64 (talk) 01:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

IRCEdit

Could you get on to complete accreditation? --JJLiu112 (talk) 06:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you.........Edit

.....still reviewing that COVID article? I might be able to finish it, but I'd need to hear from you in the next 20 minutes, or so. Very busy with work right now.--Bddpaux (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I am having trouble finding some things, maybe because of rapid fact changes? Maybe if you can have a look, that would be better -- but the numbers seem ot be off.
•–• 15:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
OK....I will; always a pet peeve of mine when source organizations don't actually create NEW articles......they just endlessly tweak a standing article.--Bddpaux (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Honestly: sources weren't too bad. I massage'd it a bit more than I care to, but it was a good submission.--Bddpaux (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
It isn't bad, but they had fluctuating numbers.
•–• 15:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

BureaucratEdit

Gry did respond, indicating she'd voted (I couldn't see where, though).....but was a wee bit vague on when she might take action on the action for 'Crats. Any ideas on your end?--Bddpaux (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

To make sure I understand..........Edit

Once an article is reviewed/published, the article is to be Protected. Auto-confirmed users can edit/add/take away (those changes must be sighted), but only Admins. can actually MOVE articles, right?--Bddpaux (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bddpaux: yes, that is correct.
103.48.104.72 (talk) 01:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Abuse filter?Edit

Is that a bot? If so, how does it work?--Bddpaux (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bddpaux: it is an extension. If an edit matches a specified patter, those edits can be classified and further automated actions can be taken. More about it is here.
From a clean-up perspective, can you teach me how to do blocks? I should know how to do those.--Bddpaux (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
@Bddpaux: Do you mean blocking accounts whose edits were caught in the filter? Or blocking accounts in general?
•–• 17:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)