Wikinews:Water cooler/assistance/archives/2009/May

hello everyone. i hope im posting this in the right place. i uploaded an article last week (U.S. pork plant in Mexico near confirmed case of swine flu), and a number of users contributed to it by criticizing and improving it. i have been addressing their suggestions where possible (some were contradictory or pretty vague) so i decided to put it up for review. no one has commented on it since then (probably due to my attitude :P ) so, despite knowing this a small project with busy ppl, it is becoming really tempting to interpret this lack of attention as a green light to go and write that {{publish}} tag by myself. my main concern here is, of course, that dreaded {{stale}} tag that already ate up the article once.

okay, so i know the answer to that is "no", but how to proceed? i have read that the main problem Wikinews faces is the lack of editors, but when someone new like me comes and reads all those uplifting and friendly guides and tutorials and such, and gets a welcome message with a warm cup of coffee in their talk page, and writes their first article filled with excitement, they get really disappointed to see that the system works the way it does. i am planning on staying, but i think less ppl would be put off if at least they had a warning beforehand. i would like to add some comments to the "writing an article" page from a newcomer's pov, but this article is my current priority :0

ps. are there any statistics on the number of articles users write (what percentage of the users who have registered so far published one article - or had it deleted - and left)? Revoluc (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valid questions your asking - I'm afraid I don't have any easy answers (and indeed I'd be interested in the statistics you mention as well). Perhaps nudging new users more towards contributing to existing articles rather than flat-out writing a new one...? Regards Sean Heron (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page Rating

Hello people! I'm Vitorbraziledit, from pt-wikinews and i need a big help!

Times ago, i saw the messege that you can see in all notices: "What do you think of this page?" (the Page Rating). In Portuguese Wikinews, we don't have it. Any body can help me to apply it in our Wiki? Is it a MediaWiki? What should i do?

Thanks! Vitorbraziledit talk 18:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is part of the flagged revisions extension. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its not very useful - It more presents long term trends than anything else. Since wikinews articles are only up for a little bit of time, it is rare meaningful data is recorded. (for example, look how many pages are listed at Special:LikedPages) The main page is really the only thing that generates useful data.[1] Bawolff 20:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please! Any body to help me? Vitorbraziledit talk 03:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Yes, you have to post a request at Bugzilla if you want flaggedrevs. However, I would advise that you first ask at your wiki if there is consensus to install flaggedrevs first, before making a request. See m:Flagged Revisions for more info. Hope this helped, Tempodivalse [talk] 03:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tempo is correct - you'll only get FlaggedRevs if there is consensus on the wiki. --Brian McNeil / talk 06:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People, you are not understanding me! We have Flaggedrevs in pt-wikinews. I only want to know what should i do to put the Page's rating ("What do you think of this page?", that you can the in the bottom of any notice) in the Portuguese Wikinews? If anybody tell me about it, i will ask to our wiki to install it! Thanks! Vitorbraziledit talk 21:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody to help me? Vitorbraziledit talk 03:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see I was invited to this discussion on my talk. Unfortunately, I can't help, as I know very little about how mediawiki works, but some of the other editors you contacted will probably know more and be able to help. Cheers, Tempodivalse [talk] 03:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its an optional part of the flagged revs extension (see the docs). Basically, file a bug requesting the reader feedback part of flagged revs be enabled for your wiki. (I think the specific option needing to be set is $wgFeedbackNamespaces = array( NS_MAIN );, but don't quote me on that) Bawolff 06:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As Bawolff says, file a bugzilla to get it enabled and ask fellow pt. users to vote for the bug. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing dead links?

Hi, i found no informations what should be done with dead links on this wiki. E.g. the archived page U.S. House votes to renew expiring Patriot Act contains a link to but the content is now available at . Should this simple be ignored, reported on the talk page with {{editprotected}} or whatelse. I have a botscript which is replacing or reporting those links on many wikis. Can i help at this wiki, too? Merlissimo (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that there is an official policy, but I would say that it's important to keep links to references available. Calebrw (talk) 03:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, the links should be updated, the document is obviously the same it is just that the GWB stuff has been stuffed on another server. Other cases, perhaps, or more likely not. --Brian McNeil / talk 06:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I have requested botflag at Wikinews:Bots#User:MerlLinkBot Merlissimo (talk) 10:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] vote

Hi, Everywhere I read about the recent announcement of the vote to move to a license on Wikimedia project it always says "all wikimedia projects" (including the Foundation's own blog here. I had always assumed that Wikinews was unaffected by this license issue as it has a license (and the 'share alike' element has been specifically left off. So, just writing to check - is Wikinews swapping to or is it just that people are unintentionally lumping wikinews in with the rest of the projects license-wise? Cheers, Witty lama (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are bits and pieces of Wikinews that are GFDL - eg, templates imported from Wikipedia. The rest remains CC-BY. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WNI response

Hello guys! I'm here this time to ask you about the template WNI response. What do it do? What is the funcionality?

I'm asking to create it for the pt.wikinews.

Thanks! Vitorbraziledit talk 20:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly it's used in interview articles, to distinguish the interviewer's questions from the interviewee's answers. Tempodivalse [talk] 21:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For instance, see how the template is used in this article, for instance. Basically it's used next to the interviewer's comments. Tempodivalse [talk] 21:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think WNI stands for WikiNews Interviewer. Tempodivalse [talk] 21:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks! Vitorbraziledit talk 21:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's meant to be Wikinews Interviewee response. There is a {{WNIQ}} I intended to be used for questions posed by Wikinews, the given example is Mike doing a little self-promo. Whether or not people should do that is a question and discussion for elsewhere. {{WNI response}} is parameterised so that you can put in the interview subject's full name or initials. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some considerations

Hi to all,

First i wuold appreciate this community that is showing much vitality, and is trying to make a better place to live and inform about what's the meaning of wikinews.

What is missing, however, is not the amount of discussions, but enough articles. The meaning of wikinews, after all.

I am from There ,and maybe not only there, there is a basic crisis. I was kicked off by the 'serious' admins there, last december. I tried to raise interest in the wikinews's crisis. And it was. Only 126 articles in the whole december, compared with 140 of the previous months. But worse of all, 3/4 wrote by a single author. So you'll understand this: how it comes, in one community there is only one contributor that writes more than all the rest x3 times? It would be not good, what if this contribur was bored and quit And it was so. I had claimed this problem, but nobody moves one inch. On the contrary, i ended in 24/12 in problematic users, and after Xmas i was indefinitevly blocked by one 'serious' admin.

Well, do you know that? I was blocked in december, when there were 126 articles. Seen i was 'the problem', in January the amount dropped at just 58, so in Febrary (around 60), and even worse in March (38..), little raised in April (because the heartquacke) to 45 (around). Now, without cataclyms, guess that? In the last 10 days are reported less than 6 articles. So the average, when i already saw a crisis (and there was), dropped from 4 articles/day in December, to 2 in the next months, to one, to ..even less than one a day now.

Why this happened? Evidently i was 'not' the problem. I tried to raise attention on this question, the fall of, but invain. Admins i talk with, simply DON'T BOTHERED to raise the work on this site. And it was now pratically dismantled. Not that articles were 'qualitatively' good: mere 2 kb average, just few lines wealthy linked to wikipedia. Go figure, if this was 'journalism'.

So, the problems are multiples: admin totaly unrensponsable led to this catastrophe. bitting and whipping everybody that tries to make something, to write something, accusing of POV (aaaarrghh...), and so on, have led wikinews on the dead end. In wiki.en it's a bit better, i see, but not much better.

I take for wikinews, because it's a great occasion, but with this pace it's a lost occasion to build up a wiki suorce of info. What's the point to have 2, 3 or 4 news a day, while wikipedia, as example, got 1.000 articles in the meanwhile, and it's even better informed about 'news'?

So, or the criteria will be renewed and make more flexible, or instead, wikinews has not future.

And what disturbing me more, it's the laziness and unrensponability of many admins, that are aiming only to have lessa and less things to do, not surely to help the site to grow up. Go figure, one wiki.ti admin has even remised by his adminship 'because he wanted to work better as wikinews admin'. This was happened last months and go figure, he did nothing. So what, wikinews is becaming to be a holliday home for who want to be an admin without do nothing?

Wappi76, a admin, is inactive since last year. He should had been decommissoned 'automatically' because the stop of activity for too many months. Instead he is still an admin, because nobody bothered to decommision him. When i asked to do so to another admin, he replied 'I should do this? Go in wikimedia and call for his demise'.

With those guys, not only wikinews is falling down freely, but even they do not bother to discuss this in any form, they simply don't give a damn to this 'little problem'. They were happy enough to ban me, that after that they simply go in holiday until now and more. And other admins (wikipedia) simply admitted i war right, but 'nobody cares'.

Well, if the managing of this project is so bad done, if the admins are so unrensponsable, and if the things are similar in other wikinews sites other, and the articles are falling down, the information is not minimally enough (let's take all the wikinews daily production, we'll have half or less of a middle newspaper), the site will be or unseful tool or closed at all. Until the basic vices will be these, there is no hope.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stefanomencarelli, I am sorry to hear of you difficulties at it.wikinews and of the decreasing content at the site. I am afraid, however, that we at en.wikinews are not able to intervene on your behalf. We have no more importance than any other user. We too struggle to keep enough daily stories at en.wikinews to make it worthwhile for readers to come and see. If what you say happened to you is true, I feel sorry for you. Cheers, --SVTCobra 22:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But i did not written this, asking to solve my difficulties. I've written this for you. Don't help me, help yourselves, this was my message, and this was the meaning to write this report in the policies section (and not here). What happened in is likely to happen anywhere in this project, is (was?) one of the biggest wikinews, and still is totally failed now. Just check it: last 500 edit: starting from 3 may, had just 26 articles. Never happened before. But at the local bar, [2] do you find any discussion on that issue in 2009? Not. Nobody cares. It's this my message: what kind of future, if there will be a future, is for wikinews? You say that you struggle about enough articles, the problem is precisely this: why so few? My guess: wikipedia will eat wikinews befor or later, except you'll in english wikinews will be able to change things. And one of these is surely the difficults made by 'burocracy'. Maybe it's unavoidable, but the number of newcomers that quit wikinews is very important to check why the project is decaying. Few months ago wiki.en ran at 10 articles/day, now it's already less, while a success site should raise, not decrease. had last year, around 170 articles in January alone, 95 february, 120 march; August 2008: 240 articles, 199 at september, 140 october and november, 126 december, 58 Janyary 2009, 65 feb., 38 march, 45 april and now less than 30 maybe. So if burocracy is unavoidable, atleast it should be an 'efficient' burocracy and not a whipping out system for newcomers. Wiki.italian burocrats don't bother in that sense, for them is enough to ban users and censor things. Site is closing? Who cares! Evidently.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who does what ?

I'm new to Wikinews and there is something I didn't clearly understood and for which I didn't found any help : what is the difference between {{develop}} and {{review}} and who has the ability (not technically, but spiritually speaking) to change an article from one state to the other? I created a new article Ban_Ki-moon_hides_facts_about_war_in_Sri_Lanka and it was flagged not neutral and badly written. So it got into {{develop}}. I did many changes and then got stuck. Do I have the right to put it back to {{review}}? I tried, let's see! --Fib2004 (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did the right thing. If you think you have addressed the concerns listed on the tag, then you can remove it and replace with {{review}} again. {{review}} says the article is ready to be placed on the main page and requires a review by someone who is an editor.{{develop}} means that the article isn't yet ready and is still being written. I hope this clears matters a bit. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does, thanks a lot! --Fib2004 (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page move suggestion

I suggest moving page from Three men who bombed Iranian mosque publicly hanged to Iran hangs three suspects and blames US and Israel for mosque bombing --ReneJohnsen (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]