Wikinews:Water cooler/assistance/archives/2010/September

Story idea: Examiner.com 2.0 transition

I am a citizen journalist on Examiner.com. That site has been going through a fairly massive and rather problematic system & formatting overhaul. Many of its editors are taking a "wait and see" approach until authoring more content for publication. I have learned this from e-mails, teleconferences that include staff and writers, and just watching the bug report page.

Two questions:
(1) Am I too "close" to this situation to report on it objectively? Are my personal experiences and sources sufficient for an article here?
(2) Is this matter even newsworthy? As far as I know, no mainstream media have picked up on this, because the site to outside readers appears in fair working order, but to insiders (the journalists) it has been a bit of a nightmare.

I look forward to feedback. -- Thekohser (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Yes, but yes.
2. Generally, if the news event is discrete, and of interest to larger than a neighborhood. This doesn't seem likely to meet the latter element; it would likely be of interest only to the 'insiders'.

Just my opinions. - Amgine | ^t 02:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Yes, from the wah you put it across, far too close.
2. It might be news, I too would question the scope of audience. I am concerned in the way you present this. You imply lots of damning evidence exists. A good journalist would want their side of the story; as well as scope of interest, you give no positive opening to talk to them with. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 04:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the Portal:Virginia designed with the specific purpose of accommodating this very kind of news report (a report, I note, that hasn't yet been created)? A place for a topic that might be deemed something that is not newsworthy of the Main Page, but yet newsworthy of the Virginia Portal. 24.125.55.90 (talk) 05:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it has nothing to do with the Virginia Portal. -- Thekohser (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks to those of you who responded. By the way, I am a supporter of Examiner.com's management and staff, too. Of course, had I written the story, I would have actively solicited their feedback and POV. I think they have been doing much to remedy many of the problems. It's just that there are so many that have cropped up, it's taking much longer than expected to iron them out. I guess I will not write about this particular issue, though, as it seems that it wouldn't qualify on the "interest to many" parameter. -- Thekohser (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• • You mention what I'd likely characterise as 'software development woes'. Having over 20 years experience in IT, I can confirm these are commonplace in any project to implement substantial changes. You've likely no idea how much, uh, 'crap' gets unceremoniously shoved under the carpet and jumped on to hide the lumps. I've seen millions spent on systems with one bad decision early on, and the whole thing has to be scrapped - usually after a substantial overrun and the responsible manager has moved on, claiming glory for starting the ill-fated project. Or, you decide you want what seem like 'cosmetic' changes, only to find the system is a collection of kludges. If I'd a dollar for every time some wizz kid near-killed a company through championing the wrong tool for the job because they'd the relevant Microsoft certification,....

A wise engineer from d|i|g|i|t|a|l once told me, '"Legacy" means software that works'. I can attest to that from my own experience, including working on systems older than myself (I'm 41).

Examiner.com may just be discovering their original developers sticky-plastered over bugs in hastily developed stuff, upgrades then become very high-risk, and there are edge cases we used to delight in saying, 'that's not a bug, it's a feature'. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Need to upload non-free fair use image (not to Commons)

Hi, I'm new around here, so I am still feeling my way around. I just wrote a story, Tulsa media erroneously reports San Diego Comic Con Pedobear was 'Registered Sex Offender', and I want to upload a fair-use image: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4124/4993399071_989e884a36_m.jpg But when I use the Free Use media upload link, it goes to Commons, which will of course delete it as a non-free image. I appear not to have permission to upload directly to WikiNews. Please help? Kevyn (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Done Uploaded as File:Pedobear.jpg. Regards. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 18:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Kevyn (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, of course it does. Why would you click free use when you've stated that you know it's non-free? Also, there isn't any such thing as WikiNews. You might be thinking of Wikinews. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair use upload is probably not possible for unconfirmed users like Kevyn.[1] Perhaps the 'Upload fair use media' media link is invisible to them (it is hidden from unregistered users.) Anyone know? Has this confused other new users? --InfantGorilla (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that link was not available to me, even though I registered this account in 2006. It's still not available to me. Kevyn (talk) 05:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I withdraw my yelling at you, then. We need to get that changed. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Even an '06 account will be subject to the minimum edit count required for confirmation. Please keep contributing Kevin, you'll soon - automagically - get the Fair Use upload link. It is waaaaay down the list of options. What's absolutely verboten for Wikinews is "images from competing news agencies". --Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

WN:ARCHIVE exception for "Bicentennial of Chile"

I have created an article about the Chile Bicentennial (now at Prepared Stories). There is not much information right now on the event, except for things that have been done earlier this month. I've got a chance to travel all over O'Higgins Region this 19th, and I would like to ask you all if a exception for this article being majorly edited 2 days after it is published (if it is published today, hopefully). WN:ARCHIVE disallows this, but well, I strongly ask you to let me do this, it will be an extremely in-depth article. Thanks, Diego Grez ^{return fire} 19:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The most of the events will occur tomorrow and on 19th. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 19:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Why not publish the article today, and then a second one tomorrow? Chilean Bicentennial celebrations get underway followed by Wikinews reports from O'Higgins Region on Chilean Bicentennial celebrations? (or something similar). Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Dunno. I was hoping to have just one, concise article on the whole event. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 00:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• Diego, do what the MSM do; substantially recycle from the first in the second. And, take pictures. Lots of pictures. Make the 2nd more photoessay. ;-) --Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Help to edit and clean up news article for publication

Done Could someone do a sub-edit of this article asap [http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Iconic_London_mural_could_be_restored].

Issues have been flagged by a reviewer and I have addressed them but I am a the original writer of the story and so not in a position to judge my own edits.

Bold re-write needed. All sources and info are there. --Thegiantrodent (talk) 10:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The article does not need to be re-written. If you had actually read the comments, you would know that it is not going to be published altogether—the reviewer stated that: "The sources are way out of date - the newest one being ten days old. Also, I don't think that this article is newsworthy but it's disputable ... As it stands, this article is too out-of-date to be published. Sorry." Essentially, the article is far too out of date to be news, and it is debatable whether it is actually notable at all. Wackywace^dictaphone 10:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I had not read the comments you refer to as they were made by a second reviewer. I had responded to the first reviewer who made different comments and it was those I addressed. I dispute the article being out of date. It is an emerging story that has only been covered in a quarterly community paper and then a local weekly paper. The story relates to a proposal to restore a wall mural and public meeting to endorse or object to the proposal. The site of the mural is on one of London's main thoroughfares yet the story has not been covered in any of London's main dailies. The story could well be picked up by one of these papers in the next 48 hours.

Stories like these often are brought to light by community papers and newsletters, then are picked up by a local weekly before attracting the attention of mainstream press. This often takes time, sometimes weeks or months. For example, compare this story Historic London districts re-branded Midtown. Or have they? by the community newspaper Fitzrovia News published 12 August and the same story Historic London districts 'rebranded' Midtown on the BBC News site published more than four weeks later on 17 September. --Thegiantrodent (talk) 11:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It's clearly news, though of the local variety. If we can cover car accidents, we can easily cover this. However, the sources do disagree strongly with the idea it isn't out of date. What new developments are there? Facts don't cease to be facts, but news ceases to be news. Somebody mentioned that in two days there will be a new development; why not save the article for use then? All the text is perfectly usable in an updated piece. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Local variety? The mural was rated by London's Time Out as the most notable mural in London (source in article). It is on Tottenham Court Road, one of London's most well-known streets. The article relates to a public meeting to take place on Tuesday 21 September to discuss the proposals. This is still a current news story and it is in the public interest to highlight the proposal and decide if it is worthy of public support and money. After Tuesday it will be a different story and less newsworthy as it will be after the event.--Thegiantrodent (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

London, London, London. If there is information to suggest it is of importance beyond one city (and I'm no art critic, so I've no idea if it is or not) then point this out in the article. Wikinews writes for all inhabitants on Planet Earth, and most of them, contrary to popular belief, do not live in London. I don't understand how a story on something a few hours old is less newsworthy than a story where the latest development was over a week ago. The article in its present form would have been great if it had been written at the time. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Which is why it is in the London section not Planet Earth :o)

That's one of the most disingenuous things I've ever read. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Then you should read more widely or get out more :o)--Thegiantrodent (talk) 13:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It's irrelevant whether the article is only of interest to inhabitants of London. To be news, the number of people it's of interest to only needs to be more than a few hundred. To conform to our style guide, the significance of the story should be explained for an international audience, which is independent of whether they're interested once it's been explained to them.

Other requirements for it to be news include that it describe an event that has taken place within the past week, and that some of its information has come to light within the last two to three days. It's quite possible to work within that framework to rescue material that would on its own be stale, if there is a new development in the story. Just remember that the article has to be written so that the central event —the event described by the headline and lede— is something that has happened within the past week; and, again, some of the information has to have come to light within the past two to three days. --Pi zero (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's comments. These have been really useful. And I should apologise to Blood Red Sandman. His points are valid as much as ones I'd like to hear. After a suggestion by Pi Zero and Rayboy8 I've done some original reporting, posted the notes in the collaboration page and hoping to get through the review stage. Wish me luck! :o)

Accepted. Good to see you moving forward with this. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for everyone's help. Just one stumbling block to go. One of the sources uses a Creative Commons license for non-commercial reproduction. I take that means I can use whole sentences from the CC articles for Wikinews which is or course non-commercial, without having to do a re-write? At the moment the article is still failing on a copyright issue. Help still needed. But we're getting there...!--Thegiantrodent (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I've now re-written a few sentences to get around the copyright issues. I'm still not clear as to why a source that uses a CC licence can't be re-produced. But apparently Wikipedia sentences can't be ued either if I understand the guidance correctly. --Thegiantrodent (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) If it's a non-commercial licence, then it's incompatible with ours because we have a CC licence that lets you do... well, anything you want with it. I can't recall off-hand why our's and Wikipedia's are incompatible. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Blood Red Sandman. I've now re-written the offending copyright sentences and addressed all the outstanding issues. Hopefully It'll pass the next review--Thegiantrodent (talk) 09:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who edited, reviewed, argued and made suggestions to get this story published. Much appreciated --Thegiantrodent (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Old News

w:Roger Craig (Jeopardy! contestant) is being considered for deletion as a person notable for one event only. Because the event happened in the past two weeks, I thought about adding it to Wikinews. However, I found out about the 3-day deadline. What should I do? Us441 (talk) 12:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

There's not a lot you can do, really. Facts don't cease to be facts, but news ceases to be news. Perhaps we could try to get an interview with xyr? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

What or who is xyr? Us441 (talk) 12:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

xyr is the him/her/etc version of xe, a gender-irrelevant pronoun. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

How do I interview him? Us441 (talk) 12:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Following the link to xyr website on enwp, there's an email address given. I would say the best way to do it is to settle down as a community and work out the questions we'll use; we can afford to consider for a day or two. Obvously, it would likely be mainly your show, with feedback and suggestions added in, though I suggest the actual emailing be done by a long-term member of the community. That makes the verification easier - otherwise someone'd have to scrutinise your contributions elsewhere to decide if you could be trusted not to make it all up. A pain, but an important safety catch. However, if someone who's already been through the whole building trust thing does the emailing, that makes reviewing the article so much easier. (If you're lost by the whole verification/review process, check out Wikinews:For Wikipedians.) Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Luzhkov sacking

Is there no story on the sacking of Yuri Luzhkov on Wikinews? I couldn't find one, but maybe I was looking in the wrong places. 62.145.19.66 (talk) 14:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yuri Luzhkov's dismissal as Mayor of Moscow is probably motivated due to xyr recent comments in support of Prime Minister Putin at the expense of President Medvedev. I hope you'll be interested in writing a quick synopsis of the salient points. You can easily start the article via the links at the Wikinews:Newsroom. When I looked I did not see an article under development on this subject, but you should double check the lists in the Newsroom. - Amgine | ^t 17:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)