Wikinews:Water cooler/assistance/archives/2011/March

-- Heading added by Δενδοδγε t\c 12:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have written a new articles 'How Can Climate Changes Effect on Humanity' but tell me how I can see again wiki friends comments thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abdul qayyum Malik (talkcontribs) 12:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See here. — μ 12:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image question

How do I insert an image from my computer?

You may use Special:Upload for this purpose, although please make sure the image is licensed compatibly. Tempodivalse [talk] 18:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

why do people read Wikinews?

I am conducting a research project for George Mason University on wikis. With all the media outlets available why do people come to read other's articles here?

Thanks! --Msimon313 (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews tries to distinguish itself from the MSM by being as objective and unbiased as possible (due to our neutrality policy). Additionally, our content is free to reuse. Granted, our coverage is not nearly as comprehensive as most mainstream news sources, nor always updated in a timely manner, so those advantages are somewhat offset. Tempodivalse [talk] 18:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikinews is also a strictly factual news source; we do not engage in news analysis or speculation. When Wikinews (WN) cites historical precedent, it is done for purely contextual reasons, i.e. not to imply an opinion or to predict the future. --Ashershow1talk 00:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • /me wonders if we're really the best people to ask. We as author's probably have a different notion of why people come here, then the actual people do (Not to mention highly idealized given the responses so far). Bawolff 02:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikinews articles are available for posterity. We get comments on news articles from years ago. Other media sources online do not keep their archives available online without a fee, so our articles are linked to as permanent records. - Amgine | t 03:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Womens' Day

I wrote this article last weeK, Labor employees celebrate International Women’s Day. It didn't get reviewed for days, then got tagged as stale. I think the evenbt was newsworthy. The writing could be approved, but the argument that is stale doesn't make sense. When I wrote it, it wasn't stale. It's about a one day event.

Can someone else please weigh in? Evrik (talk) 12:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article would need a little more work to pass all-but-freshness review. If it can be brought up to peer-reviewable quality, I'd like to see a direct-to-archive-publish on this. While there is currently no policy provision for "late review", there is preliminary discussion underway to make provision for it.
  • I wouldn't trust the EPR gadget with this, because we don't want the article accidentally piped out to GNews etc. A single manual edit to both archive and publish at one stroke (or click) would seem in order.
  • The suggestion I've floated is that a late-reviewed article should be dated to its freshness horizon rather than to the date of publication. For this article, that would be March 11, 2011.
--Pi zero (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WIKINEWS: A big disappointment

I have not written for Wikinews before but have been involved with writing news on a freelance basis for over ten years and have followed the Fukushima emergency quite closely. I noticed that Wikinews had as its Lead Article a flatly incorrect story That was not WIkinew's fault, there had been a false report issued internationally. But to correct that I wrote and posted the sourced story

with three sources. As of this writing, almost twenty four hours later,the earlier, incorrect report, sits on Wikinews without correction and the story I wrote has not been approved nor has it in its current form been reviewed. This is a ridiculous state of affairs.

The objection is that one of the original sources, the live video feed from Japanese TV, cannot be verified. But obviously an old nvideo feed which is in the past can never be reviewed with apodictic certainty. The purpose of putting that citation in the sources was not for later reviewers to ponder, itt was to show that I was monitoring the news up to the minute.

Obviously that was not helpful and so I replaced that sourcing with a link to the NISA website.

Another newer reporter lamented this sae stated of affairs on my Talk page but apparently he is not a reviewer and cannot approve the article.

This is my first article at Wikinews, or rather first attempt, and the way things look it may be the last. For a flatly incorrect version of events to sit as the lead article while a corrected updated story on the same news story is not very inspiring. I don't know if the story will ever see the light of day but I feel as though the process has been a waste of time in a situation where time is of the essence. The whole point of the internet is that decisions can be made quickly and this slow-as-molasses processing is very disheartening. Geofferybard (talk) 23:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews currently does not have the man power to review articles in a momentary fashion. I, however, am a reviewer and will look into your article immediately. In the meantime I would encourage you to be patient, and if in the future you have any other concerns about the timeliness or accuracy of an article, alert an administrator. --Ashershow1talk 23:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks as though several editors have taken an interest in your article and there were problems with it that prevented its publication. I would refrain from blaming that all on Wikinews. --Ashershow1talk 23:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your comments Geofferybard. Unfortunately, long review times are one of the project's biggest problems. Long waits for publishing, such as the one you described, have become the norm rather than the exception. We are, however, looking at abolishing the current requirement for articles to be peer-reviewed, to allow for more prompt publication of news. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tempo, you're failing to see your own biases. --Pi zero (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Back on line after several days in which I noticed that the electrical cabling was not established for many days after the erroneous report which stood front and center on wikipedia. This means that the story I wrote, which cited NISA and IAEA, continued to be timeley and relevant. It was again reviewed,,_IAEA_clarifies#Review_of_revision_1198385_.5BFailed.5D and, to my amazement, "failed" on the basis that these sources did not establish "verifiability" and that they were (somehow prejudiced by the fact that) they were "secondary". In other words, if I cited Joe Blow's Blog in the Blogosphere, that would have been acceptable, but if I cite the official press release of the pertinent Japanese ministry, that publicly available, web-published source is somehow deemed "unverifiable". Honestly, Wikinews just flatly fell on its face; the remedy is administrative acknowledgement of the failure and a remedial plan of action to prevent similar dysfunction in the future.
A second, almost incomprehensible failing was that the article was deemed "failed on copyright" because it had "already been published". Give me a break. After wasting so much time trying to deal with irrelevant objections and radio silence from the reviewers, I posted the article on Japan Indymedia under a CCA license. Given that I had myself previously submit to WIkinews, disclosed the simultaneous submission, never withdrew the WIkinews submission, and published under CCA, to suggest that state of affairs as a basis for rejection on the basis of "Copyright" is ludicrous. Copyright protects the creator, which would be myself, under the terms I deemed, which was Creative Commons. Looks like Wikinews is definitely not going to be the place for quality alternative journalists, going forward - unless it can reform its process. Reviewing this case would be a good place to start. In the meantime, you should understand that I am surprised that anyone would suggest that I collaborate on any further reporting for Wikinews, a proposal which I must reject. Wikinews needs to decide whether it is more interested in being a reserve of online editorial power for its old guard or whether it wants to be a cutting edge resource for live journalism today and tommorow. IMO, Wikinews is locked in a yesterday that never really was much more than a good idea that never really got off the ground. And probably never will. Geofferybard (talk) 23:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

turnaround time for news to become published

Hi Can you let me know how much time it takes for news to be reviewed . Thanks Raj

I don't think there's such a limit. Kayau (talk · contribs) 03:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something Seems Amiss

There has not been a sports-related item on Wikinews in several days. Surely there was an important badminton, handball, cricket or even basketball event in the last week. At this rate, Wikinews may be something worth noting and reading! I'll take my tongue out of my cheek now. JimCubb (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]