Wikinews:Water cooler/miscellaneous

Latest comment: 19 hours ago by MediaWiki message delivery in topic Tech News: 2024-25

Page last updated: Tuesday 18 at 1910 UTC     

Refresh Refresh this page  


Tech News: 2024-21


MediaWiki message delivery 23:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Feedback invited on Procedure for Sibling Project Lifecycle

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Dear community members,

The Community Affairs Committee (CAC) of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees invites you to give feedback on a draft Procedure for Sibling Project Lifecycle. This draft Procedure outlines proposed steps and requirements for opening and closing Wikimedia Sibling Projects, and aims to ensure any newly approved projects are set up for success. This is separate from the procedures for opening or closing language versions of projects, which is handled by the Language Committee or closing projects policy.

You can find the details on this page, as well as the ways to give your feedback from today until the end of the day on June 23, 2024, anywhere on Earth.

You can also share information about this with the interested project communities you work with or support, and you can also help us translate the procedure into more languages, so people can join the discussions in their own language.

On behalf of the CAC,

RamzyM (WMF) 02:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I strongly recommend the Wikinews community pay attention to this. When people talk about closing projects, the only two that ever seem to come up are Wikinews and Wikispecies. Bawolff 13:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-22


MediaWiki message delivery 00:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

New Reviewer!


We have ourselves a new Reviewer around these parts!! User:Asheiou Give them a hearty congratulations, please!Bddpaux (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Has it been that long?!


This is English Wikinews' 20-year Anniversary! Holy cow!!--Bddpaux (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nice!!! BigKrow (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Announcing the first Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language


The scrutineers have finished reviewing the vote results. We are following up with the results of the first Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election.

We are pleased to announce the following individuals as regional members of the U4C, who will fulfill a two-year term:

  • North America (USA and Canada)
  • Northern and Western Europe
  • Latin America and Caribbean
  • Central and East Europe (CEE)
  • Sub-Saharan Africa
  • Middle East and North Africa
  • East, South East Asia and Pacific (ESEAP)
  • South Asia

The following individuals are elected to be community-at-large members of the U4C, fulfilling a one-year term:

Thank you again to everyone who participated in this process and much appreciation to the candidates for your leadership and dedication to the Wikimedia movement and community.

Over the next few weeks, the U4C will begin meeting and planning the 2024-25 year in supporting the implementation and review of the UCoC and Enforcement Guidelines. Follow their work on Meta-wiki.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 08:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-23


MediaWiki message delivery 22:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Overall neutrality


I'm concerned with the overall neutrality of our recent coverage of the Israeli-Palestine conflict. We've had the following articles published recently:

While I'm thrilled we're experiencing a period of higher activity and participation here, I think we need to keep an eye on the bigger picture of what our reporting trends look like.

In addition to the overall trend of articles, the two articles published today both contain the following statement: "Hezbollah has launched a variety of strikes against Israel, using 4,000 rockets and killing multiple soldiers and ten civilians." Only one source verifies that and it's The Jerusalem Post.[14] The supporting statement is:

Most countries would never accept one rocket fired from a neighboring country, let alone 4,000.

The problem I have with that is 1. it's a conveniently-even number, meaning it's more likely an estimation and 2. the source is not neutral in its treatment of the topic. 3. the article doesn't say anything like '4,000 rockets have been fired at Israel,' it said in effect 'no one would accept 4,000 rockets fired at them.' I think the two June 6 articles should be changed while we have time (24 hours) to do so without requiring a correction.

Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 13:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Me Da Wikipedian: I agree with this assessment. I'm happy to sight if any changes are made soon. [24Cr][talk] 14:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes to this. Neutrality is a slippery thing..... it's like 'validity' in research. But: We should always be pursuing it or better yet: watching out for forces that can destroy it.--Bddpaux (talk) 15:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for bringing this up Michael. I guess by "neutrality of trends" you mean you think our war coverage is biased in its overall focus? Eh. That can be a problem. Reporters should be careful to choose topics based on their interests, not based on their beliefs. But a selection of coverage one person thinks shows bias toward one side could alternatively be seen as biased towards the other. I think the other important thing is, if you think a facet of something (or a whole) hasn't been getting enough coverage, write it. I see WN:Neutrality#Choosing stories has more.
The specific example is concerning. "Only one source verifies that" — You mean, only the JPost source verifies there were 4,000 rockets, or only it verifies anything in that sentence? The latter would be worse, since I don't see any mention of a death toll in there. I agree, either way, we should have a source that more clearly states the number of rockets fired and if that's an estimate — I agree it probably is. Heavy Water (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree it probably is...but it doesn't say so and I am going by what the source in fact says. If anyone can find a better source, please do. There is no requirement for sources to be neutral, and in a contentious topic like this it is very hard not to have at least 1 biased source. But if you have other non-biased ones it's usually not an issue. I am choosing topics based on my interests and what I feel is underrepresented in mainstream media. I have no problem changing provided you can find a better source.@Bddpaux@Cromium@Heavy Water@Michael.C.Wright Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support for that statement is the responsibility of the author of that statement, not anyone else. I don't think anyone else should have to find support for a statement not made by them. Even so, a quick web search for "hezbollah fires 4,000 rockets at Israel" does not provide a second source.
There is no requirement for sources to be neutral. The point I was trying to make is not that the Post's article is an invalid source due to its obvious bias, but that this bias weakens its credibility as the sole source for statements made by en.wn. Wikinews:Content_guide#Cite_your_sources recommends the following:

To help guard against possible mistakes by news sources and to help establish a neutral point of view, editors are encouraged to find multiple sources on an issue, and fact-check those sources.

Setting aside the bias of The Post's article for a moment; I don't believe there is solid-enough support in The Post's statement for our article to simply say 'Hezbollah has launched...4,000 rockets.' I don't think The Post's article clearly stated '4,000 rockets were launched.' Had The Post attributed that count to an authority, it might have been more clear it was a factual statement rather than a statement of conjecture of what other countries might tolerate.
A simple fix would have been for us to change '4,000' to 'thousands' or to attribute the statement so readers could make their own decision on the count.
We're now past the 24 hour grace-period for an easy fix and I'm not sure if this is something that rises to the level of a correction or not. I would defer to others on that one.
@Heavy Water, ...if you think a facet of something (or a whole) hasn't been getting enough coverage, write it. I was hoping to spur someone else to do that—no one in particular— just someone with the interest. I should have been more explicit. I don't disagree with Me Da Wikipedian's point above regarding mainstream coverage. But I do think our responsibility to neutrality extends beyond individual articles. I'm not asking anyone to write or publish fewer articles on a given topic. My point was to bring attention to what it might look like to readers.

Choice of what to cover can itself introduce bias, even though the things reported are factual with no bias in the way they are reported.


Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 14:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have given support for the statement. It is not perfect, but as far as I can see it does support it. It's not my responsibility to find a better source if this one works, and besides were outside the 24 hours window at this point. There is no requirement for a second source either. Obviously bias weakens credibility, but can you find a more credible alternative. Assumption is that a reliable source is correct unless there is good reason to believe it's not, right? Editors are encouraged, not required, to find multiple sources on an issue, not for each claim. I think it's pretty clearly saying that 4,000 rockets were fired at Israel. Look at the context. I agree it is probably an guesstimate, but then again all figures are going to be guesstimates. And yes, it's probably an approximation. But we have no closer value. Do you think we should say around? That might be reasonable. We already have other editors writing about the conflict, such as BigKrow and Asheiou. Obviously more is always better, but it's not just me anyways. And yes, choice of what to cover does give bias. This is balanced (at least theoretically) by the fact that theres a bunch of editors, likely with different opinions here. In other words, our combined coverage should be neutral in terms of what we cover as well.Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC) @Michael.C.Wright:Reply

Tech News: 2024-24


MediaWiki message delivery 20:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

The final text of the Wikimedia Movement Charter is now on Meta

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Hi everyone,

The final text of the Wikimedia Movement Charter is now up on Meta in more than 20 languages for your reading.

What is the Wikimedia Movement Charter?

The Wikimedia Movement Charter is a proposed document to define roles and responsibilities for all the members and entities of the Wikimedia movement, including the creation of a new body – the Global Council – for movement governance.

Join the Wikimedia Movement Charter “Launch Party”

Join the “Launch Party” on June 20, 2024 at 14.00-15.00 UTC (your local time). During this call, we will celebrate the release of the final Charter and present the content of the Charter. Join and learn about the Charter before casting your vote.

Movement Charter ratification vote

Voting will commence on SecurePoll on June 25, 2024 at 00:01 UTC and will conclude on July 9, 2024 at 23:59 UTC. You can read more about the voting process, eligibility criteria, and other details on Meta.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment on the Meta talk page or email the MCDC at

On behalf of the MCDC,

RamzyM (WMF) 08:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-25


MediaWiki message delivery 23:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply