Wikinews:Water cooler/miscellaneous/Archive/11

Audio Wikinews

Hey guys, I'm new here and I was just wondering how often/when the audio Wikinews program is updated. Just thought it'd be cool to hear someone actually read an article I wrote.

Clinevol98 02:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for the block of International

Moved here from WN:ALERT --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It'll be up in an hour or so, but here's evidence I have gathered to support the thesis of International acting in a manner similar to Mrmiscellanious: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Anyone more interested in this situation (I was merely acting on suggestions) could probably find more. —THIS IS MESSED OCKER (TALK) 00:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Messedrocker, thanks for making the effort to explain your block. I am a little confused though as I can't see any issue with the first four links you gave. He probably could have been less confrontational in the last three edits, but even these edits do not rise to a level that warrents a block. (Apart from the fact that the edits are from February!) Or am I misunderstanding you and these are not the reason for your recent block of International, but merely try to establish that International has a history of disruptive behaviour (which imho these diffs fail to show)? --vonbergm 01:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to dispute any block here, it has probably expired by now anyway. I am just trying to understand the reason for the block. When MrM was blocked, Brofkin responded to specific diffs and posted a concise explanation to justify the block. That makes it easy for everyone to understand the offending behaviour and modify it accordingly. It would be nice to get similar treatment for International. --vonbergm 01:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to explain how International has a history of being confrontative. However, I would recommend Mrmiscellanious and Amgine to find more evidence; they were involved more. I hope to have no future involvement in this affair. I don't like dealing it with. I want to be with my deletion requests. Too much to ask for? —THIS IS MESSED OCKER (TALK) 01:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed these diffs, and I also don't understand what behaviour they are supposed to demonstrate. Most of them appear to be good-faith attempts to engage with users on their talk page. It's certainly unhelpful to suggest that someone has an "agenda" or is "blind" as he did with Amgine, and the statement "you are maybe blind on an eye in this case" is possibly a personall attack/labelling, although it doesn't make much sense. If there is an ongoing and serious pattern of policy violation, such that would justify a block, then it should be possible to provide evidence. However, when I decided to not oppose Internationals block, I said that "I'm going to trust the judgement of the admin who imposed the block.", as I didn't know the history of this user. I intend to do the same in the future. I hope this trust is well placed. - Borofkin 01:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps users are having trouble finding the violations because this user tries to mask the attacks by offering a quasi-compliment along with it, as exampled here. International obviously attacks Amgine when he states that he can't understand Amgine's position, so Amgine must be making biased edits -- and then tops it off with saying that Amgine is [still] important to this community. These masks are prevelent in other messages - most notably, this one: [8]. In this message, International attempts to express himself as a nice individual by "inviting" a user to do something on the wiki (a slap-in-the-face itself), and then goes on to attack Amgine, stating that he is "maybe blind on an eye". I recall being blocked for asking another user to re-read policy before, using similar terminology. This itself is just disrespectful. The user suggested that for every edit I make, I discuss it with others first - that is unacceptable, and is instruction creep from an individual who has no authority to make that demand. The user has failed, in many times, to collaborate before performing actions (the most recent article can prove this). All-in-all, anyone who doesn't share his view pretty much gets an unfair judgement from him, and for the sole reason that since this user brings these items up when others will simply dismiss them and not make a huge fuss, the violations are disregarded most of the time. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 02:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Messedrocker, I must be misunderstanding you. Are you saying that although you handed out the block, MrM and Amgine have the evidence to support the block and you are not really sure what the evidence is? --vonbergm 03:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of who it is coming from, Vonbergm, evidence of policy violations are accepted by all. It is not required of an administrator to point to exactly what they consider to be a policy violation, supported by diffs, as long as it is proven that the user violated the policy they were blocked for. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 03:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MrM, are you saying that the admin that hands out a block does not need to be able to produce evidence supporting the block as long as someone else can produce the evidence?

I think Messedrocker was missled and is apologied for the block as I concern. [9] I dont see this affair ended though. The block was wrong and the responsible behind it have to be confronted. But not here for the moment, I will in time open up suitable forums for that. international 20:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what I'm stating. An admin themselves is not required to back up their statements with specific examples, as long as evidence itself has supported there was a policy violation. I would label International's response to this block as nothing short of intimidation, and will further note that there is more than enough evidence for the block. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 23:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then, are you the initiator of the block made by Messedrocker? international 00:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall any policy stating that I cannot provide rationale and evidence for a block. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 01:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not oppose the block against International, however I find this whole situation very concerning. As I understand it, Messedrocker instituted the block at the urging of Mrmiscellanious, who was part of a current and very heated dispute with International, and Amgine, who hasn't edited on this site for 10 days. As I've said, I trust other admins to institute blocks without providing a detailed and lengthy justification, but I do expect them to be able to justify the blocks when asked, and I expect an administrator to take responsibility for the blocks that they make. As things stand at the moment, a block has been made and the only admin who will stand up and defend it is the user who was in direct and very heated conflict with the user who was blocked. This will not do anything to improve the confidence and trust contributors have in the admins of this wiki. - Borofkin 01:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not every admin is used to blocking contributors. He asked me to provide evidence, and I found evidence. It's very difficult for admins, especially ones who do not usually block individuals, to provide that evidence in relation to policy violations. I provided evidence of policy violations by International, and provided evidence of how they violated WN:E. A policy violation is a policy violation - no if's, and's, or but's about it. So - give him a break. Just because we may be used to this, doesn't necessarily mean all admins are. He spotted a policy violation, but probably didn't mark the diff's down. I found evidence, as he asked me to. I'm sure this admin would appreciate a little friendly guidance from others, as well. We have made drastic changes in the past few months, and not all of them may be fully on board yet. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 01:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support International's position on this matter 100% and feel his has a much more solid foundation in logic and level headed reasoning. Neutralizer 02:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow this reminds me of the case where Messedrocker could not provide reasons why he protected an article after MrM's inital protection was lifted and deemed inappropriate as he was "involved". This happened quite some time ago, but maybe Messedrocker understands now that he is the one that is responsible for his actions and he should only "push the extra button" when he is comfortable with it and believes he understands the situation. I respect Messedrocker for having the integrety to apologize, and as International accepted the apology I agree with MrM that this chapter is should be closed for Messedrocker. However, I still take issue with MrM's actions.

I suggest that if he feels that a user he is in dispute with needs to be blocked (or a page he is actively editing needs to be protected) he should post this on WN:ALERT and let another experienced admin make the call, instead of getting an inexperienced admin in an off-site conversation to do the deed for him (that's how I read the above comments).
I cannot tolerate your statement that an admin does not need to be able to justify his/her as long as someone else claims they can. This goes against fundamental principles of blocking policy. The administrator that hands out a block needs to provide a reason. This reason is an integral part of the block. If the blocking administrator is not able to provide evidence for alleged behaviour that means that the admin did not have a reason to block. (It is the evidence that distinguishes reason from whim.) Even if there is an actual reason supported by actual evidence out there, a block for the wrong reason is just as invalid as a block when there is no reason at all.
The evidence you provided does not justify the block.

--vonbergm 02:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vonbergm, you need to look at the evidence provided. I do not see any relevence in your post above to any of the issues at hand. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 03:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MrM, I must not be understanding this. Are you saying that after you were blocked at Intl's request that you then provided the information used by another admin to block international? If so, where did these arrangements(discussions) take place? Neutralizer 03:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's where I'm coming from too Neut: are discusions about what is to be done going to occur here on this wiki, or elsewhere? And if done elsewhere, I'd say they have a less than legitimate reason to be applied here. -Edbrown05 05:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's cyber-sissy. If you can't say it here, then go to chat and keep it there. -Edbrown05 05:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To use you exprssion Neut, this "knitting club", spilling over into Wikinews is dangerous. Gads, it might even be viewed as a cabal. -Edbrown05 05:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MrM, I've looked at the evidence you have provided, and I don't find it at all compelling. All it demonstrates its that the user has previously been in dispute with you and Amgine. If Amgine were contributing to this discussion, and confirmed for us that International had an ongoing record of not collaborating, and therefore this recent instance of not collaborating justifies a 24 hour block, I would have no problem. I think I don't need to tell you that you have lost the trust of a large proportion of this community, and that is why the same leeway in blocking is not afforded to you. - Borofkin 06:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every time you say that, Borofkin, is a slap in the face. I think I'm well aware of my surroundings on this site, and I could honestly careless who likes me and who doesn't. WN:E specifically states "Work toward agreement", "If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think it's appropriate." and "Concede a point, when you have no response to it; or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste.", and also "Be civil." All of these were violated when International started an editwar, and would not provide any statement of his own on the talk page. That is a violation of WN:E. I was blocked for calling his editing styles "childish" - and, I think that is a fair assesment if you do not wish to engage in comment with other Wikinewsies here on articles. But above all, that is a violation of policy. I've come to notice that your comments make me want to become increasingly more defensive, Borofkin, so I am asking you to not comment about any more cases involving me for the next month. Based on your tone and history of comments, I do not think you adequately represent all sides of cases or give many (if at all, any) credence to certain sides of a dispute. I hope you take this request into serious consideration. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 02:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What edit war are you talking about? All of the diffs provided by yourself and Messedrocker are weeks old. Where are the diffs that justify this block? Where are the diffs that show International has been warned? I ask for this evidence because I don't trust you. I only mention the lack of trust that I have in you because you seem to be at loss as to why people don't take your contribution to conflict resolution seriously. I'm sorry that you see my loss of trust in you as a "slap in the face". It is not intended to be. It is not really even within my control. The situation is not irredeemable, however. I suggest that you take your own advice and try to apologise more, and perhaps visit the tea page and say something nice, as many others have done about you. - Borofkin 02:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, you didn't even look at the article that International was blocked for? Why not? --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 03:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it was a crappy article (until he/she suddenly reformed it). That's why I liked it. It belonged on Portal:Outhouse. <zero tolerance MrM?> -Edbrown05 03:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My post is a little confusing, so let me clarify. Of course I've looked at it. I wouldn't post a message saying that I didn't oppose the block unless I had looked into it. On the article in question I see you reverting without discussion and International reverting without discussion. Neither action is deserving of a block unless there is an established pattern of similar disruptive behaviour, and appropriate warnings given. The diffs provided so far do not establish this. This is what has brought us to the issue of trust. Providing evidence for a "pattern of disruptive behaviour" is very difficult and time consuming, which is why we (normally) trust admins when applying blocks. In this case, I would trust Messedrocker, and I would trust Amgine, but I don't trust you. I was happy for this block to be served and for it to be put behind us, until it became clear that it was actually a block-by-proxy. - Borofkin 03:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you cannot see those diffs as violations of WN:E, Borofkin, but I don't know much more I can tell you other than to read WN:E. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be more to the point Borofkin, I agree with you 100%. But it seems to me some pressure would be alleviated here if the concept of portals were put to use. I digress, but here goes. People will aspire to have a story published on the Main Page. If Wikinews can only get over its absolutism for NPOV, then portals could publish stories that achieve less than those standards. Stories that are important can be improved at the portal level to the point where they are included on the Main Page. In doing it this way, it makes the job easier here. If a story doesn't cut it, push it off the Main Page. If there is interest at the portal level, it gets improved, or it doesn't, but it's news anyway. -Edbrown05 03:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This way, news contributors will know where their particular story is at in the overall concept of Wikinews. Dunno.. (Sorry, I jumped in) -Edbrown05 03:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm still running my mouth...

DragonFire started with what were welcomed, but not necessarily well received, reporting on the Elmwood Ave. development project proposal. And made that very good stuff. If a new story comes along from Albany, the community makes a new portal page for Albany, and let it go from there. -Edbrown05 04:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal/discussion is unrelated to the matter of International's block. You should raise it somewhere else. - Borofkin 04:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -Edbrown05 04:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the history of the discussions among Amgine,MrM AND Messedrocker that led up to International being blocked? Neutralizer 09:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked by International to review this block.

In examining the edits of the user in the time immediately preceding this block, I find aggressive editing which is in line with this user's history, but also a specific effort to not engage in talkpage confrontations. The user did not violate 3RR; the user did remove tags from the article on 4 occasions, but separated by more than 24 hours and on at least one occasion after addressing extensive concerns raised on the talk page.

I do not support this block.

I've also made inquiry into the occasion of this block, in part because it was believed I may have been involved in convincing the admin to make this block. Neither he nor I recall my being present at the time - which doesn't mean much, human memory being what it is. The admin has determined the block was made in error, and apologised to International, which I find a very admirable action in accordance with WN:E: "Be prepared to apologize." Likewise, International has accepted that apology, in accordance with WN:E: "Forgive and forget."

I'm sorry it happened, but mistakes do. Figuring out the right thing to do after a mistake was made is pretty tough, and I respect the two of them for managing to get this far. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 01:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews Censorship Aspect of Cowicide Ban

The following was moved here from WN:ALERT --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MrM recently installed a unilateral ban on Cowicide with no community concensus. I hereby dispute this ban and request an admin up or down vote be taken. In addition, I just started a story on censorship in China. We all know about the complicity by Yahoo in getting people locked up there. We all know about the human rights abuses there. I am very concerned about the fact there was the locking of this User's talk page because he used the term "Chinese communist bastards" and the locking admin's comment about how people in China "prefer their government". I am really concerned about the lack of due process with Cowicide as we should be about a lack of due process with any User. I still don't know what proof the blockers have nor why they are not using the de-editing Arbcom process we recently established. Neutralizer 18:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There does not appear to be a lack of consensus concerning this block. Administrators do not vote on blocks or bans. If you wish to start a poll or begin dispute resolution (perhaps leading to a request for arbitration) on behalf of the user, please feel free. Admin action alerts is not the place for this conversation as I think all admins are aware of Cowicide's block. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 19:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, as i Said on WN:WC, the meaning of the words de-editing process escape me, except for a faint hint of a failed proposal from a long time ago. What are you talking about? Bawolff ☺☻ 19:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that all admins are aware of the lifetime block of this User. I also would like this block to receive the same type of overall admin confirmation on this page that many other blocks of smaller duration have been entitled to right here...some as short as a few hours. I dispute this block and wish that this dispute be treated with at least as much attention and respect as the admin group gave to the disputes of the 1 day and less blocks of MrM. To do otherwise would show extreme bias imo. Neutralizer 19:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a lifetime block; I'd like every active admin to review it and voice their view and if they feel the proven evidence supports it; then so be it; but a lifetime block is too important to slide through without every active admin. reviewing the matter. Neutralizer 19:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My email address is publicly available, Cowicide's talk page is unprotected. I've seen no indication that the user wants to participate constructively in the Wikinews project, by the way. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 19:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the block, and I think there's been enough discussion for anyone curious enough to go Google Cowicide and see that some believe he is one of those responsible for Boing Boing dropping user comments. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"some believe"? this is the problem; whether Wikinews will issue lifetime blocks based upon heresay and slanderous innuendo; not to mention that off-site behavior should not effect on-site discipline. Neutralizer 19:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've also talked with people on #wikinews-en , and it seems that both Amgine and Chiacomo both are aware, and don't dispute it. (mostly citing the part when he defied the block through open-proxies) Bawolff ☺☻ 19:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I knew the opinion of those 2; I'd like to know the opinion of the other 20+ admins. Neutralizer 20:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This might surprise you, but Wikinews does not revolve around you. And if you're expecting that 40 people respond everytime Neutralizer calls you are surely mistaken. --Deprifry|+T+ 21:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support block. If he shows some indication of wanting to participate constructively rather than waste others' time, the block can be lifted. 72.165.204.124 21:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC) (Hm, I got logged out; this was me. Mindspillage (spill yours?))[reply]

If Cowicide wants to come back and behave, he should get a new username and contribute in a polite manner. I doubt anyone would care if he did this. The name Cowicide should probably not be used again, even if the offsite messages/open proxy vandalism were not done by the same user as the WN user Cowicide, it will be very hard for a user with the same name as the vandal who did that to be accepted as a member of the community. --Cspurrier 22:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I should inform you that the user created two sockpuppets last night, resulting in one of those usernames to make this edit. I only see continuation of this person's disruptive behavior, and it appears to be the only motive of being a user here. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 03:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Cowidice is a little mad. On the face of things, the first time the user is blocked is by MrM here, a block that followed shortly after the user's post here, an 'oppose' vote on DragonFire's admin request. I don't understand the blocking comment --> (Circumventing existing block from August), when the user account contribs began in February of this year. The edit history of Cowicide apparently has nothing to do with Aug. 05, but it starts Feb. 06. -Edbrown05 06:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MrM, why did you block Cowicide? -Edbrown05 07:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sabatoge involving Requests for Administrators.

What a nice link I came across. http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2161/30747

Notice the "IMPORTANT RECRUITMENT DRIVE" under the article...This is my favorite quote:

Quote

Eventually, with enough of us in there we can become the admins there and change the balance of power!!! TIP: Some of us should act like we are conservatives so they will let their guard down and allow us to become admins. Then our proxy admins can vote in other admins, get it? Getting FACTS out about our govt. is something YOU can do to TRULY help America right now. Been frustrated? This can be your outlet: Take over wikinews from the conservatives! http://en.wikinews.org/

Posted by Anonymous.

Just thought this was very interesting. Jason Safoutin 12:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. We dont have a problem with to many articles yet and a previous discussion about US Gov infiltrators who are welcome if they contributes stands (?) I guess. international 08:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More info here http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/User_talk:Cowicide

Also more here. I only pasted my "favorite quote". Jason Safoutin 11:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, here are the rest:

Hmmm...and personal attacks have moved off Wikinews now...not that we can do anything about it here: (also from http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/2161/30747 )
Quote

Neutralizer really needs our help. Keep in mind, be civil... and when conservatives like Mrmiscellanious attack you with insults.. be polite and try to get around his agendas slowly or he and others will ban you.

Also this one from: http://www.haloscan.com/comments.php?user=crooks&comment=7421#535766
Quote

Eventually, with enough of us in there we can become the admins there and change the balance of power!!! TIP: Some of us should act like we are conservatives so they will let their guard down and allow us to become admins. Then our proxy admins can vote in other admins, get it?

Posted by Cowicide...wonder if its Wikinews's same Cowicide?? hmm.

Another from a Cowicide at: indymedia:
Quote

Wikinews has been inflitrated by a crazed little clique of militaristic neo-con Bush nuts. Please help us take it back! There's a struggle going on to preserve the independence of Wikinews, the collaborative current affairs version of Wikipedia. Stories that make America look bad either get watered down or completely stopped. Please help us reclaim Wikinews! Cowicide, 25.10.2005 00:51

Even has a link directly to the water cooler.

All other "quotes" are posted by "anonymous". Jason Safoutin 11:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"TIP: Some of us should act like we are conservatives so they will let their guard down and allow us to become admins. Then our proxy admins can vote in other admins, get it?}}"

Fits quite good for you. Dragonfire, are you an infiltrator from Indymedia that going to turn 180 after gaining administrative status? Then you fooled me, must change my vote immediatly. international 15:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I never knew what a proxy was until I asked around yesterday. Jason Safoutin 11:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutly great (: . They'll welcome to try. All the more contributations. Bawolff ☺☻ 20:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<heavy, heavy sigh>. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 20:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean I'm the only radical liberal around here!?!? Awwh nuts! —THIS IS MESSED OCKER (TALK) 18:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews2 on IRC

There is a new IRC channel on irc.freenode.net and its called wikinews2. Its purpose is simple: This channel is for non-news related chat and for Wikinewsies to talk about everyday life with other Wikinewsies. I am hoping this channel will allow us to get along better and encourage people to be more friendly. Everyone is encouraged to come on in :)

Just log onto the IRC freenode server and type: /j wikinews2 :) Jason Safoutin 13:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. How about a more descriptive name, such as #wikinews-chatter?--Eloquence 23:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree...how can I change the name? I registered the channel and such so all I need to know is how to change it :) Jason Safoutin 17:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Writing Contest

I've considered another Writing contest...anyone interested in participating if I do it? Ral315 (talk) 01:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely :) Just let me know the details :) Jason Safoutin 17:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the link. Ral315 (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too many other things going on to take part, but I did add to the prize pot. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for interview from candidate for US senate

There is a request for interview up from Pete Ashdown, a candidate for the US Senate. Any Wikinews contributor is welcome to conduct the interview, if they think it is worthwhile. There is a discussion area on the request an interview page. - Borofkin 00:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lower standards?

Is it me, or has it become too easy to publish an article? Back when I was a more active contributor, my articles couldn't be published until they had regional and topical categories, as well as at least three sources. Now I see paragraph-long articles with neither type of category and only one source (which is quite problematic). Granted, some newcomers will not be that aware with how Wikinews works, but we, the active contributors, shouldn't allow these articles to be published until they satisfy a decent standard. —THIS IS MESSED OCKER (TALK) 01:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm not sure if I'm seasoned enough to make comments here, but I'm going to anyway. Your point is well taken. There seems little point in publishing badly researched, sloppily written drivel. However, I do think that concisely written "paragraph-long articles" have a place on Wikinews. Other news agencies will publish 'stubs'. There's only so much depth some stories can have. At the moment each day seems to be represented by about ten stories. Considering this covers every single country, it's not very many. Just my 2p. WillJenkins 11:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikinews Failing ?

Our audience numbers seem to have stagnated

A; Does the community care? B; If so, then what can be done about it?

I'll begin; I care about the numbers. I think they are stagnant because potentially good contributors have not enjoyed the experience here so what can be done is;

A; Change the experience here then; B; Invite back all those who left in a huff and ask them to give us another try. Neutralizer 00:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC) good ibutors have[reply]

Looking at the graph you cite and the 2 year graph, I don't see stagnation... I see some peaks when Wikinews covered something in a unique way and otherwise slow but steady growth in our reach. I really don't care about the numbers, by the way... I care more about the purpose and mission -- the numbers are fun to look at, but with Alexa you're only looking at a certain segment of the internet population. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 00:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, the population who uses Internet Explorer. Who knows; we might've had a traffic surge in Firefox users? —THIS IS MESSED OCKER (TALK) 01:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa is certainly biased against us. People who use Wikis and alternative news sites are usually more technology-savvy than the average population and therefore probably don't use IE and don't install a pretty useless toolbar. --Deprifry|+T+ 05:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's right -- in order to be tracked by Alexa, one must install the toolbar... --Chiacomo ^(talk) 05:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my bursting of the excuse balloon but isn't this a wiki? Why don't we just admit we're doing an absolutely pathetic job with this project and try to figure out ways to turn it around? Neutralizer 04:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a great slap in the face to the community! I certainly don't think any of us have been doing a pathetic job here, unless it was your comments that were being judged. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 02:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless, as Chiacomo says for himself, we don't really care about audience growth. Neutralizer 04:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this too is a wiki older than both Wikinews and Wikipedia -- and possibly more important than either in many ways. Wikinews and Wikipedia are very different projects. I don't think it's fair at all to compare them in terms of growth (even though Wikipedia's growth in the early days was slow...) When one does compares Wikipedia's early growth and the early (current) growth of Wikinews -- well, things aren't that bad. But... Again, I say, Wikinews and Wikipedia are different projects -- our product, news, is fleeting -- most of our viewers don't search back in our archives for old stories... All of Wikipedia's product is current and likely to be used at any moment. Our readership is increasing slowly but steadily (with some spikes when certain articles are popular). I would like to see this information updated as it would give us a clue as to editorship which is much more important, in my opnion, than readership. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 04:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also It should be noted, that I only know one admin who uses IE, Everyone else I asked is ussually Firefox, lynx or Opera or something else. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use IE, and the only way to increase those figures is to advertise Alexa on the site. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The IE excuse is REALLY weak; The same IE data shows Wikipedia is growing 3 times as fast as Wikinews Neutralizer 11:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'pedia is also (proably) used at the very minimun by three times more IE users then us (there more popular with the general world). These statistics honestly mean nothing. In addition Some anti-spyware programs also un-install the alexa toolbar, so many people who use IE don't use Alexa (admitidly that was one program, but still) Bawolff ☺☻ 22:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm a "newbie" I guess, in that I've only been posting stories for a couple of weeks. I've posted five so far: "Soft drink companies to stop high school soda sales" "Drug, alcohol, tobacco abuse rising among California teens" "Soft drink foes cheer victory, lament remaining junk foods in schools" "High school seniors take last-chance exit test while judge prepares to strike it down" "Judge delays exit exam decision until Friday" The experience of being a wikinews writer has been almost entirely negative for me. I've been insulted by an editor, threatened with lawsuits, had my employer contacted, and more. Why would I continue?JLCourier 22:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Email your photographs to Wikinews

I registered wikinews.pics@gmail.com (functions as a forwarder to me) so that people won't have to register if they have pictures that would help Wikinews's journalistic goals. A person could e-mail them to me, I make sure they're of acceptable copyright status, and then I upload them (assigning proper credit of course). This'll help Wikinews maintain a citizen-journalism goal, where people won't have to register if all they'll ever do is contribute a single photo. I would upload the photo to either Commons or Wikinews, whichever is more important. Anyways, the e-mail address is functioning and I was wondering how I could spread the message of this service of mine for Wikinews. —THIS IS MESSED OCKER (TALK) 05:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added to MediaWiki:Uploadnologintext. Should I add it to the upload page for the logged in? Bawolff ☺☻ 22:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who has control of Wikinews right now?

I am not going to mention any names nor events nor provide any diffs. But here is the naked fact as I see it.

The 4 administrators who exert the most arbitrary and prejudicial blocks, who chase away the most contributors and who use the terms "warning" and "disruptive" the most, are exactly the same ones who;

A; Provide very little in the way of article contributions
B; Are the most likely to censor reporting which might be seen as critical of any government
C; Have been the most active admins here in terms of oversight
D; Break the policies whenever they wish; particularly by threatening or blocking contributors they are in disputes with.
E; Promote off-site discussion and decision making through numerous off-site platforms they set up
F; Operate as a posse to protect each other and gang up on other individual contributors
G; Are involved in projects which will benefit if Wikinews fails

I don't think anything can be done about it simply because they have sufficient time and numbers at their disposal to control the project as they wish.

BOTTOM LINE?

This project is not controlled by the overall community, and this is the result; in my opinion. Neutralizer 23:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is close to a personal attack, but... If you truly believe these things, you could request de-adminship or submit specific actions to the ArbCom for review, or you could nominate others for administrative privileges.... --Chiacomo ^(talk) 01:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a far from a personal attack as it gets. The tools to examine what is, and what isn't, being viewed at Wikinews by the world-wide community (meaning the internet itself), has been removed from Wikinews without explanation.

Nothing could be more grievous.

There is no way for Wikinews to know what to do if it unable to receive statistical feedback. The absence of statistics undermines the ability of Wikinews to understand where its news viewership lies, and therefore prevents it from understanding what should be done to correct itself.

Statistical measures, in terms of page hits for a particular story were once available, and suddenly stopped around the time that Wikinews entered into the debate over the creation of Portals. I participated in the Portal debate to answer what I thought were going to be changes to help this site further define what, statistically, was considered a news story on this site and what, otherwise and for statistical reasons, was going to be considered outside story content and therefore less relevant.

And then the irony, or "slap in the face", to use MrMiscellanious' words, is that during this drive create Portals, page hit statistics for stories were inexplicably stopped. Why?

They were stopped, almost as if to influence the Portal debate outcome. And then when the outcome, meaning portals were intoduced, and therefore met criteria I thought would support the re-introduction of essential information to know where this ship is sailing, the blow hard stops blowing.

The portal proposal was implemented, and the availability for statistics disappeared! WTF! -Edbrown05 10:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether page hit statistics are generated or not is not within the control of the Wikinews community or the admins. --Deprifry|+T+ 10:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is in control of it? -Edbrown05 10:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikimedia developers who disabled it due to the enormous stress it caused on the servers. --Deprifry|+T+ 10:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews is owned and operated by the Wikimedia Foundation. If administrators were that god damn bad, don't you just think we would've had Foundation intervention by now? —THIS IS MESSED OCKER (TALK) 10:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia seems to be withholding information. A statistical page to summarize news story hits was disabled according to Deprifry, because of server strain concerns. If all news stories here are published by using one of what appears to be twelve 'top level' topics, wouldn't those Topics/Categories need to be the only pages where server tasks become involved in tracking news story hits? -Edbrown05 22:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the feature is a thing in mediawiki thats programed for all or nothing, but try asking the developers. Even if its just the portals, it would be nice. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stats are cool but If they're making wikinews into a turtle, it sucks. There are other statistical measurments, but honestly they arn't that good. But who cares. The admin(s) you are directing this to, are not going to kill wikinews in the night. Please stop this non-sense, you've said it quite a few times now, and with almost no evidence (and any evidence you do have is about equivalent to this graph). Anyways, the point of this rant is if you don't have good evidence to back up your consparicy theories, don't share them. They get very annoying fast.

p.s. How is http://journowiki.org competing with wikinews in any form? Bawolff ☺☻ 22:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, whats your bottom line. WE have one spike a while back, and overall growth. That seems to be a good thing. We also had an interview with Jimbo arround then-An interview with Jimbo Wales. (However that wasn't the popular /.'ed one so it may not count for too much. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentBawolff, my bottom line is I don't really care why those 4 admins. are spending so much time here and are so controlling of the project; what I care about is how many good contributors like these[10][11][12][13] [14] those 4 admins. are chasing off every single month. That is what is causing the project to stagnate. These 5 most recent "Chase Aways" tell anyone who reads their exit edits exactly what/who chased them away; and my bottom line is I'd like to see the other 20 or 30 admins on Wikinews recognize and appreciate the feelings and reasons given by this stream of "Chase Aways" and step in when you see other contributors being treated in the same way as these 5 were. Hopefully Borofkin's "short leash"approach regarding Etiquette infractions will be embraced as that,in itself,could cure this major problem; but I already see it being circumvented and watered down;not to mention that new contributors are not likely to take things to admin. alert. My bottom line is I'd like to see the other 20+ admins. spend some time protecting contributors from the turn off language, threats, article obstructions and Etiquette policy breaches by those 4. Neutralizer 00:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking the developers, and I don't know what you mean Bawolff. Portals were created to separate actual news stories from all the other chat that exists here. The portals were created, so the server strain concern should be answered. -Edbrown05 22:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It just to me sounding like something that was either you enable, or disable. But then again I don't know that so I shouldn't speculate on something I don't have a clue about. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will press on with this because it is not a rant. Wikinews stories are reported with 'Topic' and 'Region' categories. The simplist thing, to my way of reasoning, is to track news stories by the criteria of being a 'top-level topic'. This news story, Soft drink foes cheer victory, lament remaining junk foods in schools, which arguably belongs in the topic category of [[Category:Education]], was placed in the top level category of [[Category:Health]]. Simply tracking those top level 'Topic' categories will enable the software to be less than an "all or nothing" tool, but rather an essential tool to examine page hits on news stories that are receiving the interest of the internet. -Edbrown05 23:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting hoax news

I'm not on Wikinews very often, so I'm not au fait with your policies, but today I came across a story "Sunny Javad: New Manchester United superstar?" from April 28, which is starting to get picked up in other languages if you do a Google search. Now, it's very nicely wiki-formatted, but the problem is that it appears to be total nonsense - there doesn't seem to be any independent evidence that this person even exists, and even if he did, a young teenager is hardly very newsworthy in this context – plenty of hopefuls join the youth teams of Premiership clubs and never amount to anything. It's also worth noting that the original creator of the article has made no other contributions to Wikinews at all. I've stuck a note on the talk page about the article's likely hoax-ness, but how does one go about getting a report deleted? -- Arwel 15:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a clear case, put {{delete}} on it. If there's some ambiguity, tag with {{dr}} and list at WN:DR. --Deprifry|+T+ 15:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've also got {{hoax}} for hoaxs, but only If you're 100% sure. If its very minnor you could put {{cleanup|Needs verification}} or {{sources}}. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, if the article has been published for a while, we usually add a retraction to the top in a flashy font. Its a bit revisionist to just delete old hoaxes. Nyarlathotep 13:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

News ticker

I am interested in a 'ticker' or a "more soon" box/template for the front page. It would show a synopsis of a "Breaking News" story that is not yet published or ready to be...aka no sources or something that is likely to change by the second. BBC does it with three stories, ABC does it when they only have a sentence to report on.

I think this would boost readertship and I would welcome any inpuit to this. Remember one thing, I have only the idea and someone(s) else would have to "build" it :) Jason Safoutin 17:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its intreasting,A bit similiar to the developing stories box though. By the way take everything I say here with a grain of salt. I don't have the slightest clue what I'm talking about so I have a hgh probability of getting something wrong here. Amgine, and Ilya both contributed to DPL's so they would proably be good people to ask. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one that's more advanced (We had it pull straight from the WIKINEWS RSS feed). Easily incorporate "breaking news" if it gets its own RSS maybe? Because I'm blocked by Mrmiscellanious, I'm unable to check out the DynamicPageList2 to see how to incorporate it, etc... won't let me even look at it because of the block.

Anyway, here's this:
[spam link removed]

& here's a very simple one that's more laughable:
[spam link removed]

Cowicide 10:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

see [15] for links. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats weird, its on meta (where I'm presuming you arn't blocked) and even so a block by mrm should not stop you from seeing it. user:Bawolff 07:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Cowicide. I like your ticker. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should we

Vandals/spammers, Wiley on wheels, Wikinews is Comunisim (Oh my!). With no sources, this is just begging for hoaxes, spam, and vandals. Also is this going to be a link or just a line. We could however use this as a wanted stories box. Put red links to stories that you described for others to create. We could also use a javascript scroll thingy, where when you hover it moves. But then you have to remember that blink/marquee is one of the ultimate evils. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well It can be controlled only by some if need be. But the same risk is run with any other section on the front page...even articles. Jason Safoutin 02:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How would we

Three main ways I see (Keep in mind I proably don't have the technical know-how to do this, these are just thoughts)

Modify the dynamic page list extention. (Needs someone willing to do)
Use DynamicPageList2 - mode=inline was made for this. (Proably would need to get An O.K. from the developers. How hard is that?)
Use Normal DPL, with modification to CSS/JS (Could work well, with cool effects, but cross browser support would be very hard.(Impossible in non-supporting browsers like lynx)
Manually updated template (easy way out)

Depends on precisly what you want. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a template....user updated...maybe only by a select few (just an idea). It would appear abouve the top story as a "more soon" type thing similar to what BBC has...but not moving or ticking...per say (although good idea). I know that in the past breaking news has come along before it would appear online. The box would then be removed and the article, if of international interest, should be transferred to the top story. Jason Safoutin 02:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats easy enough. I'll see if I can come up with something sometime in the forseeable future (if I get time, and I remember, which I'll proablly have time but forget about like most things I say i'll do. So feel free to remind me.). I'm using lynx currently so I couldn't look at cowicides thingy, but next time I'm on a graphical browser I will. user:Bawolff 07:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New user welcome messages

I think we should put more effort into assisting new users, as Wikinews has a very steep learning curve, and it can be very daunting trying to have that first article published. To that end, I've created three templates: {{needsources}}, {{needexpand}}, and {{needcleanup}}. They should be placed on the users talk page, with the article as the first argument, thusly: {{subst:needsources|Article created by new user goes here}}. When tagging articles, I encourage everyone to also consider using one of these templates on the talk page of the user/ip that created the article. The new templates are documented here: Wikinews:Template messages/User talk namespace. - Borofkin 07:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a great idea, but it also may be time consuming. Perhaps some users would like to form a committe (like the welcoming one)? --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 19:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, it is time consuming. I think that in the long run time will be saved because it will reduce the number of mistakes that new users make. This way we stick the information they need right in their face. - Borofkin 02:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. See also: Wikinews:Welcommittee and Wikinews:Welcommittee/greetings (which you proably already know about, but thought I'd link so that passer-bys don't have to hunt through the wiki for them) Bawolff ☺☻ 05:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lead article

I am offended by pictures of prisoners blind folded and bound on the front page of Wikinews. I changed the image to a more appropriate one based on that. Amgine, howevcer; reverted. Wikinews has NEVER usewd any pictures of Guan. prisoners or even saddam's sons on the frint page. I have uploaded at least 2 toher images that are much suitable. I would like a comment please. The current photo, IMO is unacceptable.

Geneva convention:

Part I. General Provisions: Article 4 A (who is a POW?)

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention: (1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

Wikinews has never before used these images before. No need to start now. Jason Safoutin 18:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews is not censored for the protection of mirrors, or for anybody else. With that said, we don't purposly try to offend people. Theres a balance in there somewhere. Which picture are you talking about, the current one where they are tied up? To me that seems okay (nothing grusome). 20:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I am interested in sorting this out also. I like to know, is DF right or wrong about this? my question on policy

earlier discusion: Geneva Convention doesn't Apply

international 22:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the mere existence of Guantanamo is a spit in the face of the Geneva conventions and basically all international law of the past century or so this is doesn't seem to be that big of an issue. Also, the prisoners are not identifiable on the picture so no one is humiliated by its publication. --Deprifry|+T+ 15:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the fact that the pictures might be disturbing to younger or sensitive viewers, there seems to be no problem in displaying them. But then again, we aren't censored for minors and don't claim to be. PVJ

(Talk) 14:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the source of the picture is clear and it is available (licenesed) in such a way that we can use it and the picture is relevant (not only related) then there is no problem with a picture -- I would, personally, prefer not to have shocking images on the front page of Wikinews and if there is an appropriate image that is not shocking or gruesome then it should be used on the front page (one or two more shocking pictures could be used in the article with link to a commons gallery of a complete set -- if there are more than 3 or 4 pics, total). --Chiacomo ^(talk) 16:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AlterNet about Wikinews

AlterNet, a liberal news site, has a survey of various "citizen journalism" sites, including Wikinews, here. It's quite critical of Wikinews, especially of our NPOV. I've written a response. Note that their comment box has an annoying 4,000 character limit.--Eloquence 00:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think being criticized by a political website is a good thing for NPOV. I certainly wouldn't want this place to be endorsed by one, no matter what side it was on. However, on the flip side, the one instance it shows as "proof" was done at the infancy of the project, a no-doubter that some things would be slipped in under-the-radar. I think this wiki is on much better merits now than it ever has been. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 03:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were two instances of "proof":

Comedians lampoon Bush at White House Correspondents' Dinner <-- robotic, according to the cited AlterNet article
An angered Robert Novak exited set of CNN Inside Politics show <-- fact checking, according to cited AlterNet article

Taken in it's entirety, the article, in so far as how it dealt with Wikinews, was a polemic against a policy of NPOV. -Edbrown05 07:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HEY, something is happening!!!! That's news. Leave the neutality stuff for later people, and keep the what's happening stuff in check by on-site participation. -Edbrown05 08:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, they feel we are boring since they like reading witty agressive stuff. Seems par for the course. Nyarlathotep 14:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only issue is that of the commentator that they stated in the article. And no Ed, as I've told you before - news comes second, after neutrality. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 19:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Par for the course is a news report. I fail to see how Rueters reports, the most neutral news source in my opinion, is any less news than say, the Associated Press that toes to the US line, or the New York Times that chimes to its own liberal message, or Wikinews that is unaccountable to any thing. That's what makes this cite more wonderful, it's unpredictability. To say news agencies don't harbor biases is meaningless, because of course they do. What could or should make Wikinews interesting is that it harbors the biases of anyone interested in commenting on a current event. It ought not be a 'neutrality' thing being obfuscated by policy, it's a survival thing of writing that lasts.

Yeah, so participation at it's current level hasn't solved "neutralizing" an article... don't build in NPOV processes that have nothing to do with news. Question, what does a neutral-point-of view have to do with reporting news? Answer, when readers participate in news reports, the report reflects consensus or a lack of interest. Pressing NPOV will guarantee lack of interest. -Edbrown05 04:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, take your neutral-point-view-stuff, and shove it. -Edbrown05 05:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of Sources

I've noticed that some IP's are adding only sources to our articles. This is treated as spam, and therefore it should be reverted if the sources were not used in the development of the article. If any other contributors or admins see any such behavior, please revert it, as this is a common method of spamming, which often goes unnoticed. If users wish to provide some sources to be looked at, the talk page is used for just that purpose. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 22:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open Source Views Logo

Over the coming weeks, I'd like to do a few more interviews with notable figures in free software & open source. I would like to have a nice series icon for these -- perhaps something similar to this logo with the text "Open Source Views" underneath it. Anyone up for the challenge?--Eloquence 03:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great! Who's first on the list? --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 22:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisource has some great logos. I like this one and this one. I'll see if I can come up with anything. (I really don't have any ideas though, and I don't want to base it too much on a wikisource logo as they seem to be in the middle of an argument over having a new logo or not. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have an almost-finished interview with Battle for Wesnoth lead developer David White coming up next.--Eloquence 07:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I really don't have enough time on my hands to make a logo. (Or the neccessary skills to make one fast). Sorry. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interview questions for "Pirate Party" leader

I'll be doing an e-mail interview with the leader of the newly formed Swedish "Pirate Party" in the next few days. If there are any questions you'd like me to fit in, leave them here or on my talk page.--Eloquence 21:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agh, I whish I could vote for them (I'm not in Europe). Questions:

Whats your position on Moral rights (the right of attribution, the right to have a work published anonymously or pseudonymously, and the right to the integrity of the work (i.e., it cannot be distorted or otherwise mutilated))
Do you feel trademark law is adequete as it is?
Would you apply these policies retroactivly; Would you apply them to copyrighted work from another company?
Do you think that weaker intelectural property laws would lessen the ammount of products released in sweeden by international companies?
What Is your policy on non-copyright issues, like the environment, economics, etc. Do you have any policy on these.
Why is your page invalid XHTML 1.0 transitional (Okay thats just a little thing that annoys me about everything, so it may not be a good question).

I may think of more later. Sounds intreasting. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to question 6, a majority of the invalid coded are caused by the following:

Manually input HTML codes must be closed.

<br> is a common problem. Use <br /> instead.

HTML tags must be lower case.
<img /> tags must have an alt parameter.

Karen 07:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well its better then most sites, but the world would be a better place if every one passed the w3c test with flying colours in my humble opinion. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a good question: "Do you think similar parties will form internationally?" "Is there / will there be a Pirate Party in the United States?" -- NERD42 EMAIL TALK H2G2 PEDIA UNCYC 16:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taking into account the fact that your party seems to have a rather narrow ideology revolving mostly around copyright issues and has not yet expressed any other policies do you think you will win votes?

know the truth, and the truth shall set you free. —John 8:32

I have put some comments below from several,imo, great editors in an effort to urge the community to recognize and deal with our ongoing losses of great editors. When they fade away at a rate of 1 or 2 per month; it is easy to not take notice of the damage to the project caused when we lose such people.

"Requests for de-adminship;

NOTE: I am pulling out of the Wikinews project. My reason is the political objectives of Mrmiscellanious. His blatant twisitng of Wikinews policy is entirely offensive. I've had enough. Wiknews is a good project. And I've enjoyed being part of it. But with people like Mrmiscellanious, whose political agenda is very clear from his user page, it is very difficult, extremely time consuming and mentally taxing to argue, edit and rehash a basic story to keep it published. It seems that any story that goes against his POV, will be turned into an edit war. I do not have the time to argue for days on end. I'd much prefer to create another article, than debate the merits of POV. I have been contributing to Wikinews, (some 120 articles since October 2005) and know full well what is expected of contributors. However, I feel that Mrmiscellanious abuses the policy to justify his own politcal agenda. I do not have the energy to debate his personal politics here. Goodbye... --elliot_k 16:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)"

Lastly, the fact is that I wrote 7 articles from scratch yesterday. 2 of which went on become leads (only once by me). The fact that despite this I'm still not given the benefit of the doubt and assumed good faith, and instead am treated the same as a spammer or vandal. With that being said, I can not contribute to a project where I am not allowed to edit in peace. Email me when the vast majority of good administrators get a tighter hold on this place. --MateoP 22:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Wrong matters here. I am not Neutralizer. I will return though to abandoning this site as useless. Your refusal to investigate the matter of your complaint and yourself settle it in the article by such a simple edit as I have and afterward making these bans for my only 3 edits and not 4 as required for revert violation hav discouraged me from returning. 65.1.149.41 23:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, this has been extremely frustrating. I have long been a fan of wikinews, and helped a bit at the very beginning, and read it on a weekly basis but generally haven't had time to contribute lately. But I had a couple hours today and decided to help. I looked at all the articles in development, and the article in question was the most interesting one to me, so decided to help there, by de-copyvio'ing it. I thought it was an interesting article well worth having on Wikinews. The fact that it was from a US Army captain rather than from some random person, made it seem newsworthy to me. Certainly the article could use from some work to make it less NPOV but I am surprised that instead of letting people work on continuing to improve it, that it got brushed aside so quickly and harshly. Needless to say, I will think twice about contributing to Wikinews in the future. BryceHarrington 22:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I am forced to consider whether it is worthwhile to continue any efforts to contribute to or use any aspect of this wikinews project any longer; the answer unwaveringly is that it is not. There is nothing that can be constructed here, the fools are too active. Against all of my previous observations, there is no way to separate their foolishness from productive work; there are no practical limitations to their destructive activities. I must revise the conclusion of my 16 month observation of this site and state that content here is not valued at all, it is worthless, even though only five months ago I thought it the most valued aspect. For anyone considering joining this hell, reconsider. At most, never venture beyond the main page's published articles again for if you do you will be caught on the inaccuracies and omissions that result from the activities of the fools. The mechanisms of this project will only cause you to pity it for its fate and make you unable to tolerate any of its articles. There is a beautiful illusion if you stop at the main page and never venture to any formation pages; stay on the main page or leave completely if you desire to retain a positive view of the project. I resign. An end to this. Opalus 04:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Do not use errant abbreviations when correcting others! Remind all when needed of what seems unknown here, that errors made when any user may be excited are not malevolent! Remind all of the full scope of news! Remind all that editor status is the most important of all! Remind all that vendetta is never useful! User:Octavian

Neutralizer 04:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saddened to see these people go, (well the ones I knew anyway, which is about 80%). But honestly what do you want me (or us) to do about it? There is no magic formula to make evryone happy. Bawolff ☺☻ 05:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block MrM and Amgine with the same frequency and duration as you do me. Press them as well as all admins who have been here for more than 6 months to stand for re-confirmation like Cartman did. That's what you could do. Neutralizer 05:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody needs to be blocked. One policy I would support is: "If there is an ongoing dispute about an article, all sides are expected to work constructively on the article itself. If either side believes the article is unsalvageable, they should propose it for deletion." What I have a problem with is "drive-by criticism" of the kind: "This is POV, you need to fix this." That is OK when the original author is clearly not participating (drive-by submission), but if the original author is making a good faith effort to improve the article, so should those who criticize it.

In the case that prompted Elliot to leave, I see no actual edits to the content of the article by MrM in the edit history. Frankly, this is not the first time he has engaged in very aggressive NPOV tagging of articles. On the talk page, he requests additional information to be added, but has made no visible effort to add the information himself. This is currently perfectly acceptable, but I don't think it needs to be. If MrM felt the article was so bad that it needs to be deleted, he could have made a DR (which probably would have failed). Edits which solely consist of the addition and removal of tags are not constructive.

For NPOV disputes in particular, I also feel that we need to be much clearer that "lack of balance" is rarely a reason to not publish an article. You can delay, based on discussion, but under the above policy, it would be also the responsibiliy of the one complaining about lack of balance to add opposing views. "Lack of balance" is too much of a "catch-all" that can be used in almost any situation -- you can always make up something that would be nice to have in an article.--Eloquence 06:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eloquence, I support what you have said wholeheartedly. The key word is collaboration, which means working together on articles, and working together on talk pages when there is a conflict while editing the article. The focus is on the article. - Borofkin 06:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to remind everyone that one key difference between Wikipedia and Wikinews is that we do not publish articles immediately. On Wikipedia, POV articles can be flagged, but they continue to otherwise be published in the same state as NPOV ones. This is not the case here -- making it much more frustrating for authors when their work is treated in this manner. I have in the past proposed that we should be more liberal in publishing. One way to do this would be to distinguish between tags which delay publication, and those which do not. An article could still be published while being visibly tagged with a "balance dispute", for instance. That would take at least some of the frustration out of these discussions.

I'm not sure MrM quite appreciates this frustration of having your work effectively made useless. In fact, this frustration speaks out of many of the comments above. Another way to address it would be to have a generic "update in progress" tag like I proposed to MrM a while ago here: Template:Updates (see also my comments on his talk page about this -- it was prompted by a very similar dispute). This would allow those who feel an article doesn't yet meet the highest criteria to continue working on it while already publishing a version. Needless to say, MrM didn't like the idea, so I dropped it.

I do think reform is absolutely necessary, based on the frustrating experiences cited above. While I'm naming MrM specifically here, punishing him or anyone else will not accomplish anything. Remove him from the picture, and you have the next guy come along and play the same role of "fighting bias". The problem is not with fighting bias, but with a publishing policy which has been, historically, very restrictive. This is in part my own fault as, in the first weeks of Wikinews, I set up a very conservative review/publish model in part to placate all those who had opposed Wikinews as being too risky for legal reasons or otherwise. We have tweaked this model quite substantially, but I don't think we've tweaked it enough yet.--Eloquence 07:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have made some interesting points. I only have time to comment briefly. I remember commenting in the past that there was no reason why we couldn't do away with the concept of "publishing" articles entirely, and just have all articles available on the main page all the time. This would expose the underside of Wikinews, but that is how it is done on Wikipedia - all articles are equally available all the time. If the articles are crap, that encourages readers to get involved. The only issue is that our current processes result in articles being deleted if consensus to publish is not reached within a certain time. This would have to be overhauled as well. Either way, I think this is a discussion we should have. - Borofkin 07:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need to publish everything that is submitted - because, frankly, that includes a lot of crap, and we do have an editorial responsibility to get things right which end up in RSS feeds and blogs - but I see little reason not to publish a story that is written in good faith, accurate, and attributes its statements to sources. If it can be made more balanced, that's nice, but we can always publish an updated version later.--Eloquence 08:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews-is it facing a bleak future?

I was just browsing through Alexa.com's statistics about Wikinews, and this what I found: 1)As of today, Wikinews's ranking is 13,986, the average over three months being 9,072. 2)Wikinews has dropped 751 ranks in the past three months. 3)As of today the site's reach is 145 per million users, and the three month average is 142.5 per million users. A drop of three percent over the past three months. In terms of reach, Wikinews is bettered by Wikiquote, Wikibooks, Wikipedia (I suppose that doesn't really count) and Wiktionary. Even in terms of traffic rankings, Wikinews is beaten by all of the aforementioned websites. I think it is high time we figured out the problems took concrete measures to correct them. PVJ (Talk) 09:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The stats have always been fluctuating, drops and increases of a few thousand in Alexa rank are normal. We're doing OK if you look at the complete history of the project.

The problem which I think we can most easily solve without technical changes is a rethinking of the Main Page. Simply put, our appeal to readers is not big enough. Right now, our lead is the Istanbul fire. Big news, sure, but old news. I think we need to put more energy into featuring content that is unique, either because of the quality and depth, or because it is exclusive. When we have ongoing series, as we recently did for some Australia topics, I think we could also have a "Featured Series" on the MP. Unfortunately our use of DPL has led to the Main Page and portals becoming fairly stagnant in their apperance and organization.

One way to incentivize change is to make a contest out of it, with votes for the best new Main Page design in the end. The German Wikipedia did this a while ago, and it worked quite well.

There are other aspects that keep coming up -- better RSS, reader feedback, etc. -- but I think it makes sense to tackle one problem at a time. Though we might want to keep track of the open issues somewhere. Perhaps we should organize another Wikinews "Future Chat" to identify them more clearly.--Eloquence 10:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to have statistics for page views. All we really know right now is

Interviews go over well (Linked to /. and other sites over at least two interviews)
Really bad things go over well (Like the article on the attacks on London)

Other then that we don't really know. For main page, it could use an overhaul, but the only one I actually like, out of all the choices is MessedRockers design, who really didn't change alot. Maybe a contest would be a good idea, but the last one didn't make anything that got used (With he exception of ALternate stylesheets). Bawolff ☺☻ 20:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DragonFire's RfdA-athon

He has a serious objection to the administrators and their out-of-touchiness with the community, so let's just allow the RfdA-athon to happen. At this rate, no administrators will lose their access, so no major changes will happen. He feels he's been ignored and not treated seriously, so if we silent him again, he might take more drastic measures of drawing attention to the situation between administrators and users. On that note, be very careful when criticising his actions; they might be taken as personal attacks. I'm prepared to block anyone for personal attacks. —THIS IS MESSED OCKER (TALK) 15:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His behavior over the last few days has been unacceptable. There's a difference between responsibly expressing a grievance and spamming lots of talk pages, creating unnecessary de-admin requests, whining for hours on IRC about ArbCom, etc. This site is now large enough that we can allow ourselves to simply say that such behavior is not wanted here. In fact, if we do not deal with it in a timely fashion, mature and prolific editors will very likely be turned away by the ongoing infighting and disruption. We do not need to be intimidated by people who know no other way but their own. If Jason wants to be an editor at Wikinews, he will have to follow Wikinews policy or work constructively to change it.--Eloquence 18:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A mass request for all administrators to stand for reconfirmation is a recipe for disaster. It is an open invitation for every lingering grudge to be dredged up and thrown at any administrator who has issued blocks or warnings. We'd also lose all the infrequently active administrators who can be asked to intercede or mediate in disputes. As mentioned on the /policy page, I have ported WP:POINT to WN:POINT. This is a mild case of that, taking the arbcom decision on how to deal with MrM and applying it in a blanket manner because the wiki is not operating as a single contributor believes it should. I can think of at least two other contributors I would have liked to point at this policy in the past, so I'm not singling you out with this DragonFire1024. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think it's a good idea to allow all admins to be reconfirmed by the vote of one user without arbitration, but I'm not against allowing it to happen because I haven't seen general guidelines against it. Most importantly, I think any decision to allow or not should be answered with a discussion of the reconfirmation process in general. See Wikinews_talk:Administrators for more of my comments. I'm just here for the water cooler - give me a paper cup. Karen 23:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trademark claim

Since May 2nd, Wikinews is a registered trademark. I was wondering whether we should edit MediaWiki:Copyright accordingly, as Wikipedia has done, since I believe notification of trademark ownership is necessary for its enforcement. --Deprifry|+T+ 19:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. do we use the ™ sign or the little circled r that I don't know the entity of. Bawolff ☺☻ 20:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know. I meant the registered trademark sign which is a circled r. Wikinews is not copyright the wikimedia foundation. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yuck ,I even thought about that while I typed it, my brain is just not talking to my hands :) --Cspurrier 00:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol. Don't worry, that happens to me sometimes too. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found - ® - ® w:List of XML and HTML character entity references. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Working towards compromise

We the undersigned agree

...to recognize that we don't "own" Wikinews
...that users have the right to voice their opinion
...that accusing users of things, including trolling, can hurt feelings and cause further hostility
...that in the case of disputes, discussion and compromises are the most important factors to finding the solution
...while users may be ignorant of policy, it is more important to make them understand why

The undersigned:

—THIS IS MESSED OCKER (TALK) 02:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amen --Chiacomo ^(talk) 02:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hear here! - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 02:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorta. Agree full heartedly with 1,2,4, and 5. I think 3 is directly aimed at Eloquence in an unfair manner, and only partly agree with it (sorry). I think people can be offended by it, but to troll doesn't necessarly mean they are a troll. We can't beat arround the bush forever, if you think someone is doing something in a trollish or negative manner, its better to tell them, then to not to. I would rather you tell me if I was doing something trollish, then not tell me. Of course I would want you to be nice about it, but still tell me. (sorry, I know this is aimed to be a everyone agree and feel good about it thing, but thats my opinion on the matter) Bawolff ☺☻ 02:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jason Safoutin 12:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a lot of noise in the last few days -- MrMisc's deadmin, Jason's posts on many pages about the evils of ArbCom and the evils of admins, Neutralizer's continuing rants against admins on various pages, including, finally his attempt to submit a user to a political litmus test about "western governments". As Wikinews is growing up, it needs to grow a backbone in those situations, rather than have admins continually question each other's decisions and be intimidated by accusations and complaints. As it is, it is far too easy to troll us and waste our collective time. Discussion and compromise are necessary when there is a genuine disagreement among reasonable persons.

Jason's repeated claims that ArbCom does not represent the community (and he wasted hours on IRC making the same claims) do not represent a thoughtful disagreement. ArbCom is the result of a community process, it was confirmed in a 14/2 poll (the 2 being Jason and MrMisc, who was subject to an ArbCom case at the time), it has made decisions. Jason has, to my knowledge, not made a single positive and constructive policy suggestion. His comments, at this point, are mere trolling: writing something that provokes and hoping for a big reaction. I stand by this assertion, completely reject the suggestion that it represents a personal attack, and continue to hold that Jason should be blocked if his disruptive behavior on this site resumes. As for making Jason understand policy, well, go ahead and be my guest. I've tried.--Eloquence 10:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I see your remarks as an attack. Sorry but I do. I contribute far too much to WN to be ignored and put to the side of the road like garbage. ArbCom is ok in some cases. I am against the fact they Arbcom seems to think that they own this wiki and can do whatever they want and that they think they are above policy and the community. As for this discussion I am done with it. Jason Safoutin 12:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is almost impossible to criticize another's behavior without the risk of it being perceived as an attack. I would not have done so if it hadn't seriously annoyed me and others. That does not mean, of course, that such criticism is in violation of policy. I don't think the ArbCom believes they own this wiki, and you will note that I am not a member thereof; nor is Amgine. Nevertheless, we both support it.--Eloquence 12:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just here for the water cooler - don't stand in the way of the paper cup dispenser. My dark sunglasses help me to avoid reading the inspirational posters. I just work here. I do my best to work with others or ignore the ones that make work difficult. Karen 10:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I like about the arbitration committee is that all of the findings are there for anyone to read. Those who wish to bring facts to the committee can do so, as well. The community can then vote based on the fact gathering of a few people. I don't have time to read every bit of "evidence" for each issue for every crisis any five given people are currently having. If I feel so inclined, I'll read the fact-finding bits and vote for an informed community consensus. Otherwise, I'll just spend the time contributing to … stories. Karen 10:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third cup… Jason Safoutin is doing a great job writing stories. I just have some trouble with contributing with him on other stories. I think he's a better writer of stories than editor. Much of my opinion is founded on my belief that he and I just don't interpret policy the same way. Anyway, neat list there. Maybe lots of people will sign it and it will be made into a plaque to be hung somewhere. Meanwhile, continue inspiring me with works. Party on. Karen 10:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revising articles

I notice that quite a few articles are getting majorly revised as news develops. This is only natural, but the gradual edits as the news develops means that you lose any sense of what the original article was. Often it would have been better to create new articles for new developments. A good example is Indonesian human-to-human bird flu infection may be false alarm, which was Human to human transmission of Bird Flu suspected in the death of 2 Indonesian children. I'll discuss the specifics of that move over on the article talk page, but wondered whether it was worth us having a general discussion about how we can prevent this (if, indeed, we agree that we should), and how we can establish some guidelines as to what developments can be considered significant enough that it's worth writing a new article. Any thoughts? Frankie Roberto 22:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional practices say we should avoid revising. From WN:NOT

Quote

Wikinews articles are not works in progress. Developing articles are marked with the {{develop}} template. Once written and published they are historical documents; they should not continue to be updated or changed. Especially, they should not be altered to an angle or POV not reflective of the article as it was published. Wikinews is not an encyclopedia.

Bawolff ☺☻ 22:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Researchers discover giant asteroid impact crater in Antarctica

I recieved an e-mail from the person who wrote the OSU article:

Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 08:54:35 -0400

To: "jason safoutin" <cute24minbflo at yahoo dot com>

From: "Pam Frost Gorder" <Gorder.1 at osu dot edu> Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert

Subject: Re: Antarctic crater

Thanks, Jason. I'm actually really excited about the story being in Wikinews! I use Wikipedia all the time to help research my stories.

Pam

I just thought this was neat :) Jason Safoutin 02:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was neat too, but in my own way :) -Edbrown05 02:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats cool. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turnover of active editors

Wow; gone for a month and the entire stable of active editors has largely changed. Maybe it's a good thing? I don't know; but it is certainly the history of this wiki. Maybe that's the way it is with all wikis? Just wondering. I actually am a great believer in "out with the old; in with the new" so maybe this is my cue to finally fade away. Neutralizer 14:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot @ pt.wikinews

Hi for everybody. I'm a sysop at pt.wikinews and we don't have any bots there. Anybody is interesting to run a bot at pt.wn to put interwikis? --Slade ^meta 18:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain of licensing

I'm a regular at wikipedia that was going to transwiki an article, 2006 Chicago Subway Fire, here. However, I'm unsure of the license differences between the GFDL and CC 2.5. Does anybody know if this can be posted from en wiki? As my user page indicates, responding to my wikipedia talk or emailing me is faster.--Kchase02 03:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on the editor's wikipedia talk page. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 04:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks for the quick reply. Won't try to transwiki again.--Kchase02 04:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The New Water Cooler

Welcome, fellow Wikinewsies, to the new and improved Water Cooler! Some differences between this and the old one:

Revamped archiving system using uniform archive numbering
Archive page lists now feature a list of topics on the archive page (see for yourself)
Brand new and better organized header
The cooler section markers are now on this page, instead of on the individual subpages. Additionally, at the top of each cooler section features a purge link, an add-a-new-topic link, and a link to the archives.

What do you think of the new Water Cooler? —this is messedr͏ocker (talk) 07:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks very good indeed. More like water. A lot fresher. That´s right what I need in the heat of the summer. Apart from that, I think it´s easier to navigate now. Well done! Gumboyaya 10:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. F e llow Wiki News (W) 22:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am I imagining this? Even down to the attack on the UN?

W:Operation Grapes of Wrath "Operation Grapes of Wrath is the Israeli Defense Forces code-name for a sixteen-day military blitz against Lebanon in 1996 in an attempt to end shelling of Northern Israel by Hezbollah. Israel conducted more than 1100 air raids and extensive shelling (some 25,132 shells). A UN installation was also hit by Israeli shelling causing the death of 118 Lebanese civilians (see Qana shelling). (Amnesty 1996) 639 Hezbollah cross-border rocket attacks targeted northern Israel, particularly the town of Kiryat Shemona. (HRW 1997) Hezbollah forces also participated in numerous engagements with Israeli and South Lebanon Army forces. The conflict was de-escalated on 27 April by a ceasefire agreement banning attacks on civilians...Some 350 civilians were wounded in Lebanon (HRW 1997). 62 Israeli civilians were wounded in Israel [2][3].The damage to the Lebanese infrastructure was significant as major bridges and power stations were destroyed. According to Human Rights Watch, 2018 houses and buildings in South Lebanon were either completely destroyed or severely bombarded. Israel estimated the total damage it suffered at 150 million shekels as of Tuesday, July 18. Earlier, the damage to Israeli civilian property was estimated at 20 million NIS (about $7 million), and the indirect damage to Israel's tourism industry at 40 million NIS (about $13 million) [4] while Lebanon put its damages in the billions." Neutralizer 18:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original reporting disputed tag

Introducing, a more accurate original-reporting tag: {{OR disputed}} (aka {{Or disputed}} aka {{Ordispute}}). This is for articles that appear to be original reporting, but don't appear to supply any reporting notes. If in doubt of using this or the sources tag, you're probably safe with the sources tag. The original reporting disputed tag, however, is best with obvious cases or articles tagged as original reporting. Enjoy! —this is messedrocker (talk) 06:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<rubs hands in glee> Doldrums 08:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Briefs vandal

He's back... see the block log! --Gold-Horn 19:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's back, he's blocked, and involved pages have been de-briefed. No problem. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The tale of the wikinewsies finally finished

At long last I have found it within myself to finish The tale of Amgine and the wikinesies. It's a fiction story about the dark first days of yore of wikinews. Go read it, and let me know what you think and what could do with improvement. -- Redge (Talk) 15:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone consumed too much cannabis. :) —this is messedrocker (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read the half finished version a while ago, and really enjoyed it. I'll read this pretty soon. Thanks. `Bawolff ☺☻ 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template Icons

I noticed that Davodd just made multiple replacements of template icons. Most were of the "exclamation triangle" which are nicer now. But some I don't care for. Such as the new "develop" icon is and the old one was . Here the old one has elements unique to Wikinews where the new one is generic. He did make a comment to revert if you don't like it. But I thought I should bounce it off some other editors and admins before doing so. --SVTCobra 23:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you like the

graphic I cobbled together a while back. I was just trying to give the site a fresher, more standardized look, with easily recognizable icons - and while limiting the number of blue planets that seem to be all over the place on WN to the point they lose their effectiveness. This is probably due to the fact that this project arguably has the best logo in Wikimedia, that we tended to put it everywhere after the VERY LONG battle that ensued before it was selected. - -- Davodd | Talk 00:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I really like the

, I wish you'd reconsider.; The other thing I wanted to mention is that the old icon file names had "wikinews" in them. The new ones are floating around at commons with generic names. Doesn't that leave them in danger of inadverdently changed or deleted by wikians working on other wikiprojects? (I don't know hardly anything about wiki-development, I just provide content) --SVTCobra 21:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not married to anything. Change it back if you don't like it. That is the wiki way - we try new things and see if they work. If they don't, then they can always be changed back. I don't think that anyone will be changing the Crystal icon graphics at the Commons - since they are used in many other Wikimedia projects. -- Davodd | Talk 03:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I will then. That fat little red pen is bugging me. Since it is OK by you, and no one else has bothered to chime in . . . --SVTCobra 03:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll confess: I thought the fat little red pen was some sort of capsule... I've been trying to figure out what drugs had to do with developing stories -- well, other than the obvious connections. :P --Chiacomo ^(talk) 06:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if your woried about images being replaced on commons, we've got commons:template:used on wikinews (although I have mixed feelings about the use of that template, and should proabbly be only used on story images) and WN:CT to help that. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regulation of the use of words such as "jihad".

This is with reference to the use of the term jihad (in reference to qital fi sabilillah- armed struggle in the name of God- in particular) in Wikinews articles. A person should not be called a mujahideen until it has been clarified that the said person is indeed engaged in the jihad as is defined by the Holy Quran. It would be helpful if we were to study the definition of jihad as explained on Wikipedia and in the Holy Quran and lay down policies so that the ignorant do not demean the status of the mujahideen by claiming that every petty cut-throat is engaged in a Holy struggle. PVJ(Talk) 11:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i do not agree, even if word have definition into dictionary, it's the word's usage that give it's true meaning. Wikinews is not wikipédia. if some people called themself mujahideen even it's not conform to your POV about that word, wikinews MUST use the word mujahideen. If we are not free to use words just because they're sacred for some people, it's just sensorship, sorry. The same for jihad Jacques Divol 11:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a person, who is not a member of any recognised resistance group (such as the Jamaat-e-Islami or Al-Quaida) that is currently engaged in an armed struggle against the oppressors or who is not otherwise declared to be involved in the jihad by a competent authority, calls himself a mujahideen we should refer to him as such, whilst clarifying that he is a self-declared mujahideen. PVJ(Talk)

13:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hrmm, he makes an interesting point. LIke, "Al-Qaeda considers itself to be declaring a jihad on the West, however, most Muslim authorities disagree with this usage of the word." We don't have to censor anything, we can just balance the statements like this, no?--Mofomojo 13:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No PVJ, its quite simple:

If said person believes they are engaged in jihad (or equivelently crusade if you use standard english words), then yes they are engaged in jihad/crusade.

No need to say "self-declared" as all religious affiliations are by self-declaration. Fringe groups are still considered within their parent religion. Or do you want some stupid flame war about wheather George Bush is a christian?

Mofomojo, we already balance statment like that by publishing quotes of Muslim condemnation of terrorist acts (see London bombings for example). And you'll never get a supportable statments containing "most Muslim authorities". You'll just get exactly what we've got now, individual stamtnet about specific events by specific people. Nyarlathotep 23:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nyarlathotep has expressed this quite well, limiting the language we use is inappropriate self-censorship. If a group asserts they are engaged in jihad then there's a variety of words to describe that assertion and attribute it to the group. The same logical consistency has to be applied to terrorism. The term may be used when attributed clearly to a specific source and limited to their assertions that x is/are terrorists/terrorist organisation. A counter to that is good, but it does not require a template to confuse the readers and make them think we disclaim our own words. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

info box for airplane scares

Removed flag as (I think) its superflourus (sp?) on the water cooler. If you disagree please revert. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC) I want to make an infobox for these almost daily air travel scares/events that are occurring. But I don't want to waste my time if some editors are against the idea and would have it deleted. Please indicate whether you think it's a good or bad idea here. Neutralizer 12:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Neutralizer 12:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good- However many of these "scares" seem to be false alarms and atleast one such event was nothing more than a blatant display of racism thinly disguised as a "security measure". One really must now start wondering if we should create an infobox for "Islamophobia" to categorise these "scares" under. PVJ(Talk) 13:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problem with it. Make sure to remember to list it on WN:IB. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Site notice

I'm sure many of you who are using monobook have noticed recently an ugly sitenotice saying something about wikimania and scholarships etc. Well, to remove that, put the following in your monobook.css:

/* rm sitenotice */

#siteNotice {
    display: none;
}

I hope this helps! F e llow Wiki News (W) 14:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This is probably the wrong place to post this.

What my sitenotice is ugly! Gasp! (Just kidding) I think that the elections are important but recognize that a lot of people don't care, so if you change that to

div#siteNotice div#extra-notices {display: none;}

in special:mypage/monobook.css it will only kill the board notice and other extra notices, not the entire thing. (Or you could use the #BoardCandidateNotice for just board and not other extra notices ) Bawolff ☺☻ 02:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone

Whether you supported or opposed my Rfa, I want to thank everyone who voted for paying attention to issues on Wikinews. Thanks everyone :) I promise to serve the community, fair and balanced. Jason Safoutin 01:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images question

I was wondering about the use of images under fair use. Messedrocker uploaded Image:Australia_Zoo_mourners.jpg today from the BBC, referenced it and tagged it as a publicity shot. My question is that can any images from the BBC be used with valid fair use rationale. The text for the image says This work is copyrighted, but released for use in news and editorials., does that mean the BBC releases its photos in this way. I just wanted to know because there is no specific mention on the BBC site orWIkinews policy pages.

Also do other news agancies release photos in this way? I would imagine it likely. If so is there any way of compiling a list of media agencies from whom images can be used under fair use in this way.--Errant 14:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lead protection

I am opposed to even semi-protecting any of the leads. Since I have been here I have yet to see those be vandalized. If we are going to protect or semi those why not everything? I oppose any protection of the leads. Notice when they were last changed? Jason Safoutin 19:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page leads are highly visible, and someone asked once me if something he saw on the main page was real. It was vandalism. I don't want vandalism on the main page to hurt our reputation. High visibility is a perfectly cromulent reason to semi-protect — a good compromise would be linking to a page about updating leads where people can request leads. —this is messedrocker (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

here's the old disc. over this. Doldrums 19:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to see, since I have been here, a vandal even get as far as the leads and I have yet to see them be vandalized. I do not see a need to do something with the leads when we have no problems with them. If there was an issue with vandalism on these I would be more apt to support this idea. Jason Safoutin 19:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[16] [17] [18] [19] — all within less than a month before semiprotection, and that's only the first lead. —this is messedrocker (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the mainpage has high visibility, semi-protection would seem like a good idea. PVJ(Talk)

02:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 points for people to consider: 1) the leads require effort to find, anyone that vandalises them will probably have the common sense etc. to find something else to vandalise. y this argument everything should be semi-protected 2) Nothing cannot be reverted but semi-protection limits the contributions people (as anons) can make. Alot of people seem to contribute in minor ways to this project from IP addresses. 3) is a point I want to copy verbatim from WP where someone has just pointed this out to me:

People will enjoy life here if they relax a little more. This is a wiki, and an expeiment, and things can be be fixed if need be

Personally I think we should not worry about the vandals - reacting to them means they are having an effect. Lets just wrote the articles and remove the vandalism and keep the 'experiment' running --Errant 08:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And again...with the protection, the storys are NOT geting updated. For example: the lead is nearly 3 days old. Contributers cannot see that it's semi-protected. When they go to edit the leads they see "protected" at the top and do not bother. It limits the contributions greatly because users who do make small, ligit edits from IP's cannot do so. That is not what a Wiki is about. I still oppose this method, and I do not see the need for it. I can think of only 3 vandals that would make the effort and time to vandalize leads, Cowicide, MyName, and WoW. As said above, these edits are revertable. The protection IMO discourages users to contribute and as a result, the leads stay the same until a user figures out its only semi protected. And being semi- it does not allow for Anon edits. Jason Safoutin 18:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The second and third lead were unilaterally unprotected by you, and that's how they've been. When you unprotected the main lead, it was reprotected, and I have since unprotected it. Let's try it out, and if there's gratuitous vandalism... —this is messedrocker (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project reporting?

Hi. The little that I've done with Wikinews was quite a while back. But I have some interest in doing project reporting, if there would be enough interest from other collaborators. By "project", I essentially roughly mean something that takes a while and is based on original research. Maurreen 06:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another collaborative journalism site

I thought you guys might be interested in NewAssignment.net. Maurreen 06:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to add the URL: http://newassignment.wordpress.com/. Maurreen 06:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global Networking

Wikinews:Global Networking is now finished — for now. Basically, the goal is to simplify getting access to lists of news sources and people of a certain region. That way, it eases the reporting progress. To that end, Global Networking is a merge of: the Reference Desk, the subpages of Wikinews:Wikinewsies, the Contacting Wikinewsies page, and the alphabetical listing. I've kept Wikinews:User directory as an auxiliary. Take a look at the two things, add things where appropriate, etc. and tell me what you think. —this is messedrocker (talk) 06:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images of Earth

like this?

I am looking for images, preferably from NASA of the Earth. i am looking to create a ne Wikinews logo and would like some help finding brilliant images of the Earth or images related to such. Any ideas?? Jason Safoutin 23:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/ -w:NASA World Wind All PD. see also commons:Category:PD World Wind Bawolff ☺☻ 23:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to add it to meta:Wikinews logo contest voting/Variants

Good idea Jason, but please try to get a polar map instead of one that focusses on a particular continent. PVJ^(Talk)_{(Articles I have written)}

13:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a more neutral solution perhaps, but looks funny.

Although thats a good idea, Polar maps would still focus on polar countries. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-english sources

I'm getting mildly concerned about the number of non-English sources turning up in articles recently, it makes fact-checking for those of us who are linguistically challenged a little difficult, and I am very reluctant to rely on online translation tools. Would requiring a minimum of one english souce for non-OR stuff seem reasonable? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, if its not in english its not a "source." I could be wrong... Jason Safoutin 01:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as i know, you are wrong. Doldrums 03:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have been told in the past that this is an "english" wiki and that unless a source, in english could be provided from the same news agency, then its not a source. I am not against this at all...but given this is the english Wikinews...it would make sense. Jason Safoutin 04:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the fact that this is English Wikinews should not stop us from reporting on events in places which don't have a large english-speaking population (a pretty wide chunk of the world). reliable local language sources should be acceptable sources. we can also encourage contributors to add english language sources.

if an editor has doubts over the content of an article, but is not able to read the sources to clarify, there are plenty of things she can do, depending on how serious the doubt is, from asking other contributors of the article to unpublishing/tagging the article. there are also lists of users who can translate, both here on on other Wiki projects, and there is a place to request for help on Newsroom and of course, WC/assistance. Doldrums 04:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree...but the fact that there are some islamic and other language sources that do not appear in english, make it even more difficult to provide a factual conclusion. I do not mind, but at the same time I cannot verify the facts in a source if its not in english. If the new sources provides an english version, then all is fine and dandy...but if it does not, then thats a problem. Jason Safoutin 04:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the solution is to find someone who does know the language or look for english sources which supports or contradicts whats in the article. Doldrums 04:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should try to use common sense in our sourcing policy. A non-English source providing supporting details on a should be accepted, provided it is in a language where it is likely we will be able to find several people who speak it (Almost any of the Wikinews languages). We should however avoid using a non-English source to prove something controversial that is in a language like Estonian (around million speakers, almost impossible to find more then one person who can translate.) --Cspurrier 14:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there should be a rule against foreign language sources. Sometimes there isn't an english equivalent. There was an article about faked terrorism in columbia a week or two ago and and there weren't any decent english source, so I linked in some spanish ones. TRWBW 12:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer at least one English source in the article so that the audience would better interpret the event even though most of the sources are written in other languages. Zer 17:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-english sorces are just plain fine. Don't add stupid beurocrasy for people who might want to translate wikinews articles between languages. If you can't read the article, ask people who can for help, that's what user langauge categories & langauge userboxes are used for on wikipedia. Nyarlathotep 23:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://wikinews.com/

I didn't see any place to report this on the Wikinews website, so I'll place a notice here. I found what I suspect is a w:cybersquatter at http://wikinews.com/. I also put a report at meta:Squatted Wikimedia domains#Others. GKunz 23:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is old news to admins. Various users have reported it again and again. Thanks for telling us anyways. This is one of the reports Archive Zer T 23:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The domain was registered on April 8th, 2004 so it predates the creation of Wikinews. Also, that notice has been there since like forever and at least xe links to us and has no ads on the page. I think xe once actually intented to do what it says on the page. www.wikinews.fr and www.wikinews.eu are much worse cases IMHO. --+Deprifry+ 23:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That site doesn't concern me. the sites listed in this message concern me. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the wikinews.eu one is down right scary. especially the part where they have the registered trademark sign after wikinews. (although it should be noted Wikinews is a registered trademark of the wikimedia foundation, not them.) Bawolff ☺☻ 01:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a load of perfenander. Let's sue wikinews.eu into submission. Maybe then we can buy the jacuzzi for the Executive Washroom we admins have been pining for. —this is messedrocker (talk) 01:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

InfoChannel (the ******* that own the domain) are activly hostile towards Wikimedia and not your usual cybersquatters. They have several Wikimedia brands registered with the Deutschem Patent- und Markenamt and claimed in the past that they invented the name and logo of Wikipedia. --+Deprifry+ 10:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bawolff can't wait (:

Just to keep track of the Wikinews cybersquatters (and avoid repeated reports like mine), there should be be a page here at Wikinews besides the more comprehensive list at meta. GKunz 04:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is one. F e llow Wiki News (W) 01:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats for forks and mirrors not cybersquaters. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved from WN:ALERT

Doldrums has moved the following (indented) discussion started by Panchotera at WN:ALERT to here.

I suspect that the Wikinews is under US governement censorhip. Wikinews is non-trusty. At least wikipedia has much more uncensored and reasonable information. But I hope that the articles in wikipedia will stay more time.

You are not convinced? Ok: Try to put any article or news that is against the current US policy (like quoting the last Noam Chomsky book). and it will be quickly eliminated in less than one week. They argue things like "No neutral point of view". Then they make a lot of references to sources like the VOA (Voice of America) to quote "a neutral point of view". f the article is in favor of the US governement and its foreign affairs, it will be keeped. What kind Neutral Point of View can exists here?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Panchotera (talk • contribs) 08:43, 23 September 2006

First, please sign your comments (~~~~). Second, Wikinews is a free news source, which is protected by freedom of the press. Our NPOV policy says that: "...The policy does not mean that you should write an article from just a single unbiased, "objective" point of view. The policy says that an article should fairly represent all, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct. (Of course, there are limits to which points of view are worth mentioning, and this can be an area of conflict.)" This means that we can't say Saddam Huseinn is a killer, and should be put to death. We have to say Saddam Huseinn has killed people, and he is going to court, possibly to be put to death.. We can't say Italy will win the war against Greenland. Let me know on my talk page if you still have questions.

Thunderhead(talk) 03:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]