Wikinews:Water cooler/miscellaneous/Archive/2

Templates and 'edit' links

Please wherever practical, provide the option for a user to edit content without them having to hunt through a chain of templates containing templates containing ...

The way to do this, is to provide an embedded 'edit' link within a template, which links straight to that template edit page. Use brief but descriptive text, eg 'edit section' 'edit list' so that the user can easily find the right way to edit a particular set of information.

Obviously this should not be done when a template contains only a template, but should be done when there is any content displayed that might need editing, for example the long list of articles presented on the main page. Simeon 05:51, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a solution: if pages are meant not to be editable, and are not marked visually as Special pages automatically, that they should have a link to a note explaining how their content is managed, how to get it changed, or that it is automatic. This link would be in place of an actual 'edit' link. - Simeon 08:05, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is a good idea. I'll try to implement this tomorrow... hopefully I won't have quite so much going on. Would you suggest a generic template, or a specific message for each page which is not to be edited? - Amgine 08:10, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Eheh. Well, the two are not mutually exclusive. :) I won't make a suggestion, if people do either or both, it will be helpful. Even if we only gradually adopt the idea each time a template is edited. :) - Simeon 08:16, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A message of thanks

I want to congratulate all your people who are doing great job by providing all kind of help.I want to share my feelings in this manner

MIGHTY OCEAN

Oh mighty ocean! what happened to your mood?
Why you have become so much rude?
We know your powers,and so we pray,
You need not to show that in such a horrible way!
Just in a moment you wiped away lives,
There were children,husbands and wives!
There were cows,dogs and cats,
The master lost all,his possessions and pets!
You cheated the fishermen who depended on you,
Now where they will go? they do'nt have a clue!
You can do that again,that is a fact,
But please try to give us little time to react!

Mrs.Rachana Bajaj
Nasik

Moved from [1] by Amgine

Media news entrepreneur's thoughts on Wikinews

Some comments on WIkinews from a former employer of mine, who has launched many news media startups: http://www.ratcliffeblog.com/archives/000241.html ... all in all I found it to raise many, many fair questions as well as some issues I'll be keeping in the back of my mind. -- Davodd | Talk 05:26, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

When I first started on Wikinews back in November, I shared Ratcliffe's concern about collaborative editing hindering how quickly we could post stories, as I thought the extensive peer-review process would make the site too slow.

As it turns out, more and more stories are being pushed from initial development, to copyediting, to posting in the Latest news section very quickly, when multiple editors collaborate on different aspects one after another. I believe this informal process can do just as good a job of reviewing articles as the originally proposed review process would have done, but at a much faster pace.

Ratcliffe makes an obvious point about having more than one viewpoint to be fully informed. This isn't much of an issue for our readers. (If you've stumbled onto Wikinews, you're obviously already seeking out alternative sources of news.) However, multiple stories about the same thing, on the same site, simply hasn't caught on when it's been tried before. Fred Bauder (of Wikipedia fame) has his own site where he is trying "multiple articles about the same thing" - he calls it "sympathetic point of view". But Wikipedia is the 800-pound gorilla because few contributors want to work on obscure subpages indexed from a master table of contents. They want to work on "the article". I suspect this is what caused most of us to pile onto a single Indian Ocean Earthquake page when that event was unfolding, rather than branch out into dozens of separate reports. (Despite your early advice to create many stories, which was only belatedly followed, but which in hindsight would have been much more effective.)

In any case, SPOV (sympathetic point of view) won't get anywhere on Wikinews, because NPOV is king. And NPOV is a non-negotiable foundation issue. If enough of us decided that NPOV is fatal to Wikinews ability to host firsthand reporting, or original analysis that goes beyond sterile rehashing ("echo chamber" is the fashionable term), we would have to fork. Which is a shame, as it would be a colossal waste of time and effort to have to start again just to work around these problems. But I've seen enough folks shown the door on Wikipedia that I won't debate any of the foundation issues.

Ratcliffe's remarks are right on the money on firsthand reporting versus NPOV. I raised this point several times here on Wikinews, but most folks didn't appear to understand this conflict as well as Ratcliffe does. I was recently a firsthand witness to an accident that shut down Interstate 280 here in San Jose, and I was fascinated that everyone on the scene had a slightly different story to tell the highway patrol about what had caused the accident. Wikinews will never be immune to that no matter how many pages of policy anyone may write up and vote upon. However, Jimbo's comments that Wikinews isn't really about original reporting have made me wonder if we're just going to politely dance around this whole issue for now, and continue our run as a glorified news aggregator/blog, rewriting wire stories and posting entertainment listings and homebrew weather reports for good measure (when our datafeed isn't down).

Once we get some firsthand reports to provide a concrete example, the rubber is going to hit the road. :)

On a more positive note, Ratcliffe's blog makes the first mention I've ever read about a low-budget "ON24" video news service. I plan to get involved in video news reporting for Wikinews, once its possible. Once the Theora video codec is ready, I plan to produce a few video news reports, which I hope we can post here on Wikinews, as it is my understanding that the primary non-negotiable foundation issue that is preventing video from being hosted on Wikinews (or Wikipedia for that matter) is that all Wikimedia projects must use open source media formats for anything that is posted on the Commons.

By the way, is Ratcliffe running a news site of his own? He mentions a consulting business, but I'm wondering what his motivation was to write such a lengthy piece on this subject? I looked at his disclosure page and it wasn't obvious what specific type of business he is running.

Regards,

— DV 11:58, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The blog piece consists of a series of strawman arguments, false assumptions he makes, then defeats, imagining that this process is somehow informative? It presents a very singular opinion and point of view, which he is welcome to.

"I sincerely wonder whether wiki news will be any more informative than any other source..." .. fallacy number 1 in first paragraph: that for Wikinews to be successful it must be more informative.

Wikinews may be successful in prompting and assisting a general improvement in news quality offered, by the principle of competition, just as it may be argued that while some open source software is not successful in replacing existing commercial software, open source software provides competition in a market dearly lacking.

Wikinews may be considered successful if it is useful to its readers and users. Many 'mainstream' publications appeal to the narrowest of interests, and yet are 'successful'.

"ultimately the final judgment lies with the reader". Exactly. Fallacy number two: that news should appear as an authoritative source of undisputable fact.

"This is not to argue that the blog format is better for relating the news, only to explain that the WikiNews approach may not be appropriate to sheering fact from fiction." This should have been the lead par. The story could have been written well with NPOV and balance, since not even Ratcliffe knows the outcome of the experiment we are engaged in, and so should not have been so presumptuous, imho.

He seems not to allow for cultural development in the pool of regular wikinews users (and people in general), and assumes they are all 'readers' in the sense of 'people who cannot write effectively but who have been put at the controls'. Wiki thrives on the diversity of talent levels of its users, 'poor edits' often prompting the 'expert' authors to review their own set of preconceptions, and to reword in ways that are more easily understood.

He certainly has imagined some limit to the number of users working, since as I think the success of wikipedia shows, very large number of users create content very quickly. -- Simeon 06:26, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikinews:Welcommittee

I created a Wikinews:Welcommittee page for those of use willing to publicly announce that we are willing to help the newbies. I thought we could use its talk page (or subpages) to share techniques and develop strategies. Feel free to modify the page to make it more functional for newcomers. -- Davodd | Talk 05:30, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Time to choose a logo for Wikinews

Well, hopefully the proposal stage for a logo for this site ends on January 15. Then, unless people keep extending the proposal stage, we will finally lurch a little closer to getting a decent logo. See m:Wikinews/Logo. Dan100 19:11, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For discussion of voting and (hopefully) the voting page itself, see m:Talk:Wikinews/Logo. Dan100 19:23, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- For a summary gallery of submissions: m:Wikinews logo summary -- Davodd | Talk 20:04, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Chose our new logo!

Please vote here: m:Wikinews logo contest voting. Dan100 (Talk) 18:32, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I edited the page to make it easier to cast votes. Then I voted. -- Davodd | Talk 19:37, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ta for the improvements Davodd, better rules and easier to vote. Dan100 (Talk) 20:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Original research

Okay, ive lauched our first experiment in original research - Conference discusses the credibility of blogs. I'm not trying to push this on anyone, just having a go at it while we are still in beta to see what happens. user:sj will be at the conference (with jimbo) and will hopefully feed us quotes and what not. So lets see how this goes. The bellman 12:35, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I just took it out of 'development' and put it in 21 January 2005 on the front page. Not sure how we are supposed to add stories into date category pages, so it may well disappear. This seems to be part of an ongoing problem with people hiding content in templates, without providing efficient access to edit the template. Simeon 06:39, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You did it exactly correctly. I will try to build better tools for editing what is on the templates, but one of the issues is the main page itself. - Amgine 06:56, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, I think if pages are meant not to be editable, and are not marked visually as Special pages automatically, that they should have a link to a note explaining how their content is managed, how to get it changed, or that it is automatic. - Simeon 08:04, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As far as the experiment in original research... I think there is general agreement on meta and here that original journalism is acceptible if:

It is verifiable (Talk:Article for most notes)
Confidentiality is maintained (Talk:Article/Notes for transcripts if the source agrees)
Opinions/beliefs/quotes are ascribed.

- Amgine 06:56, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

First Column--Science and Technology News

I have created the first column we have on Wikinews, as a test. It's not an opinion piece, to be safe, but instead it just has the latest science/technology news summarized so everybody understands it.

Because this is only an experiment, I would definitely like your input. What should I do? What shouldn't I do? And to the administrators: if I am breaking any policies or you would like me to get rid of this, please tell me and tell me why. I really think this idea should be done.

Hope you enjoy the column! Cap'n Refsmmat 00:37, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just to be helpful, Cap'n Refsmmat's science column is at User:Cap'n Refsmmat/ScienceNews, and may soon be templated so users may include it on their user pages. - Amgine 04:01, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Now it is. Cap'n Refsmmat 01:46, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

We have a new logo ...maybe!

A final logo still needs to be chosen with a run-off. See Wikinews logo contest voting for more info. Christiaan 23:00, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This logo won by quite a large margin (results), and there seems to be consensus among voters for this version:

File:Neutralglobe.png

However I don't know who can actually change the logo... does anyone else? Dan100 (Talk) 00:30, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The winning entry appears to contain six variations, by more than one artist. Which variation won? I suggest a runoff vote to select the specific logo variation that will be used on Wikinews. — DV 08:33, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dan, you are not being at all honest rushing around announcing that we have a new logo when there is clearly no consensus on the voting page. I would direct people to voting page to see what is currently being discussed. And Dan, can you please refrain from making such announcements until there is a community consensus about where to go to from here? Christiaan 16:33, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Do we need a run-off? I don't think the majority would find an animated logo acceptable, and any arrangement of continents is POV. That leaves the no-continents version. Would anyone object to that being our new logo? Personally, I don't like it, but it won the vote. Dan100 (Talk) 11:15, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Are you claiming that everyone who voted for the "Globe with waves" was voting for the version without continents? How is that possible if many votes were entered before the no-continents version was even posted?

It was a mistake to post so many significantly different variations under the same entry, as it is now unclear whether any one variation had more votes than any of the other logo submissions.

The bottom line is this: are there more votes under the "globe with waves" entry which specifically call out the blank globe version as the version they support, then are presented underneath any of the other logo submissions?

Unless someone is going to have a heart attack if we fail to update the logo right this minute, I suggest we at least allow some of the voters to clarify if the blank globe version was really what they were voting for, otherwise the vote tally is rather suspect.

I'd like to update the logo right this minute, but at the same time, it doesn't seem right to disenfranchise so many of the folks who bothered to vote just because we're in a hurry. — DV 14:02, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, please, let's not rush. There really is no need to. Christiaan 16:38, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we re-run the contest but keeping all versions seperate? That would probably clear everything up. Do you think it's time we further said 'no more submissions'? I suggest this as, if we don't, we could end up delaying the desicion process for-ever while new submissions are continually put forward... Dan100 (Talk) 14:54, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If there was a runoff, keeping all versions separate would make it crystal clear what was being voted upon.

A significant number of voters for "globe with waves" added comments qualifying their vote in one way or another.

Rather than try and interpret these votes, a runoff seems the simplest way to resolve this.

Another alternative is to contact each of the voters who voted for the "globe with waves" entry and ask them which variation they specifically voted for. However, sending out such a large number of messages would be difficult to do without offending those editors who feel they are being spammed when a posting is made to more than one user talk page by the same poster.

If there is to be a runoff vote, as long as each variation receive its own entry, there is no problem with late submission of additional variations, as the later variation submissions would simply be placed under a new entry. — DV 15:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just want to clarify one thing - do you think we should only hold a run-off between the six 'with waves' logos, or re-run the vote with all the original submissions, this time taking care to keep them seperate? I can see pros and cons for both. Dan100 (Talk) 17:40, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That would be called a re-vote, for which there is no need. A concept has already be chosen. Now we need to decide which version of this concept we use. Christiaan 17:47, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I like the new logo alot, but have one objection. Is there any reason to have or keep the slight outer blur around the text? Why can't the text just be crisp? It just looks too faded/blurry right now. --Comics 22:05, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The actual logo hasn't been chosen yet Comics. This is the winning concept, of which there are a few options. I suggest you head over to meta:Wikinews logo contest voting and add your comments there before the runoff. Christiaan 22:54, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I had seen the notice on the top of that page which said discussion ought to be moved here so naturally I posted here first. I realize that the design isn't finalized yet, but am only offering a suggestion to whatever design does get chosen. --Comics 02:32, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rant

I'm really disappointed by the way this has turned out. Instead of a clear winner we're still left with many different versions. Personally I hate this design, it is incredibly weak visually. Compare it with any other logo to see what I mean.

I don't even see why meta should be involved in this anyway. I bet many of those who voted there never visit Wikinews and even fewer contribute.

Why don't we, Wikinewsies, settle down and resolve this one ourselves? Rant over!! :) Dan100 (Talk) 22:41, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's a Wikimedia project, like all of them. I like personally the logo, and so do a majority of voters. Managing the process does not make you an arbitrator or somehow make your opinion more valid. Christiaan 23:32, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Au contrare, mon aime, this is one of the few true logos we had submitted. So stop your whining. -- user:zanimum

Actually Dan, selection of a logo is one time when you should want opinions from people outside Wikinews. After all, the whole point of a logo is to appeal to the general public, so the more people you consult, the better. Isomorphic 01:53, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

So is there going to be a run-off and where isthe discussion taking place if so? 216.90.114.66 22:29, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is it. Yes, there will be a run-off. The question now is when, how, and what. Jump in anywhere... - Amgine 22:41, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Logo Discussion (refactor of current threads)

- Amgine 21:17, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Logo Vote Runoff

It is generally agreed a run-off vote amongst designs which are based on the "Globe with waves" designs, originals by Jasonp55.

Disagreement over whether to allow post-initial-vote designs

Separate comments:

There is no discussion of a deadline. When should this logo be chosen? - Amgine 21:18, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think a good way forward is to notify Jasonp55 that his concept won the vote. Once he's been in contact then we can then setup a new run-off page for deciding exactly which logo we want. During this time maybe Jason or others would be so kind as to finalise (professionalise) some of the options based on all the comments and the alternative sketches that have been submitted. If he (or no one else) cares to then we can get on with a run-off between the 6 as they stood at the end of the last vote. Christiaan 23:36, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
That is a noble thought. However, if Jasonp55 doesn't check back in until, say, June? It is probably a good idea to determine an end to the process (where we want to get to) and when we should be there (a deadline), because that will help us determine what the steps to get there are, and when they should be finished. - Amgine 23:43, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. I think a week should be enough to get hold of Jason. If he hasn't been in touch by then we should get on with a run-off between the 6 as they stood at the end of the last vote. If we get hold of him before a week is up we can ask him if he'd like to tidy some of the concepts up for a final vote. If he doesn't, again, we get on with a run-off between the 6 as they stood at the end of the last vote. If he does we ask him how much time it'll take and go from there. Christiaan 23:54, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well it's been over a week and I haven't been able to get hold of Jasonp55. I presume bnobody else has. Shall we get this runoff under way? —Christiaan 19:59, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've drafted a page for a runoff at Wikinews logo contest voting/Runoff. Any comments before/if we get it underway? —Christiaan 20:14, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good work. Who will create a transparent version, though? That is absolutely needed on the Monobook skin.--Eloquence 02:57, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jasonp55 last contribution was on January 21st (over on meta). I hope he will continue to participate in the logo process. If one of his logos is chosen and he has disappeared, it may require redrawing it from scratch to create a transparent version. It would look a bit shoddy to try and mask off the white background from the small versions that are posted, plus we need a full-sized, high resolution version for print purposes. — DV 04:00, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well I've kicked it off. I've posted it to the Wikinews site news section and the WIkimedia Foundation email list. Can someone post it to Wikinews mailing lists? —Christiaan 16:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Content of sphere

There is disagreement over the use or non-use of:

Continents in general - too busy
Single hemisphere - North American-centric/Euro-centric/Regionalist
Animated globe - file size/distracting/.gif
Blank sphere - dull, does not say anything

How about using the wikipedia globe? --Regebro 10:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if this has been suggested yet, but it may be a not-to-bad idea... - Amgine 18:48, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be odd for us to have the same logo as a sister project?

All Wiki projects have their own logo.

It seems kind of lazy to just reuse Wikipedia's logo.

From the many logo ideas that have been submitted, we arrived at a concept of a globe with waves.

The second round of voting will narrow it down to a specific variation.

Has the desire to maintain a neutral point of view watered us down to the point where we can't even choose an original logo for fear of offending someone? — DV 04:08, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I like the UN globe - over the north pole, shows all the major land-masses (not a true projection). Dan100 (Talk) 13:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Of the approved design concept, I feel this is the best choice though I'm not sure how the southern hemisphere feels about it. Glad this discussion is moving again. - Amgine 02:05, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

All of the southern hemisphere, except for Antartica, is in the variation I posted (it's the last entry). — DV 05:16, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why not adapt the content of the sphere to the language of the wiki news viewed? In this case, the map would be centered on Asia for any Asian-language wikinews, on Europe for European language wikinews etc.Stefantastic 15:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I like this idea, but I'm afraid you would give the contributors who are so eager to have a final vote a bit of a fit if any more late submissions are added. :) — DV 19:10, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Very disappointed, actually, by the late entries. It was clearly stated that late entries would not be allowed, to avoid clouding the issue. Although the late entries are improvements on their themes, they has seriously injured the credibility of the poll, the process, and may ultimately force a complete new selection poll. To prevent this, I would encourage the contributors to voluntarily withdraw the late entries. I don't find any humor in it. - User:Amgine

"The late entries are improvements". So you rather throw away improvements for the sake of what? Now that you've made this remark, I don't find any humor in it either. Dan100 and others are insisting that this is the final vote and that there will be no modifications or variations allowed later on, which is why I thought it was important to contribute a few more variations based upon some feedback that was offered.

Although I previously felt otherwise, I now find that polls are evil. They seem to bring out all the worst traits in some of the participants, and they defeat collaboration.

It's understandable to have votes for committees that hold power, or for policies which can result in people being banned if they are violated. But this is a logo we're talking about. Nothing more. It's the pretty picture that goes in the corner.

Why was the starting time of the vote so precious given that it wasn't going to close for many days? The "late submissions" were submitted a day after the vote started, leaving plenty of time for voters to mull over the choices and help us to choose the most pleasing logo.

If anyone is interested in collaborating, I'm here, volunteering my time to help. Despite the fact that it only reduces the chance to react to constructive criticism and offer improvements, I'll refrain from adding any other variations for the duration of the current vote.

However, I will not disenfranchise the voters who have made their selections by withdrawing anything.

Sheesh. — DV 05:58, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

DV - a decision of some form, which can and most likely will be revisited again, needs to be made. The only reason, as far as I can determine, for having a second run-off - further delaying the decision - was the late additions of improvements/variations on the theme. Every design can be improved, so you have to put a limit and say "at this point we stop improving and decide which one" or you will never make a decision.

But polls are evil. I would far rather have the logo being an on-going thing, being modified and improved as we go along. Perhaps a planned change every 3-6 months... - User:Amgine

A planned change every 3-6 months is an excellent suggestion. Providing a regular opportunity to participate would encourage more talented artists to submit their ideas. — DV

WN:WBDU

G'day everyone, i just set up a WikiBureau (ie. noticeboard) for australia at WN:WBDU. Any interested aussies, come join, everyone else, go grab a bunch of friends and start one for your own country (there is already one for the US at Wikinews:WikiBureau_United_States. The bellman 04:37, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)