Wikinews

Wikinews:Water cooler/miscellaneous/archives/2010/July

< Wikinews:Water cooler | miscellaneous
This is an archive of past discussions from Wikinews:Water cooler/miscellaneous/archives/2010. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current page.


Ghana vs USA in World Cup

Should it be made more prominent in Ghana beat United States of America 2-1 in Group E that it refers to the 2006 World Cup, and not today's match? It's the most popular article of Wikinews right now :/ Perhaps a move to 2006 FIFA World Cup: Ghana beat United States of America 2-1 in Group E would do the job? Matthewedwards (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting coincidence, and could be confusing if one doesn't notice the date. At the same time though, I don't really like changing archived articles, and this seems to have lost interest based on the popular articles counter, so I'd say leave it as-is. Tempodivalse [talk] 04:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, the top site search result for [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikinews/en/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=oil+spill+gulf+of+mexico&go=Go oil spill gulf of mexico is a 2006 article (Oil spill reported in Gulf of Mexico). A move would update the date in the search results pages, (currently 2007 for the oil article, and 2009 for the soccer) and make the situation worse.

would it be possible to order search results by date, with the old relevance option available as an option? Makes more sense, IMO. Δενδοδγε τ\c 10:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Diego_Grez/Wikinews_interviews_a_Wikimedia_Commons_administrator_regarding_the_sexual_content_controversy

So, if the other interviewee manages to delay it a while, the hours of time I volunteered for being interviewed get thrown out, because it's stale?

Don't ever expect me to volunteer time to your project again. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the interview really should get published, as it discusses something that is still relevant today. It's not as if the controversy on Commons has stopped... Benny the mascot (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to start a discussion about how to save it, but instead Diego just userfied it. So that was that. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well technically Diego doesn't "own" the article at this point. We can do whatever we want with it. Benny the mascot (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do what you want. I userfied it because I don't wanted the article deleted. --Diego Grez return fire 17:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delays happen because our community is so small. Anyway, if you wait long enough, more things emerge to make the interview newsworthy again. See New board resolution . --InfantGorilla (talk) 12:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been treated like shit throughout this process. It's been two weeks since I was promised that people were working to revise it - during which time not a damn thing happened.
There were public statements made by Jimbo and the Foundation. You could've used them when Jimbo was playuing his little games to bury the article by refusing response. Instead, you decided to bugger over the person you begged for an interview. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could I ask you to take into account the inexperience of a number of us at Wikinews? There are some great writers here, and some who have just dipped their toes into news gathering: all are welcome to offer their best work and hope for publication.
A piece based on your interview finally made it over the review hurdle: Wikimedia Foundation addresses controversial content conflict. I fear you will find the short quotation will not be worth the time you invested in the conversation. Nevertheless this morning, it makes the 4th result of a Google News search for Wikimedia [1].
--InfantGorilla (talk) 09:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Czech train derails

At this moment, our article Czech train derails, at least one dead is the number one Google News result for usti (sic) train derails and one of only three relevant results for czech train crash. I suggest that, as a public service, Wikinewsies should keep a close eye on the accuracy of this one, and consult language experts where necessary. --InfantGorilla (talk) 09:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newcomers' tour

I've heard some complaints from people that it's difficult for a newbie to get involved in Wikinews without immediately becoming overwhelmed by our long, TLDR style policies. Because of that, I've created Wikinews:Newcomers' tour as a sort of "jump-start" guide to get people up and writing in a fairly short, step-by-step, easy-to-digest manner. I'd like to hear feedback on it; ideally I want it to be prominently displayed on our welcome template. Thanks. Tempodivalse [talk] 21:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I put the majority of work into the current welcome template, I'd like to offer some feedback. Please take it as a constructive critique.
  1. The template/style of the 'tour' does not fit with the colour scheme and other aspects used on the main page, and in the welcome template.
  2. The links between each step of the tour are not particularly cleanly implemented. "Tied together with bailing twine" is probably a bit harsh, but might convey what I want to put across.
  3. When encouraging people to contribute articles, there's an obvious point in pasting the source template multiple times that, from my experience, is going to lead to unreviewable articles where someone throws the kitchen sink at a submission. That particular element of your tour is also too long.
  4. I copied Wikipedia's article creation template some time ago, but never finished revamping it for local use. It would be more useful than this.
  5. You have a redlink on the last section.
It is a good idea, but the above points should be dealt with. I would favour, if people are going to put this sort of work in, looking at the Wikipedia article wizard. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk • main talk 07:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments. It's still something of a work in progress, so things aren't completely "settled" yet. I've fixed the redlink - completely forgot about that. As far as the "style" and formatting was concerned, the layout idea was partially stolen from Wikiversity's newcomers' tour, mainly because I'm bad with wiki-syntax. I suppose it could be changed to resemble the main page's layout more.
I've also made a mention of using only the sources you absolutely need - that's a good point. I still think it would be better to explain the source formatting in more detail, because in my experience many people have had difficulties with it.
Could you point me to the WP article creation template? Perhaps I can incorporate some of its features into the welcome tour (although, IIRC, that one wasn't as focussed on getting people to write.) Tempodivalse [talk] 14:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pride London 2010

I speak English only little... Can You supplemented this news? - Złe Mzimu (plWikinews) (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diego's post office photo

I can no longer see the post office image:  , as used in

I could not easily spot the reason, so I posted this question: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#File was there on Monday, but shows 'failed upload' today

--InfantGorilla (talk) 12:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons admin responded (with surprise), and I passed the suggestion on to Diego at his talk page. --InfantGorilla (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The picture was re-uploaded as File:Pichilemu post office demolition.jpg. Thanks for noticing me! Diego Grez return fire 18:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New username

Hi all, so now I have decided to redeeme myself and would like to keep writing articles for Wikinews but I do not want to use my current account anymore. I want to register a new username if Wikinews community will alolw me. Please comment. --Saki (talk) 06:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've used so many different usernames its hard to keep track, and beyond the point of reasonableness. I feel that you should either stick to your current username, or ask to be renamed to your original Saqib. Bawolff ☺☻ 19:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd rather that you stuck to one username. You've had so many renames in the past that it's difficult to keep track of them all. If you want to try and get a "fresh start" with Wikinews, I'd suggest you try your best to follow our policies under this account, be productive, and not step on people's toes. If you can do it and show that you clearly want to help us, the community will likely eventually be willing to forgive and forget. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia_Foundation_addresses_controversial_content_conflict

So, after all the handwringing about how my interview is stale (User:Diego_Grez/Wikinews_interviews_a_Wikimedia_Commons_administrator_regarding_the_sexual_content_controversy, you decide that if the Foundation gives you a statement, then that gets published.

Evidently, it's newsworthy only if one particular side gives a statement. If the OTHER side gives a statement, it's rubbish, and should be deleted.

Thanks for wasting my time.

Fuck you all.

Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mhm...noticed the part where there's a quote from you in that story? C628 (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I also noticed how it does not identify who I'm talking about, makes it sound as if the interview was published, and turns several hours of my time into a single soundbyte. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've obviously never given CNN an interview before, or been interviewed for a documentary. The common response to such interviews is this: "it took 8 hours of filming and 45 minutes of hair and makeup to get that 10 second soundbyte? Arrrrrrggg!" People ramble in interviews. They say a lot of uninteresting things. Sometimes 8 hours of footage only has 10 seconds of useful material. That's just life.
Reading your interview though, I'd say that wasn't the issue here. I'm not sure why you were interviewed in the first place, since you weren't a notable participant in the incident(s) in question. Since you weren't a notable person of interest, the only other explanation I can think of is that your interview was intended as the online equivalent of the "man in the street" type interview. Most such interviews that are conducted by news organizations are discarded as worthless, so the fact that you were quoted at all is unusual. Gopher65talk 18:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Got it. The views of the people against Jimbo are non-notable, even if my views were pretty much the majority view on Commons. Only Jimbo and the foundation are notable, NOONE on the other side.
I stand by my statement: Fuck you all. I was quoted in newspaper coverage of this. I volunteered because I was *assured* the interview would be published, and that it would be a chance to give a more nuanced view than the out-of-context quote in PC World. Instead, when I asked why it hadn't been published, I was told that the interviewer was waiting for Jimbo Wales - and had been for two weeks. Then, instead of publishing it, or trying to get material from elsewhere, it was buried.
Then, you make it clear that a post on Foundation-l is enough to get a news story, but not a story I volunteered for because one of your interviewers approached me.
Waste. Of. My. Time. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We apologised. It is too late to fix it. We are truly sorry. --InfantGorilla (talk) 06:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't apologize. Yes, you are not notable as Jimbo is. You're just some random guy off the street who claims that his views "represent the majority". Evidence? None. Just your word. If we took the word of every nut who told us that they represented The Real Truth As Only They Can Know It, we'd spend all our time publishing conspiracy theories and other garbage. So what exactly is it that makes you as notable as the board of the WMF, a multimillion dollar a year charity? What exactly? Nothing, that's what. You're just... a guy. That's it. Just some guy. Just some guy standing on a (virtual) street corner waving a protest sign. Just some guy who thinks that protest sign makes him as important as the self appointed president-for-life of the (supposedly) evil organization that he's protesting. Well you know what? It doesn't, and you aren't. The community as a whole is important. No single member is important. That's the nature of a wiki. If you're disputing that, then you're guilty of exactly the same type of anti-wiki behaviour that you (mostly correctly, if without civility) accuse Jimbo of engaging in. Gopher65talk 13:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict with gopher) I'm sorry if you feel insulted, but such is the nature of news. We don't, as you're implying, want to be the WMF's yes-man and only provide their POV. The main concern with the story is what Gopher65 highlights above: bluntly speaking, you're not noteworthy. Most news sources generally don't conduct or publish full-blown interviews for people "off the street" that don't stand out - usually just a few quotes at most, which is what we did. A WMF board member is more notable interview material. It probably wasn't a good idea for Diego to 100% guarantee the interview would be published, since such things are rarely certain - articles get failed for unforseen issues all the time. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One clarification: The issue is noteworthiness of the interview, relative to the newsworthy event. Although it's true that an interview with Adam Cuerden, Pi zero, or anyone else in this discussion would not in itself be newsworthy in the absence of a related newsworthy event — that's hardly surprising. The newsworthy event is the controversy as a whole, and in order to publish the interview one would have to have successfully pitched it as of interest relative to that. --Pi zero (talk) 15:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that interview was totally non-newsworthy (it perhaps wasn't the most newsworthy of things though). If it was more timely, I think it could have been published. I'm also sorry you feel you had your time wasted. However with that said, these things sometimes happen, I suggest you move on with life. Bawolff ☺☻ 20:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Cuerden: please note two particular points:
  1. The article which was published is about the WMF Board action - not about Mr Wales or what happened on Commons directly.
  2. Your interview, which would otherwise have been destined for the bit bin, is now enshrined in Wikinews history to serve as a record for original reporting - and thus is preserved to use as a reference regarding this particular scandal.
While I appreciate the time and effort you invested in both this story and in helping out Wikinews, and your feeling more should have been done with it in a more-timely fashion, Wikinews is not a soapbox for any one POV and I believe, if you are honest with yourself, you will admit publishing your interview would have been exactly that - publishing a soapbox rant. I believe if you look at our recent history en.Wikinews has avoided coverage of Foundation drama for several years - your story is the first I can recall in quite some time. That it was published at all is a testament to how serious the story is, and how well you presented your position. - Amgine | t 16:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A ridiculous situation

First of all, I'm an old time contributor to Wikimedia projects. My native language Wikipedia - counting way more than 100k articles today - was a little over 1000 articles when I first began contributing. I'm not the regular guy who just comes here to say, "this sucks".

That being said, what I think when I look at these news from Pichilemu is: this sucks. It's just ludicrous to see how this tiny, mostly irrelevant hamlet in Chile makes it very often to the headlines on the Wikipedia current events page. It is apparent that this is the product of some geeky teenager with too few friends and too much time on his hands.

Geez, there's even a Pichilemu portal! I mean, get real, folks. It just adds to the perception that Wikimedia projects aren't serious when one can clearly notice that Wikinews coverage is, in this case, not nearly related to the objective situation of what's newsworthy, arising instead from an individual's (or a clique's) lack of better things to do. Mind you, there's no intention here of demeaning Pichilemu or its inhabitants; it's certainly a respectable, nice place (especially considering it's in Chile!), it just isn't so important as to deserve such an extensive coverage from a news outlet purportedly covering the whole world. Pichilemuans would probably agree that news pertaining to the replacement of the church doors belong in the town paper rather than with the report on the Pope's terminal illness and whatnot. Dun Beknownst (talk) 03:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting perspective. On en.Wikinews we generally accept any news which may be of interest to a neighborhood or larger audience. Generally news of an extremely local nature will not be placed as one of our lead articles (we have 5 slots for lead articles on the main page.)
Wikinews, like all wiki projects, has contributors who work on what is interesting to them. For many active contributors that is synthesis articles of news already published elsewhere. For some it is original news coverage, often of very personal interest to the main contributor. If that's Formula One racing, or astronomy, or when the local bike trail is opened it's all the same to us: good news with a very local interest. Do you really think we should not cover the Kitsap Peninsula School Board meetings just because you are not interested? Pretty boring subject to anyone not influenced by that school board, just like the arguments of your government's officials to someone who doesn't even know what kind of government you live under. Wikinews is not limited to only covering news of world-wide general interest; we are limited to what our contributors wish to contribute. - Amgine | t 03:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Simple solution. Start writing lots of articles "of interest to an international audience". Better still, round up a few more people to pitch in. It's far too easy to sit back and criticise others who take the time and effort to write something, especially on a site manned by volunteers. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews aim is to develop a worldwide network of reporters. Unlike mainstream news, we don't pay people to fly to hot news, but instead hope that a reporter lives near news when it happens. When we have a thousand reporters, the news of global importance will come to the front page, and there will be room for local news on the site somewhere. Until then, when a Pichilemu resident reports about church doors, it will probably get a share of time on the front page, though someone uploads original photographs from March's earthquake it will get extra recognition as a featured article. I don't expect I would have much time to contribute to the world's knowledge if my town was badly damaged by an earthquake.

The point of a local portal is to give a 'front page' for local news, when it is crowded out of the main page by regional and global stories. (I can't find the article about church doors that you mentioned.)

--InfantGorilla (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it isn't a hamlet. Secondly, it is a provincial capital (specifically from Cardenal Caro) and has 12,400 inhabitants. Perhaps Pichilemu's news aren't of world interest, but earthquakes happen frequently in the area, important surf championships take place there too. I haven't written about church doors. And, instead of criticizing what people writes, why don't you go and write something "of world-wide interest"? And it isn't Pichilemuans, but wikt:Pichileminians. Diego Grez return fire 20:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

/me likes the local news. Bawolff ☺☻ 20:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, wonderful, we can publish articles on a local surfing competition. Huzzah! What we can't do is manage to present even the slightest semblance of covering all major international news. Russian subway bombings in March. One of the bigger stories of the year. Look at our archives. For all someone using us as a source would know, it never happened. Never ran a single story on it (there was one a month and a half later, on a related story. Whee.) Bloody wonderful news site, aren't we? And it's not just a one-off thing. Happens all the time. Look at today. Wikileaks thing. Headline on every damn site on the internet. We ain't got a thing published. There's an article in development. It'll get published some time tomorrow, by which point there'll be a new big story we'll miss. In the meantime, we're publishing stuff about snooker (wtf is snooker?), some obscure football match, a little, insignificant brush fire (brush fires are a dime a dozen in the summer), a "minor aftershock" in aforementioned Pichilemeu (it caused "no damage or casualties." Who cares, then?), and some crap about a man disguised as Darth Vader. Darth Vader!!! Iran's getting sanctioned, 20 people in Iraq died, 20 Navy ships are blowing shit up off Korea, and we're writing about Darth Vader!!! What the fuck? C628 (talk) 23:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So why don't you write about that. We aren't as much people as CNN have. If you have a fucking shit against the news XYZ write, then get the fuck out, soit YOU. If just I could speak better English, I would write more articles, because I do have enough time to write +20 articles a day, but I can't. Diego Grez return fire 01:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were you involved at the time? Was there a reason you did not cover it? People scratch the itch they have, and this project is a thing of wonder when you get a dozen-plus clueful people hitting a major story. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Damn right there's a reason I don't write about it. I've got a real life to take care of, at the immediate moment vacation, but also summer jobs that take up generally at least four hours a day,and then school. I'm a volunteer, and the moment I begin neglecting real life for this or any online project I'll leave. C628 (talk) 03:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing wrong with writing about surf competitions and aftershocks in Pichilemu. OK, so not internationally significant, so maybe many readers don't give a crap, but if we can get a decent article out on it, why the hell shouldn't we publish it? I do, however, agree with C628's point to an extent. If Wikinews wants to be taken seriously as a news service, we need to get articles of at least reasonable quality (even if half the content is a cut and paste from VoA) published while it's still news! For example, the snooker player who died on Saturday- his article was only just published to day, just as it ceases to be news! The Wikileaks story? We might have a decent article sometime tomorrow, but it's today that it was the story on all the front pages. Wikipedia has a good-quality article on it, it's on "In the news" section of the WP Main Page. Now, Wikipedia's In the news section (ITN) is "staffed" by less than half a dozen admins (the template itself is fully protected) including myself and we have to get consensus for every addition, yet we still manage to get things up quicker than a news site. This isn't a criticism of any individual nor as a snarky "Wikipedia is better than Wikinews", but I do think more people need to focus on writing articles for these major events that every reputable news agency is covering and, as important, those with the reviewer bit need to do more reviewing- if an article has waited 40 hours to be published, it's barely news. Yes, it requires a bit of time and effort, but it's the second most important task there is here. This is a news site, so its purpose is to get news written and published- everything else is secondary. Quite frankly, I think the project needs to wake up and realise that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might I, not particularly respectfully, ask why in hell you'd cut 'n' paste from a US government propaganda source? The tired, old, VoA debate has been done to death here; inherent bias. --Brian McNeil / talk 04:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think entire articles should be cut and pasted from VoA, but if part of an article that's not extremely contentious is, or if the opposing viewpoint is also mentioned, I'm fine with it if it allows us to get an article out in an hour instead of ten. I also don't think VoA has an extreme bias, they're not the best, but they're good. C628 (talk) 12:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────┘
 VoA has, in a lot of ways, a professional bias. Every single word choice is influenced by that. This is the discussion I've seen done-to-death. When VoA says someone is a terrorist, is that a considered opinion or a statement of the government's official position? Have they been convicted of terrorism offences? Has a legal authority issued warrants for their arrest? A lot of good points have been made against the practice in the past. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(off on a different tangent) I read Wikinews for the content not covered elsewhere. Some people might not like the local content, thats fine - they don't have to read it. Personally I find something about the argument that everyone else is doing x, therefor we must abandon everything so we can do x as well, weird. However if people want to do whatever everyone else is doing, all the power to them. There is more then enough room for both groups to do as they wish. Wiki's are do-ocracies. People should do what they want to, not tell other people that what they're currently doing is wrong, and they should do blah instead. As the wikipedians say, sofixit. Bawolff ☺☻ 05:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am 100% behind Bawolff and Brian on this one. Yes, while I would love to see us hit the big stories (Wikileaks anyone?), I really enjoy getting news that would never be covered by any other news source. I've learned more about Australian Rules Football (and how to pronounce those marbles in mouth team names lol), Chile, famous snooker players (though I'm still not exactly sure what snooker is - pool?) and tons of other stuff. For me, having to read the news each day, it's refreshing to learn about something other than what is on NPR and the BBC. However, I would like to see more of a balance in the "smaller" stories with the bigger, but to be fair, even my own written contribution has been on a sport where everyone turns left all day long - not exactly hard hitting stuff (unless they hit a wall). Of course the biggest advantage we have is that over the years wikinews has been around, we have an archive of stories that paint a much different picture of the world than, say, CNN. We can run a story on a "church door" right next to an atomic bomb going off in Bruges. It's all news, it's all happening on Earth, it all involves people in some way, and most important, the stories we choose to write are usually much better than what some lackey intern can bang out on their WP at the Podunk Times because, get this, we actually care about the stories we are writing about. Hell, half the drama around here (good or bad) is because everyone is defending their work in one way or another. But if we were forced to write about what the hot topic is everyday, we'd get bored, stop yelling and swearing at each other and decide wanking it would be a more productive way to spend an afternoon at the computer than pouring hours and hours into a news story. Damn, I really rambled on there. Turtlestack (talk) 07:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


At

Google News will publish anyone ...

... including a site that republishes Wikinews[2] and Al Jazeera[3], complete with spelling mistakes and without attribution.

I am pleased that Wikinews is syndicated, but it does mean that you can't choose your company.

--InfantGorilla (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted them regarding the failure to attribute Wikinews to the content. They are located in Las Vegas, so they should reply soon, being in the same time zone. This is not the first time I find myself contacting a news agency because they fail to attribute properly.
And, Google News does still list us for OR. See [4]. —Mikemoral♪♫ 19:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They list us for both OR content and non-OR content - [5]. What is the point of this thread? Bawolff ☺☻ 19:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I think I set up Google Alerts wrong then. :p —Mikemoral♪♫ 20:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for contacting them. I was thinking about dredging through my email archives to find a copy of the last letter on the same subject a fellow Wikinewsie sent. It might be useful to have a copy somewhere that we can use in similar situations, in order to avoid reinventing the wheel. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It invariably requires repeat, polite, reminders. Unfortunately, you need to check things carefully. If they don't follow all the rules laid out in the "You can copy" instructions (down to images), they need more gentle prodding. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google News will list blogs, but makes notable distinctions in how they present them to readers. I had several conversations with them about this, including getting locale &c corrected. We should be put in the same class as the BBC and NYC as far as how they present us to the general public. I've certainly seen our stories put top where we've the most in-depth stuff and you search for a topic/story. Approached correctly, they're pretty good. I really want to see more than just enWN listed with them (it helps us all), but none of the other langs have got back to me and confirmed they've implemented as-rigorous review standards. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very short articles as leads

I promoted a very short article Twin car bomb kills 20 in Iraq to main page third lead today. It seems I have started a trend, as three more similarly short articles (with 4 or 5 to 6 sentences) have made their way to the lead templates. Only two of the five main page leads are a decent length at this moment.

Nearly all of our output today has been what I would call briefs. Technically, they are three paragraphs, but only just. If that is what people want to write at the moment, that is how it is, but I don't think a sheaf of main page leads is the right place for them, so I now regret posting the car bomb article as a lead. Our practice has been to combine briefs into one article, (Wikinews Shorts: July 27, 2010), though other language Wikinews sites have a special category of article.

The practice of combining briefs into a single page began before Dynamic Page Lists, and before Flagged Revisions. It seems to me that an attempt to make a combined set of briefs is usually scuppered by the Flagged Revisions workflow (wait for enough briefs, reviewer doesn't have interest in all the topics, so briefs get published more slowly than full articles, rather than quicker.) The Dynamic Page Lists should allow us to design an appropriate presentation of briefs on the main page.

  1. What should we do with the main page today? I am not proud of so many leads being so short, but I don't have time to write a long story, or lengthen those.
  2. Can we come up with a proposal for dealing with briefs in the future?

--InfantGorilla (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we need a big, prominent "news in brief" link on the Main Page. I don't think short articles on the Main Page is really a big problem as long as the articles provide sufficient detail which, I think, is a better measure than an arbitrary number of paragraphs, though that can be a useful yardstick. There are situations where even a decent-sized article couldn't sufficiently cover a story in enough detail to be sufficient. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that would solve the review problem. What bothers me is that 3 paragraphs made up of two short sentences each is pretty poor when it comes to having at least a third of that used when the story appears on a lead. I meant a technical solution to consolidating briefs and keeping the review workflow functional. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could make each sub-article its own page like any other article, but with a template saying it's a brief that keeps it off the main DPL. Each brief can be reviewed individually like a normal article, and then when published it gets transcluded onto a daily "Wikinews Shorts" page. This should also solve another annoying issue with briefs - at the moment they are near useless when browsing categories because of their non-descriptive headlines. the wub "?!" 22:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request an interview?

Has Wikinews:Request an interview always been a backwater? --InfantGorilla (talk) 07:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ethics of jokes and verbal abuse

Two things in today's story that might be of interest

  1. The headline story about the ethics of name calling and jokes
  2. The comment by Beatrice Bray about the ethics of moderating comments and opinions from readers (presumably connected with her piece of Apr 23 "We want to show the public how to use terms like "schizophrenia", "psychosis" and "bipolar" in the correct way.")

On the same subject, here is something that will make you smile:

--InfantGorilla (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Water_cooler/miscellaneous/archives/2010/July&oldid=1095962"