Wikinews:Water cooler/miscellaneous/archives/2011/May

Wikinews workshop

It's been proposed that we drop the bimonthly think-tank/brainstorming sessions held in #wikinews-workshop. A few users complained that it wasn't productive, and that there was no moderation, so it could become easily disorganised.

Personally, I share those concerns too, but I think there's a lot of potential behind the basic idea. I don't really have a strong opinion.

What do you think? Should we drop the idea altogether, or can we alter the format to make it more productive?

(For the unfamiliar with this topic, cf.: WN:Workshop).

Open to thoughts. -Tempodivalse [talk] 18:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

There's little harm in keeping 'em. — μchip08 19:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the IRC venue works. It's inherently volatile, and at the same time by nature off the beaten track. The third workshop had a nasty edge to it (a prominent Wikinewsie simply walked out because of the bad atmosphere), and I think the causes of that are systemic.

The monolithic nature of the workshops also actually makes every other week too frequent, I suspect. Wikinews has a fast mode of operation for day-to-day stuff, and a slow mode of operation for infrastructural stuff. It's not good when major infrastructural work is rushed, but we're also prone to lose momentum on long-term stuff, being distracted as we are by the day-to-day. As I see it, the potential use of the workshops would have been to keep that long-term momentum from petering out altogether. However, you don't get smooth motion from such monolithic events. We may be able to devise some other device, but I don't see the IRC workshops as viable on an ongoing basis.

Conceivably, we could arrange some sort of simple device on the water cooler that could fulfill a momentum-preservation function. Some thought would have to go into how that would work, though, since once way of using the water coolers to preserve momentum was notably demonstrated not to work in the latter half of last year. --Pi zero (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem with using the water cooler as a venue for "brainstorming" is that, in case of a sudden traffic spike, people are going to get edit conflicted all over the place. That was one motivation for me to move things to IRC. The disadvantage, of course, is that it's not as accessible to other users.

BarkingFish suggested that a few users be selected to moderate the channel and keep the discussion running smoothly. Looking thru the logs of the first hour of yesterday's meeting (before I joined) it seemed that might have helped lower the abrasive atmosphere that formed. Maybe we should make the workflow more like what the Office Hours, and hold them less frequently (maybe once monthly instead of twice). Tempodivalse [talk] 19:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Where is the log from the last workshop posted? Apparently I missed most of it, so I am curious what happened in the first half. Mattisse (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The log of the first hour and a bit is at WN:Workshop, the rest is UTC+1 timestamped at User:Microchip08/Log (for now, anyone care to migrate it?) — μchip08 20:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Er... I saw the first one or two sessions and they were fine, productive, and welcoming. Last Sunday I joined the channel, got impressed by the people discussing unproductively things like a mad bulldog... and I left it. Just like everything on Wikinews, after it goes down, it subsequently goes worse. アンパロ ^{Io ti odio!} 01:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Most things in life, once they go awry, tend to keep going, er, awrier. --Pi zero (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break

• I've read the IRC log; other than the repeated regurgitation of the Wikipedia mantra that "Wikinews is useless", it did not seem that bad.

In the past, I have tried to import part of Wikipedia's article wizard but, got no help, and the form is quite quite different so a lot of work on it is required.

Now, it's been said before, it always bears repeating: Wikipedia is in direct competition with us by ignoring their actual project mission to produce an encyclopedia.

For those who care, this was my last attempt to get WP to follow their own policy. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the IRC log, perhaps sometimes it's difficult to recreate, just from reading the written record, what things felt like from the inside. (BTW, did you read the long form of the transcript, which hasn't yet been imported to the project page?)

Regarding Wikipedia's attitude toward us, it's taken me years to fully appreciate that they feel threatened by us. (The Wikipedian doth protest too much). Seriously. As I've remarked, a wiki needs an idealistic vision to spark the passion of volunteers. We have our vision of free, neutral, reliable citizen journalism. Part of their idealistic vision is that high-quality content can be evolved over time by treating everyone as if they are acting in good faith, and treating their contributions as if they have intrinsic merit. They've got a profound emotional investment in that ideology (just as the idealistic vision of a wiki is supposed to induce), and so it's an existential threat to them that someone might notice the natural antagonism of both assumptions to high quality. Many of them are in the denial stage over that, and many of those who move beyond denial lose their motive to stick around, so the denial is naturally selected for. --Pi zero (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• It's an interesting way of putting it, and certainly seems believable. I had cause recently to look through Jimbo being invited into one of the Wikinews IRC channels to discuss his request/demand that I resign my privileges. He said he sympathised with our point of view regarding w:ITN but, conceded he could not force Wikipedians to follow their own project policies.

So, where do we go from here? I can't bear to deal with the wikilawyering of resurrecting those template changes unless there's going to be solid support from further afield than the Wikinews community. It would, as most people here know, not be a good idea if I raised the topic again. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this is an unpopular opinion, but I think we need to stop trying to compete with/compare ourselves to Wikipedia all the time. It's very unlikely we'll ever push through those changes. They have their project, we have ours. Maybe they're not following their rules, but we shouldn't spend precious time trying to enforce their policies, let's instead spend that time looking after our own needs. Personally, I'd like to see a push for more OR/broadcast reportage. That would help us create our own clear identity, which we still lack, and which the project needs. Tempodivalse [talk] 16:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Although we may disagree, sometimes spectacularly, on how to move Wikinews forward, I agree that fixing Wikipedia's attitude toward us is not something we can do by anything we say to them. When we become so successful that our success does the persuading for us, they'll come around.

Comparing/contrasting ourselves to Wikipedia is sometimes useful, because it provides broader perspective on the dynamics of wikis. Wikinews and Wikipedia are, roughly, at opposite ends of a spectrum of approaches to a wiki project, so there's a lot of potential insight there. --Pi zero (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────┘
EDIT CONFLICT I agree more OR would be better. I do try to do my part there ;-) However, that is very hard to do well. Broadcast reportage, I'm less keen on; it generally involves seeing events as-filtered by a broadcaster.

It is a huge insult to the work Wikinewsies do when you look at how some Wikimedians from other projects characterise synthesis work. I would rather not get into a pissing contest with Wikipedians, but there is a need to distinguish what we do from what they do.

Yes, there's the "visibility" issue which attracts people to contribute there. It does not in any way appeal to me; I might claim 'ownership' on an article, but in 10 years time how many of my words would be left? The people who contribute here are making a very important historical contribution, and it irks me to see that denigrated.

Pi, I very much doubt in the short-term (1-2 years) we're going to reach a success level that forces a rethink on their part. This is why I've been pushing for things like Prof Blackall's Journo students. I'd characterise that as an end-run around Wikipedia's viewpoint. If this is a success, and I can persuade the professor to write up the experience (hopefully for an academic publication) then it would be another move towards having people look at Wikinews in a fundamentally different manner. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree on likely timeframe. Getting something new under the sun to work superbly well is not for the impatient. There's no magic switch one can flip to cause Wikinews to rapidly take off (although there is a self-destruct button). Just as it takes time for individual Wikinewsies to climb the learning curve for the project, it takes even longer for the project to climb its own learning curve to success.

(BTW, likely the link you were looking for, a while back, was w:WP:ITN. :-) --Pi zero (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sec Brk 2

Yeah, that's the linky :-)

So, if we go into what I've brought up:

• Who has the template-fu to turn the Wikipedia article wizard into one suitable for here?
• Can we recruit a couple of people from Wikiversity to monitor prof. Blackall's students and, as outside observers, point out our failings as well as those of the students? I don't want them totally mollycoddled; that won't happen in a real newsroom, they're in the final year of their degree course, and this is a real opportunity to put together a Wikiversity course on contributing here with a few to becoming a 'real' journalist.
• As an unmentioned point, and going back to the 'pure synthesis' stuff; can we make reviewing that easier - it is, after all, what many younger contributors do well. Skills they pick up on that are useful in copyediting OR. What concerns me there, in the longer term, is an ability to write well with little real understanding of the context or repercussions. That is where the curmugeonly contributors come in.

Now, I don't think the 'workshops' should stop. Again, I think the name is wrong. The general idea isn't. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

What name would you propose instead? My initial idea was "Wikinews Discussions" but that sounded bland. BRS proposed the "workshop" idea. I'm curious, I still stand by my idea, I want to find ways to make it more productive. Tempodivalse [talk] 21:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll fall back on one of my tried-and-tested Systems Analysis axioms: What is the problem you're trying to solve? When you can answer that with confidence, the name will come easily.

Were you talking about orientation, and making n00bz productive, I'd support 'bootcamp'. However, this is far wider ranging. Maybe that's what we need to try? Assist new recruits, and steer away from project politics until they're suitably invested and oriented? Really, I don't know how best to progress; I loathe modern politicking which can be summed up as: "OMG! Something must be done! This is 'something', let's do it!" We need a more Trotskyist view: "What has to be done?" --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a nobody's opinion, but what is needed is article production and review, in my opinion. When that happens readers and writers will come. See Portal:Current events. Look at the dates when there are no articles from wikinews. When new articles appear, the page hits increase. Is the point of this site to get readers like a real newspaper site? If so, articles should be produced on a daily basis, preferably ones that grab readers' attention. Neat, concise articles that don't wander like much news writing these days. The other site's articles on the same subjects are often unfocused and TLTR. I wish we would forget about them and concentrate on producing news. Just a nobody's view and I fully realize that I don't get all the politics. Mattisse (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. When our output goes up, more people notice us, and more of them write articles. When our output goes down, we're less visible, and fewer articles get written. Then there are factors that affect our ability to handle the work that is submitted take full advantage of the upward swings — like, things that affect our capacity to process submitted contributions (both from newcomers and from Wikinewsies), and things that affect our ability to communicate (both technically and socially, with both newcomers and other Wikinewsies).

My own short-term interest in Wikipedia is limited to the insights we can glean, through comparison/contrast of sister projects, into the general dynamics of wikis. --Pi zero (talk) 03:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

TBH, that third workshop was grossly unpleasant. I'm not sure I was actually less uncomfortable than the two prominent Wikinewsies (that we know of) who walked out; it may just be a difference in reaction. I think I've already outlined my basic reasons for favoring discontinuing the whole IRC approach to the thing. If a name change can actually change the nature of the beast, that will have been some name change.

Template fu? Somehow I'd thought the main technical challenge would be javascript. I wasn't even aware there was a Wikipedia article wizard (if I'd ever known, I forgot), though, and I'm hoping to look into that tonight. The last few days I've been slowly wrapping my head around certain facets of javascript configuration, which I think will serve me well in any event; templates per se don't scare me. --Pi zero (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sec Brk 3

• I would recommend looking at the WP wizard for 'inspiration'; I suspect a similar tool could cut the number of unworkable submissions dramatically.

My issue with the workshops is: "What output is supposed to come from them?" That doesn't seem to be their point; they're a solution in search of a problem. So, exactly what purpose are they supposed to achieve? Pick no more than two goals; then you might see some progress. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 07:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────┘

• After that third IRC workshop, I'm finding it really easy to entertain cynical thoughts about the intended output — which just goes to show how negative atmosphere begets further negative thoughts.

An alternative proposal: Rather that IRC workshops, simply run project-infrastructure threads here, on the miscellaneous water cooler. Timing is dead simple: when the last such thread gets archived, it's time to start another one, as that means it's been two weeks since there was activity on the previous thread. It's on-wiki, it's unlikely to overheat (or at least the problem of keeping it cooled is nothing new), and it keeps the issues from dropping off radar.

• "wizard": a series of pages, each explaining-and-asking essentially one question. Can accommodate the wiki software, which does not support parameterizing initial content of a created page.
• "form": a single page with multiple input boxes that are all used. Violates the aforementioned limitation of wiki software, with multiple input boxes parameterizing initial page content. So presumably involves javascript
• I had been envisioning a form, with first six boxes who, what, where, when, how, and why, somewhat limited space for each of those, and requiring what and when. The seventh box would be headline. Other fields would be for sources and additional details. The new page would be created containing a template with named fields containing the data from the form input boxes — and from there, one could request a Wikinewsie to develop the data into an article, or one could use something more wizard-like for do-it-yourself development.

--Pi zero (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Updated transcript

I upgraded the transcript at WN:IRC workshop/April 24, 2011 to include the later hour and a half or so that hadn't been included there. --Pi zero (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Sue Gardner hotlinks Wikinews

You may have already discussed this, but if not:

Quote

---

Typically what we try to do is develop features that will be relevant to many languages and possibly multiple projects. Sometimes we roll them out on a smaller project first, like the strategy wiki, or projects like Wikinews or Wikibooks, and then later release on enWP and other large projects.

from http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2011/05/interview-with-sue.html

--InfantGorilla (talk) 11:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Sensationalism vs the ease of on-the-spot reporting

I'm keen to highlight Water main bursts in west Edinburgh; traffic, utilities disrupted as an example of two things.

First, that the initially submitted version would lead one to believe that 30-odd square miles had been flooded, and near half-a-million people evacuated.

Unacceptable sensationalism. Wikinews must avoid such to retain credibility.

Second, and a far, far more positive note; how easy it was to carry out some Original Reporting in relation to this story.

Equipped only with a mobile phone, I visited the scene, took the photos you see on the article, and emailed them in. Back down on the nearby main road, I merely had to say to a Domino's Pizza employee "bet you'd fun with the bust water main this morning" to get far more information than any of the sources had given.

On the basis of this second point, how can we hold this up as an example of how easy it can be to contribute original material to Wikinews? I'm going to ask DragonFire1024 to give input on this too; he's done a lot of on-the-scene stuff in New York State. I am aware that writing good copy is likely 70%+ of the battle. But, for Wikinews to thrive I strongly believe it has to be through most content having an original reporting angle. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Good call. I didn't get to do OR myself. Probably linking to OR category somewhere at the top of newsroom would help to have more people aware of how it works. --Gryllida (% talk) 13:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking more along the lines of pulling in anecdotes, and experience, from those on-project who've done OR and putting together an essay to compliment WN:ARTICLE – say, Wikinews:Look mom! I'm a reporter! Yes, I'd use that title; it'd provoke people into reading, and the ease with which I managed to cover a local story has to be an inviting prospect for potential contributors.

The point of view I'm looking at this from, based on this article, is that we've mainstream sources that a contributor anywhere on the planet could build an article framework with. But, add some on-the-spot reportage (with images which act as proof of such) and you've something which becomes a lot easier to review.

Hopefully DragonFire1024 will get the couple messages I've sent him and chip in here. It'd also be good to have comments from those who've recently been doing the lion's share of the reviewing – how much easier would OR photos make their job? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll inject some pessimism here. I learn about Wikinews largely by hanging around a long time and slowly picking up on how things work; and I've never been entirely comfortable with how OR interacts with reputation and trust.

If OR is easier to review, wouldn't that be fundamentally because there's less that can be done to verify it? And our OR has been reliable because by the time Wikinewsies advance to OR they've already established a reputation with the community, doing synthesis? So either

• we take our OR from contributors who've already earned our trust, and who therefore have already survived the dual frustration/learning-curve filters of publishing a first article here and persisting to become a regular —in which case, OR may add value to contributions by regular Wikinewsies but won't greatly increase our output or contributor base— or else
• we accept OR without previously established reputation, and sooner or later we end up publishing completely fake OR.

--Pi zero (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

/me quaffs Pi zero's half-empty glass.

You missed the point. Completely and utterly.

I submitted pictures with, I hope, GPS data embedded in them.

What can I say? "The beatings will continue until morale improves". --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The ideal outcomes from my cautionary (not to say gloomy :-) remark would be  (a) for my point not to be missed, and  (b) for a response to further clarify the main point of the preceding thread as it relates to my caution. On careful analysis, both (a) and (b) are at least somewhat implicit in the above response; so while I may disagree with the 'completely and utterly' charge, it actually contributes to (b) and thus I can't altogether resent it.

Having made my cautionary remark, I'd myself quite like to read Wikinews:Look mom! I'm a reporter!. --Pi zero (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────┘
Maybe once I've recovered from being prodded on an hourly basis for 10 hours. Brian McNeil / ^talk 07:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)