Wikinews:Water cooler/miscellaneous/archives/2019/March


Limiting your digital footprint in a surveillance state

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/27/technology/personaltech/digital-footprint-surveillance.htmlJustin (koavf)TCM 06:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks interesting though a few days old. Thanks Justin! Gryllida (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. It's stale as a news story but perennially useful for tips for journalists in dystopian hellscapes. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

On liberal journalism

https://www.cjr.org/special_report/why-the-left-cant-stand-the-new-york-times.php/Justin (koavf)TCM 23:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

19:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

WMF proposes rebranding Wikinews as a Wikipedia project

WMF found studies indicating that Wikimedia is not well understand and that "Wikipedia" is the most recognized. It is planning to change "Wikinews" into Wikipedia News. You people should go to meta:Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 research and planning and its subpage about the rest of the proposal. For feedback, you may email to either brandproject wikimedia.org or go to a discussion page. --George Ho (talk) 08:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC); amended, 09:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification.
I oppose this change. News is not a subproject of an encyclopedia. I did not understand where to leave this feedback in public.
I've written to the email with this content,
Wikinews is not Wikipedia News.
The differences are in that
- It allows original research in the form of original reporting,
- The assumption of good faith is replaced with 'never assume' for the sake of critical thinking,
- Many language editions require peer review for publication,
- Events which occurred over 3 days ago are not publishable (wikipedia home page often has 'news' items from 4 or 5 or more days ago)
To whom do I write about this for this proposal to make an impact? Do we need consensus on the project to prevent the rename from occurring?
In the case the rename proceeds, are we allowed to keep the old brand name still?
Here is a relevant discussion:
https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Water_cooler/miscellaneous#WMF_proposes_rebranding_Wikinews_into_Wikipedia_News
I hope to receive a reply soon. Gryllida (talk) 08:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For public feedback, you may go to meta:Talk:Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 research and planning/community review (which I previously piped). --George Ho (talk) 09:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
here. `Gryllida (talk) 09:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reread the proposal and couldn't confirm whether it would change to "Wikipedia News", but it plans to brand Wikinews as a Wikipedia project. Therefore, I changed the section title to reflect that. --George Ho (talk) 09:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just a name change or would it have any substantial effect on the work we do around here? Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the comments page, I see a lot of proposals for "Let individual Wikimedia projects decide whether or not they want to be rebranded." There is a lot of opposition to this from the other projects. But I think the majority of people just won't notice. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To call this insanity, or even idiocy, seems far too weak. Strangely, today isn't even April 1. Saying Wikinews is as different from Wikipedia as it is possible to be and still be a wiki should be unnecessary at the Foundation level; anyone who doesn't already know that has no business even talking about branding. --Pi zero (talk) 13:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, Yair rand. :-)  And thanks, Darkfrog24, for your supportive comment there. (I'm giving thought myself to what remark I might usefully insert there; clearly, I think, neither "me too!" nor "I'm outraged!" would be useful.) --Pi zero (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever else may be going on, we all support this project. I concur about "outrage." If this really is just a name change then "eyeroll" might be better.
I think the biggest place where a name-change might affect us is when contacting sources for original reporting. "Wikinews" might not be well known but "Wikipedia" is a mixed bag. It could help or hurt. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to suggest outrage would be an inappropriate reaction; on the contrary, we have a hard-earned reputation that Wikipedia has not earned, and lumping us in with Wikipedia would be an insult to Wikinews and giving undeserved credit to Wikipedia. I was merely observing that it would not, by itself, be a useful comment on that page. --Pi zero (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)