Wikinews:Water cooler/miscellaneous/archives/2021/January


15:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Laura Poitras fired from First Look Media two months ago

https://www.praxisfilms.org/open-letter-from-laura-poitras/Justin (koavf)TCM 22:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Name

Why did Wikinews call this the "water cooler" instead of "village pump" like on most wikis? Just asking. --Red-back spider (talk) 10:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because it lives quite up to its name, don't you think, @Red-back spider:? Many wikis derrive nomenclature from enwp, people have a tendency to build things that has been into existence for quite some time. However, some times, people come up with something they find suits well. Many a times, our IRC channnel and water cooler pages are where we have our "water cooler talks".
•–• 11:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Acagastya: Oh, I see. I checked water cooler in the dictionary. --Red-back spider (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, only a few sisters use "village pump". Wikibooks calls their discussion area the "reading room". Wikivoyage has a Travellers' Pub, and Wikisource has a Scriptorium. --Pi zero (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On the Simple English Wikipedia, we simply call it "Simple Talk", so I think there is a variation on the names different wikis use in relation to the wiki's purpose. --IWI (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Moving Wikimania 2021 to a Virtual Event

 

Hello. Apologies if you are not reading this message in your native language. Please help translate to your language. Thank you!

Wikimania will be a virtual event this year, and hosted by a wide group of community members. Whenever the next in-person large gathering is possible again, the ESEAP Core Organizing Team will be in charge of it. Stay tuned for more information about how you can get involved in the planning process and other aspects of the event. Please read the longer version of this announcement on wikimedia-l.

ESEAP Core Organizing Team, Wikimania Steering Committee, Wikimedia Foundation Events Team, 15:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Project Grant Open Call

This is the announcement for the Project Grants program open call that started on January 11, with the submission deadline of February 10, 2021.
This first open call will be focussed on Community Organizing proposals. A second open call focused on research and software proposals is scheduled from February 15 with a submission deadline of March 16, 2021.

For the Round 1 open call, we invite you to propose grant applications that fall under community development and organizing (offline and online) categories. Project Grant funds are available to support individuals, groups, and organizations to implement new experiments and proven ideas, from organizing a better process on your wiki, coordinating a campaign or editathon series to providing other support for community building. We offer the following resources to help you plan your project and complete a grant proposal:

Program officers are also available to offer individualized proposal support upon request. Contact us if you would like feedback or more information.

We are excited to see your grant ideas that will support our community and make an impact on the future of Wikimedia projects. Put your idea into motion, and submit your proposal by February 10, 2021!

Please feel free to get in touch with questions about getting started with your grant application, or about serving on the Project Grants Committee. Contact us at projectgrantsTemplate:Atwikimedia.org. Please help us translate this message to your local language. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A real shame

I saw this article:

Forest killer's Twitter account still available after 7 years

cannot be published at wikinews. It could have been a very timely article because of the suspension of Donald Trump's twitter account. Too bad. Ottawahitech (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the form submitted it doesn't fit our guidelines. The guidelines are, however, sometimes much more flexible in the hands of a veteran Wikinewsie than might appear to a less experienced contributor. --Pi zero (talk) 04:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is a shame at all. It is simply not what we do here. I suggest you re-read what our goals and missions are.
103.48.104.210 (talk) 04:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK @103.48.104.210 I'll bite. What is it that you believe you are doing here? It is not clear to me, and possibly not to others. I am asking after checking out some wikinews user-talkpages. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ottawahitech: What exactly do you mean? --IWI (talk) 03:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The news article in question appears to be historical commentary related to a topic that is related to an event that occurred a bit under two weeks before this thread was started. We require a focal event fresh at the time of publication, which appears to me to be what the IP's remark was referring to. --Pi zero (talk) 03:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ImprovedWikiImprovment:Good question, I already forgot what this thread is all about :-) So lets review together shall we:
The thread started when I expressed my regret that an article which has since been deleted will not be published at enWN. In response to my post Pi zero said something that I interpreted as an encouragement to experienced newsies to develop this doomed article. The next post was from the anon, who I suspect is Acagastya but I am not sure, who if you look at the indentation responded to Pi zero, but from the content was probably responding to my original post, expressing their view that the article in question does not fit their view of what should be published at enWN to which I responded by asking what their view of good articles are.
Back to others, Ottawahitech (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Globe Will Consider People's Requests To Have Articles About Them Anonymized

https://techcrunch.com/2021/01/22/boston-globe-will-consider-peoples-requests-to-have-articles-about-them-anonymized/Justin (koavf)TCM 04:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Koavf: This has been happening for years, I think. Many articles on enwiki about people who were famous have lost their www-refs. I have always assumed this was the reason? Ottawahitech (talk) 00:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]