Wikinews:Water cooler/miscellaneous/archives/2024/September


Announcing the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee

Original message at wikimedia-l. You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Hello all,

The scrutineers have finished reviewing the vote and the Elections Committee have certified the results for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) special election.

I am pleased to announce the following individual as regional members of the U4C, who will fulfill a term until 15 June 2026:

  • North America (USA and Canada)
    • Ajraddatz

The following seats were not filled during this special election:

  • Latin America and Caribbean
  • Central and East Europe (CEE)
  • Sub-Saharan Africa
  • South Asia
  • The four remaining Community-At-Large seats

Thank you again to everyone who participated in this process and much appreciation to the candidates for your leadership and dedication to the Wikimedia movement and community.

Over the next few weeks, the U4C will begin meeting and planning the 2024-25 year in supporting the implementation and review of the UCoC and Enforcement Guidelines. You can follow their work on Meta-Wiki.

On behalf of the U4C and the Elections Committee,

RamzyM (WMF) 14:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The Vector 2022 skin as the default in two weeks?

A two minute-long video about Vector 2022

Hello everyone, I'm reaching out on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Web team responsible for the MediaWiki skins. I'd like to revisit the topic of making Vector 2022 the default here on English Wikinews. I did post a message about this almost two years ago (where you can find all the details about the skin), but we didn't finalize it back then.

What happened in the meantime? We built dark mode and different options for font sizes, and made Vector 2022 the default on most wikis, including all other Wikinews. With the not-so-new V22 skin being the default, existing and coming features, like dark mode and temporary accounts respectively, will become available for logged-out users here.

So, if no large concerns are raised, we will deploy Vector 2022 here in two weeks, in the week of September 16. Do let me know if you have any questions. Thank you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-36

MediaWiki message delivery 01:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have your say: Vote for the 2024 Board of Trustees!

Hello all,

The voting period for the 2024 Board of Trustees election is now open. There are twelve (12) candidates running for four (4) seats on the Board.

Learn more about the candidates by reading their statements and their answers to community questions.

When you are ready, go to the SecurePoll voting page to vote. The vote is open from September 3rd at 00:00 UTC to September 17th at 23:59 UTC.

To check your voter eligibility, please visit the voter eligibility page.

Best regards,

The Elections Committee and Board Selection Working Group

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Future?

I am not really proposing anything here -- I am honestly just voicing some general thoughts, to be frank. I have sort of lost an understanding of what this project is/where it's going. Firstly: I just don't think we have very many customers around these parts...I just don't. I've sort of lost a lot of my motivation here. I'm not leaving. I'm not resigning. I'm just -- wriggling away a bit. People come here, write a bit, fuss a lot, stir up stuff, then maybe get a bit better at writing a bit -- and then vanish (for the most part). Personally, I think (and I don't know how it would happen) this whole business needs to be diluted down into about 4 'versions'; there are MANY languages represented in WN, with many projects being propped up by about 5 people total. That is not sustainable. I believe in Citizen journalism, I do and I have for many years. But I just don't know what we are/who we are/where we're going anymore around this place.--Bddpaux (talk) 19:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bddpaux Thanks for leaving your note here, a few thoughts
  1. I think we lack commitment of an individual contributor, like me, like you to connect with another contributor to do something (reviewing or writing) together. I'm trying to test that out.
  2. And also test out the approach by a specialised topic. I'm trying to write about topics other contributors find interesting to edit together. If my topic is interesting to nobody to edit or review, then it is too much effort for me to write. (It is part of connecting with another contributor)
  3. There is a minimum number of reviewers, below which it doesn't work (if I'm not sure of something I don't have anyone to run to ask a question). In my view that's at least around 3. Ability to catch up with some other reviewer at least once a day is important to me. Is it important to you?
    • In older days there was Pi zero on IRC. Now I have you on wiki, but not on IRC. That delays some of the communication. I also have Heavy Water, but that's with what, three days turnaround time for reply? Link: Wikinews:IRC. Full time commitment is not required, suffice to have around 10-20 mins a day when you're available, preferably with a warning/note when exactly that's going to be so I can catch you and ask all my questions from my day of editing. Someone noted it's not transparent, yet I think it is important to have a chance to chat in real time for some issues. The outcomes can always later be noted on wiki.
  4. I'd've created Wikinews:Briefs/September 5, 2024 (example), but the only 'within last week' story is OR about LGQBT+ event in England, and OR seems to be excluded from Briefs. (Briefs could've helped UN secretary-general warns about rising sea levels, and England: Staffordshire town celebrates LGBTQ+ pride despite funding issues if I knew how to use them properly - the former article having insufficient details and someone noted on talk page that omitting details is not good practice when publishing, and the latter sitting to become stale if not reviewed)
    • Are Briefs also restricted to be one week fresh? Or can this be two weeks under current freshness criteria?
    • Are Briefs excluding OR?
    • "Draft submitted. Draft was not reviewed for N days. Draft received (either negative or positive) feedback" - when in this timeline do we include 'Draft published as Brief'...?
Hope it helps! Regards, -- Gryllida (talk) 01:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(The site got much better now at sending notifications, it is making usage of talk pages a lot easier than it was a few years ago)
My list of 'question for today' include:
  • the question about usage of Briefs (above, posted a few mins ago)
  • the question about how could one of us all please review the England story (posted at Water Cooler yesterday or the day before, no reply so far)
  • could we all look at the OR list of questions at the talk page of the aussie student visa reform article (posted around an hour ago, no reply so far)
  • what did you want to do with the Crimea story (posted at someone else's talk page a few days ago, no reply so far)
  • what did you want me to help you with in return for you doing all of the above things, is there anything I can help you with (posted just here now for the first time ever)
If there is nobody with half an hour of active time every day, then there is no chance something succeeds in the long run. I'm not sure where you went after posting the paragraph above, I feel a bit lonely and confused now (figuratively speaking). On IRC there were status updates, little notes like 'I popped in for 5 mins, now I'll do groceries, will be available for an hour later in the evening', etc). Of course they're also possible on-wiki, just takes a bit more effort to put them, plus the place where they will be put can be completely random anywhere in recent changes, wheres on irc it is only one place to track without clicking each 'view what was changed' button. I don't mind if it works on-wiki, it just got to work. Gryllida (talk) 02:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bddpaux, I think there is an over-arching theme to this, which is "we have too few reviewers." A problem we are discussing at length here: Wikinews:Water_cooler/policy#After_1_week.
I am not really proposing anything here -- I am honestly just voicing some general thoughts, to be frank. I agree with your opinion and I was very hopeful your previous attempts at a radical change by fast-tracking new reviewers would ultimately be successful. But with all due respect and hopefully not too much frankness; we either need more active reviewers or serious ideas for ways to gain more active reviewers. Voicing opinions doesn't move the needle much in solving the problem and I think we have general consensus on the notion we need more active reviewers. We've had continuous articles in the review queue for months and many go stale without review. You are a reviewer. You could be a part of the solution to the immediate problem of too few active reviewers, while we try to work through the underlying cause of that problem. There is also an active request to add a new reviewer (myself).[4] You could help by commenting and/or voting on that request. Your input as a reviewer and admin matters.
I just don't think we have very many customers around these parts...I just don't. I agree. Too few readers is likely due to a lack of fresh content to consume, which is due to too few active reviewers. We don't seem to lack content to be reviewed and published. We lack the ability to consistently review and publish.
If you don't see reviewing articles yourself, and/or adding more reviewers as a part of the solution, what do you suggest we do to change the status quo?—Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 16:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gryllida if someone could explain to me how briefs work I'd be happy to try to make one... Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Me Da Wikipedian, @Michael.C.Wright, @Gryllida I remember briefs I still don't know why they don't exist anymore, maybe we can bring them back??? Cheers!!! BigKrow (talk) 00:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Briefs, to clarify, nowadays (there's been some abuse of the term by applying it to shorts as well in the past) are summaries of articles published in a day, perhaps along with some other features, which were used as peer-reviewed scripts for WN:Audio Wikinews/News Briefs. Shorts, which I think are what Gryllida intended to refer to, are just collections of at least three underlength stories published on a certain day (each individual short can occur on a different day, as long as they're all fresh on the day of publication). Three shorts, about one paragraph in length and answering all of the 5Ws and H, together equaled a standalone article, then required to have at least three paragraphs of more than one sentence each. Once modern review was introduced, Wikinewsies found that it was actually more taxing to review three shorts than one standalone article, and noticed that when a problem held one short up from being published, it held up the rest, even if there were no problems with any of the others. And of course, two years ago we voted to lower the length requirement for a standalone article to...one paragraph, rendering Shorts completely pointless. Heavy Water (talk) 07:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Heavy Water, sorry I misunderstood. BigKrow (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Heavy Water well the shorts could be under 100 words but...yeah Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Reminder On How The Main Page Works

The last 5 articles published have all had, by 5 different reviewers (@Gryllida:, @Bddpaux:, @Heavy Water:, @Tom Morris:, @RockerballAustralia:) , mistakes with putting it on the front page. As a reminder, when a story is published, an excerpt from the start of the story should go in Lead Article 1. The article that was previously in Lead Article 1 should go to Lead Article 2 (possibly with a slightly shorter excerpt). The article that was previously in Lead Article 2 should go to Lead Article 3, and so on. The article that was previous in Lead Article 5 should be removed. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-37

MediaWiki message delivery 18:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-38

MediaWiki message delivery 00:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-39

MediaWiki message delivery 23:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-40

MediaWiki message delivery 22:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]