Wikinews:Water cooler/policy/Archive/10

Policy on detecting institutional bias

I'm relatively new here and my perspective may be hopelessly naive, but here is my view. I'm not sure that the NPOV policy of Wikinews is being used correctly by some editors. This may be a reflection of institutionalized bias in reporting. I will explain my view in the context of a particular example.

When I first edited a Wikinews article (about a month ago) I was prompted to get involved with Wikinews because of a biology-related article that had been created and published by user Neutralizer. As a biologist, I felt that the original version of the article was accurate but too short. Science-related articles often enter the news without adequate background and without attention to important details and nuances. I set about the task of improving the article that Neutralizer had started.

About 20 minutes into my Wikinews editing experience, user Amgine noticed the article and slapped, "NPOV, remove to developing" on it. After reverting the published status of the article, Amgine declared on the talk page, "This article is very unbalanced, and reports only on the findings of a single study." In my view, the article, as originally written by Neutralizer, was "unbalanced" only in that it was incomplete. I have no information on Neutralizer's background in science, but I'll guess that he provided as much detail as he could before publishing the article. My guess is that Neutralizer wanted to publish this particular Wikinews article because it reported a scientific finding that may seem to defy conventional wisdom. When I arrived at Wikinews, Neutralizer had this on his user page, "I believe it's a challenge to strip away pre-conceived notions and personal/national bias from news reports." When I first saw this, I took it to mean that Neutralizer is devoted to questioning "conventional wisdom".

Each Wikinews editor exists somewhere on an axis that can measure the extent to which people defend the status quo or seek to question it. In my experience, Amgine is representative of an extreme of position on that axis that is near the opposite end of the scale from Neutralizer's equally extreme position. This leads to fundamental conflict between Neutralizer and Amgine that concerns the kinds of stories that should be published by Wikinews. This fundamental conflict is not limited to Neutralizer and Amgine, but they seem to be the most confrontational in trying to define this important aspect of Wikinews: should Wikinews simply echo the biases of conventional news media or can Wikinews try to escape the biases of commercial news media?

I think a study should be done to try to determine the fate of Wikinews articles that either echo the contents of commercial news media reports or strike out in new directions. Are articles that question conventional wisdom equally likely to get published by Wikinews or are stories that echo the conventional views of commercial news more likely to be published? In order to facilitate this study of Wikinews bias, I think there should be a moratorium on deletion of news articles that are killed. In the interest of respect for history and institutional memory, I also propose that all past news stories that have been deleted for reasons other than copyright violation be undeleted and archived for study by the community.

My guess is that Neutralizer feels that many of his story writing efforts at Wikinews have been unfairly challenged and scuttled by reactionary forces that are biased against attempts to question conventional views. I think that this plays a major part in the conflict between Neutralizer and Amgine. I think this personal dispute is indicative of a larger problem that divides many Wikinews editors into camps that I will call "radical" and "reactionary".

I think a special effort needs to be made in order to make sure that the NPOV policy is not used as a way to prevent the publication of entire articles and parts of articles that question conventional wisdom. In my view, this is exactly what might have happened to the article discussed above if additional editors had not "come to the aid" of this particular article and Neutralizer's attempt to publish it. In the short time I have been here, I have developed the feeling (this needs to be objectively studied) that there are many similar articles that get killed because the people who start them do not have the time, energy and administrative clout to fight for them. I am concerned that there is institutionalized bias at Wikinews in the form of administrators who abuse their administrator powers to promote their personal views on what is and is not news. Such decisions need to be made by means of open community discussion. Without open discussion of this issue, two problems will persist: confrontational editors like Neutralizer will continue to be banned because of their opinion of what is news and other Wikinews contributors will simply leave Wikinews because they feel that they are not getting fair treatment.

I support anything that can be done to elevate broad community discussion and consensus to a position above the opinion of administrators. Administrative power is important to stop vandalism, but all administrative actions that do not involve emergency defense of the wiki need to be open to community discussion. I think it is unacceptable within any Wikimedia project for administrators who are involved in personal conflicts to feel that they can settle their personal conflicts with bans and other actions that skirt the need for community oversight. In order to promote community discussion and prevent conflicts from festering, I propose that Wikinews have an on-going community discussion of "what is news?". The discussion should center itself explicitly on sources of bias in news reporting and how institutionalized biases can be countered. I think Wikinews needs a self-study process that will attempt to measure its own institutional biases.
--JWSchmidt 13:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

When I started the first policy pages on Wikinews, I was very worried that NPOV disputes might be used to delay the publication of an article until it is no longer relevant. This is why, already in December 2004, I clearly phrased the NPOV dispute tag to say: "try to resolve any actionable objections." It has since been policy on Wikinews that objections to an article which are not actionable can be ignored. I stole this idea from the Featured Article Candidate process on the English Wikipedia, where it works very well.

Furthermore, there is Template:Incomplete, which addresses the issue that editors might try to delay publication simply by alleging that an article is incomplete, until it is no longer relevant. This template clearly states that the tag may be removed after some amount of time if the missing information is not added. It can delay, but not prevent publication in most cases.

I think these policies are already fairly well tuned to deal with the problems you describe. I am not going to answer to the individual case as I feel that we should depersonalize policy discussions as much as possible. I am going to say that actionable NPOV objections must be resolved before the article is published, and it is not necessarily up to the complaining person to resolve them, merely to point them out. I believe the criterion of actionability and the distinction between NPOV disputes and incompleteness complaints provide sufficient safeguards. Beyond that, Wikinews strives for a very high standard of quality.

I have yet to see an excellent piece of reporting on Wikinews that did not make it to publication because of disputes. To the contrary, when good reporting does happen, I often observe lots of Wikinewsies taking an interest in the article and trying to make it even better. I do see lots of newbies with strong opinions who are not often willing to put in the necessary amount of work to justify them. I think it's perfectly fine for Wikinews to not accept that. We do not have the filters of mainstream publications, but we are also not Indymedia. My personal vision of Wikinews is for it to embody the traditional ideals of journalism in the purest form possible. Sometimes, that will mean turning away people who feel very strongly about a topic.

For these reasons, I feel that the problem you describe can be adequately dealt with by simply acting upon our existing policies. Remove NPOV tags when there are no actionable objections, or when objections have been dealt with. Remove incompleteness tags if there is no ongoing discussion and nobody is willing to do the work of completing an article. Replace tags with more appropriate ones when necessary. Be bold!--Eloquence 14:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Eloquence, many thanks for clarifying that issue on NPOV tags - the "actionable objections" stipulation is an important one, I think - and I think we would all do well, as you say, to be "bolder" in removing NPOV tags where there are, in fact, no "actionable" objections. I share many of the concerns laid out above by JWSchmidt, and find his analysis compelling. It's been my perception that the NPOV tag has often, in practice, been abused in the way that JWSchmidt describes, and that wikinews has suffered as a result. I agree that we need to maintain the standard but my perception has been that the NPOV tag has often been used by editors simply to block stories they object to on political grounds, without putting forward any real actionable objections. In a number of these cases I've seen editors becoming, in my view, very confrontational and unpleasant over such arguments.
• The following is just a set of very personal observations, which others may disagree with, BUT: What I've observed, for example, with Neutralizer, is that he has, in the past (I think he's changed his behaviour a lot actually) often become confrontational only in RESPONSE to a confrontational approach from another editor. But all too often, that other editor has been someone who has admin status, and/or has-a-good-buddy-who-has-admin-status. I've also observed that the more confrontational Wikinewsies, other than Neutralizer, tend to be the ones who have admin status. And I've observed that on some occasions when Neut has been blocked, it has been in response to something confrontational he has (unwisely) said/done after being provoked in apparent response to a similarly confrontational approach by an editor-with-admin status - who then blocks him (or gets a friend to block him)! This seems wrong. I'm also concerned that an apparently vindictive approach from some admins, who then continue to be confrontational towards other editors, particularly in arguments over the NPOV-tag issue, creates a bit of a "climate of fear" - and seriously discourages/disincentivises editors from "being bold". Frankly, one worries, rightly or wrongly, that doing anything remotely "bold" will lead to a more-or-less arbitrary block. So my question is, what might we be able to do to "incentivise boldness"?

Rcameronw 16:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Policy changes should be addressed/resolved on the policy page (here)before edits being made?

For discussion;

• I am concerned that policy is being made unilaterally (or by a small discussion group) in many cases with most of the community not even aware it is happening. I believe it's preferable for a strong effort to be made to alert the community at large when policy changes are occurring; at least to the extent of listing these changes/discussions as topics on the water cooler or providing links to them from a water cooler topic. Right now there are policy changes being discussed or being made by edits without being listed on the policy page(although 2 do have flags)[1]

[2] [3]Amgine brought up a good point[4]"Discussion should be consolidated: I wasn't aware of the discussion here, for example, until I came to explain my revert. Where there is a discussion ongoing in the correct section of the water cooler, that should take precedence as it is more viewed by the communityre;"

• I'd like to propose that ALL policy changes begin with a discussion here on the policy page and that links be provided at that topic space for any other changes / discussion page activities.

• If Chiacomo's report above is true,
• "most of the policy changes in this Wikis history were made similarly(without voting, which is evil). If someone makes a change and no one objects and the policy is used then it becomes accepted policy"
• then perhaps the policy creation problem (if there is one) is systemic; and,imo, should be addressed. Neutralizer 15:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

If the problem is systemic, then it is systemic across all of the Wikimedia Foundation projects and was designed that way. While, it might be friendly, I don't think it's necessary to post all policy changes to the water cooler. Changes on a wiki can be made by anyone -- we shouldn't require them to post a message or begin a discussion before changing something. It might be wise but it is un-wiki to require it. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 15:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but then the opportunity should be open to all editors to make these edits. You and I both made edits to the Admin page in the past few days and yours are still there but mine were roughly thrown out because of the water cooler discussion being underway...and with the "disruption" block always available to admins.; this means admins can usually "have their way" with these little noticed policy edit disputes. I dare say the vast,vast majority of policy changes here within the past 3 months have been unfettered and unvetted edits by administrators; similar to the ones by Dan100. Would that be an accurate statement? Also, are you saying this process is written in stone? Neutralizer 15:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Nothing in a wiki is written in stone... (queue the laugh track)... But, the wiki philosohpy dictates that editors can change anything they choose (or revert anything they choose) with as few restrictions as possible. Requiring people to request permission before changing a page adds one more level of complexity to an already complex process. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 16:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the polls are evil link. Interesting read. --Wolfrider 22:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Just to explain the change to the blocking policy which Neutralizer cites above: The discussion occurred on the Water cooler. The policy suggestion was not disputed, was agreed with and mentioned in a couple of different spots actually, and when the section was archived it was added to the policy. This is one of the ways discussions on the Water cooler get moved into policy where there is consensus. When such a change is moved into the policy, check the edit summary: it should say why the change is being made and where it was discussed if it changes the policy (as opposed to minor edits to spelling, grammar, etc.) - Amgine 22:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Disagree that the blocking policy suggestion was not disputed; plus it was archived much faster than normal. Definitely did not include enough community discussion or consensus because the policy change basically creates a majority rules situation within the admin community which is exactly what several admins have been arguing AGAINST. Neutralizer 19:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I happen to agree with you regarding what admins have been arguing against. However, there was no dispute of the suggestion, there was agreement from at least one user, and in archiving the discussion I implemented what appeared to be a consensus policy discussion. I'm not sure it's a good idea, but the community will have to see how it works out in practice - and they may choose to change it at any time. Feel free to re-open the discussion at any time. - Amgine 19:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

No; it is not a policy just because 1 person said so and No, the community does not have to see how it works out in practice. There should be a broad community discussion and consensus reached before something is declared a policy; the process you are describing is similar to what I would call anarchy. Neutralizer 00:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Quarterly Policy Reviews?

It's occurred to me that at the moment work on Wikinews is tilted in favor of policy revisions. I don't know about the rest of you, but I feel that this is time that could be better spent doing something else. Like writing articles. What would your opinions be on designating certain times of the year to go over current policy and discuss any changes that need to made? Would this be beneficial to the community, as policy changes would be under consideration for some time before they can be proposed and would no longer be reactionary? Or would it hinder the ability of users to contribute to Wikinews and slow down the process of improving it? This isn't something I'm seriously proposing at the moment, it just popped into my head and I'm curious as to what the community thinks. --Wolfrider 21:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I see your point - my concern at the moment is that there are still some underlying issues that have consistently been getting in the way of our writing articles (eg. what counts as a valid reason for slapping on an "NPOV" tag, a lack of courtesy between editors/admins, the boundaries over which an editor or an admin may or may not cross, the sanctions that may appropriately be applied when those boundaries are crossed etc.) Speaking for myself, I used to spend a lot more time working on articles. But then I started to find more and more that those articles were being consistently held up/obstructed/watered-down, in ways that seemed unreasonable and obstructive rather reasoned and constructive, and that this was happening exclusively through the actions of a very small number of people, who seemed to be riding roughshod over the views of other users, and that those other users usually seemed to be in the majority. This pattern of behaviour seemed very different from the healthy debate, discussion, refinement and improvement that I'd seen before on wikinews. Under these circumstances I found it difficult to maintain my assumption of good faith towards the small minority who were, to use a loaded word, being so "disruptive". Apart from anything else, everyone seemed unhappy with the situation for one reason or another. I concluded that that there were some underlying issues that needed addressing in order to break the logjam, hence my involvement in all these policy questions. I actually think we've come a long way, but I'm afraid I don't yet have confidence that I can get back to simply writing/editing articles and expect that those same problems won't recur again. I agree that writing articles is generally preferable to talking policy, but my personal feeling is that until we get these policy issues ironed out we won't be operating anywhere near as effectively as we could be, and the process of trying to write and edit articles will continue to be disrupted by the actions of a small minority.

Rcameronw 23:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Massive number of tag&dashs

We need a stricter policy on tag&dash, as people are rampently using it to try to tire out & discourage stories & editors with whome they disagree. I would suggest the following:

1. No addition or removal of an npov tag unless acompanied by an example edit, or as a responce to conflicting edits. If you find an article which needs a serious rewrite, you should rewrite the first senctence when you tag it, or else don't tag it. If you make an npoving edit which is then reverted or undone, you may add the npov tag without an edit.

The point of a wiki is to achieve a true collaboration whenever possible, a tag signifies that direct collaberation has failed and discussion is required. An npov tag should never appear unless two collaborators have actually made conflicting edits.

1. No publication or depublication unless acompanied by an edit, or as a responce to immediately previous edits. If you publish, you ought to always be able to fix something, if only punctuation or spelling. If you depublish, you have a reason, give an example of what you have in mind.
2. POV but published stories should appear under their publication date on the main page list of articles. Wikipedia alllows articles to show up in searches if they are npov'ed, we should allow them to show up in the list, but obviously not put them in the featured boxes. If only those unwilling to edit feel an article is POV, the article should just be posted as is. Its not hard to depublish and make the first sentence npov.

Such restrictions obviously don't apply to the abandoned, copyvio, or contentless? tags. Nor should any rules around deletion be changed, as deletion rules seem to actually work quite well. An execption to 1 & 2 above should be granted after multiple people have complained about an article being grossly POV. So if you find an article you feel is grossly POV, and feel is unredemable, complain on the talk page, but leave the article alone. If your the second or third person to make such a complaint, go ahead and tag/depublish the article. We don't want to let turds float by, but most people can smell a real turd. We just need to redirect more of the ordinary fights toward progess. -this edit was by 129.70.170.195

We have to many rules as it is -- let's try to work with what we have. Please try to assume good faith and work in a collaborative spirit. It would ALWAYS be best when tagging an article for NPOV, cleanup, etc to post examples to a talk page -- in my opinion, a one line edit summary just doesn't cut it (99% of the time). --Chiacomo ^(talk) 15:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't necessarily have a problem with one-line change requests, what I have a problem with is *questionable* faith tagging. I'd be happy to see an editor tag the article, but fix the first paragraph, and simply post "Please do more of what I did to the first paragraph" on the talk page. There are many good reasons for not making all the changes yourself, but some effort to make changes yourself would be a sign of good faith on the taggers part, help more articles make it through, and make the community more inviting to newcommers. Most importantly, it will save people from waisting time arguing about what the tagger wants. I've seen MrM post a two page discription of his desired changes (only after people started calling him for tag&dash), but all without making a single edit to the article, save for adding the npov tag. He could have saved a lot of everyone's time, by making the first requested changes as an example, and simply saying "needs more of the same".

Yes, we do have too many rules for newcommers, which discourages them. But newcommers arn't usually taggers. Rules for old fogies should be fine.  :)

Article Flags "Wizard of Ozish"

• I am delighted to see a simple Article Flag policy already in place here on Wikinews:)) I got tired of feeling frustrated when I saw flags with bizarre,esoteric justification pop up like big,fat roadblocks to good articles; so I decided to pull back the curtain to see the actual article flag policy; all that's there is a meek little man... the overpowering image is just an illusion.

[5] "Published articles are reviewed as they are written and are looked at by readers. If you see a problem with an article, you can add a tag at the top to explain the problem, but please also leave a comment on the article's discussion page explaining why you have added the tag, so that other editors know how to fix the article."

• The current policy has no restriction on removal of the article flags and states that it is just fine for other editors to address the issue and fix the article (remove the flag). There is certainly no expectation whatsoever that the tagger must somehow authorize the removal of the tag. Also, since the policy does say the tagger must leave his/her reasons on the talk page; any tags without such explanations should obviously be removed forthwith.
• So, The facts are different from what some of us have been led to believe. The article tag has no power to stop or even suspend an article's publishing and the flag can be removed by anyone whenever the remover feels the tagger's concerns have been sufficiently addressed. All of this reverence many of us have been giving to these little flags is, in fact, Wizard of Ozish (perceived but not real power). The flags,after all, are just 1 editor's opinion which can be addressed quickly by the next editor who can remove the flag in just as little time as it took to drop the flag on the article. If the tagger keeps reverting the flag against the consensus of editors on any story, then the tagger will likely be seen as breaking the 3 revert rule and treated as a disrupter of the site. Neutralizer 19:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• It has long been enacted that it is in bad taste to remove flags, especially when people just up and say "oh, well - it's fine. The other guy must be biased because I don't see that." That will get you blocked for disruption - that is disruption. If you are not willing to work with others in addressing concerns by people, then you are not fit to edit Wikinews. Strength doesn't come in numbers here. If there are concerns, they will be straightened out - it is not OK to "round up a posse" and ignore someone's comments, especially if they are legitimate (in which case, I haven't seen many cases where an article was tagged and when it wasn't warranted). --Mrmiscellanious 22:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• MrM. you do not get the point. No posse or strength in numbers is needed at all. Any editor's opinion is as valuable as any other's. Also, please refrain from threatening blocks as administrators are the servants of this community; not its masters. Finally, please try to remember that blocking is not something to be using without authority and there is no policy basis at all for blocking someone for removing an article tag; especially if they have addressed the issue the tagger is required to state...and to block someone for removing a tag is grounds for Rfda; plain and simple. And finally, please stop trying to personalize every issue with derogatory personal remarks; I will stay focused on the issues so you're wasting your time. Neutralizer 22:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutralizer has a valid point here, vaguely bad taste is not what people should be banned for, but tag&dash is. Tag&dash is infinitely more disruptive to the wiki. MrM, No your just flat wrong here, its not disruption to remove anothers tag, its disruption to get into an edit war. If your tag is prematurely removed, proper wiki etiquette is to explain the tag on the talk page. No one here is a mind reader. The truth is that wikinews is lorded over by a clique of admins who treat anyone who does not conform to their standards like dirt. I do not believe this clique has any particular political bias, instead it enforces an unreasonable quality level on articles. No doubt, this improves the quality of articles, but the cost in terms of coverage and lost editors is enormous. Wikipedia's standards are reasonable, as they have months to write articles, we don't. Sure, some articles are better than others, fine have a tag for good articles, just don't feature article which arn't good.. and let tagged articles be published too. Don't chase people away by deleting their articles. Use a carrot, not a stick. If you feel an article is POV, you should fix at least part of it yourself. You can paint a powerful picture by fixing the first paragraph of a POV article, and its much more inviting to new editors. - 172.177.30.116 01:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Blocking threats on community pages

I'm thinking that it's not acceptable during policy discussions for any administrator to be making general or personal threats of future blocking in order to try to intimidate or to back up a weak or non-existant point. I think we should include a prohibition against any blocking threats on any community pages. If the threat or warning must be made; it can be done on the User's page. Neutralizer 02:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• I disagree. Most "threats of blocking" are warnings, and the community has a right to know if someone in development of an article or in a discussion has been or will shortly be blocked. --Mrmiscellanious 04:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• What was just said above is not factually true. As an example, the most recent threats (within past 24 hours) have nothing to do with letting the community know someone has been blocked or is about to be blocked; e.g."That will get you blocked for disruption - that is disruption." [6] and "..grounds for blocking. And I'm not a nice admin."[7]

and is a weak,weak excuse for inappropriate behavior which is in bad taste. The vast majority of the threats on community pages have been just plain adversarial/baiting comments not concerning someone who had been recently blocked nor concerning an imminent block.

In addition, why does the community need to know if someone has been blocked or is about to be? If that were the case; admins would be placing such notices several times per day.Also, the blocking information should be on the user talk pages of the blocker and blockee and available to the community that way.

In conclusion, the argument above for allowing such behavior to continue on our community pages is spacious. Let the threats be made on the user's talk page...and we must remember that wikinews is a place where the administrators are the servants of the community; not its masters; and these numerous overt and veiled threats give the false impression that the administrators are slave owners with whips in their hands.

Biggest concern is that, as we have seen, some latch onto unchecked behavior as having been "accepted by the community" and use that as a justification for claiming a "policy" has been established...so if public threats by an admin. continue unabated; that could, in fact, lead our project into a more traditional "top down" organization. In fact, one could see that already happening in a big way with the relatively new and severely onerous restrictions on the community's ability to rid itself of any bad administrator. Neutralizer 14:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, this obsession with policy that you, Neutralizer, exhibit is now at the stage that it's moved beyond a mild irritation. You continually badger the administrators you have had disagreements with and your comments above indicate to me that you intend to pursue de-adminning and are campaigning to bring such a situation about by nipping at the heels of people in an effort to get them to react in an unreasonable way. Your overly-verbose diatribes on policy-related pages make up nearly 60% of your total contributions and your article contributions are only 24%. That based on edit counts, not on actual word count. Were it I suspect the percentages would be markedly worse. Try and reform your behaviour, or take your interest in news to Indymedia where I believe there is not a NPOV requirement. Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Brian, I have never been on an Indymedia site and really don't know what it is; but I am very disappointed in you because it sounds like a slurr of some kind. Do you realize that I contribute a much higher % of my edits to articles than either Amgine or MrM. ? Why do you feel I should spend more time on articles and not them ? Does not logic or fairness have any place in your analysis of the situation? Please see my last edit on the ArbCom proposal pages [8]and you'll see I am being very constructive and helpful. Neutralizer 21:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I follow Recent Changes when I don't have anything to contribute so I can find things to contribute to. I try to avoid stories where I may get into conflict with people, and I try to avoid getting involved with policy. I've come to the conclusion that I have bitten my tongue for long enough. I tried to encourage you to become a constructive member of the community. As time has gone on I've seen how important Amgine's comment on having a community is; I don't think you've got what he meant. Had it not been for you creating the Avian Flu infobox — which I suggested you do — I suspect there would have been less reluctance amongst the community to give you a long-term block. I then tried to guide you away from stories where you might get into conflict with people by suggesting you follow Avian Flu stories. I have to wonder if you paid more attention to the anonymous comment on your talk page than to the words of encouragement I perhaps misguidedly gave you. Were I suggesting a sanction for the nonexistent Arbitration Committee, I'd suggest you be ordered not to touch any article that might have or merit the category USA or Iraq (plus other suggestions from people who've seen your disruption. Then, after some period of time, you might start to see what leads towards consensus and NPOV. I saw your knee-jerk reaction to MrM's tagging of a story as NPOV before he had a chance to comment on what he thought the problems were. The only person that perhaps has the right to react in that manner is the original editor. That you couldn't see there were NPOV issues speaks volumes.

I shall now break the soapbox I've been ranting from. Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Just to try to show the respect I have for you and your views,Brian, as of this moment I will not touch any article which might have or merit the category USA or Iraq for at least 1 month. I am putting this into my callendar. Neutralizer 21:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

i can see why Neutralizer had a knee jerk reaction. In my sort time at wiki news i have noticed MrM tagging and running on government political matters with only little comments in the history. --Whywhywhy 12:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

And policy? Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Policy improvements are underway; actually if Amgine keeps doing as good a job as he's doing right now; I think I will soon be able to shut up on that too; and noone will be happier than I to see that day. Neutralizer 23:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Policy re; Other alerts

I have just placed the edit below on the Administrative alert page. I thought the community at large should see the extreme and abusive language that is going unchecked on the site and if it continues to be allowed, I will simply quit; but I think if the admins won't discipline their own; then a policy change of some kind is required. I would also urge anyone of sound mind to read over my edits of the past few weeks to see if there has been any edits at all by me which would cause such nastiness.

Blocking is required immediately for this gross personal attack[9]. Please read the benign edits which this person used as an excuse to launch into a personal attack he himself calls "nasty" + his promise to be nasty to others and his misuse of community pages with threats and total absense of good faith and ettiquette; [10] Neutralizer 20:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

That is not a personal attack. You asked for a response, and you got one. Happy? --Mrmiscellanious 21:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Extension for Deletion guide

I propose here that the deletion guide should include the allowance of speedy deleting articles tagged with {{copyvio}} on sight, for reasons of most (almost all) of the copyvio'ed articles tend to end up on WN:DR, and are rarely touched in terms of development. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 04:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely not; the tagger could be mistaken or unjustified in applying the {{copyvio}} tag + open invitation to wrongful unilateral or bilateral deletion abuse. Neutralizer 04:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I support that. Some admins already do it that way so why not codify it. We should probably give the article a short grace period after tagging, say 24h, and when in that time nobody attempts to write a new story it can be deleted without having to go to DR. Of course, an admin needs to check if there's really a copyvio but that is self-evident. --Deprifry|+T+ 09:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Not really a good idea. A lot of the big copyvios work like you say, but I see two major problems:

1. The copyvio tag is also applied to one line copies, where the author just failed to rewrite sufficently. It is clearly inappropriate to nominate such articles for speedy deletion. You could add a lesser plagarism tag, but I'm not sure even the experenced editors here can tell the diffrence between plagarism and copyvio.
2. Some precentage of the newbies who post copyvios do end up editing them into real stories. Your making wikinews far less inviting to such people.

Why not just add the delete tag too whenever you think the copyvio is by a repeated copyvio offender? Its not like its any more work than adding the copyvio & dr.

The only real reason for doing as you say would be if fair use didn't allow us to host the copyvio content for the full dr period, but everyone feels that it does. If an original author ever tagged a copyvio for speedy it, I'm sure the deletion speed would be rivaled by old the most agregious trolls. - 172.178.203.23 12:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

1. I don't recall any situation where that happened.

2. When I tag an article for copyvio I leave a note on the talk page of the original poster explaining the situation. But they shouldn't rewrite the copyrighted text. That's very problematic IMO, especially seeing that the full copyvio still appears in the history. Starting all over is a much better solution IMO. --Deprifry|+T+ 12:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• Item 11 of the Wikinews:Speedy deletion guidelines states An obvious copyright violation that is a cut-and-paste exact or near-exact duplicate of content from a copyrighted source. Speedy delete does not apply for public-domain sources, when public domain reprint permission is granted from the original source and specified in the article talk page, or to articles with a third-party edit history. A template {{copyvio sas}} also exists to leave on the creator's talk page--Cspurrier 15:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, that seems to contradict the wording of both the deletion guideline and the copyvio template. All the more reason to clear this up. --Deprifry|+T+ 15:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• I've seen Amgine apply it to one sentence copies. Why not rewrite? (aside from plagarism concerns) BTW, I mean basically start a new article by rewrite, few people are energetic enough to rewrite the whole thing.

Where Wikinews is headed

I have posted a short essay on where I see Wikinews heading. I probably left out most of what I initially set out to describe. Not only does is just-so-happen that wikinews has been going in the direction of mainstream-isation for some time, this is going to be reinforced.

But I initially set out to say, while you are all busy being gung-ho fascistos cutting out dissent and paving the way for a new generation, think about the fact that if you actually drive traffic away from the Wiki* projects, you cut the funding. Think on this deeply, because it's more important than anything in my essay.

Sadly, the essay points out that in the rational, moneydriven world that I am trying to lever to access the nerve complexes that used to be attached to missing from your moral fibre, you will win and we the idealists will lose, in Wikimediaworld. -- Simeon 11:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV article

Why do {{publish}}ed but {{npov}}ed articles not show up in the main article listing? As it stands, {{npov}} means an article will eventually be deemed {{abandoned}} and deleted. This place very little incentive on the tagger to help develop the article, leeds the articles supporters to claim bias on the part of the tagger, and generally starts lots of fights & increases wikistress. Why not just allow publication for all articles which are "sufficently done", meaing "reasonably informative" and "not excessively POV". Some articles would languish away with {{npov}} tagged on their forehead, but hey, Wikipedia's search engine finds {{npov}}ed articles too. Nyarlathotep 15:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This is beacuse the DPL that generates the main page does not display the articles -- and the DPL that displays the developing articles doesn't display them either. I, from time to time, go through the the disputed articles and move them back to develop so they won't get lost. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 23:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I knew it might require a script change. But just moving them back to develop frequently causes them to be deleted as abandoned. So people feel like they are fighting for the existance of their article, making them feal like the tagger is gaming the system. We see it all the time:

1. Amgine or MrM tag an article, but don't reread the talk page later, as they are off admining on other wiki projects too.
2. SLN (Standard Liberal Newbie) does not understand the (often cryptic) direction on the talk page, but makes some changes, asks if he's done, waits 6 hours, descides he's done & publishes himself.
3. Same experienced editor immediately notices the articles been published as its now in the list, sees that issue has not been groked by SLN, gets annoyed, reverts.
4. SLN sees the immediate responce to publishing, sees the immediacy as suppression, sees the extra-work requests as prevention, remembers that articles get deleted for this, gets annoyed/assumed bad faith, revets.
5. Go to 3

There really is no reason to institutionalize such a high pressure "survival oriented" system. If minor NPOV issues were independent of publication, SLN's article would just suck, never get posted to a lead position, and no one would care much. SLN would eventually start thinking about pushing lead position article, and be forced to tighten up the POV issues. As it is, people change both the develop & npov tags simultaneously, which they could still do under my proposal, but now they wouldn't have to. Nyarlathotep 03:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm probably not reading completely, but what is your proposal? We could list articles which are published but disputed in developing stories, if you like, I suppose... That will of course create a double listing with the articles listed as developing and as disputed. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 03:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Nyarlathotep is proposing listing the NPOV-tagged articles within the main daily space on the front page; i.e. only a Develop tag removes an article from the listing. For the record, my opinion is that this will lead to articles that violate NPOV being stuck in the database as published forever; since NPOV is non-negotiable, and to a reader an npov-tagged article would look similar to a totally-fine article, this will not be a workable solution.

Instead I recommend making a {{minor-npov}} tag or something similar, to indicate that an article seems to have issues that aren't big enough to prevent publishing but may be a good idea to correct (or to serve as a guide to the reader). -- IlyaHaykinson 03:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Articles which are disputed for any reason, not just NPOV, are not displayed on the main page if published. If they are in development, they are displayed in the developing box even if they are disputed. This is one of the reasons why a diputed article should be moved back to development, so more people will see it and hopefully resolve the issues which have been raised about it. So there is a solution the problem you've raised in place; as soon as an article is tagged it should also be removed from published. - Amgine | ^talk 03:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Oops, I botched it above.  :) My original off-hand proposal elsewhere had the npov tagged articles merely showing up in a smaller font, less prominently, or else with a little warning icon next to their name. In this way, people would see articles which were basically done, but still disputed as published articles but they would still be identifiable as disputed. So, yes, IlyaHaykinson & Amgine's critisim had worried me too, I just forgot too mention the proposed solution.  :(

Anywho, my proposal is not workable if people really strongly object to tagged articles being forgotten about in the database. IlyaHaykinson's {{minor-npov}} proposal seems to essentially capture the essence of "agreeing to disagree over something small," which is what I really wanted. Nyarlathotep 14:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I been thinking about the same thing as a #SSN (Standard Socialist Newbie) involved in disputes. My thougts circles around why Wikinews use its consept/frontpagedesign like it was a printed newspaper with deadline fore articles. Is it really nessesary? Above discussion is very interesting. Compared with Wikipedia is Wikinews articles very much news. Yesterdays news is no news. Articles not publshed or depublished lose actuallity in very few days. International 16:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I like IlyaHaykinson's {{minor-npov}} suggestion. It would just be one little line at the top of an article which would say that it wasn't perfect. One could, for example, use it whenever concenssu is not reached, but there is a clear plurality. Nyarlathotep 03:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Before reading this, I saw that problem and changed the Development box to display Disputed but published articles as well (with a little line break to between normal develop and these). After reading this I probaly should of asked before doing this, however anybody can revert this if they don't like it. I personally think thats better then they being lost forever. I also like the idea of minnor-npov as well. If I tag something I always try to remember to check the talk page for previous disputes too. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

International exposure

Some recent articles appear to have been started by folks from countries outside our normal userbase, including those that can be traced by IP to Africa and Pakistan. Those seem to post something very one-sided and then never again show up; yet, we sorely lack stories from those areas of the world. I'd like everyone with spare time to help out by making an extra effort of editing those articles to be of proper Wikinews quality, because most likely otherwise they will disappear due to abandonment. Even if the resulting article is very short due to NPOVing, it's still better than having it go away completely. Perhaps the contributor will show up as a reader again, and notice the article being published, and will become a Wikinewsie. -- IlyaHaykinson 02:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• The problem with NPOV'ing some of those articles is that there are either not enough English sources on the matter, or that online translations are not available for those in other languages (it's even hard to find a decent Swedish to English translator out there). But it would be great if we could attempt to find out more about the issues. However, as all users need to be reminded of, the NPOV policy is extremely important. Editorials are not allowed. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 17:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

New section on WN:DR for copyvios

Like the deletion request section and the undeletion request section, copyvios should have their own place on the Deletion Requests page. In this exception of policy, copyvios can be listed in a Copyvio Alert section for 24 hours. Within that time, the legitimacy as a copyvio is tested. If it's not a copyvio, then an administrator should clear it. If it is, it should be deleted within the 24 hours (within a day, someone could rewrite the article). —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 04:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Copyvios can and should be tagged with the copyvio template... They don't really need to be on the DR page, I don't think. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 04:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The copyvio template tells you to list it on DR after you tag it, last time I checked. 199.216.246.56 18:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)(that was me, forgot to signin. Bawolff ☺☻ 18:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC))

Under Wikinews policy, do Administrators have the Authority to Blank and Close the talk page of someone they are in ongoing dispute with?

4 Policy questions;

A; Should any admin be able to blank and close the talk page of a non-vandal?

B; Should an Admin be able to do that when the talk page is raising questions related to that Admin, however dubious those questions may be?

C; There is no argument that Neutralizer and Amgine have been in dispute resolution and That Neut has received 4 blocks by Amgine (all rescinded before expiry). Do we need a tougher policy against admins using their powers against contributors they are in a dispute with?

D; Amgine has been accusing other contributors of being sockpuppets and yet closes Neut's talk page 1 hour and 19 minutes after Neut. prioritizes a question about whether Amgine and Chiacomo are the same person. Is this a matter for Rfda or do we need a policy change to deal with it?

Edbrown sockpuppet allegation

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/User_talk:Amgine#Edbrown05_may_not_be_a_sockpuppet

vonbergm sockpuppet allegation

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/User_talk:Vonbergm#Msgs.2C_develop.2C_and_more

amgine/chiacomo sockpuppet allegation

http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Neutralizer&oldid=174520#Are_Chiacomo_and_Amgine_the_same_person.3F.3F.3F

Blanked and protected bY Amgine 1hour and 19 minutes later

http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Neutralizer&diff=174538&oldid=174520Paulrevere2005 17:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It is my opinion that they should be allowed to do that (blank and lock talk page) if there is evidence of abusing it(which there was), and they talked to other admins before doing it. Doing something like that should not be a decision made by one person. However thats just my opinion. I'm unsure of what the policy is. Bawolff ☺☻ 18:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Restrict voting of community polls to contributors only

In order to avoid unfair votes (see Amgine's RfdA with user links to Wikipedia pages) on community-consensus polls, I propose that we make it policy that only contributors to the wiki can vote in community polls. The definition to a "contributor" is up to the community, however I suggest a user or IP who has made major edits to at least 15 pages (not vandalous or similar) should be able to vote, however those who are migrating here only to attack users from other WMF projects should not be given any special voting rights. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 04:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I support this proposal. A user who has not made contributions is not a member of this community. - Borofkin 04:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Although I don't want anymore restrictions on votes, this seems pretty common sense. By the way arn't Anon's not allowed to vote, due to easiness of them being a sockpupet? Bawolff ☺☻ 06:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the need for another rule, leading merely to different borderline cases that again will need special rules. I say we let everyone vote who wants to vote. This is not a majority poll anyway, as Burocrats will make the final call. I am sure that they are quite able weight the votes accordingly in the end. It is quite clear that votes from long-time contributers count more than that of a week-old wikinewsie or of a wikipedia user or even an unregistered IP. --vonbergm 06:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply: While this has been common practice, vonbergm, there is no policy for it yet. This proposal is being made in light of a few users from Wiktionary trying to cast unfair votes on what ultimately should be a Wikinews community decision. As they are not Wikinews contributors, I don't see them as part of the community. I fear that this is going to only spread into much more widespread issue, and would rather take care of it all right now rather than to be sorry down the road. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 11:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

There's no need for a policy, it's already in place. Voting is based on "community consensus". A brand new user who claims to not even a be reader isn't a member of the community. However, any further restriction would prevent people who've been long-time readers from voting, and I think that would be unfair. I support the current rules, but not an explicit policy addition, unless it addressed this issue. -- IlyaHaykinson 12:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Ilya, there's already three disruptive users cross-wiki'ing to other projects personally to attack users. I really don't like to see users who don't like what X did on Wikipedia to be alerted by an anon that X is up for de-admin on Wikinews. Y then makes a long rant against X on Wikinews, then complains to Wikinews users that they are being unfair by not offering sympathy. User Y then manipulates other user's signed votes and comments on the RfdA in his favor, in order to defame X. Afterwards, Y and his three other followers votes are still counted, and X is de-admin'ed. That's not how I want it to happen. I realize that it is common practice to not accept these votes, but without policy it doesn't do much good. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 19:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• And how successfull do you find thier attempt to RfDA Amgine? Disruptive, not much. I think this just show a case of things working on wikinews. International 17:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikinews should allow older news

On the Wikinews:What Wikinews is page it says that wikinews is about current news. This implies that older news is not allowed. This is bad policy, as older news items can be created which can then be used as sources in Wikipedia articles. Since this would still allow for peer-review, and would not affect normal current news operations in Wikinews, there is no reason it shouldn't be allowed. I request tha this policy is altered to acknowledge this. --MateoP 21:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I personally have no problem with that. However I sense that everyone else will. Maybe you should look for a wiki made more for that type of thing. Bawolff ☺☻ 17:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

It would compete directly with wikinews, as current news quickly becomes old news. no reason it shouldn't just be done here. --MateoP 19:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing against making them in your own user space. But, I would strongly suggest that they not appear in the main namespace, as this is for current news. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 17:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Define namespace. You mean the main page? I would also object if they were to appear there. --MateoP 18:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. If they are located at something like [[User:MateoP/Lincoln wins election; Democrats split vote, lose to Republicans]], then there's no opposition from me. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 18:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Well any article that is not within the last 10 days or so doesn't appear on the main page anyways. So i'm not sure what you're saying here. Why does it need to be on someone's user page? --MateoP 19:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I actually support the idea of older news, as long as it's still relevant. If on September 20th, 2001, someone wrote a breaking news article saying "Terrorsts use airplanes to strike US cities", I think that's not really news then. However, if it's January 10th and you write an article about New Years' celebrations in your local capital, there's no problem there. Remember, though: articles get dated the day they are published, not the day the event happens, so all newly published articles make the main page now. -- IlyaHaykinson 19:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

You can change the date when you make the article, and should. --MateoP 19:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

No, my point is that our de-facto policy is to date articles with the date they are first published, not the date of the event. -- IlyaHaykinson 20:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I already know this goes against current policy. That's why I wrote it on the policy change proposal page. --MateoP 20:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Writing old news is exceedingly dangerous, especially to use it for referencing new articles. If anyone feels the need for history they should simply summarize it in a current article. --Sfullenwider 03:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)