Wikinews

Wikinews:Water cooler/policy/Archive/8

< Wikinews:Water cooler | policy | Archive

November 15

edit

Abolition of Wikinews:Three revert rule

edit

That the so-called 'three revert rule' be abolished on the following grounds:

  • It was implemented without true community consensus.
  • No-one ever seems to be able to tell when the first revert occurred (except for the people who issue the first block, of course! ;) .
  • The rule is never used in good faith.
  • Antagonists in an argument rarely have good judgement. 24hr bans require good judgement.
  • The rule is contrary to the spirit of Wiki.
  • Alternatives such as forking exist. Make two new versions, and protect the old version. That way *nobody* owns the "main" fork. This could even be automated.
  • There are seperate rules for dealing with vandalism, so don't even try to use *that* argument.
  • It is difficult to appeal a block when you have already been banned. And once the argument has been settled, by then you are generally unblocked already and so never find justice, since Wikipedia does not allow for the chopping off of hands of those who unjustly block under the three revert rule.
  • Too many rules makes Wikimedia a sad place.
  • Multiple players may tag-team to force one player into a third revert. This is outside the pririt of the rule, but generally undetectable.
Here is an example submitted anonymously (5th line from the bottom):
IRC About Simmo, 11 May 2005
       Lyellin        growls at simeon
       Amgine        Need a hand?
       Amgine        <claps for Lyellin>
       Lyellin        talk page comments would be nice
       Amgine        There in a minute.
       Lyellin        growls again
       Amgine        Just a moment, almost done...
       Lyellin        I posted in between there :P
       Lyellin        he removed the tag again
       Amgine        You do know that growling makes your nick even more
                     lion-like than usual?
       Lyellin        *laughs*
       Lyellin        most people think I'm female because of the nick :P
       Amgine        <chuckle>
       Lyellin        criminals!?
       Lyellin        you may want to sign your talk page edit amgine, among
                      other things
       Amgine        Heh.. going back.
       Lyellin        is the criminal thing some sort of inside joke?
       Amgine        Yes, it's a quote from a movie, the Princess Bride. It 
                     points out that he is claiming Bush Jr is a Nazi War
                     profiteer since his Grandfather was one.
       Amgine        Which is utterly bogus.
       Lyellin        ah
       Lyellin        missed that :P
       Amgine        By that standard, all Germans are currently guilty of 
                    gassing Jews, something which would surprise them I'm 
                    sure.
       Lyellin        chuckles
       Lyellin        ooooh - I got lead article. *laughs*
       Amgine        Your turn Lyellin. If he goes further, it's 3rr
       Lyellin        done
       Amgine        Blocked
       Lyellin        sighs
       Lyellin        I didn't want that to happen, but damnit
       Amgine        Well, he had every opportunity to speak to us

Unfortunately the article which I 3rr'ed was later deleted, so I can't point out the log of Lyellin and Amgine taking it in turn to revert so that they (technically) (when counting in a special way that only they understand) didn't do three reverts before I did.

  • Please add/subtract from the propsed justifications until we finally get this stupid rule abolished. Then we can start on some of the other stupid rules.

Simeon 07:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extention to the Wikinews:Three revert rule

edit

I would like to propose an amendment, or extension, to the 3RR. Such amendment would state that users with sysop or above status cannot revert a blocking of a user more than 3 times within a 24 hour period. Such reasons are similar to those of articles, in which discussion should be made before undoing whatever a user has done, rather than to incite a "block war". Admins and other users with privileges should undoubtedly be the most civil users on the wiki, and should not be bickering about blocks by acting immaturely against each other. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 18:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It would seem that the 3RR would apply in a case like that but it might be better to state it explcitly to avoid any ambiguity. --Wolfrider 19:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Propose some external mediation

edit

Just so that we're all clear on this, in the last 24 hours Amgine blocked Neutralizer (21.11), then Eloquence unblocked him (01.16) then Amgine reblocked him (01.18), then Eloquence unblocked him (02.11), then Amgine reblocked him (02.13), then Eloquence unblocked him (02.23), with the comment "no consensus for 6 month block", then Amgine reblocked him (02.24), with the comment "no consensus to unblock. Ask other admins, please!", then Eloquence unblocked him (02.32) and, as a compromise measure towards Amgine reblocked him for two weeks rather than six months (02.33), then Cspurrier unblocked him with the comment "unblocked to reblock"(04.55), then reblocked him for six months again (04.59) - without mentioning this on the watercooler.

I note that Wolfrider, Bawolff, Rcameronw (ie. me), Deprify, and Eloquence + Neutralizer (though of course he's been barred from the discussion) have all explicitly expressed opposition to the block.

Amgine and Cspurrier have explicitly supported the 6-month block. From comments previously made when Amgine's meticulously-prepared "wiki-indictment" against Neutralizer was "leaked" to the watercooler (a leaky watercooler?) at the draft stage, it appears that at least two other administrator IDs MAY support it in principle. Eloquence has supported a two-week block as a compromise measure. So by my (very far from perfect) reckoning, we appear to have:

2 votes in FAVOUR of banning Neutralizer for 6 months. Both of these have also "voted with their admin status" and acted to implement the ban.

5 votes AGAINST (or six if you allow the banned user themselves a vote) banning Neutralizer for 6 months.

There was one vote for a compromise two-week ban. There were two people who have not voted but who MAY also support the 6-month ban.

For me, this comes down to some basic questions of principle. Can a user be banned or unbanned on the basis of a vote, or does the decision have to be made according to specific rules? Do administrators (individually or severally) have the right to ban people arbitrarily who they merely DISLIKE, or does there have to have been a (serious) contravention of the rules? Can administrators make up a rule and then use that made-up rule to ban a wikinews editor, or do such rules have to be agreed in advance by the community?

Guys, I think we're approaching a stalemate situation, with a lot of people quite unhappy about the way all this has been handled. May I humbly suggest that we need a third party to come in and help us out with this? Rcameronw 17:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly believe that I qualify as a "third party", but for my two cents - the blocks that Amgine and CSpurrier have enacted are fully compliant with the blocking policy. Neutralizer has violated the NPOV policy and has made many bad edits contradictory to Wikinews:Etiquette, and to be fair - some of those messages were passed onto the admins who later blocked him. However, Neutralizer has been warned of his wrongdoing many times - perhaps not through the use of his talk page, but through various visits to the IRC channel, where users there addressed and educated him of his wrongdoings. I do believe, however, that the unblock was unjustified. As according to the blocking policy, sysops/bearaucrats can only unblock a user for the following:
Quote
Admins may unblock users if:
  • They were blocked in violation of this policy.
  • The reason for blocking no longer applies.
  • The block has lasted too long.
  • In other appropriate cases
To be fair, none of these cases apply. I believe that 6 months is adequate due to the amount of violations of policy, and that those justifications were greatly supported by policy without "spur-of-the-moment modifications". I should also note that I have contacted NGerda and have invited him to comment on the issue. It should also be noted that blocking a user is not a decision made by the community, unless it was nominated by the community. Violations of the policy are non-negotiable. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 17:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

External Mediation

edit

Hey everybody! Nice to see you all working together collaboratively like always!  ;-) So, we have this Neutralizer guy. He seems to be creating quite a stir among the editors. With regard to the block/no block decision at hand, I believe the core principal involved here is if Neutralizer actually contributes thoughtful, meaningful content to articles or if he just goes around causing problems. If the former is true, then we must weigh out whether his problems are worth his contributions; if not, then we should tell him to stop causing problems and contribute collaboratively or leave. If he refuses, we have no choice but to force him to comply. It is also unfortunate that this character has caused such a diversion from the purpose of Wikinews: to write articles. So, I would suggest to everyone that they not sweat over this matter so much; writing articles is our primary concern, and lately it hasn't appeared to be so.

Good luck on this issue everyone!
NGerda 18:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see this issue surrounding Neutralizer addressed in another way than by an arbitrary ban. Sure, my opinion is that the guy needs to learn that his POV is not NPOV, but I believe he wants to make a positive contribution. He took up my suggestion of making the Avian Flu infobox and worked on that. Like a *lot* of the contributors on Wikinews he can get a bit heated. On this basis, I'd object to his case being dealt with by the appointed Arbitration Committee. Neut has had run-ins with the people there and they'd be excused from jury duty in his case, I don't think this should be any different. As to the ban, I have no opinion one way or the other. I tend to avoid the articles he attaches himself to as I may well end up getting in a heated discussion on them. This is something Neutralizer needs to learn, and if he can't I think he should look for another project as his collabarative skills are somewhat lacking. Brianmc 19:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another admin has reblocked Neutralizer for 6 months

edit

...and without making any reference to this fact on the Watercooler. Here's the block log: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Special:Log/block Rcameronw 17:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Banning User:Neutralizer for 6 months

edit

Statement of issue

edit

Neutralizer has continually cause disruption and ill feelings among editors on the project. Regardless of the rightness of his arguments, the user has been and continues to publish adversarial comments and discussions in a project that is supposed to collaborative. The user continues to use adversarial and combative editing tactics both in articles and on discussion pages. While I believe our ultimate goal is and should be to produce a quality, NPOV news product, this goal will be impossible to achieve without a community spirit which this user has worked to tear down. To be blunt, the user is trolling. Thinly veiled attacks on users, provocation, and a demonstrated unwillingness to adapt to the community standards of NPOV and collaboration continue unabated -- the community cannot continue to develop with such conduct unchallenged.

Evidence of behavior

edit

Sock puppeting

edit
  • User:NPOV contributions - "Original" username on Wikinews. Previously the same username blocked on Wikipedia for behaviour nearly exactly the same as that exhibited by NPOV/Neutralizer [1]. First edit as Neutralizer is to accuse admins of violating policy despite having been asked to choose another username in accordance with Wikinews policy. (Under previous username, user unilaterally chose to edit policy to suit ou's wishes.

Anti-social behavior

edit
Abusive comments on talk pages
edit

Including personal attacks and other violations of Wikinews:Etiquette.

[5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]

Abusive edit summaries
edit

By most editors, summaries indicate what changes were made to the article. User:Neutralizer rarely (less than 30% of the time, far less after factoring out page moves and other automated summary entries) uses article summaries (see Help:Edit summary#Edit summary - An important guideline is always fill summary field), but the following edit summaries were clearly intended to insult, abuse or intimidate when they are examined in their context. [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51]

Accusations of Administrative abuse
edit

An accusation of administrative abuse is a very serious accusation, one which disrupts the community immediately, to examine whether their most trusted members are acting on their behalf or not.

  • Accusations with basis, but without merit: [58] [59]
  • Frivolous requests for deadminship: [60] [61] (as Johnnyk)
edit

[62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] (not logged in, see [77]) [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] (as Johnnyk) [87] [88] [89] [90] [91]

Editing other user's comments
edit

[92] [93]

POVioring

edit

Action taken

edit

Accordingly, I have banned the user for 6 months and encourage my fellow administrators to look carefully at the user's contributions since his arrival and discuss this ban here before they consider unblocking. While several incidents do stand out, it is the user's pattern of disruption and the totality of his actions that have driven me to this action. - Amgine / talk 21:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition

edit
  • For the record I vehemently oppose the action taken by Amgine. This was a pre-meditated ban (see above discussion) carried out by an administrator who has a history of conflict with the user. I had suggested a better course of action would be Mediation, which is the policy of Wikipedia, this was ignored. It is not an administrator's place to pro-actively create community policy without consensus and feel this is a gross violation of administrative powers. I feel this action, and its pre-meditated nature, is grounds for revoking the users Sysop status. --Wolfrider 22:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Strongly Oppose the bannning of Neutrilizer. (sorry if I spelt your name wrong.) Bawolff ☺☻  22:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC). In regards to Sock Pupputs we can't assume that JohnyK is puppet without undeniable evedence. user:NPOV was neut's previous name which he changed after being requested to so that would not be a sock puppet. Bawolff ☺☻  22:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It was confirmed by a user with Checkuser, that JohnyK was a sock puppet --Cspurrier 22:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
[moving comment from above]
Sorry to go right in the middle of your big statement, but... People should not be afraid to bring up complaints about admins. This makes it sound like thats a bad thing. Bawolff ☺☻  22:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note the number of accusations from a single user in a 6 week timeframe. It's not being afraid to bring up a complaint, it's being consistently disruptive of the site without justification. - Amgine / talk 22:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to join with Bawolf and Wolfrider in strongly opposing this measure, which, to the best of my understanding, constitutes a serious abuse of power by the administrator in question, and contravenes the wikinews rules. The phrase "vindictive personal vendetta" comes inescapably to mind - frankly it demeans us all. In my view this incident, and the precedent it sets, will seriously undermine the effectiveness of wikinews unless we can get it sorted out. I strongly support Wolfrider's call for independent Mediation. Rcameronw 01:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked Neutralizer. Unilateral actions with subsequent justification are not the way to deal with abusive behavior. Since you, Amgine, have had conflicts with the user before, it would have been much preferable if you had not made such a drastic decision yourself. No wiki in the Wikimedia family, to my knowledge, uses a policy where admins can unilaterally decide to ban non-vandals for periods more than a few days. If you feel that Wikinews needs better ways to deal with such users, I suggest creating either a voting (German Wikipedia) or arbitration process (English Wikipedia) to do so. If you really believe blocks of this duration should be handled by admins unilaterally, then I suggest changing the policy accordingly, but I would oppose such a change.

When Wikipedia was still young, we rarely banned even the most disruptive users. We made every possible effort to reform people. Looking at the user's history, I see little evidence that this has been done.

I have to leave for Vienna for Wikiposium in a couple of hours and don't have much time to look into this until Tuesday. I ask you not to take any action unless there is a true community consensus on this page to do so. A cursory look at the summary you gave above already colors me very skeptical. You seem to be very liberal in your definitions of "personal attack" or "abusive edit summary" and if the same liberal definitions were applied to all users, I'm sure I could dig up plenty of edits by you, me, Dan100, or many other people on Wikinews which fall under those definitions.

Certainly, Neutralizer appears to be particularly antagonistic and disruptive. But my current feeling is that an effort should be made to improve his behavior, rather than simply locking him out of the site. I may change my opinion on this. My main point, however, is that a block of this duration has not been sufficiently debated and is currently not supported by policy, therefore, this discussion should continue until the community reaches a decision, at which point an action should be taken.

If you feel that Neutralizer is so disruptive that keeping him on the site until a decision has been reached, I would not be strongly opposed to a suspension of editing privileges for two weeks to debate the matter. But I am opposed to a block for 6 months that is not explicitly supported by the community as a whole.--Eloquence 01:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your reasoning, though of course I do not agree entirely with it. I do feel Neutralizer is disruptive enough that keeping him on the site while attempting to reach a decision should be avoided, but I would rather that time were counted against the total ban which is easiest accomplished by leaving the block at 6 months. Should the community reach a decision to remove the block earlier, or for a shorter period of time, that change can be applied at that time. This is why I reblocked the user after you unblocked.
I would like to note one thing: Unilateral actions with subsequent justification are not the way to deal with abusive behavior. I did ask you to read and discuss before unitlaterally unblocking. - Amgine / talk 01:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutralizer has just emailed me and has stated he wants to participate in mediation. I also must oppose the second block, as I believe it is unfair to not allow him to speak for himself. I believe it would be better if the block was removed and we asked Neutralizer on good faith not to make any more edits (with the exception of participating in this discussion) until the issue is resolved. If he violates the request, then we have a reason to keep him out of the discussion for a certain amount of time. --Wolfrider 02:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


1) A temporary suspension of editing privileges, even of two weeks, should be approved by the community. I for one would abstain from such a decision at least for now, but I feel that other users should be given a chance to comment before it is taken. What I would make as a condition of such a block is that the user is notified that they are under investigation and due to serious complaints by some administrators, his editing privileges have been temporarily suspended until a decision by the community has been made. I would prefer it if such a block was performed by an administrator who has had very few dealings with the user in question.
2) Blocking the user for 6 months makes the possible maximum sentence look like a fait accompli. Innocent until proven guilty is a valuable principle. A sysop should not be judge, jury, prosecutor and executioner in one person. Separation of evidence evaluation from evidence collection makes sense. Of course the "sentence" should be counted against any later verdict regardless.
3) You have controversially blocked a user and then reverted the unblocking twice. This is akin to changing a policy, putting a comment on the talk page, and repeatedly reverting to your preferred version "while the discussion is ongoing". Reverts work the other way around. They are meant to mitigate or eliminate the impact of an action until a consensus has been reached that the action should be taken. This is especially true for high-impact actions such as user blocks.--Eloquence 02:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1) This has never been policy; policy allows admins to determine up to 30 days.
2) This is your perception. There are, as I mentioned on your talk page I believe, 2 other optional methods for producing a ban - neither of which have basis on Wikinews and each of which would require, in my opinion, longer than 6 months to establish and process this case.
3) You have controversially unblocked a user without cause twice. This is akin to reverting to your preferred version etc... You were asked, politely, to engage in discussion before unilaterally unblocking as your behaviour in doing so undermines the authority of admins who are active on this site. - Amgine / talk 02:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please ban Amgine permanently. This type of totalitarianism is not attractive. - Simeon 07:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the duration of 30 days written down? As a compromise, I have blocked Neutralizer for two weeks now. If the community supports a long or permanent ban, it can be extended at the end of the period. If any other admin supports unblocking, they are free to revert my block.--Eloquence 02:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It was a part of blocking policy until August, during the cowicide events, when Dan100 made it possible to block a user account indefinitely [263]. Note that under Dan100's changes my ban is supported by policy, though I do not agree with that change. - Amgine / talk 03:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, my. I think that was unnecessary. Yes, Neutralizer can be a real pain in the ass. Yes, he's made some ludicrous allegations. Yes, he has probably the strongest bias around here. But I still believe that we should Assume good faith on his side. His work on the Avian flu template shows IMO that he's willing to actually contribute to Wikinews and I think mediation would have had a chance to defuse the situation. It is a shame for this community that this wasn't tried. --Deprifry|+T+ 10:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to note that Neut was again banned for 6 months and had his ability to edit his talk page removed by CSpurrier. I also believe that there is a serious conflict of interest on the arbitration committee as a number of the appointed administrators have had issues with the user in the past. Wouldn't it be better if the community voted on who should be selected? --Wolfrider 17:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, apologies MrM. My assumption was that this committee was the one going to hear the issue with Neut and Amgine with votes taking place afterward. Thanks for clearing that up. --Wolfrider 19:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • His ability to edit his talk page, was not removed by my block any more then it was by the two week one, unlike Wikipedia the feature the allows blocked users to edit their talk page was never enabled on Wikinews. If this is a feature the users wish enabled we can ask a developer to enable it. I personally think it is a very good idea, however there have been many valid points raised on pedia about why it should not be enabled.
Neutralizer is without a doubt causing a problem, a block is most likely not the best way to handle the issue, however something needed to be done and Amgine was well within the policy to preform the block. I reblocked him for the six months, because block warring is incredible harmful to the project. When an admin choses the length of time to block someone for this time should stand until there is a consensus to shorten it on at alternative is found. If Neutralizer and the other involved parties are willing to consent to arbitration and be bound by its decision, I will unblock Neutralizer immediately.. --Cspurrier 22:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. While I have seen Neutralizer get very heated in discussions, I find the proposed (actual???) ban far out of proportion. Neutralizer has been active in editing contrivercial articles , he has also contributed on non-contrivercial issues. I have enjoyed reading several of his articles (and probably missed many more) and find his overall contribution valuable. I have to admit that I have not had the time to carefully look at the documentation meliculously preparted by Amgine, but from my (fairly recent) experience of editing articles that Neutralizer was also working on and from a quick look at some of Amgine's "evidence" this looks more like Amgine's POV than WikiNews concensus. Personally, I consider Amgine's accusations with reservation, as I have been also frivolously suspected by Amgine of being a sockpuppet (quote: I have no reason to believe that you are not a sockpuppet"). Some of the allegations brought by Amgine we are all guily of. For example, I have witnessed Amgine taging articles NPOV or DEVELOP without comment and without leaving comments on the talk page. Adding to this the insitance on the 6 months duration for the ban and the refusal to compromize as suggested by Eloquence does not raise my confidence that Neutralizer gets a fair treatment. The only reasons given for rejecting the 2-week compromize was that 1) it was originally set for 6 months and 2) that it is easier to count the "waiting period" as part of the sentence, are both ridiculous. I agree with the suggestions on how to handle this given by most of the above contributers and have nothing to add to this. --vonbergm 01:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I'm generally opposed to any kind of ban on persons (as opposed to bots). In this case, I'm quite strongly opposed as Neutralizer is an active, forward-looking, maverick user. I have reviewed many of the pages which supposedly contain offenses, and I'm yet to find anything that would warrant this action. There is nothing, in my view, inherently wrong with adversarialism. Without it, Wikinews would essentially become numb. The bridges built between adversaries are the roots of consensus. "Abuse" is something different, but I see no evidence that Neutralizer is guilty of abuse. Not only is Neutralizer a worthy contributer, but a leader in the community, and one of a very few who actually encouraged me to stay involved.
  • Oppose. Strongly Oppose the bannning of Neutralizer. There's blame to be shared all around and it's time for 3rd party mediation. It's really time to take a hard look at the admin abuse around here as well right now. More than a few admins here do NOT practice what they preach and there seems to be no oversight for this. The degradation of wikinews is NOT Neutralizer's fault as some admins would imply. From what I've seen here, the abrasive tone, trigger-happy blocking and biased, rabid NPOV tagging by of some of these admins is making wikinews go downhill. Not one contributer. 67.161.136.247 20:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • [moved from sock puppeting above]
    • "accuse admins of violating policy" the referenced edit does not accuse anyone of anything.
    • The NPOV => Neutralizer transofmration can hardly be used as an example of Sock-puppeting, since as shown in the linked first edit under the Neutralizer name, the user had been forced to change name by Wikinews policy police. -- Splamaterator 06:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Johnnyk user seems to have made 4 edits, they don't seem to have been "to attack MrMiscellanious". Your own conspiracy theories seem to be just as well-developed as the ones you attribute to NPOV.
    • Given that wikinews has descended to the type of Feudalism where "Stewards" is an acceptable form of address, I think NPOV is probably quite right. You are all a bunch of screaming morons.
    • Wikinews is a public, non-hierarchical and completely arbitrary forum for chaos, enacted with the hope that it would become a focus for development of **news stories**. Constant bickering and felatio by a mob of self-deluded fascistos isn't going to ruin my enjoyment of it. NPOV, if they ban you. Let me know and I will help you find ways around IP blocks. And if you are clinging to the NPOV monicker or somehow believe that you, individually, are needed to save wikinews from the trolls, then you have fallen as far as they. - Splamaterator 06:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lets give more credit to articles which are based on an article with compatible copyright to ours.

edit

If we copy an article that's public domain, and change it a bit but it still has parts the same as that article we should still give credit where credit is due. thats why I propose template:BasedOn. to use you do this (for example):

{{BasedOn| url=urn:me/brain/idea/template:basedOn%7C title=My super cool idea| by=user:Bawolff| copy=You can use all my ideas under the public domain if you want| copyurl=urn:me/brain/idea/copyright }}


Produces this:

This article is based on My super cool idea by user:Bawolff which has a copyright policy compatible with our CC-BY 2.5. Specifically "You can use all my ideas under the public domain if you want"


Bawolff ☺☻  00:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I like that idea! Karen 18:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there are several related templates already: Template:Fork, Template:From and Template:Imported off the top of my head. - Amgine / talk 20:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't realize that. Now the big question. Why arn't we using them? Thanks for the links.Bawolff ☺☻  23:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Change in Accreditation Policy

edit

Based on discussions on the WikiEN-l mailing list, I have made a change to our accreditation policy allowing active contributors from other project to seek accreditation from Wikinews. The arguments on the list are sound, I think, in that Wikipedians (and Commoners as well) may have the opportunity to create images that all projects could use. Please feel free to revert or refine my change, but please, lets do discuss this, as such a change will only benefit all the Wikimedia projects. --Chiacomo (talk) 05:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Highly Oppose changes in Accreditation policy. If users are indeed going to contribute to Wikinews with their accreditation, then we should at least view thier prior contributions to Wikinews. Where other users are more prominant on whatever WMF projects, there are equivalent policies that they can apply for (for Wikipedia, at least - which is where most "foreigners" would come from) and license photographs under free licenses for all projects. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 05:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input -- as I said, there has been continued discussion on the mailing list about accrediting people. Since we have an establish process that appears to work, I thought we could offer our process up for the other projects as well. This could do nothing but increase our visibility both to other projects and to the world. --Chiacomo (talk) 05:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Plot to Permanently Ban Me?

edit

An anon put this on my talk page today; "== Warning == theres a plot to perman. ban you. see: [[264]]"

I don't know if a vandal is at work with this or what. The sandbox is not even on wikinews and is in Chiacomo's name although the history shows Amgine is writing it. If perchance it is true; I only hope a few of you will save and continue the "running list" [265]I began on my talk page on you own talk page with a link to the water cooler (as Chiacomo had suggested). I believe that the primary reason for targeting me in this way (if this is true) would be to stop that list. Neutralizer 20:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I very much hope that this is just an elaborate hoax - I can't believe that anyone would think that banning Neutralizer for 6 months was either reasonable or necessary. Surely we want to be drawing more people into the Wikinews project, not driving our most active, experienced and committed editors away? -- Rcameronw 21:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just like you have your own "Running list", Chiacomo is allowed to do whatever he wants with his userspace (and since that is on Journowiki, it doesn't pertain to here). How is his comments on another site any different than your "Running list"? They aren't. So, quit your whining. You can't do anything about it - and this issue should've been taken up with him personally, not us. --Mrmiscellanious 22:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification; I do not know if Chiacomo did anything; the history says Amgine is the writer but it's on a sandbox for Chiacomo. I consider myself part of this community; so I felt like I could come here to share what happened... As I said on my talk page, I am taking a short(not 6 months)wikibreak to see if that will help defuse the acrimony. Neutralizer 01:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware that admins were even allowed to ban users based on cumulative past behaivour. Nevermind. I found the policy. --Wolfrider 22:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that banning anybody for six months is a good idea. Any ban (imho) over 1 month is too long and would have the same effect as more or less a permanent ban. With that being said, Chiacomo/Amgine have a right to their opinion.(Especially considering its on journalwiki.) So more or less I agree with everything said so far.Bawolff ☺☻  23:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the crucial difference between N's running list and this other issue (which none of us would know about if an anon user hadn't raised it on N's talk page), is that N's list is a roster of articles, which he has concerns about, whereas the item referred to above, if indeed it is genuine, would appear to be the beginning of an attempt to engineer the exclusion of a particular user from our community. Of course people are allowed to do whatever they want with their own workspaces, but, equally, where an editor has concerns that relate to the wikinews community, they should be allowed to raise them here. Clearly, the exclusion of an active, committed user like Neutralizer would have an impact on our commmunity. Clearly, the information that Neutralizer was presented with gave him reason to believe that such a course of action was being considered - and in quite some detail. The fact that more than one administrator would appear to have been involved in the discussion would suggest that, if it is genuine, it is already at a fairly advanced stage.
  • It seems reasonable, then, that Neutralizer should want to raise the issue here. It seems unfortunate that a serious concern which was raised in a neutral and polite way should be dismissed as "whining". My understanding of the rules is that we are required to talk to each other in a civil way.
  • Neutralizer and I have not always seen eye to eye, but I fail to see what he could possibly have done that would warrant such drastic action as banning him for six months - and why, if such drastic action were necessary, it could not be discussed openly by the community rather than planned as a "fait accompli".
  • The alleged infringements given in the "dossier" referred to above seem minor and/or very much open to interpretation - and many seem to date back several weeks/months when the user was just getting started. I think it's important that we judge people on what they're doing now, rather than on past mistakes, especially if they appear to have learned from those mistakes. My understanding of the rules on blocking is that the measure should only be applied as a "last resort", when rules have been seriously and consistently violated. I could be mistaken, but I thought I also read that long term blocks could only be put in place by, or in consultation with, Jimmy Wales.
--Rcameronw 23:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a community discussion. Cease and desist from posting here about any more of your personal issues, Neutralizer. Stop bogging the community up with every single misconvenience you find along the way. It's another site, it's a user's feelings. Neither are going to be interfered with. Your list will stay, and his comments will stay. Whatever else is up to you two in discussing. --Mrmiscellanious 23:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly not a "plot" -- it is a process. I will not defend actions I have yet to take. I will say that I don't care a bit about a list that a user keeps so long as that list does not constitute a personal attack, a disruption to the community, or is not made in some other way that might be considered "bad faith". Long term "blocks" (we don't yet have policy on "banning" anyone other than open proxies, threats, and vandals -- and even that policy is not clear) do not require anyone's approval so long as they are based in policy and the best interests of the community. Of course, except for "hard bans", any administrator may remove a block. If you wish to discuss actions I have not yet taken, please bring your crystal ball and discuss them on my talk page or via email at Chiacomo@gmail.com. This is certainly not a policy question yet as nothing has been done. I will be gone until at least 2100 CDT this evening, however. I'm going to a lecture. --Chiacomo (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Chiacomo, I'm a bit confused. Should we be discussing this with you or with Amgine? The history page says that Amgine, not you, wrote those comments in your sandbox area. MM, I respect your view that this is not a community discussion, but I disagree. If, as appears to be the case, there is a "process" in chain, which has already involved at least two wikinews administrators, to institute a six-month ban of one of our most active users, then surely this does have an impact on our community? Rightly or wrongly, this incident creates the impression that an administrator who has already clashed repeatedly with Neutralizer has set up an in-depth discussion with another administrator, on a site completely separate from wikinews, about how Neutralizer might be excluded from wikinews for six months. Surely it would be fairer and more democratic for this "process" to be transparent? And surely this is an issue for the community as a whole to decide on rather than a handful of administrators?
  • I feel it might be helpful if we had some clarification of what, exactly, the rules are on blocking users. Maybe I'm just being clueless here, but I've been involved in Wikinews for some time now and I'm still very unclear about where the line is drawn. The danger I see with "grey areas" is that they lead to confusion and allow for the arbitrary exercise of authority. Eg - if "disruption" is given as a valid reason for a (six month) exclusion, without any clear definition of what does, and doesn't actually count as "disruption", then clearly the temptation will be for admins to start blocking people they merely find disagreeable, rather than people who have actually done anything wrong. I rather fear that this is may be what's happening here.
  • Rightly or wrongly, this incident creates the impression that Neutralizer is being singled out, primarily, because of an honest disagreement that he has had with a small number of other users, over a series of news stories which he feels have been blocked/delayed solely because they covered issues which were embarrassing to the US government - ie. an issue of more-or-less arbitrary, politically-motivated censorship within Wikinews. I may be mistaken in this impression, but this is certainly how it appears to me.

Rcameronw 07:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To be quite frank, I don't care if you sympathize with Neutralizer. However, this issue is not one that a community should discuss. The inaccurate use of this water cooler alone is enough to call disruption on Neutralizer, as he has been told to keep these items off of this area. This is not an area for conspicuations, conspiracies, or personal matters. Community issues. I have a feeling that Neutralizer just likes the attention... --Mrmiscellanious 11:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that's true, and maybe Neut is actively disrupting the Wiki, but I politely disagree that this is not an issue the community should discuss. And this is not a conspiracy theory. There is very plainly an issue with Wikinews administrators discussing Wikinews policy and the potential ban of a user off-site. Which is completely inappropriate. This, whether or not you agree with it MrM, is a community issue. Yes, I wholeheartedly agree that Neutralizer's approach to the Wiki can be combative (as are other people's) but there is also no doubt that he has many valuable contributions to the community under his belt. Also, it is inappropriate to attempt to silence us by threatening to ban him. We are the ones continuing the discussion, not him. My view is that all of you, Neut, MrM, and Amgine have some serious personal issues to work out. This constant infighting is what is disrupting the community, and all of you are to blame. If Neutralizer is to be banned for a long period of time, it should be at the hands of an administrator who is not personally involved in this. I suggest, however, that an arbitrator be used to smooth things over, and Neutralizer be placed on a probationary period which will give him time to learn how to be less combative. However, at the moment, I find it difficult to blame him for "wanting attention." I also think I should warn you that I feel a move like this is an abuse of administrative power, although I understand fully the reasons behind it. Simply put we need a third party to take action if action is to be taken, and I ask that another administrator offer his services for this issue. --Wolfrider 14:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. Bawolff ☺☻  01:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me my first, and only so far as I can recall, comment on a Project page about User:Neutralizer/User:NPOV/User:Johnnyk and this discussion: I have not engaged in "constant infighting." I have attempted, as best I am able, to enforce the policies and decisions of the community. If you can point to any single event when I have not done so, I will apologize. If you cannot, I request that you retract your statement above, Wolfrider. Further, may I suggest reading Wikinews:Etiquette, the section about assume good faith? I read it regularly, to keep myself on the straight and narrow. - Amgine / talk 03:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I never stated that you were engaged in constant infighting, I said you shared the blame for it. I believe the link above more than speaks for itself. I also understand Amgine, that you are a very diligent administrator and the value of your contributions to the community can't be questioned. You work hard for Wikinews and we all appreciate that fact. However, I do not understand the logic behind creating a long list of complaints and premeditating the ban of another user who also has made many helpful contributions. Yes, this particular user may be difficult at times, but this user has also tried to amend his behaviour and is currently attempting to do constructive work for the community without getting involved in heated discussions. It looks like he's being baited. If that's not the case then I apologize. As far as retracting my statement I'm, unfortunately, not going to do that, as I believe it be an accurate assessment. If, however, you'd like to discuss it more fully with me, my email is avaiable as well as my talk page. If you want to contact me through MSN my email address is wolfrider31 at hotmail dot com. --Wolfrider 21:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wolfrider, I am quite shocked by your comments to imply that I have ever tried to "silence" people by threatening to ban them. I have never banned one single user or ip address aside from open proxies. And as far as personal items go, I don't have an issue with Neutralizer personally (although it seems that he has a profound disliking of me). Now, I do not condone Neutralizer's way of alerting others of issues about him. Particularly, posting a disliking of one edit from a user on the Admin alert page, the Water cooler, and accusing others of trying to "silence" free speech, or etc. because of the edit. Like you, I do not see the use in logging user's contributions only to bicker at them for making it, or to use it to form a case against them for action. I don't understand why others do it, either. I invite anyone who wishes to discuss this issue to leave a note on my talk page, but I continue to believe that this is not a community issue. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 02:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Amgine, since you ask for examples, let me provide some. How does tagging NPOV and DEVELOP without leaving any summary or comment and without any prior contribution to the article, when the state of the discussion shows an overwhelming majority (with one opposing voice), square with enforcing "the policies and decisions of the community"? (Let me know if you need a link...) And how does telling me that you "have not reason not to believe" that I am "a sockpuppet" square with "good faith"? Sorry to bring this old topic up again, but your comments make it awfully hard to forget. --vonbergm 03:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 11

edit

Discussion page useful for mentioning copy/code reversion reasons

edit

I'm still seeing instances where people more experienced than myself are reverting my and others' work without discussion as to why a reversion was necessary - despite the discussion as to why it was put that way to begin with. There's no "That's not how it's done, see this section of policy." It seems to me that discussion is the right place for people working on the article to see the why of others' actions on the story, especally if the changes impact anyone elses changes in the history. This issue keeps occuring and it's highly annoying to experience. Less policy would need to be made if reasons for actions were described in the discussion section to serve as an example for others. I will always feel justified in un-reverting a change made to a story if there's no discussion and no policy regarding it and I have used my best judgement and have already stated why I think it should stand as originally edited and my reasons for it to be left the way was is in discussion. Karen 18:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Karen, again, I agree with you. If an editor reverts something, with cause, they should list the reasons on the discussion page... But, often, if the case seems "clear cut", the editor may only list the reason in the edit summary of the reversion. Perhaps you can cite a specific example -- hopefully, it won't be one of my reverts (but it's okay if it is)... --Chiacomo (talk) 03:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disregarding vandals, it should be assumed that someone made an edit to improve the article (assume good faith). Avoid reverting, and if it seems necessary, read the discussion first to see if there was some given reason for it to be the way it is. If it's something I did with a purpose, best judgement, or educated guess, then I've mentioned it in the discussion page. The more you know, the more "clear cut" it might seem to you, but perhaps not so to the person who's edit you might be undoing. It's significant that the reverting of edits without discussion I've seen have all been done by admins. What I'd like to remind them is that they need to be more concerned with community than the stories, so should be contributing to discussions more to encourage and educate others. Certainly I can be more specific, but I don't want to point fingers and place blame. I don't want to be classified as an admin-basher. Admins have been a mixed bag here. I don't believe we need to attack those who keep the site running and support us. It's the behaviour that I have issue with, not who's doing it. I don't want to be seen as a chronic complainer, but this issue may warrent it. I'm certainly going to make mistakes, and I'd rather read about it in the discussion page (or my talk page) as a general pointer than silently fight someone who won't bother discussing it until it becomes a disruptive issue. I'm sure one can get tired of reading my rantings each time I see this happening. I honestly read the policy and guidelines and do my best - but I could do better if I know why my changes needed to be reverted. Thanks to the work of Chiacomo , there was no need for the most recent revert spree, although I'm still not sure (lack of discussion on the page) why what I was trying to accomplish required reverting. So now I'll leave this discussion alone for awhile and let others get in their words should they wish to do so. Karen 00:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New members are entering all the time and it important to recognise this by telling them about these clear cut measures when reverting for not only the creator of the article but the editots. I believe this will save time for the editor, and admin in the future --Whywhywhy 11:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

editing out comments on the water cooler

edit

Do we have a policy on this? e.g.;[266] Neutralizer 15:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be the personal attacks portion of the Style guide (they are, of course, based on the user's other edits), but also could be because of the user's unsigned comment (which might be taken as someone trying to manipulate another's comment). So, technically - yes. And Neutralizer, please "welcome" Cowicide back, for that is who that user is. --Mrmiscellanious 00:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
hmm, I don't see anything that qualifies as "personal attack"..certainly others have said identical things to other editors without being deleted. I will not assume that the contributor was a vandal and if it was, should not that have been mentioned on the deletion edit? Just seems to me we are slipping down the slippery slope of allowing administrators to break rules whenever they feel like it with no consequence...plus the admins have the block threat/hammer to use against anyone who reverts their edit. Here is another edit [267] by a different user,also deleted,(and then the editor was blocked) and it seems it would not hurt at all to try to get a concensus for deletion of water cooler edits before doing it. Neither of these edits were as much of a "personal" attack as the one that Dan100 had on the water cooler for a week or more[268] and nobody deleted that. Was that because Dan 100 is also an admin.? The point is, have we given unilateral censorship control of our water cooler to every administrator? Aren't we supposed to be about concensus and discussion? Neutralizer 17:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutralizer, we'd accept his comments if that user showed any real contributions. But bickering and personally attacking other users on your first few edits isn't going to give you a good record, nor will it even get you past "vandal" stage. --Mrmiscellanious 22:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Press Releases, Pseudo-events, and WikiNews's Publishing Policy

edit

Not to disrespect the author or belittle the topic, but this article smacks of a P.R.'s press release posted verbatim. In this instance, only one source is listed and linked to twice (and not in the "External Links" section to boot!). In checking the page's history, I found that the author had never posted anything else prior to the aforementioned article.

This raised a concern in me, and I think it is an issue that needs a more further discussion than previously.

Here's a purely hypothetical and imaginary scenario to better serve as an example. Let's say that Company X is being sued by the EPA for dumping radioactive toxic waste in a high school ball field, and everyone from the local newspaper to the BCC, Retuers, and The New York Times is carrying coverage (Again, purely hypothetical). During the trial, an employee at Company X's P.R. department writes up a press release that touts an environmentally-friendly playground built by Company X, and posts it as news here. There's no copy-vio because the flak who wrote it gives permission to post it, but the release is the only source on the event - We have no corroboration that a playground was built at all. The end result of this scenario is that Company X abuses WikiNews and turns it into their own soap box for image enhancement.

Another (more plausible, but still hypothetical) possibility are pseudo-events. For instance, let's say that Company Y produces a new hard disk and wants to get the word out. Some flak over at Company Y writes up a press release, and posts it at WikiNews. The relevance, immediacy, and importance are all low (compared to a hurricane, earthquake, assassination, etc.), yet the disguised advertisement gets published. Here, Company Y benefits for the free advertising at WikiNews's effort (or at least its servers' effort).

So what is WikiNews's policy on "hand-me-down" press releases, pseudo-events, and can any press release be submitted as an article?

NeoAmsterdam 05:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Press releases are not news, at the very least. {{NPOV}} in most cases. Thank you for noticing this issue. It has now been tagged, and someone should probably explain why on the talk page this article is not okay, but I'm not quite up to it at them oment. - Amgine / talk 05:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Same opinion here, including for the deal between Wikimedia Foundation and Answers.com. This really smacks of self-centered bias. Submarine 22:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In thoose cases I think they should be flagged apropriatly In theese cases {{notnews}}{{NPOV}}{{misleading}} ect

Delay and Obstruction of news stories which report the misdeeds of the U.S. government

edit

To see the record of this occurring, please see; [269]"running list". Neutralizer 20:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed about French government minister harassed by US immigration. First tagged as "POV" (whereas it represented the points of view of both the French and US governments), then as "un-newsworthy" (despite it being based on reports my major news sources). At the same time, badly written articles about totally pointless issues are let go. Submarine 22:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I share Submarine's concerns about the way that the above story was handled. I also feel that the piece was balanced and unbiased. It seems unreasonable to deny that a story about a diplomatic incident, even a minor one, is "newsworthy". Rightly or wrongly, the above case left me with the impression that the story was being dismissed chiefly because it reflected less than positively on the US government, rather than because there was actually anything wrong with the story.
  • At least one other user has raised concerns that this case may not be an isolated incident. I share those concerns. I fear there's a danger here of wikinews being seen to be inconsistent in the way that our stories are treated. The chief example in my mind is the repeated, seemingly-spurious, labelling as "POV", "un-newsworthy" or "incomplete", of stories which reflect less than positively on the US government. I feel that it's important not only that we apply our rules fairly and consistently, but also that we are seen to apply them fairly and consistently. Otherwise, I fear, our credibility as an objective and independent news source may be damaged.
  • I also feel that we need to be quite careful, on a collaborative project such as this, about dismissing other peoples' work as "un-newsworthy". The danger I see is that such practices could discourage existing users, and drive "new recruits" away, and I don't think any of us wants to see that happen.

Rcameronw 20:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I think it is very important to remember that there is really no story Wikinews doesn't want to include so long as that story is well written and is properly sourced with either links to other sites or author's notes on the talk page (we seem to forget this). The only time I can forsee classifying something as "not news" would be stories that are obviously submitted in bad faith, rants, editorials, obvious attempts to publish biased writing, or the simple re-hashing of events already covered in another Wikinews story. I have observed that grammar, phrasing, punctuation, etc is more closely scrutinized on important news stories than on local news stories or stories that do not evoke passion in our editors. This is a flaw in the Wiki system -- people generally don't take an interest in things they are not passionate about. In the past, I have made an effort to proof and copyedit stories that I had no interest in (probably because I assumed no one else cared either), but I have lately been caught up in other things on Wikinews. Wikinews does have a large contingent of patriotic American editors who appear to desire that coverage of government actions be as fair and balanced (shudder) as possible. At times, these editors appear to have taken quick action to unpublish or properly tag stories they feel are not NPOV, as is their right.
I think most of the stories that have undergone such scrutiny (by all parties concerned) have turned out to be reaonably NPOV articles that accurately depict the facts as they happened. They have, in some cases, taken some time to reach a what all editors believe is a publishable stage, but this is how wikis work. Articles about chlorophyl counts in shaggy moss may be published rather quickly, where articles about President Heywood J. Kickme may take hours or days to reach the front page. There is nothing wrong with this process -- this is how wikis work. This may lead to a larger conversation that I do not wish to consider at this time, namely: Is a wiki an appropriate platform to support a news site where events occur rapidly and stories must be published just as quickly? --Chiacomo (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those interesting points, Chiacomo. I do sometimes feel that tempers run particularly high here because a news site is so much more time-critical than an encyclopedia. If a wikipedia piece gets wrangled over for a couple of days then it doesn't lose any of its relevancy - but news stories have a very short shelf life. If one editor feels that another is "filibusting", things can get quite heated. For me the solution is to have clear rules about what can and can't count as reasonable grounds for an NPOV dispute. I think we'd all agree with your points about the potential for NPOV debates/disputes to improve the quality of the finished article - in fact I think that this is one of the greatest strengths of wikinews. But personally I don't feel it's enough that an editor doesn't like a story - they need to be able to show that there's actually a clear, tangible problem - eg. if an article quotes one side of a debate without giving the views put forward by the other (providing, of course that the other side has actually put forward a view). Where real problems exist of course we want people to raise the issue and insist that those problems are addressed - and of course it's human nature to be more forceful about stories one cares passionately about. But my own perception has been that in some cases (including the story referred to above), there were no reasonable grounds for the NPOV tag - it was just a way of objecting, in principle, to the fact that a particular story reflected badly on a particular government.

Rcameronw 21:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing concerns about admins' behavior to the water cooler

edit

I fear there may be increasing pressure from some admins to censor/control the expression of thought/opinion on this water cooler; which, I believe, was designed partially as a space for brainstorming all kinds of ideas and concerns, even about the behavior of other editors, unfettered by rules and regulations...it's called "free speech".

It seems to me this is the best place to bring any concerns, particularly if the person bringing them believes the community at large may wish to see whatever information they have obtained. One fairly recent example of this was [270] which was an airing of feelings about the actions of an individual administrator (Amgine) by another administrator (Dan100); so, imo, the practice of bringing such matters to the water cooler is nothing new and has done no harm; and is consistent with an open, non-"behind closed doors" platform.Neutralizer 15:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between bringing legitimate issues to the water cooler, and attacking a single admin for reasons that are not only absurd on the outset but consensus has agreed do not need further attention, which is why you were chastised on your talk page. Swallow your pride, don't take it personally, and try to keep your frustration in check a little more, Neut. --Wolfrider 15:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see the link above? That was about a single admin. Also, I haven't seen a consensus that the matter needs no further attention..it's still going on on a daily basis. I can't believe there is a consensus for "denial". I made a big mistake by mentioning the taboo term "government agent". I will retract that right now since I have no proof. The only point is the consistent and daily delay and obstruction to reporting of any legitimate news stories which report the misdeeds of the U.S. government. It does not matter at all why that is happening; only that it is happening virtually every day; 7 times in the past week; [271][272][273][274][275][276][277][278]Neutralizer 15:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did view that link and I agree with Lyellin who told you said very pointedly. "...this is NOT where this needs to be handled. At all. It either needs to become an RFC, at which point I think a BUNCH of comments could be made, making it much less "Clear" than what you have above, or you need to do this conversation on Amgine's talk page. This is not a matter of policy." In other words. Stop it. --Wolfrider 16:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; Wolfrider mistakenly thought Lyellin was referring to me above, when actually Lyellin was referring to Dan100 who placed the Amgine topic on the watercooler for discussion.I was not involved in that discussion at all. Neutralizer 19:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I have no message from Lyellin? Neutralizer 16:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not you. Lyellin said that in the link you gave me. By the way, when linking to a discussion, do not link to the middle. --Wolfrider 16:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Those accusations on the water cooler were made by Dan100, not me.

Also, I do not think it's just 1 admin. who is delaying and obstructing stories selectively. I think the community(especially new editors) has a right to be able to check out the links and make up their own mind. Neutralizer 16:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're beating a dead horse and cluttering up the water cooler. These various conversations concerning administrators have in no way made Wikinews a better place -- if they do not improve the project, one must conclude they are pointless and are verging on disruption. Why don't you create a subpage in your user space for your theories and accusations and link it from the cooler? Editors can then choose to read or become involved in your discussion rather than be forced to gaze across a dead and decaying horse in order to read the other content on the here. If you have a specific problem with an administrator, please try to work it out privately (on user talk pages). If you can't get along, try to avoid one another. If you can't avoid one another and the admin has mis-used their administrative powers, list for RfDA on WN:A. --Chiacomo (talk) 17:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who has no interest in my comments simply need not read them. This concern I am sharing is not related to abuse of admin. powers directly but rather to the consistent and daily delay and obstruction to reporting of any legitimate news stories which report the misdeeds of the U.S. government. These daily delays and obstructions to such stories are, I think, a serious drag on the project and hurts our image as being NPOV. Although one person may not see this as true or worthy of community discussion on the water cooler, someone else, a new contributor,perhaps, might have the opposite point of view. I am trying very hard to emphasize that it is the behavior that is the issue the community needs to recognize and deal with; not the individual or individuals who are doing it. Neutralizer 19:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Neutralizer, please stop your personal attacks here. They are nothing but propaganda of an anarchist movement in Wikinews to overturn all forms of Administration. One more post like yours above will result in a ban for a personal attack, and should be considered for disruption. I am not asking you this time, I am TELLING you. One more personal attack, against ANYONE here, and you're gone for a month. If you won't listen to others, perhaps you will listen to the sound of your lonely tapping keyboard and finding no place to submit your work. --Mrmiscellanious 19:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
ok,MrM. I have said enough. Hopefully it's not just me who feels the behavior(not the person) I outlined needs addressing. Neutralizer 20:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing MrMiscellanious; now that I have been called an anarchist (that's a personal attack in my book) and threatened with blocking , I may be forced to adopt Chiacomo's suggestion above; "Why don't you create a subpage in your user space for your theories and accusations and link it from the cooler?" Would implementing Chiacomo's suggestion trigger the block you are threatening me with? Neutralizer 20:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As there has been no response, I assume MrMiscellanious has no objection to Chiacomo's suggestion so I have inserted the link as the next item. Neutralizer 20:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I beg all here to calm down and adopt a more civil tone. Indeed, I'm quite shocked that an admin would threaten with blocks about a dispute to which he is a party; this smacks evidently of being both judge and party to the case. Also, I am... disappointed that people who deplore personal attacks should then go into conspiracy theories (an "anarchist movement"?). Submarine 22:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize to everyone whom this concerns, but when there is not an administrator who will take the issue up, I will not just ignore it. Now, there's a time and a place for areas where users want to form their own theories about other users - and it's their userspace. Not the water cooler. --Mrmiscellanious 00:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Tag it or move it back to develop?

edit

I would like to see people using tagging instead of moving articles back into "develop". If you think an article is in breach of our basic standards, then tag it. Once it is tagged it dissapears from all lists of published articles. If you just think it needs work, or could be "more complete", then edit it, or perhaps talk about it on the talk page, but I don't think articles should ever be moved back to "develop". - Borofkin 22:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If an article isn't complete, it isn't publishable. Edit items in publish mode only for minor edits, but anything that requires a substantial amount of editing should be in develop mode. And users should mark articles as what mode they are in. --Mrmiscellanious 19:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; articles which still require heavy development should be in develop. It's not unreasonable to push a story back to develop. - McCart42 (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If they are tagged then they aren't published, even if they happen to be in the published category. Also, I don't recognise the notion of a "complete" article. I know that we protect and archive articles eventually, but in the first couple of days to a week, an article is only "complete" until someone comes along and decides that it needs more work. Also note that Wikinews:Writing an article states about the develop and publish tags that "None of these elements is fixed -- feel free to experiment with the page!". My opinion is that every article is a published article, unless someone has decided to a) tag it as "developing", or b) tag it as "npov", "sources", etc, and I reckon that people should be encouraged to do (b) rather than (a), as it is more clear what the community thinks is the problem. - Borofkin 00:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But don't get too tag-happy. At least when things are in the dev que, wikinews readers can see them and might help out. The {{incomplete}} tag seems silly, if an article is incomplete, it's best to just put it back into {{develop}}. Also, the large number of tags seems to make mis-use more likely. Bill3 00:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting development stories to published

edit

I cannot find any guidelines on when a story is ready to be promoted to "Published". A quick discussion on irc resulted in this: t should be an article with no active disputes (obviously) and more or less complete. The idea is that a published article is one that won't be going through any significant changes any longer. Anyone wants to expand this? Should there be a help topic on this? --DenGer

In my opinion, a published article is one which a Wikinews editor has deemed to be so, and no-one has yet objected. If no-one objects, then it stays published. If someone tags it (npov, notnews, etc), then it becomes unpublished. Whether or not it is "complete" or not is a matter of personal opinion. Whether or not it will be going through any more significant changes depends on whether someone feels the urge to edit it. As to when you should promote it to "published", my advice is that if you wrote the bulk of the story yourself, and you don't intend to work on it anymore, publish it. - Borofkin 04:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for starting this thread. I think it would help to have a clearer a policy on this issue. I've noticed that stories deemed controversial often get pushed back and forth between brief spells of being "published" and long spells of sitting in "develop" for so long that by the time things settle down the story is several days old, and appears a long way down the list. As a result I think that some (among whom I count myself) have started to become quite wary of publishing controversial stories, for fear of getting caught up in edit-wars. The concern I have is that perfectly good, well-written, NPOV stories which happen to focus on a controversial issue (ie. one that a lot of people care about and/or are interested in!) are getting held back, with the result that there are disproportionately high numbers of "uncontroversial" stories (ie. stories about persistent rain storms in the NE United States), and disproportionately low numbers of stories on controversial issues (ie. the "war on terror"). I think that some clearer, consensus-agreed guidelines on when a story CAN be published could help to address this issue. Obviously stories on controversial issues must be properly scrutinised and any NPOV concerns properly addressed - but I think it would be good if we could clarify and streamline the process so that turnaround is a bit quicker. - Rcameronw 08:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the "develop" stage is optional, and Wikinews:Writing_an_article doesn't seem to contradict this. Don't get too hung up on the difference between "develop" and "publish". If in doubt, stick it in publish. I personally only use "develop" when I'm working on something at that time, otherwise, I stick it into "publish" and let the community deal with it. - Borofkin 22:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Use of dateline template

edit

In contrast to this section of the style guide with regards to use of dateline template, the dateline template I placed on a story to locate it quickly to the reader (the opening few words) has twice been reverted with no comments (other than my own each time there was a reversion) in the discussion page.

However, the edit summaries which removed the dateline template mention (the dateline template is not to be used unless you were actually present at the event) and (Please do not use {{{dateline}}} unless you are actually present at the article setting.)

The section of the Wikinews style guide I used for guidance states "In journalism, the location in the dateline may either refer to the location of where the article was filed from or where the event happened even if the writer was not physically present.". It indicated to me that when an event is reported, a dateline can be added for just the purpose I used in this story.

Please provide some feedback (which should have been in the discussion section of the story) as to why the guidelines are more flexible than the people reverting the edits. I'm weary of trying to add credible information to stories only to have them removed - the story linked above is a prime example of information ebb and flow via multiple edits and reverts.

Generally, the use of a dateline in newswire articles refers to where the story is filed from, not the story location. Thus many contributors feel wikinews is misleading readers when they add the dateline, unless we have a contributor on the site doing original reporting. - Amgine / talk 01:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated our documentation to address current Wikinews convention. --Chiacomo (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I observed the enforcement of unwritten convention before any discussion. While I understand that issues may occur which require new guidelines, I also understand that discussion preceeds writing them; but enforcement came before both in this instance. But what bothers me most is that the style guide consistantly says even these guidelines are flexible and not to be enforced blindly without considering each instance. In this case, my use of the dateline template is acceptable "In journalism, [where] the location in the dateline may either refer to the location of where the article was filed from or where the event happened even if the writer was not physically present.", but seeminly not acceptable under any cirumstances for a Wikinewsie. The conclusions I see being drawn are that a Wikinewsie is not supposed to be considered a journalist, and that we have to ignore the part about the guidelines being flexible - at least in this case.
But what does a journalist do? I believe the traits of a journalist are to journal the news, act as a news source, actively seek new sources, and combine and weight each source into a new unique story. While a copy editor typically takes one source and edits, many of us try to do more than that. Wikinews.org is a news source and we are its journalists and copy editors.
The good news is that the current revision says "Currently, the dateline template is only used when a Wikinewsie is actually present to "file" the story (generally as original reporting)." This means to me that it's possible this newly-introduced unconventional convention might change and that consideration of flexibility and instance might come before enforcement.
Please consider less-strict enforcement of the new dateline convention.
The dateline frames a story in spacetime so the reader immediately knows the when/where before the first sentence. When an event is being reported and occurs in a specfic location, journalists who may very well be gathering information from a desk far away from the event might dateline the story and location. But take away the location, and the only thing the reader is sure of before reading the first sentence is when the article was published, along with the information in the headline. Should dateline be reserved for the where/when of the article's publication, or can it be used to frame the reference for the reader in spacetime? Conventionally, a journalist will apply the dateline location by good judgement, and sometimes use it even when the information was gathered remotely - photographer in the field, phoned-in interview, other sources on the scene...
My feeling is that we're now wanting to use the dateline template to mark an article as original reporting, when we can just tag the article as such instead of overloading the dateline template for that purpose. I urge more consideration into the matter of how a journalist uses dateline and how we can use it in those same circumstances with flexibility and good judgement. And when you believe that judgement is suspect on a case-by-case basis, I would prefer to see discussion before immediate enforcement of matters covered in the style guide. Karen 10:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, this has been the common convention for some time (6 months or more, at least) and is not new -- the documentation was lagging behind current usage. I personally don't care which template is used. I, myself, did mistakenly use the dateline template in my early days here at Wikinews and was corrected. You're quite right, of course, those who reverted your use of the dateline template should have been more courteous -- especially as the documentation did not provide a clear basis for the revert. Don't bite the newbies -- we need to remember that. Please accept my apologies for not providing an explanation on the talk page of the article. As a note, Wikinews is not a conventional news source and wikinewsies are not conventional journalists. Please let me know if I can provide further clarification or assistance! --Chiacomo (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now that this is discussed and included in the style guide, I feel better about the surprise of having the dateline template removed from the story I was editing.
Two Examples (Dateline template added against Wikinews convention.)
  • In the case of this story, which initiated this discussion, it was re-written well enough to tell where the event was within the opening sentence and did not benefit much from a dateline template.
  • However this story did benefit after adding the dateline template even though it doesn't meet the convention that was just recently documented.
I still feel somewhat inclined to support the dateline template use in specific circumstances beside where it was filed, as is convention for journalists. Sometimes the rules need to be broken. Please consider each case and discuss on discussion page, and I'll try to be more conventional with respect to Wikinews. Karen 16:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 6

edit

Policy discussion: What should be acceptable as a "credible source" for Wikinews?

edit
The aim of this discussion is to try and hammer out some kind of community consensus on what can, and not, be admitted as an acceptable "credible" source for a Wikinews story. It will probably take some time, and the discussion of the finer details may have to be ongoing. But my reasoning is that if we can start to produce some generally agreed guidelines/principles, then this will help to resolve disputes more quickly when individual stories are under discussion.
I would like to encourage others to put forward their views and not be afraid of disagreeing with others. My reasoning is that we should get the disagreements out of the way here so that we don't end up having them on article talk pages. But please keep it clean - and please don't accuse anyone else of being a secret government agent or a sock puppet!
The discussion arises from a dispute over this article: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Talk:President_Bush_may_veto_amendment_that_bans_detainee_mistreatment

...but I believe that the potential implications are much wider. Here are some initial questions, which arose in relation to that particular article, together with one or two others I've thought of or seen raised elsewhere:

Under what circumstances, if any, can the following types of source be cited as credible? Under what circumstances, if any, should the following sources be treated as not-credible?

  • 1. New York Times news articles
  • 2. News articles from other "mainstream" media (eg. Fox News, CNN, BBC)
  • 3. Reports from the organisation Human Rights Watch
  • 4. Reports from other human rights organisations (eg. Amnesty International)
  • 5. Reports/statements from large aid agencies (eg. the Red Cross)
  • 6. Press releases (sub question: are some press releases intrinsically more credible than others?)
  • 7. Statements from US Senators
  • 8. Opinion-editorial pieces
  • 9. Government documents (sub-question: what counts, and does not count, as a government document?)
  • 10. Reports/statements from the United Nations
  • 11. Statements from the International Criminal Court
  • 12. Statements and definitions from Wikipedia
  • 13. News articles from "non-mainstream" news media.
  • 14. Statements from political parties
  • 15. Statements from commercial companies
  • 16. Personal blogs
  • 17. White House press releases
  • 18. US Intelligence sources (ala the recent New York subway hoax and "Iraq has WMD" scare)
  • 19. Voice of America
  • 20. Anything eminating from al-Queda or bin Laden (video tapes etc.)
Please do add to this list and reformat/clarify/wikify/improve what I've written above, as appropriate. Rcameronw 19:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, my responses:

  • 1 - I would say is not. The New York Times has gotten many stories "wrong" or have distorted the facts in numerous occasions - and have even admitted in doing so. But others have, too.
  • 2 - Even though sources like FOX, CNN, BBC, etc have a bias (yes, even BBC), they all can be "credible" in my book (as none of them have repeatedly gotten information wrong AFAIK)
  • 3 & 4 - HRW, Amnesty, etc. all act on hearsay and rumors instead of investigation. Rarely to make a political point, however the distortion of facts is almost always present in reports from NGO's.
  • 5 - If it pertains only to their organization (as in statistics), I believe it would be credible.
  • 6 - PR's are a good source of information, and mostly they can be considered credible.
  • 7 - Non-credible. Often times, Senators act on hearsay or half-truths (ie. Quar'an desecration debacle) and jump on a political bandwagon without verifying the information.
  • 8 - Non-credible. It is very hard to find any truth in editorials that isn't distorted to favor a view.
  • 9 - Reports from organizations (NSA, FBI, etc.) should be credible; memos from Senator's offices shouldn't.
  • 10 & 11 - Credible, as long as it is a report, and not just a delegate's unverified claims.
  • 12 - Depends on nature of article and previous edit history.
  • 13 - If the information can be verified, and if the source doesn't have a history of incorrect statements/unverified information.
  • 14 - To an extent. Quotes from politicians can be used, however mudslinging should be left out.
  • 15 - Same as PR's.
  • 16 - Same as #13.

That's how I feel about the above inquiries. Biased sources are allowed, as long as the bias isn't felt through to the WN article - but the information in that source must also be verified. --Mrmiscellanious 19:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Truly confused Our lead story at the moment is based on assertions by the Syrian News Agency and MrMiscellanious made the most recent edit leaving the headline to state as fact what that agency alledges; [279] does this mean that the Syrian News Agency is less biased than the NYTimes etc.?? Neutralizer 20:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutralizer, it doesn't matter what the bias of the source is. It matters if they get the story straight and is factual. NY Times has a history of skewing the truth or fabricating items in their publications. --Mrmiscellanious 20:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I almost though MrMiscellanious (sic) was being satirical. What is credible is what most people are inclined to take seriously. This would include 1,2,3,4,5,10,11 and 18, and at the highest level of credibility, peer-reviewed academic journals. 13 and 16 are often invaluable sources (look at e.g. the Riverbend blog) but definitely viewed with more suspicion. Press releases, 6, 14-17 are very largely promotional and I would regard as non-credible and often produced with BS companies or 'spin doctors', although they are unfortunately often reprinted wholesale into the mainstream media. However, PRs from a reputable source would be quoted, stating the source. Whether an 'opinion' is credible is an entirely different meaning of the word from whether a fact or source is credible. Obviously the mainstream media gets things wrong, and is also extremely selective in what it covers, but the point of a Wiki woukld be to remedy this using other sources which are credible. This basically just shows that is important to reference your sources, whatever they are. 195.248.116.49 10:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Human Rights Watch, Amnesty etc.

edit

Thanks for those useful thoughts Mr. M. That's exactly the kind of "fleshing out" I'd been hoping for. I'll have a think about those points - though actually I think I'm with you on much of what you've said. The only two things I might suggest at this point - Firstly, that we should maybe make a distinction between individual Senators and Senators-in-general. If a particular Senator has a track record of coming out with dubious assertions then she or he is obviously going to be a much less credible source than a senator who has, over time, built up a very good reputation. I'm not an expert on US politics but I'm hoping there are at least SOME Senators with good reputations?

Secondly, I also think we need to distinguish between good and bad NGOs. Some do their own primary research and some don't. AI and HRW do put out a lot of reports, and I've not read all of them (they tend to be quite long!), but I have read a fair number, and the ones I've read have seemed pretty credible (ie. based on something more than rumours and hearsay). I think that one of the most interesting reports, for the purposes of this discussion, is this study on the Democratic Republic of Congo, published by AI in 2001: http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engAFR620112001?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES/RWANDA. Much of the report was based on eyewitness testimonies gathered by AI researchers who travelled to the region, eg: "In October 2000, Amnesty International delegates met with a 28-year-old woman originally from Nyabiando village but now residing in the Masisi territory. She told Amnesty International delegates how, at around 9pm on 1 September 2000, RPA soldiers raped her and her 14-year-old daughter". AI also spoke to local and international staff from a range of organisations working in the region, including (I think) church and government representatives. Based on their investigation, they concluded that the Rwandan government (among other actors - AI also a criticised a number of anti-Rwandan rebel groups), whose forces were occupying the eastern DRC, was allowing its soldiers to attack civilians with impunity, and financing its occupation through the illegal extraction of the DRC's mineral resources. Although a UN report (published prior to the publication of AI's but after AI had done their research) had drawn related conclusions a couple of months earlier, they were still highly controversial conclusions, hotly contested by the Rwandan government, and AI was (I believe) accused of exaggeration, sensationalism etc. I think that AI was also attacked over the report by the then UK development minister (she certainly had an ongoing dispute with them at that time, believing that they were treating the Rwandan government unfairly), and that there was scepticism from other donor governments. Since the report came out, however, more and more evidence has emerged, from a range of sources, in support of its conclusions - and although (I think) the Rwandan government still denies the allegations, those denials are not widely believed any more. Certainly the UK government's position has shifted considerably. The conclusions AI was "sticking its neck out" on in 2001 have now widely been accepted. This, at least, is my perception.

AI reports tend to take the form of a detailed presentation of evidence followed by a conclusion and recommendations. In my experience, I've found that they've been quite careful about the evidence part of it - eg. backing it up with primary eyewitness testimony or reputable secondary sources. I've never seen an AI report based only on secondary sources. I'm aware of only one instance (the infamous Kuwaiti incubators story during the first Gulf War) where AI was alleged to have been completely hoodwinked by an eyewitness source. (I believe that the same source also hoodwinked most of the world media and a number of western governments!).

AI's conclusions are often controversial and disputed, but I'm aware of very few cases where they've been shown to be completely off the mark. The recommendations are perhaps most controversial of all, because they're essentially AI's view (based on an interpretation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the organisation's guiding document) on what SHOULD be done, rather than the simple facts of the case.

AI has made some fairly well-documented mistakes in the past but overall their track record has, in my view, been pretty good. Probably the criticism they're most vulnerable to is "selection bias" - ie. launching disproportionately more investigations on some countries than on others - but in my view there's less evidence of major bias or sloppiness within the investigations themselves. If you want a really vociferous view of AI, here's the place to go: http://student.cs.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/articles/article0004573.html. This is a critique from a guy who used to work for them. I've not read it all the way through, but it seems to be based largely on the "selection bias" criticism.

While some people feel that AI does too many reports on the USA and not enough on China (and others feel they should do more on Israel and less on Cuba), and many dispute AI's recommendations, I think that, within the reports, the facts tend to be well sourced and the conclusions, although often controversial, often get borne out over time.

As for HRW, I've actually found them to be marginally better than AI in the areas I've looked at (or at least their reports are more readable!). They have a pretty similar methodology, though I think they're better funded. I haven't read this one all the way through, but I think it gives a good representation of how HRW works: http://hrw.org/reports/2005/iraq1005/

This has been much longer than I expected - Please somebody disagree with me! rcameronw 20:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

16 - Personal blogs

edit
Starting with (I think) a relatively uncontroversial one. My view would be that personal blogs are rarely, if ever, reliable sources, UNLESS the story is, itself, about the blog in question. For example, I think there was a guy who wrote a blog under the name "Salaam Pax", which became so popular that he was offered a book deal. The fact that he got the book deal was widely reported. Many of the news articles quoted from his blog, to give an idea of what the book was going to be about. Obviously in that instance, given that the book was based on the blog, the blog was a reliable indicator of what the book was going to be about - and therefore, I would argue an appropriate source! My feeling would be that cases like this are, however, pretty rare... Rcameronw 19:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is way over the top as an offshoot of the dispute on Bush's "anti-torture" stance. I think Rcameronw needs to learn to find sources using his terms in order to justify them, and MrMiscellaneous may have overreacted as an article slipped away from NPOV. There is no need to bring into question sources, provided people use said sources with some understanding of their existing bias. Brianmc 20:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think a truly well balanced article has to be careful when using single-party sources such as press releases or personal blogs/op-eds. They should always be treated with a high level of skepticism and always backed up with other more "mainstream" sources. I think the "multiple-source" rule should be applied; if it can't be found and verified in multiple places it shouldn't be used. I also think that individual studies (be they peer review scientific papers or from HRW and AI) can be trusted, but should be open to opposing criticism. And critiques of said studies be placed beside them whenever possible. --Wolfrider 21:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale

edit
I can understand why you might feel that way - but my concern is that these arguments may keep coming back if we don't come with some general guidelines, and try to get the arguments-on-principle out of the way. The problem is that although we eventually managed to lay that particular story to rest, a number of basic questions of principle still haven't been resolved. This is an attempt to resolve, or begin to resolve, those questions.
Here's one example of what I mean: In the past I've written a number of stories focussing on Human Rights Watch reports (eg. this one: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/US_army_whistleblowers_allege_widespread_torture_of_Iraqi_detainees). But if there's a general consensus that such reports don't ever, for the purposes of this project, meet the standard required of a "credible source", then I'll obviously want to go about things differently in future.
What I want to avoid is a future situation where I've written a story based on a source I take to be valid, only to find that the story gets held up/generates a heated discussion because people are challenging, on principle, the validity of that source. If there are principled objections to particular kinds of sources, then I think it would be good to try and get them resolved in advance. Rcameronw 20:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think every one of these sources including blogs, can be valid sources as long as we keep in mind the bias of each source. We must use common sense in determining what sources to use. Fox News would not be a good source to use on many political stories, but would be perfectly acceptable on a technology story. Even the better news sources still have biases, BBC News is for the most part a balanced news source except when they cover the IRA and then a strong bias can be seen, so they would be a poor choice for stories about the IRA but fine for other things. The other time a “biased” source can be used is when the facts are confirmed by an acceptable unbiased source and the biased source just expands upon it. The important thing is a biased source should not be used as the sole source of a fact. If they are the only one presenting the fact, it should not be used or it need to be made very clear that this is not a confirmed fact. Blogs are very useful for two things presenting a “man on the street” quote and to assist in analysing exiting facts. --Cspurrier 20:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of interest, would you say that the BBC had a pro or anti-IRA bias? (I have to say I've not noticed it but then I'd readily admit to having an anti-IRA bias, so maybe I've missed something) Rcameronw
They have an anti-IRA bias --Cspurrier 21:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide solid evidence for that? I haven't seen any evidence that they take anything other than the British 'terrorist' group line, which they would also do for Islamic terrorist groups.
Suggestions of bias in a source are often in themselves biassed, except in the case of Fox :) ClareWhite 14:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's Fox News Channel (with its hyper sensationalized "op-ed" shows) that give it a bad name. I think the critique of Fox is an accurate one though. There are so many op-ed shows on FNC and they are so extreme (far more extreme than ANY other news outlet I've ever seen) and childish (frequently devolving into name calling) that it's best to steer clear. Although, there have been cases of Fox selecting the material they cover to appeal to a more Republican audience. I'm thinking along the lines of the "John Kerry Flip-Flops (as in the things you wear on your feet)" story they aired during the election. I remember watching that on standard Fox News (as I'm Canadian and at the time we didn't get FNC). There is a pretty overt conservative bias. Although the same can be said for the CBC which has a very liberal bias. CNN which has an overly pro-American bias. Etc. Etc. --Wolfrider 03:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I saw O'Reilly tear into a young guy whose dad was killed in Iraq because the kid was anti-Iraq war.....anyone who would do that on air to the son of an American hero because of his beliefs is a low-down worm...and the network that would air it is the mother-worm. Fox sucks and I'd love to get O'Reilly into the ring...damn chicken-hawk. Neutralizer 22:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You'd have to try shout it down O'Reilly face and pointing finger if you are serious about it Neutralizer. I saw O'Reilly and Phil Donahue go at over the Iraqi war prior to the Washington DC peace and anti-war marchs. The e-mail response to their match-up was in high spirits, and O'Reilly was in his glory. I'll put on FOX News when I have insominia 'cause it somehow soothes me (<-- gee, that's wierd). -Edbrown05 00:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, I know exactly what you mean; I like White House news briefings; they always make me smile and chuckle and get into a good mood; like the bugs bunny show did when I was a kid; that's kinda weird too I suppose:)Neutralizer 01:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, you have a problem with O'Reilly. That's alright; I think almost everyone disagrees with him on at least SOMETHING (I know I have on occasions). But why not boycott ABC as well? After all, he did his op-ed on there before. "The Situation Room" on CNN is much worse than any FOX show I can think of in terms of bias and finger-pointing. To be quite honest, I liked CNN better than FNC up until about three years ago; and despise watching it ever again after their "coverage" of Katrina efforts (or lack of, I don't see how individuals repeatedly bashing the same person politically has much to do with any relief efforts or helping others, and when the hosts join in it doesn't justify a neutral source). But, neither of them have gotten a story completely wrong, and both have a professional way of verifying information. Other than that, I could careless what bias they have as long as the information is correct. I've yet to see a consistent level of verification of facts from the New York Times; I suppose it all depends on who the journalist is. --Mrmiscellanious 00:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I cannot see what NYTimes get concistently wrong as opposed to other news media. There has been the widly pulicized case of Jason Blane who made up segments of his sports reporting. Judith Miller was touting unchecked (and incoorect) administration line on WMD in the runnup to the Irak war? For a list of factually wrong or just misleading news coverage of seveal american news media there is for example http://www.mediamatters.org. I can see no basis to the claim that NYTimes coverage is significantly more unreliable as other news outlets like FOX or CNN. Or for that matter governement documents, which can be quite wrong as in the various ones asserting the "existence" of WMD. Are people just making assertions on this page or do they have arguments to back up their claims?
I believe that there is no "rule" on what is credible and what is not. As always, one should try to find as many as possible independent sources, and carefully evaluate each one. For example, a statement by a senator could be quite biased. But if the statement is made by a senator on a piece of legislation introduced by the same senator that was overwhelmingly accepted in the senate, it seems that this should give reliable insight in the motivation and the intention of the legislation in question. If the general content of the senator's statement is confirmed by several other news outlets, it should be deemed credible unless there is good evidence to the contrary. WikiNews is not called WikiConspiracy after all.
The categorical negation of NYTimes as a credible source however is simply absurd. A story that is carried by several of the main news outlets should be considered as credible as long as there is no credible information to the contrary. This is the only way that WikiNews can run effectively. In fact, I consider blocking a story for such categorical reasons as vandalism.

--vonbergm 04:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • NYT stories are carried by many American newspapers, so to say that NYT can't be trusted casts doubt on the judgement of many a newspaper editor. A couple of hugely-publicized cases does not an untrustful source make. 21:07 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree in the most possible fashion. Wikinews is about getting FACTS out; not fabrications. The New York Times has gotten the facts wrong way too many times. I think it's only fair that they should be noted as "non-credible" due to their horrific publishing and research standards. As I said before, it's not an issue of what bias they have - it's a matter of if they can get the story right. --Mrmiscellanious 20:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
MrM, please read before responding. As you can see, I was talking about facts, not bias. I welcome you to disagree with what is written so that the discussion can move forward. If you feel that NYTimes gets the story wrong significantly more times than othe news outlets or government agencies, back up your claim by giving a more detailed argument. I started you off with listing two cases that I am aware of.--vonbergm 14:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 20

edit

Wikinews Project Licensure Poll is open!

edit

The oft-delayed Wikinews licensure poll is now open for voting. The poll is to get an idea of what type of licensure the Wikinews communities and the wider Wikimedia communities would like to have for Wikinews. The license question is not about Wikinews itself, but rather what license content reusers will be required to abide by.

There are many options, including several dual-licenses, and you may vote for all the options you think are desirable. Please try to keep comments on the talk page, to avoid the already-very-long page becoming even more difficult to navigate.

Please participate! - Amgine/talk 22:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

New linking policy

edit

With the recent events in articles, many users have been linking to copyrighted material, for which we don't have any permission to be linking to (even if it isn't hosted on our servers). I think, as a news organization, we shouldn't be linking to items such as this (unless it were in a respectable way, such as linking to an article on CNN.com that included a video link) - for a number of reasons.

  • A) We do not have permission from the copyright owners. As shown in the Sharman Networks letter to Google, under the DMCA even links are prohibited to copyrighted material without permission to be exhibited.
  • B) We cannot rely on most of the sources. Inappropriate content can easily be switched after a period of hours or days from a server not in our control (ie. a few days after hosting a recorded CNN clip, the link could point to an inappropriate video).
  • C) Linking to can be interpereted as an endorsement of quality from our site. Without a disclaimer, one could stumble upon a link that highly breaks our policies, and some can interperet that as a reflection of our policies.

--Mrmiscellanious 21:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting thought, MrM... How do our links to source material (in the {{source}} template) fit into this proposed policy? We're certainly linking to copyrighted material almost every time... I suppose each of those links might qualify as fair use? --Chiacomo (talk) 23:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, those would be fine - I'm more specific about pirated video and audio files, from copyrighted broadcasts, that have been making it into the articles. Linking to an article used as a source (as it is published on the copyright owners property and has full permission) is fully in compliance with this proposal (in addition, any media files that are found on their owners websites). In short, it would get rid of any lawsuits that are possible from the copyright holders (as shown in the link above, we ultimately can be sued for including links to pirated material under the DMCA, even if we are not hosting it). In addition, it also would get rid of any persons wishing to link from their personal servers to do bad later on (such as renaming files, as described above), or also those hotlinking to videos hosted by others. --Mrmiscellanious 00:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I need to add my own $0.02 on this issue. Deep links have repeatedly been supported by legal precedence in the USA (at least) and there is no need to get paranoid about linking to content. That is precisely the purpose of the world-wide web, and was the intention from the beginning. To confuse a technical issue (linking between different web pages) and a legal issue (extracting copyrighted material from somewhere else) is a total fiasco waiting to happen, and comes from people who are truly clueless about internet technology. If you don't want your copyrighted content linked, then you shouldn't have it on the internet. Period.

And if Wikinews gets sued under the DCMA, it will be the biggest lawsuit you could imagine, with more funding pouring into the Wikimedia Foundation than we could hope for. Indeed, Wikinews could only pray that some idiot tries to sue the Wikimedia Foundation over some stupid legal rule like this as it would cause so much promotion for the project that the person filing the lawsuit would have to settle out of negative P.R. alone. The E.F.F. and other organizations would also leap to defend Wikinews like there is no tomorrow over some stupid thing like that, especially if it is used just for citation references. You might even get the American Library Association and other more "respectable" organizations also coming to the defense of Wikinews. In short, I think we need to tell people to "bring it on".

On the other hand, linking to content that is itself a copyright violation is not really a proper citation. If you linking to some video content that comes from a pirated library, you are not really linking to the proper source of the material. The same goes even for textual content. If I find copyrighted material that has even been republished with permission (for example, Space.com often republishes with permission stuff from Florida Today), I try to dig up the original article instead. This would be the same as doing a citation for a term paper where you find a quote, and decide to dig up the original source of the quote instead of copying it from a 3rd party. This kind of 3rd party linking should be discouraged, and when the 3rd party obviously does not have copyright permission, we should not be encouraging copyright violations, in effect perpetuating those violations. Besides, the link is likely to go away very quickly...something that is not useful for our "readers" either. In short, we need to tighten our citations policy and in terms of news worthiness we need to keep citations strictly to bona-fide news sources. A CNN clip should correctly come from CNN.com itself (they have several that you can often link to directly). If the copyright owner hasn't published the content, we shouldn't take it from elsewhere. --Robert Horning 02:25, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We should not worry about being sued over deep linking and linking to copyrighted video. Video excerpts frequently come under fair use anyway, and the publisher is always free to remove the link if they object. Still, we should insist that links to copyrighted video are cited correctly, as it should be easy for a copyright holder to eliminate the link without damaging the citation. I'd say that they should include the title of the program and the day it aired. - Nyarlathotep 20:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Apologies for the stupid question. The local Indymedia site says of images and text on their site, "All material is free for non-profit reuse unless otherwise noted by the author." So this means we can't use their images, right? - Borofkin 08:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the images or text? I thought we were allowed to use images from sites like that if the image would follow our fair use policy. Bawolff 00:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

changing publish date

edit

i was wondering what the policy is for changing publishing dates. sometimes people make some small changes to a news story days later and apparently also update the publish date. is that the correct thing to do? because in my opinion it makes things look weird. some news belongs to a certain date, when something is changed the publish date shouldn't be changed so it appears as a new story. Boneyard 09:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, a story once published shouldn't have its publication date changed. If something is new, a new story should be started but otherwise additions to a story shouldn't include changing the publication date. If a story is sitting in develop for a few days then it is optional (I think) whether the publish date reflects the day it was mainly written or the day it is published. I think there's a policy page for it somewhere... ClareWhite 09:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, the publish date is just that -- the date something is published. If it sits in develop for several days, the date should be updated when it is published. There are some exceptions to the general rule in not changing the date of a published article, in my mind. A recent example might be the list of colleges accepting refugee students -- this article isn't really an article, but is rather a resource that is being updated and probably needs to have its publish date bumped up to maintain visibility... Just my 2 cents.. --Chiacomo (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New license for Wikinews

edit

The Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License was the most supported license in the recent poll.

Many of the options had very few voters. Of the options with more than 12 voters, the GFDL had only 21% support, and the Wikinews License 0.2 had 60% support (or 64% from Wikinewsies). Fewer people voted on the Wikinews License option than on the Creative Commons one, meaning 31 people in total supported CC-BY, compared to just 17 supporting WNL 2.0.

With over 87% support from Wikinewsies in the poll, and 82% support overall, CC-BY has now been agreed upon by the Wikimedia Foundation to be the new license for all existing and future versions of Wikinews. Any edits made previously remain public domain - it is only new edits that will need to be under this Creative Commons License.

The license can be read at creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ (that page links to other language versions of the license, and the full legal code).

Brion has changed the site settings, so the meta data of the wikis should state they are now CC-BY. However, manually created pages may need to be updated. MediaWiki namespace pages may need changing if they had been edited previously. Pages that might need changing include: MediaWiki:Copyright, MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning, MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning2, MediaWiki:Copyrightpage, and Project:Copyright.

Please advertise this message in the relevant places on this Wikinews so that all members of the community are aware of the change.

Thanks. Angela Beesley 22:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators retaining administrative powers after resigning from Wikinews

edit

I was hoping someone else would bring this up since its so obviously important to the integrity of the project. Amgine was placed on the administrator's list unilaterally by an anon yesterday or the day before. Amgine quit the site months ago with a very public exit and it seems he still retained his administrative powers(e.g. blocking power) all along. Is that acceptable to this community? Neutralizer 11:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry the anon was me, there was a bug yesterday with logging people out automatically and I did not notice I had been logged out. I readded him because he never should have had his name removed. As long as he has admin status in the database he should be on the admin list. Standred WikiMedia policy is admins once elected remain an admin unless they request the status to be removed or are voted out. Even users who chose to leave the project retain their adminship unless they request it be removed. --Cspurrier 11:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok; so are you are saying that any administrator may quit Wikinews in a huff, stop participating in the project, and continue to block contributors indefinitely? and also resume administrator status years after they had left? So its up to us to deadmin. such a person? Neutralizer 13:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Once an user is trusted enough to become an admin, they remain an admin. All admins are required to obey our blocking policy, so admins who have not been active are advised to check for changes. It matters little if the admin just chooses to "quit Wikinews in a huff" or just get busy and take some time off. They were trusted enough to be voted an admin, they remain an admin. A few projects will deadmin people after a year of inactivity; however Wikinews does not currently have the policy. --Cspurrier 17:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I think the whole thing stinks; that an admin. could have a talk page with silly chinese letters on it which is not even part of wikinews and is even accessible to editing by people who are blocked is insulting to the project imo. I think we should demand more of our admins.; however, I accept that most of the community doesn't care if the administrators are committed to the project while they are administrators; but I sure as hell don't understand it. Neutralizer 20:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are administrators at risk of developing the God complex?

edit

It's pretty annoying to see a few administrators use intimidations,[280]threats and personal attacks [281] on a frequent basis. Then,in addition, some place tags on articles and everyone else is afraid to remove them even when the consensus is clearly to do so.[282]. I have been blocked twice within the past week for no good reason...and both times the block was rescinded simply because it was wrongly applied in the first place[283][284].Are we becoming an oligopoly? Neutralizer 19:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutralizer I take issue with the statement that "everyone else is afraid to remove them even when the consensus is clearly to do so.[285]". I feel that consensus comes from giving people an opportunity to respoind to suggestions on the talk page. I understand you passion regarding publishing a story you might feel strongly about, but I also don't think it was unreasonable to give Amgine/talk some time to respond to everyone's desire to publish. I may be naive, but I'd like to think that giving him time to respond was impetus for not sending the article back to development. When he didn't respond within a couple of hours, the article was published, and Amgine/talk didn't go back and put it into development. I also don't see the harm in delaying publishing until we as a community can agree that the minority's view has been taken into account. I would rather wait a couple of hours or even a day and have Amgine/talk agree to the publishing than publish without regard for his opinion simply because he is in the minority view.--Herda05 15:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
see Proposal re; stopping blocking abuse. Neutralizer 00:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As a further advice on this section, Neutralizer, full url links should be in single square brackets, [], rather than double square brackets, [[]]. Makes it neater. - Amgine/talk 00:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Even better, just correct it as if it were a wiki 15:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Water_cooler/policy/Archive/8&oldid=467651"