Wikinews:Water cooler/policy/archives/2017/March

Existing policies and guidelines

There are so many rules here, yet I wonder whether common sense triumphs any of them. Wikinews:Conflict of interest is a policy, but Wikipedia's own COI is a guideline. Wikinews:Avoid weasel words is policy, but w:WP:Avoid weasel words redirects to a MOS subpage guideline. Due to very low activity in Wikinews, I wonder whether the wide consensus can follow the rules anymore. If a policy can't be downgraded to guideline, what to do with that policy? --George Ho (talk) 03:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to Wikipedia, there aren't many rules here. The rules we have are important. You're thinking Wikipedia-style, even about the choice of rules. Wikinews is not Wikipedia. (Small example: you appear to have badly underestimated the contrast between WN:COI and WP:COI.) --Pi zero (talk) 04:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison to Wikipedia resolved (if not aside), what about the consensus issue? You're right, amount of rules here is minimal, thankfully. And the rules are very important. However, how do rules reflect the current "consensus" when the participation and administration activity are still minimal? Why not merging a few or several rules into one? For example, what about WN:Copyright and WN:Fair use? They can be combined; "fair use" is more of an American term, so "fair use" can be merged into "Copyright". --George Ho (talk) 07:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're trying to believe a problem into existence where there isn't one.

There is, for one example, no merit in combining copyright and fair use into one, as there's no redundancy between them; I see nothing that can be dispensed with, either, and the very fact that the copyright page is much shorter is an asset to both pages.

(Consensus here, btw, on deep policy isn't a flash-in-the-pan thing; long-term consensus matters a lot, and there's also the matter of expertise — en.wn is actually a meritocracy (for good reason; it's essential to both what we do and how we do it, which of course are intertwined). Various of those meritocratic principles were established way back, while others were established way way back, which also correlates with the folks who are most experienced here being most well-connected with the underlying pulse of the deep policies/principles of the place.) --Pi zero (talk) 07:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... does "long-term consensus" exist right now in Wikinews anymore? How long will "long-term consensus" last? --George Ho (talk) 08:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC); edited. 09:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
<sigh> For fundamental policies like COI and such?? You're proposing to mess with basic stuff you don't really seem to understand nearly well enough to be proposing to mess with it. --Pi zero (talk) 14:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All right... The rules remain as they are. I didn't mean to imply to merge COI into another rule. In fact, I do understand the basic rules, but I'll treat rules individually with value from now on. --George Ho (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: This illustrates one of the ways that Wikinews is different from virtually all of the other WMF projects (except possibly Commons): things need to be more-or-less ready to be acceptable. Whereas I could start an article on Wikipedia or a book on Wikibooks and work on it for awhile, then others could come along to flesh it out, and that would all be a part of the process, the turn-around on Wikinews has to be quick. The facts on Abraham Lincoln aren't going to change very much, so we have all the time in the world to write a bio of him but news isn't news if it's old. Of course, we can collaborate on news here--that is part of the function--but you need to come to the table with something that is pretty high-quality from the outset. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews susceptible to "fake news"?

Someone at w:Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 132#Time for a fake news policy? says that Wikinews "is very vulnerable to fake news." How do you respond to that? --George Ho (talk) 07:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cenarium: Can you offer your perspective here? —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re-pinging Cenarium just in case. --George Ho (talk) 08:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe opinions of the editors like Nabla should not be even considered. The editor said that xhe has not idea (actually using the word "shit") about wikinews. When they are not aware about the sister projects, their goals, and requirements (as well as the functionality), they have no right to comment. Evidently, the editor lacks the knowledge of basic definition of news, encyclopedia, and the role of Wikipedia. And these are the people who vote for closing Wikinews, with the knowledge, less than a pebble. As far as Wikinews is concerned with dealing fake news, I would not be commenting shit if my project was under constant threat of vandalism, misleading the readers, not providing a checked revision option.
acagastya 08:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ping Nabla about this. --George Ho (talk) 09:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pointless. Seriously, our project values time. Don't write about an event for two days, it is okay, for Wikipedia. You can write it the third day. They don't have to worry about freshness, that is why it is an encyclopedia. Currently, there are four articles to be reviewed, we can't skip them to explain someone what is three sun is this project. And about fake news: if Wikipedia can't find a way to stop vandalism, which often results in trolls and memes on the internet, the editors should not be commenting wikinews and fake news, because wikinews does not work like Wikipedia. Do not go by the name wiki. There is a 'wiki' and there is a 'news'. It is not advisable to forget it is a news website just because wiki is attached to its name.
acagastya 12:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Photo credit centralization

I'm working on another photostory, and since the slideshow option is giving me heck, I'm using the gallery option. But for "Image: Nicholas Moreau" to show up under every image, it looks like I'm completely self-centred. Can we just have a single notice in the intro, saying "Wikinews reporter Nicholas Moreau was accredited for the event, taking photos of the displays and cosplayers in attendance."

Would anyone object to this? -- Zanimum (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]