Wikinews:Water cooler/proposals

Latest comment: 12 days ago by ArticCynda in topic Wikinews brand new logo

Page last updated: Monday 11 at 1321 UTC     

Refresh Refresh this page  


Submission to Wikimania 2023 edit


I'd like to make a submission to Wikimania 2023, about the 'Lbot' news writing software (link).

It will be for 30 minutes, type "Demonstration" ("In these sessions, the audience is given a live presentation or demonstration, such as technological innovation."),

Title: New draft writing with a chatbot demonstrated for Wikinews

Track: Technology

Language: English

Abstract: 'Lbot' is a chat bot, such as on the text-based IRC chat protocol, that guides you through the process of writing a new article. At Wikinews, the provided guidance includes collection of sources, evaluation of news freshness, and answering 5Ws in the first paragraph. The same software could be utilized for writing new articles at Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and other projects; perhaps packaged for Android; translated to other languages; and it could also be extended to include AI-based or other semi-automatic assistance with filling in new article categories and sources search.

Description: In this session, the process of using the Lbot chat bot will be shown to achieve completion of one new article at Wikinews, a sister of Wikipedia. At the end of the writing, the new article will be added to the wiki. Possible procedures for altering Lbot to make it suitable for other projects, or other languages will be shown so that interested volunteers can adopt it to their projects. Feedback venues will be shown so that the audience may write their feedback and send improvements to Lbot, and share their stories.

How does it relate to Diversity Collaboration Future: The demonstrated software will allow to include people who have common deficiencies such as

  • you do not have one complete 30 minute block for writing a new draft for a Wikimedia project
  • you do not have time to read the project rules and policies before writing your first draft, or find the project rules confusing
  • you prefer chatting with a real person over creating a draft with a new draft wizard

Hopefully, this will helps make contributors from diverse backgrounds more comfortable with creating a new draft. Also, at a communication platform, it will be easier for participants to collaborate during the process of draft writing, as helpers will be able to talk in the chat and suggest improvements to the written text.

Experience in public speaking: Off-wiki experience presenting technical content and running a tutorial for a small class with about 30 participants in person or up to 6 participants online.

Format: Either hybrid; online live streamed and audience can interact with presenter in real time; or pre-recorded and the audience can not interact with presenter in real time. I chose the last option as I don't know whether I will be available to do this myself in live mode at the right day at the right time.

I will need to submit it before the 28th of March. Please let me know if you have any thoughts about the text above or the whole idea of showing Lbot to the wider audience.

Would you like to be a Co-Speaker? Would you like to suggest improvements to the above? Please let me know :-)

Regards, -- Gryllida (talk) 04:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relevant link: Gryllida (talk) 04:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gryllida: Looks good! I'm glad we'll be represented this year. Heavy Water (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Submitted. Gryllida (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Gryllida (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know this reply is late as the entry is already submitted, but I would have included more in the How does it relate to Diversity Collaboration Future. For example it could be invaluable to non-native speakers of English (well, here, but similarly to whichever language edition of Wikinews). Cheers, SVTCobra 07:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WN:TIME edit

The style guide's time section explicitly says to use the a.m./p.m. format when writing 12-hour times. Yet, it is now standard convention here to use the AM/PM format. I was, in fact, corrected for using the a.m./p.m. format as I had read in WN:TIME. I figure this was something that we strayed from policy on in recent years. So, should WN:TIME be amended to reflect the current conventions? Heavy Water (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments edit

This conversation has been marked for the community's attention. Please remove the {{flag}} when the discussion is complete or no longer important.

Flagging as it's been a month with no comments or votes. Heavy Water (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Votes edit

  •   Support --JJLiu112 (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   SupportJustin (koavf)TCM 19:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   SupportMichael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 14:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Supportchaetodipus (talk · contribs) 07:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Pecopteris (talk) 23:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose: On consideration, personally I would prefer we maintain the a.m./p.m. format — I proposed this not because I personally supported it, but to seek consensus on whether the guideline enumerated in WN:TIME should remain, as it has appeared to me current convention is against that guideline. WN:TIME, since January 2005 (apparently its entire existence), has required a.m./p.m. Maintaining that would keep articles in the deep archives where users did follow the style guide in compliance with it. Heavy Water (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Comment I could be wrong, but I think "a.m./p.m." is likely used in that variant of English (like US, CAN) which uses periods to separate letters in an abbreviation. (Even though "a.m."/"p.m." are themselves are acronyms.) I have never liked "a.m./p.m." and always liked "AM/PM", for my article will not have unnecessary periods, and every time Pi zero would review my articles, I never liked when "AM/PM" was moved to "a.m./p.m." as it went against the style of the whole article. So, I would say, keep both, so the flow of the article looks consistent. (I'm not logged in yet, but even if I was, I don't know if I should put support/oppose.)
    2401:4900:1F29:679A:5DF8:3314:62E:A4D0 (talk) 05:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Question Is there a reason why it wouldn't work if both styles are allowed, so long as the article is self-consistent? I know that several other wikis tend to be somewhat permissive when it comes to the choices made for an individual article, so long as the article's application of the style choices are consistent. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I can't see why that wouldn't work (as Ac said); it's the treatment given to certain other style choices — notably, national variety of English. (I personally use AM/PM outside en.wn.) Heavy Water (talk) 06:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I just think of how I would expect most news outlets to work and they would have a single in-house style. You wouldn't expect to see The New York Times have varying ways of writing times across different articles wily-nily. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, I wish propose a new logo for Wikinews, more modern, more respecting the graphical charter of WM. Here's the images :


. I removed the continents to leave only the meridians and parallels. Regards, Manjiro5 (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know what the "graphical charter" of Wikimedia is, but I like the current logo better. It's old, but it doesn't look dated to me, and I like having the continents there. Also, I don't know if changing the logo would take consensus from all Wikinews editions (and the WMF might wish to meddle). Heavy Water (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Heavy Water Hi, thank you for your answer ;-) I have already made the proposal here and on wnfr. And I will offer other languages ​​on Wikinews later. I could perhaps make a Meta page for this proposal, so that all Wikinews journalists and readers of all languages ​​can give their opinion, without me having to use a translate tool. Have a nice day. Regards, Manjiro5 (talk) 08:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My two cents: I like your proposed new logo more than the current logo. I would support such a change were it ever to come to a vote. Pecopteris (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pecopteris Hi, thank you very much for your answer ^^ I will potentially create a Meta-wiki page where it will be possible to vote for a brand new logo. Have a good day ;-) Regards, Manjiro5 (talk) 09:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I really don't like the trend of flattening the logo, which many brands seem to do. I like this logo more and I feel this new proposed logo removes the rich character the current logo has and I don't even see why it would be necessary.
2401:4900:1F29:679A:5DF8:3314:62E:A4D0 (talk) 05:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, if you would like to give your opinion on my proposal, please go to the following page: meta:Requests for comment/Change the logo of the Wikinews project Cordially, Manjiro5 (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Manjiro5: It seems that the emerging consensus is that your proposed logo alternative lacks a bit of sophistication, for lack of better wording. The current logo has more colour, more details, and universally recognisable elements in it. Your proposal reminds of what computer program icons looked like 30 years ago when graphics cards only supported 8-bit colours, and I think with modern hardware and software, we can (and should) do better than that. ArticCynda (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]