Wikinews talk:Reference desk

Deletions of useful research resources

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I just had to re-add a lot of resources, most of which were deleted by one user (Dan100) (in a single session, with a very small annotation). Many were also removed by subsequent users (MrMiscellanious being notable).

Please never ever ever remove a resource from this list if it is conceivably useable by people in finding new stories or in researching stories. Many of these resources are very hard to find in the first place.

You know I am not talking about vandalism and commercial spam. You know I am not talking about items posted by people who have never used Wikinews before and never post again, and who clearly misunderstand what the list is etc.

I am talking about removing the foundation of what we do here, finding and writing about news. Do not ever undermine this.

If you think a resource has a bias or needs some annotation, make some annotation. If it's mis-filed, re-file it. File it twice. Make a list of biased resources. Make a list of untrustworthy resources. Do whatever it takes to get the bee out of your bonnet, but do not delete it.

This discussion page hasn't been used in a year, and yet Dan100 deleted about half of the items I have even added here, many useful, and oddly enough, 90% of those removed being 'left-wing' or undermining of the current system of media control. Not that all the sources I added were this sort. Comprende? Dan100, comprende? -- Simeon 15:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Suggest we think about compiling sources etc. useful to an editor.

Should we import lists from Wikipedia? w:List_of_newspapers Should we just refer to an open directory like ODP?[1] --119 21:51, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree on the sources. I don't think importing the list would be a bad thing- why not do it? Lyellin 07:39, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yahoo

I found this at the Yahoo RSS feeds index:

"What are the terms of use? The feeds are provided free of charge for use by individuals and non-profit organizations for personal, non-commercial uses. We ask that you provide attribution to Yahoo! News in connection with your use of the feeds.

If you provide this attribution in text, please use: "Yahoo! News." If you provide this attribution with a graphic, please use the Yahoo! News logo that we have included in the feed itself.

We reserve all rights in and to the Yahoo! News logo, and your right to use the Yahoo! News logo is limited to providing attribution in connection with these RSS feeds.

We are also including the provider of each individual news story in the feed alongside each headline. Please do not alter this for display. We want our news partners to be attributed for their work.

Yahoo! News also reserves the right to require you to cease distributing these feeds at any time for any reason."

So that would mean we can use Yahoo news, providing we give attribution. Is that right? -- Redge|(Talk) 18:22, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think we should avoid using Yahoo! News when possible because their links die after only a few days. You can verify this by clicking on the Yahoo! News links at Rumsfeld to remain in Bush administration and Rice new Secretary of State. — Jeandré du Toit, 2005-04-03t10:11z

Registration required to read linked articles.

I think we should avoid these sources when possible, e.g.: the NYT and SMH. — Jeandré du Toit, 2005-04-03t10:11z

I'm not sure about SMH, but registration for the NYT is free. What's the big deal? You can use Bugmenot if you feel it's an invasion of your privacy to register. The NYT is too important of a news outlet for us to ignore its stories. If NYT ever requires paid registration, then you'll have a stronger case to avoid them. — DV 10:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree we shouldn't ignore them; "avoid [...] when possible" was maybe the wong way to describe it (tho the right way for Yahoo! News which disappears their articles, and makes it difficult to find replacements later, see the above section). How about trying to find the same info in a normal source, and placing that link above those of the hassle links? — Jeandré du Toit, 2005-04-03t10:39z

Due to the troubles the NYT has had from time to time, I agree that they should not be the only source for a news article. I always try to have multiple sources. But the NYT has a large staff of reporters and often breaks a story which is simply reprinted in other news outlets with a credit to the NYT, so it's a good idea to link to the original NYT piece in those cases, in case the secondary reprint link goes bad later on.

To help the reader navigate sources for timeliness and relevance, it also helps to order sources from newest to oldest. If the NYT has the newest story, then it's helpful for that citation to appear first in the Sources section.

This doesn't come up all that often, so it's not a big deal. I appreciate your sentiment of being annoyed by stories with registration links. — DV 11:07, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A better system for this

Ideally, we need a db structure to maintin this info.

It is gonna get really big in scope, if not in actual number of real entries, quite soon, if we want stuff to be findable. Eg we need sections for background info, as well as news event sources, and both of those need to be searchable by both topic and location. This can be done using flat text, but it's a lot of work as it scales up. Lots and lots of work, and really hard to do once there are a lot of entries.

So, it would be nice if we had a db, with three metadata tag fields for each resource (resource name as key): news/background, topic, location. Should be able to have multiple tags of each type.

Anyone see any other necessities for it? If noone else can implement it, and we can't convince find some way to do this with the wiki db engine, then I volunteer to set up a mysql table and cgi or something to store the stuff.

- Simeon 22:43, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC) - updated Simeon 07:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK I have started! And it works, and will be able to be queried using DynamicPageList thanks to IlyaHaykinson!

The top of the tree is at Category:Sources.

Each source gets a page of its own, with Source: as prefix to the name please, eg Source:Reuters

Requries an understanding of how Categories work — that you put tags on the thing to be categorised, rather than manually listing that thing in multiple category pages. The category pages automatically pick up any article which has the associated tag.

Look at the code behind Source:Reuters or any other one, and use it as a template to make new source pages. First make sure you don't duplicate an existing one, look in Category:Sources/All sources.

Also make sure you tag all of them with Category:Sources/All sources !

When copying an existing page as a template, make sure you modify the |sort-order-parameter parts of each category tag. This is not intuitive, and fiddly (try using search-replace of a text editor) ... but it's necessary to make all the entries sort in the category listings, not all come under 'S' for Source:... .

you would want to change |Reuters to match instead whatever the full name of the source is.

Regarding duplicate entries, if you think they are needed so that people can find a source under more than one name, eg maybe under it's full name and its acronym, prefer to document the source under the most commonly-used name, then add #REDIRECT pages for the alternative name articles.

Todo

move some stuff

move all Category:Sources/Topic/<Countryname> => Category:Sources/Topic/World/Countries/<Countryname>

move all Category:Sources/Topic/<WorldRegionName> => Category:Sources/Topic/World/<WorldRegionName>

or should it be Category:Sources/Topic/Location/World/Countries/

something to ponder for a while while making coffee, and before starting a migration.

Amgine has suggested in irc that Topic/World/ would last at least until faster-than-light travel.

<aside> I think it should be ok beyond as well, since Sources:blah for each world can be on the relevent wikinews server for that world, hence mars.wikinews.org/wiki/Category:Sources/Topic/World/... will store sources relevent to that world, and users from earth will grep for leads there, if researching a story on Mars. ehem. Simeon 07:38, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

make a lot of things sort properly using |sort key syntax

add a lot more topics, locations, a few more media, and of course many many sources

Any other suggestions? WorldRegions seems a bit naff .. any better word for this? 'Regions' by itself could be confused with provinces, suburbs, etc. MajorRegions is also naff and has 'rR' which is hard to pronounce. GlobalRegions is longer than WorldRegions. WorldRegions looks a bit too much like WorldReligions.

Simeon 19:20, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) & Simeon 19:47, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) & Simeon 07:07, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Further development of category tree

Here is a set of categories - not fully fleshed out - that I've developed from the above experiment, plus a look through our entire category tree for articles.

Before you read it, recall that the idea is not to have a category for each specific case, but to have categories that are used to query using AND, that can isolate a small enough bunch of sources for the specific case you are after, then you can manually examine them to find good ones for your case.

The tree is therefore, not meant to take care of this by itself, the tree really is to keep the list of categories navigable. Readers may sometimes browse it looking for sources, but it shouldn't be expected to cover every case without using the AND query.

So for example, a source may be tagged with 'Disaters and accidents' as well as 'Nature/Earthquake'. This means we don't need to duplicate the 'Nature/Earthquake' category under 'Disasters and accidents' .. or looked at another way, if we wish to duplicate it, we simply use a #REDIRECT.

Here is the list I am thinking about. Any suggestions welcomed. I would like if possible to eliminate the 'Blah and blah' categories, following from the process described above. But usually there is no single word for the concept, and we have these categories already in the article categories. :?

And remember these are tags for keeping track of a bunch of resources for people to use in researching an article. Not for articles themselves. To make a (better) database of resources for our authors to use.

Category:Sources/Topic/Crime and law/Crime gang
Category:Sources/Topic/Crime and law/Legislation
Category:Sources/Topic/Crime and law/Intellectual Property/Copyright
Category:Sources/Topic/Crime and law/Intellectual Property/Patent
Category:Sources/Topic/Crime and law/Corruption and nepotism
Category:Sources/Topic/Crime and law/Prison
Category:Sources/Topic/Crime and law/Whitecollar crime

Category:Sources/Topic/Culture and entertainment/Theatre
Category:Sources/Topic/Culture and entertainment/Ballet
Category:Sources/Topic/Culture and entertainment/Book
Category:Sources/Topic/Culture and entertainment/Film
Category:Sources/Topic/Culture and entertainment/Humour
Category:Sources/Topic/Culture and entertainment/Installation
Category:Sources/Topic/Culture and entertainment/Painting
Category:Sources/Topic/Culture and entertainment/Persons/Obituary
Category:Sources/Topic/Culture and entertainment/Poetry
Category:Sources/Topic/Culture and entertainment/Sculpture
Category:Sources/Topic/Culture and entertainment/Television
Category:Sources/Topic/Culture and entertainment/Wackynews

Category:Sources/Topic/Disasters and accidents

Category:Sources/Topic/Economy and business/Daylight saving time
Category:Sources/Topic/Economy and business/Company/Microsoft
Category:Sources/Topic/Economy and business/Product recalls

Category:Sources/Topic/Education

Category:Sources/Topic/Food/Preparation/Chefs

Category:Sources/Topic/Health/Acupuncture
Category:Sources/Topic/Health/Chinese medicine
Category:Sources/Topic/Health/Complimentary medicine
Category:Sources/Topic/Health/Disease
Category:Sources/Topic/Health/Fitness/Yoga
Category:Sources/Topic/Health/Western/Drugs
Category:Sources/Topic/Health/Western/Surgery

Category:Sources/Topic/History/

Category:Sources/Topic/Human rights/Free speech

Category:Sources/Topic/Location/Alliance/ANZUS
Category:Sources/Topic/Location/Alliance/ANZAC
Category:Sources/Topic/Location/Alliance/ASEAN
Category:Sources/Topic/Location/Alliance/Commonwealth
Category:Sources/Topic/Location/Alliance/European Union
Category:Sources/Topic/Location/Alliance/NAFTA
Category:Sources/Topic/Location/Alliance/NATO
Category:Sources/Topic/Location/Alliance/United Nations

Category:Sources/Topic/Location/Space

Category:Sources/Topic/Location/Country/France
Category:Sources/Topic/Location/Country/United States

Category:Sources/Topic/Location/Global

Category:Sources/Topic/Location/Africa
Category:Sources/Topic/Location/Asia
Category:Sources/Topic/Location/Australasia
Category:Sources/Topic/Location/Europe
Category:Sources/Topic/Location/Middle East
Category:Sources/Topic/Location/North America
Category:Sources/Topic/Location/Oceania
Category:Sources/Topic/Location/South America

Category:Sources/Topic/Nature/Preservation
Category:Sources/Topic/Nature/Earthquake
Category:Sources/Topic/Nature/Volcano
Category:Sources/Topic/Nature/Weather

Category:Sources/Topic/Politics and conflicts/Defence
Category:Sources/Topic/Politics and conflicts/Diplomacy
Category:Sources/Topic/Politics and conflicts/Election
Category:Sources/Topic/Politics and conflicts/Government/Civil service
Category:Sources/Topic/Politics and conflicts/Immigration
Category:Sources/Topic/Politics and conflicts/International aid
Category:Sources/Topic/Politics and conflicts/NGO
Category:Sources/Topic/Politics and conflicts/Wars/Civil
Category:Sources/Topic/Politics and conflicts/Policital movement
Category:Sources/Topic/Politics and conflicts/Protest
Category:Sources/Topic/Politics and conflicts/Social welfare

Category:Sources/Topic/Religion and spirituality/Christianity

Category:Sources/Topic/Science and technology/Astronomy/Observatory
Category:Sources/Topic/Science and technology/Biotechnology
Category:Sources/Topic/Science and technology/Computer
Category:Sources/Topic/Science and technology/Cryptozoology
Category:Sources/Topic/Science and technology/Environment
Category:Sources/Topic/Science and technology/Internet/Spam
Category:Sources/Topic/Science and technology/Internet/Peer to peer
Category:Sources/Topic/Science and technology/Internet/Wiki
Category:Sources/Topic/Science and technology/Social/Media
Category:Sources/Topic/Science and technology/Social/Behaviour

Category:Sources/Topic/Sport/Athletics
Category:Sources/Topic/Sport/Boxing
Category:Sources/Topic/Sport/Chess
Category:Sources/Topic/Sport/Cycling
Category:Sources/Topic/Sport/Football/American
Category:Sources/Topic/Sport/Football/Australian Rules
Category:Sources/Topic/Sport/Football/Canadian
Category:Sources/Topic/Sport/Football/Rugby Union
Category:Sources/Topic/Sport/Football/Rugby League
Category:Sources/Topic/Sport/Football/Soccer
Category:Sources/Topic/Sport/Golf
Category:Sources/Topic/Sport/Ice Hockey
Category:Sources/Topic/Sport/Judo
Category:Sources/Topic/Sport/Sailing
Category:Sources/Topic/Sport/Swimming

Add topic