> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 08:39:31 -0500
> From: "Chip Berlet" <c.berlet(a)publiceye.org>
> Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Re: Press badges
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <477C2A7D4CCE994B8CF296DA69A31D3D39BDE1(a)server.publiceye.local>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> Wikinews, however, is a form of alternative media, and should fee free to
> issue press credentials to members of the Wikinews community who have a
> track record of regular and substantive contributions, and a willingness
> to recognize that they are carrying the reputation of Wikinews with them;
> and thus should behave in appropriate ways given local country/city media
> standards--even if they disagree with those standards.
I can't agree. If wikinews really is a form of "alternative media", then how
is wikinews any different than various alternative media with a clear
leftist, rightist, libertarian, conservative, populist, etc., etc., slant?
Just because we say we don't have a bias? Fox News says they don't have a
bias, either. And look at them.
And then we are taking money from people for Wikimedia, under the guise that
we are using to present a neutral relaying of information. If this is okay
for us, again, Fox News or the New York Post could just as well do the exact
same thing. But people who pay money to watch Fox News or the New York Post
*know* it's biased.
darin
This proposal has a lot of merit, and gets us out of a tricky situation.
-Cberlet
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Fastfission
> Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 4:41 PM
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Category:Soviet spies
>
>
> My recommendation: [[Category:Alleged Soviet spies]] (serious
> allegations only, thankyouverymuch), and [[Category:Convicted
> Soviet spies]]. In both cases we avoid having to make a value
> judgment as to the truth of said espionage accusation by
> making it into a category bestowed by other people. (That is,
> whether the Rosenbergs were Soviet spies is still disputed by
> some, but none would dispute that they were convicted as such).
>
> FF
>
> On 11/7/05, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > I suggest you bring this up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CFD
> >
> > I agree that the change needs to be made. Perhaps there can be a
> > second category for confirmed Soviet spies.
> >
> > Sam
> >
> > On 11/7/05, Chip Berlet <c.berlet(a)publiceye.org> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > The Wikipedia entry "Category:Soviet spies" is a magnet for a
> > > defamation lawsuit. Many of the people in the list were never
> > > indicted, and some denied the charge in public. At least
> one person
> > > is still alive: "Harry Magdoff".
> > >
> > > At best, this should be renamed to something like:
> "Category:Accused
> > > Soviet spies" .
> > >
> > > I freely confess I have a vested interest in this matter,
> currently
> > > well into the second month of mdiation with Nobs01on a related
> > > matter without a single compromise paragraph having been written:
> > >
> > >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Cberle
> > > t_and_Nobs01/Workshop
> > >
> > >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Cberle
> > > t_and_Nobs01
> > >
> > >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Cberle
> > > t_and_Nobs01/A3
> > >
> > > But since this mediation seems to be dragging on for months, I
> > > though that I would mention this now, rather than wait for the
> > > mediation to hit the year 2006.
> > >
> > > Some folks here on this list should consider the possible
> defmation
> > > issue very seriously. I messed up my first attempt to
> deal with this
> > > on Wiki. I meant to suggest a name change or deletion, but
> > > misunderstood the process.
> > >
> > > I have prevailed after being sued for defamation twice,
> but it cost
> > > tens of thousands of dollars just to get a judge to toss
> me out of
> > > the case.
> > >
> > > Cberlet
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 15:57:54 +0000
> From: geni <geniice(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Totally unscientific investigation...
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <f80608430511080757x303f0d80wd05f8d2c08df682(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> I don't think it is safe to use the word consensus anywhere near the
> encopedist/pro-content disspute (formaly know as the
> deletionist/inclusionist disspute we can't solve it but we can darn
> well rename it).
The issue at hand was *not* deletionism vs. inclusionism. It was
transparency and accessibility vs. opaqueness and inaccessibility.
darin
> ...regarding the quality of our work:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kosebamse/Twenty-random-pages_test
>
> Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Kosebamse
I would not call 20 random pages "unscientific", even if your evaluations are necessarily subjective.
I have formatted your user subpage into a table, for easier viewing and consolidated your results:
7 bad:
2 fancruft,
1 not of encyclopedic standard,
1 list of marginal interest,
1 needs work,
2 non-articles
8 stubs:
3 salvageable,
4 average / acceptable,
1 decent
5 good:
3 decent or fine,
2 acceptable / "short but informative"
Based on this, I give Wikipedia a score of 25% - a failing grade.
But all is not lost. If we mark articles as bad or stub, we could keep them somewhat hidden from the public.
Volunteer contributors could see them, of course, by "opting in". Everyone else (call them "general readers") would be told that we don't have an article on the subject yet BUT that we are working on it.
"And would you like to see the work in progress?"
Ed Poor
Quality Maven
geni wrote:
>On 11/8/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Apparantly Wikipedia is a democracy where all problems can be solved by
>> voting.
>You have to admit it is an effective way of figureing out who you oponents are.
This is a good example of how the present AFD structure, for example,
blatantly encourages assumption of bad faith. Should be added to
"Voting is evil".
- d.
Hi,
As a former board member of the Underground Press Syndicate in the U.S. I certainly agree that Wiki could issue press credentials, but it is a bit more complicated. We used to issue our own press cards to member journalists.
In the U.S., press credentials that allow access to situations controlled by police, fire, and other government agencies are photo ID's issued by a state agency, even though journalists are not licensed.
Self-generated press credentials can (and have) been abused by people just trying to get into concerts and other entertainment venues, so many venues only accept the state-issued credentials, or credentials from media outlets they recognize as major.
Covering breaking news with a press credential is, by definition, original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia, and thus I am not sure that Wikipedia should be issuing press credentials. That would seem to be done more appropriately by alternative media on the political left, center, and right; then published in print or online, and then brought onto Wikipedia as a published report.
Wikinews, however, is a form of alternative media, and should fee free to issue press credentials to members of the Wikinews community who have a track record of regular and substantive contributions, and a willingness to recognize that they are carrying the reputation of Wikinews with them; and thus should behave in appropriate ways given local country/city media standards--even if they disagree with those standards.
Also, in some circumstances and some states/countries, issuing press credentials entails certifying someone as an agent, and may create an issue of liability in terms of defamation or other legal issue.
Cberlet
(aka Chip Berlet)
________________________________
From: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org on behalf of Peter Mackay
Sent: Fri 11/4/2005 6:27 PM
To: 'English Wikipedia'
Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Re: Press badges
> From: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of steve v
>
> --- Nathan Reed <nathanreed(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > We've had this discussion quite a bit on Wikinews -- accreditation
> > does you little good unless a press pass is also issued by whatever
> > event/organization/governmental agency you wish to cover. Some have
> > discussed a meta press corps -- would the bar be higher
> there than on
> > Wikinews? Our concept of an accredited wikinewsie is still citizen
> > journalist. This is a radical concept, of course, and I'm
> not sure the
> > world is ready to deal with it.
> > -N.
>
> A news organization, by definition, is an organized
> newsgathering entity with some degree of accountability.
> Press passes offer people some degree of authority and
> access, and likewise suggest that individuals have
> demonstrated professional credentials.
>
> Just throwing this out there: I dont see how any
> anti-credentialist organization can be in the business of
> giving out credentials.
In the same wiki-way that everything else works here. The community decides
who, based on their contributions, is able to present a professional face to
the real world and a useful contribution to Wikipedia/WikiNews. I use
"professional" here in the sense of "adhering to industry standards", rather
than "being paid for".
I don't know how it is in other countries, but in Australia journalists
aren't licensed. Anyone can be a journalist. Freelancers are common.
As noted previously, Wikipedia is gaining a certain measure of respect and
exposure in the general community. We don't need to sell our encyclopaedic
credentials, just our audience. Nobody considers tabloid newspapers to hold
to high standards of journalistic integrity, but they command wide
readerships, and their journalists find little difficulty in gaining access
to events. All we really need do is say "Google such-and such a subject" and
Wikipedia is generally in the first ten entries, so we've got that sort of
leverage to use with people who are after media exposure.
And realistically, it's a win-win situation. We get information and (most
importantly) free-use photographs, and the organisation or event gets web
exposure that they just can't buy.
Peter (Skyring)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Timwi wrote:
>Even shorter:
> Your [[IP address]] will be logged when you submit. If you are
> not [[Special:Userlogin|logged in]], it will be shown publicly.
> See [[Wikipedia:Privacy policy|privacy policy]].
"SUBMIT! SUBMIT TO WIKIPEDIA!" heh :-)
The use of "logged" in two different ways is (apparently) very bad. How about:
Your [[IP address]] is recorded when you edit. If you are not
[[Special:Userlogin|logged in]], it will be shown publicly. See
[[Wikipedia:Privacy policy|privacy policy]].
Can anyone go even shorter and not lose important info?
- d.
Alphax wrote:
> What? Since when are people *paying* for Wikimedia content???
>
> Where is the comparison here?
Wikimedia accepts donations, if not for the people doing the groundwork,
then to run the servers and the administrative costs. Part of the agreement
(as I understand) with regard to the donations is that it is going to
support endeavors with a NPOV policy. Of course, people aren't paying
directly, but I think it would be disingenuous to solicit donations, even
for running costs (and these costs are growing day by day) under the guise
of NPOV and then adopt first-person reporting equivalent to other media.
But the issue of whether someone is paying or not is moot, I think.
First-person reporting (beyond photography, which BTW seems perfectly
acceptable to me) just seems incongruent with the aims of the project. If it
would be okay to introduce POV via first-person reporting into wikinews
simply because "no on is paying for it", what's the problem with allowing
POV in wikipedia? I don't see how money has any bearing on it.
Again, I did not know that the original intent was simply to get
photographs. I see no inherent problem with this.
darin
>From the December _Linux Journal_:
Doc Searls wrote a sidebar about how Linux might just be aptly
described by the Swedish word "lagom", & because Swedish is
the mother language of Linus Tovalds (creator of Linux), he asked
Torvalds for his input.
Searls notes that Torvalds side-stepped his question, but did
offer the following sentence:
"And yes, it means 'just right', in the sense of 'not too much,
not too little'. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagom"
On one hand, I guess his mention shows that we must be doing
something right; despite all of the press, I was still surprised
to learn that he had heard of Wikipedia. But on the other hand,
I have to wonder whether he has contributed to any Wikipedia
articles. (My guess is that it would be to [[Powerpoint]].)
Geoff
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 10:27:07 +1100
> From: "Peter Mackay" <peter.mackay(a)bigpond.com>
> Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Re: Press badges
> To: "'English Wikipedia'" <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <20051104232712.YGYT1358.omta03sl.mx.bigpond.com@skyringstudy>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
> > Just throwing this out there: I dont see how any
> > anti-credentialist organization can be in the business of
> > giving out credentials.
>
> In the same wiki-way that everything else works here. The community
> decides
> who, based on their contributions, is able to present a professional face
> to
> the real world and a useful contribution to Wikipedia/WikiNews. I use
> "professional" here in the sense of "adhering to industry standards",
> rather
> than "being paid for".
In what other situations do we actually "present a professional face to the
real world"? It's clear that we have *internal* professional faces that we
present to ourselves -- arbitrators, admins, and the informal "credentials"
that someone attains over a period of time, but these are entirely internal.
When someone reads an article, all of these internal faces are shielded from
view. No one outside wikipedia need know about, acknowledge, or endorse
these internal faces. Whereas, a wiki-press pass would be something
completely different -- here, we *would* be asking outsiders to acknowledge
and endorse our professional faces. I think there's a difference.
> Nobody considers tabloid newspapers to
> hold
> to high standards of journalistic integrity, but they command wide
> readerships, and their journalists find little difficulty in gaining
> access
> to events. All we really need do is say "Google such-and such a subject"
> and
> Wikipedia is generally in the first ten entries, so we've got that sort of
> leverage to use with people who are after media exposure.
But, whatever you think of them, tabloids are in a sense, original research.
And so they are not only subject to legal issues which are avoided by
avoiding original research, but if we were to emulate them in this regard,
we would be subjecting ourselves to the same type of NPOV issues we subject
other news sources to. This is one caveat I have about press passes -- maybe
just for photographs they might be okay, but assigning press badges on a par
that journalists use, seems to be stretching the limits of what the project
is all about. Granted, I don't think we would ever have a POV of a Fox News
or the New York Post, but POV would always be an issue. (Simply the
selection of what events are considered "news-worthy" to attend is a POV.)
The line between reporting first-hand news sources vs. *being* first-hand
news sources is a fine one, but the line is still there.
darin