There are a number of issues that would need addressed in stable versions to make it an appropriate mechanism to meet Google News' indexing requirements, and a static view may be equally problematic.
First, Google requires an indexing number within the news item URL, IIRC 5 digits or more. This - to my way of thinking - would be best met by serving up a URL containing the flagged revision's id. If a non-logged in user requests this page and a later version is currently flagged a supercedes header should be returned to the browser.
Second, from looking at the test wiki for F.R. it seems the usual configuration is you can't flag until you have a certain edit count, and been on-wiki for a certain time. This isn't appropriate for an editorial review team. We have a number of people who I'd trust fully with the buttons on their home language, but not on en. where it is their 3rd or 4th language. Everyone on the editorial team would meet these criteria, but not everyone meeting these criteria should be on the editorial team.
I've emailed Jimmy asking if he has contacts at Google since an effort to get them to discuss getting us listed with appropriate measures in place has not been responded to. If there is anyone else on-list who has contacts I'd appreciate an introduction. Ask.com and Yahoo now aggregate Wikinews content. I'm sure we can combine meeting Google's standards with a drive to better quality.
As a last point I'm vaguely aware that live feeds are sold on to a number of search sites. I have no idea if a flagging update would be passed on in that feed and this may be an important issue for both Wikinews and Wikipedia.
Brian McNeil
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Whitworth Sent: 16 December 2007 17:15 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Is popularity a good thing for us?
On Dec 16, 2007 11:04 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Dec 16, 2007 10:03 AM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
+our goal is to spread this knowledge freely to all humanity. People knowing of our existence is a prerequisite to them using our knowledge.
I think that's by far the strongest argument against intentionally being less popular.
But it seems so easily solved. Have two sites, one for building the content and a separate one for distributing the finished pieces of it to all humanity.
This is why I've taken such an interest in projects such as veropedia, and why I've been pushing to do the same kind of thing (sans advertising) for Wikibooks/Wikijunior. At the very least, it would be a substantial boon to these two projects to offer a stable "release version". Wikinews, also would benefit from something like this, first because not being editable would help with their google news issues, and they already lock old stories anyway. Maybe it's becoming high-time the WMF considered adding such an option to some of it's projects. Adding a sub-domain, such as "en.stable.wikibooks.org" or even a sub-folder "en.wikibooks.org/stable" would go a long way to helping several of the projects (and having pages which are basically static would probably have a helpful effect in reducing server load).
--Andrew Whitworth
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l