I thank you Erik for this clearer proposal. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews
I have two comments to make with regards to it.
"A Wikinews project in a language will be started under two conditions: a) that the language is accepted as one of the Wikimedia project languages, b) that there is at least one person who expresses an interest in working on that language edition."
I wish that this requirement is modified. One person interested is not enough if only for one single reason : if only one person is editor, he will also have to be the one person making all policies, and the one doing the validation and publication. There will be no feedback and no control. No discussion either. This is not a wiki, but a blog. This mean that any pov pusher can ask for a wikinews, announced himself big chief, and go wild.
So, I would like that this requirement is a bit changed, so as to increase the number of minimal interested people. Note that if 5 people are found, and only 1 contribute, we find ourselves in the same situation.
And this is doubly dangerous, as the articles will be protected after a while.
--------------
The second point has to do with liability. If an article contains an error, but may not be corrected after a week, we will be liable. And this time, we wont be able to say "there is a incorrect statement ? Please, do correct it". Putting a correction in an attached page wont do it either. Because other sites will use our content, and they are not likely to bother go check error corrections mentionned in another page. This type of "correction" work well in paper journal. It just is not okay online.
Anthere
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!
The second point has to do with liability. If an article contains an error, but may not be corrected after a week, we will be liable. And this time, we wont be able to say "there is a incorrect statement ? Please, do correct it". Putting a correction in an attached page wont do it either. Because other sites will use our content, and they are not likely to bother go check error corrections mentionned in another page. This type of "correction" work well in paper journal. It just is not okay online.
Wouldn't the answer with these things be to have it protected, but editable by one level of user (be they sysops, bureaucrats, whatever), who could then correct any urgent errors?
-- ambi
Is it possible to protect only certain portions of a page, like a person's picture, etc.?
James
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Rebecca Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 11:28 AM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikinews
The second point has to do with liability. If an article contains an
error, but may not be corrected after a week, we will be liable.
And this time, we wont be able to say "there is a incorrect statement ?
Please, do correct it".
Putting a correction in an attached page wont do it either. Because other
sites will use our content, and they are not likely to bother go check error corrections mentionned in another page. This type of "correction" work well in paper journal. It just is not okay online.
Wouldn't the answer with these things be to have it protected, but editable by one level of user (be they sysops, bureaucrats, whatever), who could then correct any urgent errors?
-- ambi _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Anthere-
"A Wikinews project in a language will be started under two conditions: a) that the language is accepted as one of the Wikimedia project languages, b) that there is at least one person who expresses an interest in working on that language edition."
I wish that this requirement is modified. One person interested is not enough if only for one single reason : if only one person is editor, he will also have to be the one person making all policies, and the one doing the validation and publication. There will be no feedback and no control. No discussion either. This is not a wiki, but a blog. This mean that any pov pusher can ask for a wikinews, announced himself big chief, and go wild.
That's a legitimate concern. However, I seem to recall that the "one person, get started" policy is what we used for Wikipedia in the past? Often it will just be one person who does the work of promoting the project initially.
One person without sysop access can't do anything that other people cannot undo. Anything he "publishes" can be edited by anyone else. It's quite possible that he won't be able to satisfy the four Wikinews requirements without sysop access.
My suggestion would therefore be as follows: 1) That there will be no sysops until there are at least 10 genuine registered users. 2) That the project will not be considered an official Wikinews language until it satisfies the requirements defined in the proposal. The consequence of this is that it will be listed separately on the Wikinews language list, as "work in progress".
I believe this allows individuals or small groups to use their wikinews.org domain to promote the project effectively and develop some of the required pages, while minimizing the potential for harm to the Wikimedia Foundation. Of course any clear abuse would be punished in any case.
What do you think about this approach?
The second point has to do with liability. If an article contains an error, but may not be corrected after a week, we will be liable. And this time, we wont be able to say "there is a incorrect statement ? Please, do correct it".
I have added the text
"Corrections and updates can still be linked to, but the article text itself may not be changed."
to the "archival" stage. Does this address your concerns?
Regards,
Erik
Erik Moeller a écrit:
Anthere-
"A Wikinews project in a language will be started under two conditions: a) that the language is accepted as one of the Wikimedia project languages, b) that there is at least one person who expresses an interest in working on that language edition."
I wish that this requirement is modified. One person interested is not enough if only for one single reason : if only one person is editor, he will also have to be the one person making all policies, and the one doing the validation and publication. There will be no feedback and no control. No discussion either. This is not a wiki, but a blog. This mean that any pov pusher can ask for a wikinews, announced himself big chief, and go wild.
That's a legitimate concern. However, I seem to recall that the "one person, get started" policy is what we used for Wikipedia in the past? Often it will just be one person who does the work of promoting the project initially.
I absolutely agree The issue I raise here is essentially due to the publication process.
One person without sysop access can't do anything that other people cannot undo. Anything he "publishes" can be edited by anyone else. It's quite possible that he won't be able to satisfy the four Wikinews requirements without sysop access.
My suggestion would therefore be as follows:
- That there will be no sysops until there are at least 10 genuine
registered users. 2) That the project will not be considered an official Wikinews language until it satisfies the requirements defined in the proposal. The consequence of this is that it will be listed separately on the Wikinews language list, as "work in progress".
I believe this allows individuals or small groups to use their wikinews.org domain to promote the project effectively and develop some of the required pages, while minimizing the potential for harm to the Wikimedia Foundation. Of course any clear abuse would be punished in any case.
What do you think about this approach?
That suits me on the principle.
The second point has to do with liability. If an article contains an error, but may not be corrected after a week, we will be liable. And this time, we wont be able to say "there is a incorrect statement ? Please, do correct it".
I have added the text
"Corrections and updates can still be linked to, but the article text itself may not be changed."
to the "archival" stage. Does this address your concerns?
Regards,
Erik
Well, I am not sure of what you mean here. If the text cannot be changed, then the external media will pick it up with the mistakes, even though it is mentionned in an external page that there are some corrections.
An idea, though I agree it requires dev work. Why would not be technically an article constituted of two parts, one "not editable" after a certain number of day, while the other part stays editable, is visible at the bottom of the page, and contains correction.
This was, when the page content is copied, the information about the correction is available.
-----
I must say I wonder over the accredition system, because news need to be published as quicker as possible. It wont get easy to approve an article in a very short time.
Ant
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org