Wikinews-l July 2005

wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org

14 participants
12 discussions

Wikinews Future Talk 2
by Craig Spurrier 24 Jul '05

24 Jul '05

Hello, I would like to invite everyone who is intrested to participate in the Wikinews Future Talk 2. The Wikinews Future Talk 2 will be the second Future Talk, this one will focus upon the the portal/neighborhoods proposals on the en Wikinews and the future of Audio Wikinews and WNN. It will be an open, unmoderated IRC session taking place on #wikinews. Members of all Wikinews editions are invited,espesically those interested in starting audio project in their local Wikinews. Craig Spurrier

1 1

Editorials
by Anthere 23 Jul '05

23 Jul '05

Hi all, Recently, I have decided that it was time I adopt a new project. A small one :-) So, I started participating to wikinews in french. It is quite a challenge I must say, because there are a handful of very nice participants... but most of them are not participants to wikipedia, so quite newbies on some issues. On the other hand, plenty of motivation and ideas which is good :-) Still, today, I have something disturbing me a little bit. A new main page was set up this morning; Looking at it, I realised the html was probably not standard (some wrong columns size or locations) and saw that some areas were just empty (for example, it did not mention other projects or other languages). So it appeared to me to be a working stage, and it did not seem a good idea to make changes live; So I reverted the page to yesterday version and moved the new version to a temp page : http://fr.wikinews.org/wiki/Discuter:Accueil/temp I then was told this version had been approved and the vote ended yesterday. So, it should be the main page in any cases. Then, to list the problems of the html, I looked more precisely at it. And I discovered 3 new sections. One is the "Analysis section". There is one example of it, the link being a user sub page. So, first, it means it is very likely a non editable page (since it is a user sub page). Second, there is a mention below, stating "the section can be ambiguous in terms of NPOV, as it is only partially submitted to it" Two other sections are "Editorial" and "carte blanche" (I am not sure I really see the difference). These sections are empty for now, and a note indicates "These two sections do not respect NPOV and have not been adopted by the community". I then commented in saying that these sections should probably not be here in any cases, since NOT adopted by the community. I was answered they actually were adopted, so the little text should be modified, but they should be on the main page. I looked for a discussion, and found this http://fr.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews%3ASalle_caf%C3%A9#PDV_.21.21 So, to me, a site with 1) articles submitted to NPOV, 2) personal analyses only partially submitted to NPOV and not editable, and 3) editorials not submitted to NPVO has a name, Indymedia. Not wikinews :-) And I do not agree. I think all wikimedia projects should adhere to NPOV. Strictly. As much as we can. But I then thought I had no idea what other wikinews have been doing on this issue and that possibly some of them have adopted editorials (which will quite naturally report a pov). Is this the case ? If so, how did you organise yourself to explain readers the difference between the neutral parts of the site and the non neutral parts ? And do you try to maintain an overall neutrality within editorials ? Or do you limit the topics concerned by editorials ? Thanks in advance for your comments. anthere ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

3 4

California meetup
by Erik Moeller 17 Jul '05

17 Jul '05

I'll be in California (Santa Clara County) for a few days, and will have free time on Tuesday, Wednesday late evening, and possibly Thursday morning. If you're from nearby and you're interested, we can try to set up a little meetup. I've created a page for it here: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Meetup/California Best, Erik

2 1

Vandal
by Clare-Marie White 15 Jul '05

15 Jul '05

If anyone can go and sort out the vandal online right now it would be good, I can¹t work it out and no-one seems to be online :( Clare x

2 1

Japanese Wikinews set up
by Erik Moeller 14 Jul '05

14 Jul '05

As previously announced, a Japanese language edition of Wikinews has now been set up: http://ja.wikinews.org/ I have announced this on the Japanese Chatsubo and will ask the editors of the site to help with spreading the word further. Good luck to this new member of the Wikimedia project family. Best, Erik

3 2

Freeware Speech and navigating program to Wikipedia
by Timo Ahokas 13 Jul '05

13 Jul '05

WikiTalk TL 1.00 is a freeware program for Wikipedia users to make Searches from Wikipedia and to Speak the search result WikiTalk Features: Talking head Speak Several different languages Text to wav Text to MP3 Clipboard to wav Clipboard to MP3 Controls Internet Explorer and Acts as Wikipedia navigator and shows the founded page by IE. Planned so that also persons with limited sense of sight can use it easily WikiTalk TL 1.0 needs an Internet connection(SDL)to work. Tested with IE6 and XP Program is available in address: <http://www.bercutfinland.com> www.bercutfinland.com

3 2

[Fwd: Re: [Foundation-l] the features...]
by Erik Moeller 11 Jul '05

11 Jul '05

Forgot to copy this here, which is really where it belongs. Erik

7 15

Editorials on de.wikinews.org and en.wikinews.org
by Erik Moeller 09 Jul '05

09 Jul '05

I have noticed that editorials are now posted regularly on the German Wikinews, at http://de.wikinews.org/ - these are basically regular pages signed by a single user. Examples: http://de.wikinews.org/wiki/Kommentar:_Chinas_Langer_Marsch_ins_All http://de.wikinews.org/wiki/Kommentar:_Der_Bundeskanzler_bewegt_sich_mit_de… I do think we should let the German experiment unfold for a bit, but I also think people should be aware that it is happening, due to NPOV concerns about the issue. As an alternative to editorials, I have suggested moderated debates, whose transcripts would be edited, summarized and published on the wiki: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Debates I believe this model allows us - by having the topics decided by the community - to avoid the specter of the "In defense of white power" type editorial, and to present opinions from notable individuals in an NPOV manner instead. Meanwhile, editorials in the user namespace are also being debated again on the English edition: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Water_cooler#Wikinews_Editorials Which solution, if any, do you think might be best? Best, Erik

2 1

Changing username
by Angela 09 Jul '05

09 Jul '05

Ævar (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ævar_Arnfjörð_Bjarmason>) made a tool recently that enables bureaucrats to rename users and told me yesterday that Tim Starling has just deployed it at the servers. Therefore, any bureaucrat can change the username of users on their wiki using [[Special:Renameuser]]. For more details, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Changing_username http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Changing_username http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_permissions#Requests_for_name_c… http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards#Instructions_for_changing_usernames http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Instructions_for_changin… Please translate this into your language and let the people on your project know about this new process. People on wikis without bureaucrats can make their request at [[meta:Requests for permissions]] instead. Angela.

1 0

the features...
by Anthere 07 Jul '05

07 Jul '05

Two comments. The first is about the recent crisis on wikinews. The second is a comment about the new features. For the first point Erik, it seems some people are not happy with the way decision making happens on wikinews. It seems that this time, the trigger of the conflict is the way a new feature was put into use, even though there was no clear agreement whithin the community to use it. I'd say, it is fair to complain about software changes, when software changes are not agreed upon. It is good that you propose now a discussion over whether this new feature should be used or not, but the discussion should occur *before* the feature is used, or even better *before* the feature is developped. I suppose you will answer that it was discussed, it was agreed, that it is the best solution so should be used... this may be. But you can not at the same time claim this... and ignore the fact regular editors are so mad that it appears to them their *only* options are to suggest another wikinews (fork) or obey you (not so benevolent dictatorship). How do you suggest to improve this in the future ? For Kyle, I do not think there was any abuse of Erik in his blocking NGerda. I am more dubious of whether the same standards apply to everyone, but this is another story. NGerda apparently disrespect a rule all wikinewsies should follow, so it is fair he is given a time out. I trust NGerda has a tough skin :-) As for Erik, being under different pseudos or his own name is generally known and I do not think there is any abuse either on the matter (there is only one wikinews account). He is Eloquence on wiki, Zirzon on irc and Erik as a real person. I will add that he is indeed an officer of Wikimedia Foundation, but this has nothing to do with him being an editor on wikinews and should not mean he should be treated differently than others. He should be entirely and only judged by his activity on wikinews as an editor, not by any official position he has in the organisation. In short, if he does good, congratulate, thank him and support him to do more good. If he does wrong, complain and discuss. If he does really wrong, block him. As a simple participant, I would like to comment on the new feature which I think is called "inputbox extension" (or is it "DynamicPageList extension" ?). Anyway, if any of you goes to wikinews and intends to start a new page, here is what he will get : http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Writing_an_article. I invite you to enter the name of a new article and to edit it. When you will get the edit box, you will notice two things : First, the box does not start empty, it is already prefilled with a whole bunch of preformatted content. It indicates where to put the article. It has a table with pre-filled fields for citation of sources. It has a bunch of categories into place. And it has the "development" tag by default. If the editor wants the story to be visible to the reader, he must replace the development tag by a publish tag (this is quite clearly explained on top of the edit window). On the positive side, I feel that the benefits of this are * a more "similar" appearance to all articles * a strong reminder to the editor that he should list his sources * a system allowing to "publish" the article quite freely, without relying on an editorial team. The drawbacks of this is * if you are a new editor, chances is you will be very perplex in front of all this complex synthax. * if you are a new editor, chances is you will not understand for a while the publish tag system, so your story will not be visible As long as wikinews is small, there can be hope some oldbie will see and check the article and push it published... but when wikinews grows, it might be that the system does not scale so well and that articles are not quickly published. Still, we can hope some editors frequently check the list of articles with a "development" tag, so I am not sure it is really a problem. The main problem I saw with this is not the publication system, but only the fact it will appear awfully complex to a new editor. The basic of wiki is * it is simple synthax * create an article, edit, save and this is it ! A more similar appareance and a reminder to cite sources is good, but I do not think the benefit balance the drawbacks of loss of easiness to edit. I think these two issues should be community enforced and taught by model (looking at what already exist). Last, I have been wondering how much difference there was with wikipedia. Indeed the publication system might be necessary, as the goal is to get on the main page and to get it *quickly*. So, the current semi-automatic tagging solution might not be bad. However, Wikipedia just as well might propose pre-filled articles, with pre-formatted titles, subtitles, see alsos, external links, categories and international links. And IT DOES NOT. Why is it felt necessary on wikinews when it is not felt necessary on other projects ? I have been caressing the idea of writing to Ward Cunningham and ask him to create a wikinews article... and tell us about his experience afterwards ;-) Anthere ----------------- Dear Wikinews community,dear interested individuals,I would like to invite you to participate in an open, unmoderated discussion about the future of the project, specifically the English edition. Members of other editions who want to learn about recent changes to the English version, and who want to debate whether these changes could be useful for their project, are also invited to join. Please sign up for a time that is convenient for you at:http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Future_TalkThe purpose of this IRC meeting is to discuss issues such as* Should the DynamicPageList extension be used?* Should the inputbox extension be used?* How should decisions about issues like this be made in the future?* How local can Wikinews stories be?* How can we make Wikinews more accessible for newcomers?Please feel free to add topics of discussion to the agenda.Note that we should not be trying to make decisions at this meeting - those should be openly documented on the wiki - but to reach a basic consensus about how to proceed.Best,Erik --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn more.

4 4

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Wikinews-l July 2005