I've already said what I can on-wiki to try and encourage people to put
{{support}} votes in for WikiBlue. I feel that we took a risk with David
Shankbone and it paid of handsomely; I think this is another case where we
need to take a risk, but one where I'm - personally - more sure it will pay
off. David was a case where I thought we'd just get a load more pictures, we
did - and some truly outstanding interview work to go with them.
Sandy's work as the Communications Manager for the WMF really meant she
didn't have time to work on any of the wiki projects to a particularly great
extent, but that experience is what makes her someone I really want to see
welcomed into the community and accredited. Perhaps if she listed/linked
press releases she wrote for the WMF as "achievements" then people might
understand better why I hold this opinion.
What I like about Sandy's response to my query about how she'd work on
Wikinews is her enthusiasm to promote the project. With her background and
contacts, we'd effectively have a professional PR person promoting the
project with the mainstream media, journalism schools, and college
newspapers. Part of what I believe Wikinews should be is a proving ground
for aspiring journalists. I'm sure many on the list would like to turn their
experience on-wiki into something they could make a job out of. I believe
Sandy can promote this possible use of the project, and by running an online
seminar or two get us more contributors using the site to hone and practice
their journalistic skills. Wikipedia has had similar successes where
colleges have used the site for term papers with the assignment being to
write on-wiki. I believe we too can use this approach and have journalism
students use Wikinews as a platform to work on and get their assignments
critiqued by those of us with the experience as well as exposure to a wider
community.
Brian McNeil
Forwarded from commons-l. I figure since we are a user of this system
(ex anon protests), that this probably applies to us. If you want to
reply, best to do on commons-l, as I did not tell anyone I've
forwarded this here, and they are most likely not subscribed to this
list.
-bawolff
------- Forwarded Message -------
Forwarded here at Mark's request (there's something odd in Mailman
that ate the last copy).
Any OTRS volunteers on this list? Please lend your Commons experience :-)
- d.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mark Pellegrini <mapellegrini at comcast.net>
Date: 11 Feb 2008 06:29
Subject: [Wmfcc-l] Photo submission queue needs more people
To: Communications Committee <wmfcc-l at lists.wikimedia.org>, English
OTRS discussion list <otrs-en-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
I'd like to start this email off by saying that I think the photo
submission OTRS queue is working very well. Too well, in fact - it's
becoming clear that I cannot do it all by myself anymore. Yesterday, for
example, there were a series of anti-scientology protests across the
world. The wikinews article specifically encouraged people to submit
photos to the photo submission queue. When I went to tend the queue, it
had half-a-dozen emails containing in excess of 50 pictures.
I'd like a few (2-4) more people to have access to the photo submission
queue. But, I'd like those people to understand that unlike the rest of
OTRS (which is dominated by a desire to reply to emails as rapidly as
possible, using impersonal form replies that tell people how they can do
it themselves) the photo submission queue is designed explicitly to make
it easy for 3rd parties to submit photos to us. If you have a picture
you think we will want, email it to us and we'll do the rest of the
work.* (Note: to avoid the system becoming too popular, for the time
being I have explicitely limited it to people; however, this has not
stopped others from emailing in all sorts of things, from the
anti-scientology protests to someone's picture of his pet catfish) To
that end, the photo submissions queue typically requires substantially
more work for me (us) on a case-by-case basis. However, this system has
definite, tangible benefits over a do-it-yourself system (ticket
#2008012210019431, for example -- a guy emailed info-en with a photo and
received a two-page long list of steps to create an account and upload
it. Off-put, he emailed the photo submission queue and had a much nicer
experience) If anyone is interested in working on the photo submissions
queue, please reply to this and let me know. (Note: A working knowledge
of copyright issues is absolutely essential)
* - Provided your email includes a statement that you own the copyright
and agree to license it under a free license, preferably CC-BY-SA-3.0
-Mark
_______________________________________________
Wmfcc-l mailing list
Wmfcc-l at lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wmfcc-l
/Wikinews <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikinews>/ is interviewing
television producer and owner of the anti-Scientology website XenuTV.com
<http://www.xenutv.com>, Mark Bunker
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Bunker>.
Ask questions here:
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Story_preparation/Wikinews_interviews_…
The *deadline to ask questions is Friday February 15, 2008*. The plan
will be to conduct the interview on IRC in the channel
#wikinews-interviews, on the freenode network (irc.freenode.net) with
prepared questions. If there are not a lot of questions prepared, then
the floor will be open to questioning by anyone attending the interview.
*The date of the interview is scheduled to take place on Saturday
February 16, 2008 at 4:00 p.m. (eastern time
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Time_Zone>) or 1:00 p.m. (pacific
time <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Time_Zone>), or 21:00 UTC on
the irc.freenode.net server in the channel #wikinews-interviews.*
*Directions on how to enter IRC channel:* Click here
<http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/WN:IRC>. Type in your desired user-name.
Select /General Wikinews Discussion/. Once in the channel, type: /j (or
/join) #wikinews-interviews. Or you can download your own IRC client
such as mIRC or ICEchat. If you have FireFox, then Chatzilla is easy.
Join #wikinews for assistance on connecting by clicking on the above
link selecting /General Wikinews Discussion/.
This seems to be stuck in the moderation queue
-----Original Message-----
From: Sue Gardner [mailto:sgardner@wikimedia.org]
Sent: 13 February 2008 03:19
To: Wikinews mailing list
Cc: Brian McNeil
Subject: Re: [Wikinews-l] Book reviews and other miscellany on Wikinews
Sue Gardner wrote:
> Brian McNeil wrote:
>
>> Hi Sue,
>>
>> [This is CC'd to the Wikinews mailing list, I'd like to take up the
>> discussion there but we really **need** your expertise and input.]
>>
>>
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Water_cooler/policy#Editorials.2C_Book_
Reviews.2C_and_NPOV_on_Wikinews
>>
>> The above link is to a - somewhat heated - discussion about expansion
>> of the project scope. Unfortunately, those opposed are of the opinion
>> there is no way we can work around this and develop policy to permit
>> an "academic" book review or well thought out Editorial piece. Their
>> fear is the whole site would descend into flamewars and fighting.
>>
>> With your background, you may be able to break this deadlock and get a
>> discussion aimed at formulating policy started. How did CBC.ca handle
>> non-neutral, or otherwise difficult to be impartial with, material? As
>> one contributor has pointed out NPOV was formulated for an
>> encyclopedia, not a news site.
>>
>>
> Thanks Brian. I'm on a plane most of today, but I'll try to write
> something on the flight & post it later. Thanks for reminding me about
> this; I _do_ want to contribute to the discussion.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikinews-l mailing list
> Wikinews-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
>
Brian, I'm sorry: it took me _a lot_ longer to respond to this than it
should have. But I've read the discussion, and FWIW here are my thoughts:
1. I think it's important to first just acknowledge that
objectivity/neutrality is actually very difficult to achieve. Over time, as
people we all accrue a body of information and observations and analysis
that adds up to a worldview of some sort. We can _aspire_ to neutrality, but
ultimately we believe what we believe. It's tough -and in some ways
undesirable- to fully park our own experience when we sit down to write a
story.
Which is of course a significant argument in favour of the collaborative
approach to newsgathering. In the course of putting together a story, a
conventional journalist will be influenced by a number of people: his or her
assignment editor, boss, deskmates, cameraperson, vetters. But most
newsrooms are pretty homogeneous, and most reporters don't have the
opportunity to be much influenced by people thousands of kilometers away, or
significantly younger or older, or holding radically different ideological
views.
That means that Wikinews should be able to achieve a more balanced and
nuanced "neutral point of view," compared with conventional news
organizations. I'm assuming that's part of the point of it ;-)
In general, the struggle to achieve neutrality/objectivity in news coverage
is IMO worth supporting; it's important and it's not easy. That doesn't mean
I am against opinion journalism. But I do think that objectivity (or if you
prefer, neutrality or fairness) is a core journalistic value, and should
always be fundamental to a story, unless a deliberate decision has been made
to do otherwise.
2. Readers recognize and understand a variety of formats -book reviews and
newspaper editorials and viewpoint sections and advice columns- and the
rules that are associated with them. Because those labels and rules are
well-established, a POV piece that falsely purports to be neutral tends to
upset people's expectations and call into question everything else about
that news operation.
3. Here's a thing that might be tough for Wikinews. At CBC.CA, part of my
job was to ensure overall balance. So for example, if we ran an opinion
piece that was in favour of a particular political view, we were expected to
balance that by also running pieces favourable towards other views, or
critical of the particular view initially espoused. We had quite a bit of
flexibility in how we did that - for example, we didn't need to run all the
pieces on the same day, nor did we need to ensure mathematical precision
(like, 11 "pro" pieces cancel out 11 "con" pieces). But in general, we were
expected to achieve, over time, a reasonable approximation of balance.
There were problems with this approach: it is a bit simplistic/reductionist
(it assumes views can be easily labeled and categorized), and also it
inherently supports the status quo (it's biased against minority or emerging
viewpoints). But despite its flaws, it was a reasonable system that worked
pretty well.
It would however be a very tough system for Wikinews to implement. I don't
think Wikinews has an established 'desk' culture - the desk being the
assignment editor, the quality gatekeeper, the vetter and lineup function.
Without a desk that has the ability to assign/solicit/influence stories, I'm
not sure how Wikinews could expect to ensure a reasonable balance of
viewpoints over time.
4. There's also the 'rules' issue I mentioned above: the idea that POV
material is expected to adhere, more-or-less, to a variety of established
conventions. Like, a restaurant reviewer is assumed to pay for his/her own
food; to try to represent audience tastes more than his/her own
idiosyncrasies; to not tell the restaurant who he/she is. And within those
rules there's some latitude - for example, one newspaper might decide it's
okay if their food critic is recognized, while others go to great lengths to
protect their critics' identities. (For example, when she went to dinner,
the New York Times restaurant reviewer used to wear elaborate,
constantly-changing disguises.)
I think it would be a real challenge for Wikinews to agree on and adhere to
these kinds of conventions. (It's hard enough to adhere to basic conventions
around objectivity and NPOV.) And if you screw it up -if for example your
readers find out your restaurant critic has been accepting free meals-, it's
really tough to gain back the credibility you lose.
5. It is also, FWIW, extremely difficult to do good POV material - arguably
harder than doing straightforward news. Mostly, because it generally
requires you to be engaging and entertaining, as well as informative.
6. And lastly, I do wonder if Wikinews is the best place for opinion
writing. There are lots of online venues already for consumer reviews, some
of which are pretty rich & pretty good (e.g., Yelp, Chowhound, Amazon,
IMDB). And there are plenty of sites that offer good deep commentary on
politics, the environment, science, etc. So if I were Wikinews, I might ask
myself what I think Wikinews could uniquely bring to the table.
That's what I think. If you're interested in reading what various
journalistic policybooks say about opinion journalism, I have links here (
http://del.icio.us/suegardner/journalisticpolicy ) to policybooks from the
BBC, CBC, New York Times, etc.
Hope this helps :-)
Sue
Hi Sue,
[This is CC'd to the Wikinews mailing list, I'd like to take up the
discussion there but we really *need* your expertise and input.]
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Water_cooler/policy#Editorials.2C_Book_
Reviews.2C_and_NPOV_on_Wikinews
The above link is to a - somewhat heated - discussion about expansion of the
project scope. Unfortunately, those opposed are of the opinion there is no
way we can work around this and develop policy to permit an "academic" book
review or well thought out Editorial piece. Their fear is the whole site
would descend into flamewars and fighting.
With your background, you may be able to break this deadlock and get a
discussion aimed at formulating policy started. How did CBC.ca handle
non-neutral, or otherwise difficult to be impartial with, material? As one
contributor has pointed out NPOV was formulated for an encyclopedia, not a
news site.
Finally, as an aside, I've landed an interview which you'd be most welcome
to add a question or two to. Walter Cronkite has agreed to do an email
interview with us. The preparatory work and current list of questions can be
found here, http://tinyurl.com/3akeza
Regards,
Brian McNeil
The date of the Wikinews interview with Mark Bunker of XenuTV is
scheduled to take place on Saturday February 16, 2008 at 4:00 p.m.
(eastern time) or 1:00 p.m. (pacific time) (21:00 UTC) on the
irc.freenode.net server in the channel #wikinews-interviews
<irc://newyork.ny.us.undernet.org/%23wikinews-interviews>.
Jason (Dragonfire1024)
Just a heads up to everyone. Scientology coverage was great. We have
over 150 free photos (some still need to be transfered/categorized on
commons. see , [[commons:Category:2008 "Anonymous" anti-Scientology
protests]]), a nine minute video report from the protest in boston,
and written reports from more than 30 different protest sites around
the world. Good work everyone.
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_international_report:_%22Anonymous%22_…
-bawolff
Dear Neil Planchon,
Thank you for your mail.
Neil Planchon <xxxx(a)xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> greetings
>
> http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Main_Page
>
> i just noticed that the rss feed from wikinews is not current. last
> feed is dated 1/21.
> is is just me? what is eta for repair?
>
> just to be sure could you email me the rss feed url?
>
> many thanks
>
> neil
> oakland
> ca
> usa
>
>
>
I was previously unaware of this issue. Wikinews does not use "standard"
techniques for a news website, and as such RSS feeds are a problem to
maintain. I have copied this email (obscuring your email address) onto the
Wikinews mailing list, where we will attempt to work out a solution!
Yours sincerely,
Paul Williams
Wikimedia OTRS Agent
--
Wikinews - http://en.wikinews.org
---
Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses
are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation.
For official correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation by
certified mail at the address listed on http://www.wikimediafoundation.org
We have landed a good one here. An email interview with Walter Cronkite. I
want the focus to be on his thoughts on modern journalism and not the stuff
that is in his biography. Questions? Send me them, and do so ASAP.
Brian McNeil
Okay,
Who is attending and where? I just found
http://anonymousbelgium.jottit.com/media_text which is their protest in
Belgium. Regrettably it seems they may only have about ten attendees, and a
dress code of black with red tie.
I have an absolutely crap camera and am unsure if I'd be able to turn up for
more than an hour or so but I may well pass the information on to a
neighbour who is a journalist with one of the big Belgian daily papers.
However, I have my fingers crossed that protesters will outnumber press. If
not it'll be a bit problematic doing good coverage.
Brian McNeil