Hi does anybody know the mail format for New York Times correspondents. I'm
looking for Edward Wong on the Asia desk. I've tried most of the usual
permutations @nytimes.com and they've all bounced back.
forwarding to local lists for reminders
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Cary Bass <cbass(a)wikimedia.org>
Date: Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 1:04 AM
Subject: [Wikimania-l] [[WM2008]] Scholarship submission deadline
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>,
"Wikimania general list (open subscription)" <
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Just as a quick note, the Wikimania 2008 scholarship deadline will be
April 21, at 23:59 (UTC). If you are applying for a scholarship, please
have it submitted by then.
Scholarship information may be found at
Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia
Foundation today: http://donate.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Wikimania-l mailing list
I think this post is pushing the upper limit of how long any blog post
should be, and I suspect we really should work out some guidelines for
keeping the blog as professional as possible.
>From a technical viewpoint, there are one or two specific items I always do.
First is links - always specify a target. Example: <a
The 'target="Wikinews"' qualifier makes most well-behaved browsers open the
link in a new window or tab. If you have multiple links to the same
third-party site, always use the same target. So, if you have a link to the
Wikinews main page and to a couple of articles then keep using
'target="Wikinews"'. This results in one new window or tab, which is reused
when the second or subsequent links are clicked on.
Second, and important to keep page load times reasonable, is to scale images
to the size you intend to use in your post. Following that, take a note of
the image dimensions and explicitly specify them in the code for your blog
post; this ensures the post is rendered correctly while the image is
Any other technical points some of the more seasoned bloggers would like to
Following technical, are my considered opinions on content.
* Spellcheck. Everyone should really have some sort of
built-in checker on their browser. This may be achieved by installing a
dictionary in Firefox. I have British English installed and it even works
with ChatZilla (hint, hint).
* Jargon should be kept to a minimum. Never use a term
like NPOV without explaining it (Eg. "Neutral Point of View (NPOV)"). If
your post starts to run to the length of the above consider repeating the
full term to keep it clear what you are talking about.
* Run your complete post through a grammar checking
tool, this will help with the following points:
o Excessive use of first person pronouns
o Passive voice
o Readability, and if you do not understand the scoring mechanisms
look them up. A high reading ease index is good, but a high grade level is
A point to clearly remember is that the blog is not a platform to deride or
denigrate third party sites. Each post should be a considered invitation for
a discussion, or an insight into the processes that drive Wikinews
Any further comments on the content?
On Apr 17, 2008, at 6:56 AM, wikinews-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Yeah but we need to step away from being identified with Wikipedia,
> because we are not them. We need our own punch line and really should
> not have to mention Wikipedia to make us sound better, although I
> do see
> what you mean. I think a list or RSS of a sort would work
> perfectly. We
> just need subscribers.
I am very late to this discussion, which I assume has been going on
for a while in other forms and other places, but I think it is a big
mistake for Wikinews to try to distance itself from Wikipedia. I
guess I understand the resentment or whatever it is that Wikipedia is
this kind of black hole that sucks in all media attention and
conversation..... but that's a good thing isn't it? It seems that
some in Wikinews want to be more like CNN than Wikipedia. Why? It
seems to me wikinews could play a profound role in the participatory
journalism landscape if it worked with Wikipedia rather than trying
to separate itself from it. To that end the suggestions about
supplying original reporting to enhance Wikipedia content would be
critical. Imagine if you could routinely access the audio of an
interview with the subject of an article from their Wikipedia
article. This, as has also been mentioned, would go a long way to
ameliorate one of Wikipedia's thorniest problems - biographies of
living persons. That's one example. Supplying multimedia content,
observation and comment from events also seems vital. "Journalist"
has become a dicey word. Having been one myself for about 10 years
and now teaching in a journalism school I see daily how it's being
redefined. Lots of baggage comes with being a "journalist." It seems
to me "content suppliers" as lame as that sounds is a better way to
approach something like Wikinews.
J. Michael Lyons
This email was prompted by a rant from Jason which I have heavily edited and
am still not particularly happy about. I have my very personal ideas about
what the blog should be like and his post does not fit with them.
First and foremost, I'm going to violate RFC 1855. If you don't know what
that is then go look it up. It should be required reading for every single
individual accessing the Internet.
DO NOT TREAT THE BLOG AS A SOAPBOX!
It is not a venue for vicious verbiage, nor a platform for caustic
criticism. Nothing done by third party sites should be reported on it; it is
for commenting in a thoughtful and considered manner on the mechanics of
working on Wikinews, on issues arising from articles on Wikinews, and issues
surrounding that. Digg? I don't care. I didn't spend hundreds of dollars to
give people a platform to diss them. If you want to judge Digg harshly, they
are simply a site that relies on crowdsourcing to get people to provide
their content for little work on their part so they can *sell adverts*.
There's a pretty diagram illustrating that somewhere on the Internet, it has
a box labeled "Website" surrounded by lots of little bubbles labeled
If you're going to post a new article on the blog, then ask yourself would a
respectable site like the BBC run your post? They have an Editors' blog too,
read it, see how they approach the issue, see what they consider acceptable
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jay Walsh <jwalsh(a)wikimedia.org>
Date: Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 8:56 PM
Subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Blog is live
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
We are pleased to notify you that today we flipped the switch on the Wikimedia
Foundation's official blog! Wikimedia Blog can be found at
Some background info: this will be a space for WMF staff to post news and
information about the work we're engaged in. We'll also bring in guest
contributors, board members etc to post. Comments are pre-moderated
for the time
being, and we're hoping for lots of civility. Comments will be moderated by
several volunteer moderators and staff as necessary.
We have some basic posting guidelines (generally short, fairly simple english,
conversational etc) so we can keep it reader friendly and useful. We expect a
wide audience - media, public, users, you name it! And we'll work
hard to keep it
interesting - and regular (hopefully posts every other business day).
Always welcome your views, and your understanding about our work-in-progress :)
Hope you enjoy! Looking forward to hearing your views.
Head of Communications
+1 (415) 839 6885 x 609
foundation-l mailing list
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to
this address will probably get lost.
For those who're IRC regulars you might have noticed I've appended a little
bit to the #wikinews topic - a link to the Paul Foot Award which I picked up
from the UK's famous (or should I say infamous) Private Eye magazine.
The link is http://tinyurl.com/jr3og and everyone - particularly our UK
contributors - should read up on this. The award may have fine-print
constraints that only people based in the UK can apply, but that doesn't
disallow our coverage that we submit being on a more global, or possibly
Where I was - selfishly - thinking I could get into this was in the EU
copyright extension stuff. After Michael and I attended the EFF/ORG party
and got a damn good interview, I tried to get a few people to talk to us -
no joy. If you can think of parties we could possibly get statements from
this would be terrific. I am going to have another go at getting a response
from the commissioner responsible and Sir Paul McCartney's rights management
company. The hook of trying to win the Paul Foot Award might make them more
sympathetic about talking to us.
If you have any other ideas about any topic we could do
campaigning/investigative journalism on then speak up now! Campaigning might
be out of the question due to [[WN:NPOV]], but investigative is something we
do well when we put ourselves to it. If anyone suggests Scientology, they
will be left going, "mummy, mummy! why do I keep walking in circles?"
because I will nail one of their feet to the ground.