So should I now contact WikiMedia technical team to initiate installation process?
Best regards,
Iaroslav Vassiliev
----- Original Message -----
From: Iaroslav Vassiliev
To: Wikinews mailing list
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 3:29 AM
Subject: Re: [Wikinews-l] RSS/Atom news channel for Wikinews
Well, it is done. Now it's possible to combine up to 8 categories and to exclude up to 8 categories from export.
Best regards,
Iaroslav Vassiliev
----- Original Message -----
From: Brian McNeil
To: 'Wikinews mailing list'
Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2008 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: [Wikinews-l] RSS/Atom news channel for Wikinews
I have no preference on extract versus full article, but the feed really needs to be able to exclude certain articles so running from more than one category seems a must.
All the DPLs for the front page and portals exclude anything in category disputed, even if it is also in category published. It would be a "nice to have" feature to be able to say, "in Cat A and B, not in Cat C" so that multiple country or topic-specific feeds could be built.
Brian McNeil
-----Original Message-----
From: wikinews-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikinews-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Iaroslav Vassiliev
Sent: 14 June 2008 02:47
To: wikinews-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikinews-l] RSS/Atom news channel for Wikinews
Hi,
* Now there is no option to add second category.
* The entire article is exported. But I can change this, if you decide so.
Best regards,
Iaroslav Vassiliev
bawolff wrote:
/me like
Questions:
*Category addition possible (feeds for category:Europe combined with
published/whatever) not that important as we can just use the current
system for the non-primary feeds (aka
http://toolserver.org/~zach/cgi-bin/rss.cgi?cat=Space )
*Is the entire article in the feed, or just the first paragraph
-bawolff
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Wikinews-l mailing list
Wikinews-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
(For Immediate Release)
Introducing +250 Designers, Unveiling +250 Works, Design and beyond - Taiwan Designers' Week 2008
Press Release 2008/06/27
Historically Taiwan has been an island associated with the production and manufacturing of electronics for clients all over the globe. Hence, the local design talents have not had many opportunities to exhibit their unique skills.
The birth of 2007 Taiwan Designers' Week was a natural step to showcase locally and internationally the ever thriving and ever evolving design scene in Taiwan. In 2007 designers from Taiwan demonstrated their flare for lifestyle products, a move that clearly illustrates their multifaceted design skills that go beyond designing electronic products.
After the monumental success of 2007 Taiwan Designers' Week we discovered the local and international communities' passion towards discovering design talents from Taiwan. In 2008 Taiwan Designers' Week will hold even more events and design activities all tied to the theme of "Design & beyond."
Taiwan Designers' Week 2008 - Design and beyond
The "Taiwan Designers' Week 2008" exhibition takes place at the Xinyi Public Assembly Hall, formally known as "Si-Si Nan Cun", was originally used as housing for family members of soldiers. It is situated next to the world's tallest building, the Taipei 101 and across the street from the Taipei World Trade Center (Hall 1). From June 28th to July 4th, < Play with the Eating Culture >, < Wall >, < The Story of Paper-Cutting >, < Basket >, < Between On and Off >, < 50 Pleasures in the Study --- Dian Shin Refreshment 2008 >, < Reincarnation >, < NoName Design > will be exhibited in Hall A, D, Xrange will create a giant floating cloud at Central Square. < CITY YEAST 2008･BALCONY PROJECT > will exhibit at Xue Xue Institute from June 26th to July 8th, and < Having A Perfect Life Is Easy > will exhibit at Taipei Artist Village – Barry Room from June 27th to July 7th.
Heat up the design activities with Taiwan Designers' Week
Summer is the hottest season in Taiwan, also fiery design events are all being held during this period of time. 30 places-to-visit recommended by designers are listed in "2008 Taiwan Designers' Week Guidebook," from design spots to boutique stores & galleries, all over in Taipei, Taichung, and Tainan.
Lifestyle design works designed by Taiwanese designers will be offered in 7-11 shops in Taiwan from June 25th to July 22nd for pre-ordering. Limited styles of ceramic tableware and furniture are available for design fans to collect.
During Taiwan Designers' Week, Starbucks "Mobile Coffee Cart" will provide free cups of coffee at the site everyday. Moreover, co-organized by National Taipei University of Education / Nanhai Gallery, Design Bazaar will be held during the weekend of June 28th to June 29th at Xinyi Public Assembly Hall. All the chosen works are created by local designers, artists, and craftsmen in Taiwan. ¬
Open House - An Invitation to Visit Taiwan's Leading Design Studios
Seeing is believing. During July 7th and July 9th, 8 of Taiwan's top design studios welcome those interested in design, to visit their studios and participate in the design process: PEGA Goldsmith Shop, ASUS Industrial Design Center, XRANGE, TECHART GROUP, IPEVO, Apogee, ndd (Tainan), and Opening United Studio (Tainan). Limited to 20 people for each company; please sign up at the counter of Xinyi Public Assembly Hall.
July 7th 3PM-4:30PM Xrange, IPEVO, AsusTeK
July 8th 3PM-4:30PM TECHART GROUP, OU Studio (Tainan), PEGA
July 9th 3PM-4:30PM Apogee, ndd (Tainan)
Online news sites powered by ordinary users offer different points of view
VANCOUVER - Brian McNeil wrote his first news story almost three years ago,
compiling a 300-word item about a lawsuit involving retail giant Wal-Mart.
>From his home just outside Brussels, Belgium, the Scottish-born systems
analyst borrowed facts from stories on several online news websites and a
media release, and posted his story on Wikinews, a lesser-known cousin of
Wikipedia.
With no formal journalism training, McNeil has since helped pen dozens of
items on the site, one of several allowing ordinary people to create and
disseminate news online.
"It's just something I actually quite enjoyed doing - it's satisfying to see
your work finished and up there," says McNeil, 39, who has also started
conducting his own interviews to gather information.
"Anybody can have a go at it and build themselves a reputation. It's a
personally satisfying thing to do."
There's a growing number of websites that allow users to contribute to the
newsgathering process in some way - sometimes called citizen journalism or
participatory journalism.
The models vary widely: some sites offer first-hand accounts or video from
witnesses; others feature material rewritten by users from mainstream media
outlets; while still others ask members to gather original material and call
sources for information and quotes.
Some, such as CNN's IReport.com, are associated with established,
traditional news providers, but many of the emerging websites featuring
user-generated news operate on their own.
These sites are becoming more popular as the news industry struggles to
adapt to an age where users want to be involved in a two-way dialogue rather
than be passive consumers of information.
And so far, no one has quite figured out the answer.
"It's very much trial (and) error to try and work out how it's going to
work," says McNeil. "It's so new that it is just a grand experiment."
Skeptics are quick to point out potential problems with letting anyone with
an Internet connection write the news.
It's more difficult to enforce standards of objectivity and accountability
when the anonymous masses are behind the stories, not to mention the
potential for plagiarism or misinformation.
These are concerns that NowPublic.com - a Vancouver-based site that
encourages both original content and links to stories on other news websites
- is trying to grapple with.
The site was recently redesigned with added tools for visitors to assess
content, such as a rating system to rank the credibility of contributors.
But the website's founder, Michael Tippett, says objectivity is less
important than ensuring readers have access to as many points of view as
possible.
"(Just as) you come to respect a journalist who writes for a news
organization because you recognize that news organization itself has
credibility, you can look at the NowPublic members the same way," says
Tippett.
"It's not necessary that one person is completely dispassionate about a
subject. ... We believe that if you have a number of different points of
view represented in a story, that the truth will emerge."
Sites like NowPublic can't compete with the resources of traditional news
outlets, says Tippett, and that's not the point.
Rather, Tippett says the goal is to supplement - not replace - what's
already out there.
"Our view is that traditional media makes us better, and we can make
traditional media better," says Tippett, whose site recently inked a deal
with The Associated Press to share eye-witness photos and videos.
"There are so many people in the world who are able to, in many cases, beat
traditional media to the scene of emerging news."
Orato.com, also based in Vancouver, is leaving the balanced,
up-to-the-minute news reports to the professionals. Instead, it asks people
affected by the news of the day to tell their stories.
Hurricane Katrina, the Virginia Tech shootings, the D.C. sniper, the London
bombings - these are stories, says Orato editor-in-chief Paul Sullivan, best
told by people living through them.
"We encourage people who are what I would call 'participant observers,' who
have a point of view because the story is happening to them," says Sullivan.
"The closer you can get to the actual story, the actual experience, the
actual event, the happier I am. What you get is a different kind of news, a
more personal news."
These types of websites provide an exciting and valuable addition to the
news, but it's not journalism, says Mary McGuire, who teaches journalism at
Carleton University in Ottawa.
"They're contributing to the newsgathering process but they're not really
doing journalism," says McGuire.
"What you've got are a lot of ways in which the public is contributing
facts, details, observations, pictures, opinions to the gathering of
information."
McGuire says a better term than citizen journalism would be networked
journalism, as users engage in a collaborative process that involves both
professionals and amateurs.
As online news continues to evolve, McGuire says much of that collaboration
will still happen on traditional, established news sites that readers
already trust.
"The news-consuming public still needs and wants places to go where they can
be guaranteed that somebody's put all the pieces together and provided some
context and analysis and double-checked things," she says.
Even though these sites will likely never replace traditional news outlets -
and most say they don't want to - McGuire says they will no doubt shape the
future of the industry.
"What they're doing is challenging the mainstream media to change their
ways, to improve what they offer online and to respond to a public that does
want to be part of the process."
Hi,
* Now there is no option to add second category.
* The entire article is exported. But I can change this, if you decide so.
Best regards,
Iaroslav Vassiliev
bawolff wrote:
/me like
Questions:
*Category addition possible (feeds for category:Europe combined with
published/whatever) not that important as we can just use the current
system for the non-primary feeds (aka
http://toolserver.org/~zach/cgi-bin/rss.cgi?cat=Space )
*Is the entire article in the feed, or just the first paragraph
-bawolff
Hello, our Wikinewsies:
I've contacted with executives from "iF", they send this information for me,
because theirs main language is mostly in Germen, I need some help from
European users to make this information clear.
I will consider to write an article about the iF design award. In this
e-mail is the official release, the correct version can be found at
http://www.ifdesign.de/presse_detail_e.html?pmid=350
Regards,
Rico C. Shen.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: iF International Forum Design <iF(a)neumann-luz.de>
Date: 2008/6/23
Subject: Terms of entry for iF product design award 2009 are online |
registration deadline is September 15, 2008
To: BrockF5(a)gmail.com
Dear Rico C.C. Shen,
terms of entry for *iF product design award 2009* are available online.
As one of the world's oldest design competitions, the iF product design
award
can look back on a rich, long tradition. For the first time the product will
be
judged in *16 categories*.
The following categories are new or have been modified:
- Transportation Design
- Kitchen / Household
- Bathroom / Wellness
- Buildings
- Industry / Skilled Trades
- Special Vehicles / Agricultural Technology
The "Advanced Studies" category has also been transformed into a
full-fledged category,
making its winners now eligible for an iF gold award.
The jury session will be in November, the awards ceremony on March 3, 2009
at the first day
of CeBIT.
*The participation guideline can be downloaded in eight different languages*
:
_German,
_English,
_French,
_Spanish,
_Portuguese,
_Japanese,
_Chinese,
_Korean.
Please download the terms of entry at:
http://www.ifdesign.de/awards_product_index_e
Thank you very much for your interest and kind regards,
Silke Becker
_________________________
iF press office
*Cologne *| Hannover
Dipl. Des. Silke Becker
Claudia Neumann Communication GmbH
Eigelstein 103-113
50668 Cologne
Germany
phone +49 (0)221-91 39 49-0
fax +49 (0)221-91 39 49-19
iF(a)neumann-luz.de
http://www.ifdesign.de
--
Chinese Wikinews Reporter and Photographer
Chinese Wikipedia Administrator
申其川 Rico C. C. Shen (BrockF5)
Tel: +886-953-086735
E-Mail: RicoCCShen(a)wikinewsie.org
MSN: AkiraTaue(a)hotmail.com
Blog: http://bloguide.ettoday.com/mufc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
So, I think it's time to bring this up. I'm doing it on the mailing
list because it encourages a more detailed response than on-wiki, and
those who really care will be able to respond. For those who worry
that i'm taking Wiki issues off-wiki, please don't, this is a
discussion phase, and I fully intend to publicise any changes on-wiki
where we will obtain consensus before moving onwards.
I think that Flagged Revisions could potentially be a good thing for
Wikinews. It would give us both greater control and greater
credibility in the eyes of our readers. Not only can everyone edit,
but there is a form of "checking" beforehand - that leaves us open to
anyone's contributions whilst stil being able to easily maintain a
credible news source that conforms to all our guidelines.
I believe that the "Patrolling" configuration will work well for us.
Here's the definition, verbatim, from the announcement by Erik:
In the Patrolling Configuration, any user who has been registered for
more than 21 days and has made at least 150 edits will be
automatically given the permission to patrol changes for vandalism.
Only changes made by users who are not permitted to patrol changes
need to be patrolled.
In addition, sysops will be given the permission to flag versions of
"featured articles" in accordance with existing nomination processes.
(In other words, this gives you the ability to identify specific
_versions_ of an article as "featured", rather than the article as a
whole.) Finally, sysops will be permitted to define on a per-page
basis that changes need to be patrolled before being visible to
unregistered readers. This is an alternative to semi-protection; it
doesn't make sense to use both on a given page.
The use of these features is subject to policies that your wiki
community will need to develop. They should be used carefully until
such a policy is in place.
This means that we can stabilise articles on-publish (by marking them
as "patrol required"), whilst still allowing anyone to make changes.
Thoughts? Suggestions? Custom configurations? Please reply. Let's keep
this as constructive as possible.
- --
~ Paul Williams
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: http://getfiregpg.org
iD8DBQFIX5sJ44H2oHAh6zIRAlxbAJ9YiXXThpD1vfL+uDAVO74+ZWyNwQCeJDcr
cLgf/MsLMLVLZOQ9J+mOULY=
=L3Br
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
For those not on scoop, this is the latest email bar one on the latest
release from Wikileaks. I am *most* annoyed in particular because I was not
given any opportunity to rebut items within it.
Since then I've been emailed by Wikileaks telling me "chin up", "eat your
own dog food". I will be having nothing more to do with them, and if I find
out who leaked private emails to them I'll have their balls as sweetmeats.
Brian McNeil
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian McNeil [mailto:brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org]
Sent: 17 June 2008 23:49
To: 'Jason Safoutin'
Cc: 'Wikileaks Press Release'; 'Wikileaks News Releases'; 'Wikinews mailing
list'; 'Communications Committee'
Subject: RE: [WL-News] Did the Wikimedia foundation lie about muzzling
Wikinews?
I still want to find out who the hell leaked the two deleted articles to
Wikileaks in the first place. If it was someone who had cached copies in
their browser there is little we can do about it. Were it an administrator
then we are talking about what I consider a serious breach of trust. The
only interest served by the leak was that of Wikileaks. I have those I
suspect, and this incident has, and will continue to, colour all subsequent
communications with them. Chilling effect? You bet.
"Effective Office Action" is not the same as an office action. It is a
convenient way to describe what happened. For both deleted articles, I was
contacted with some urgency about potential legal repercussions. In both
cases, the final decision to delete was mine, but with words of advice from
those better versed in the US legal system. You can easily read the articles
in question, some dolt leaked them to Wikileaks. One basically says
everything short of calling Erik Moeller a paedophile, the other put the
Foundation's legal counsel in a very tricky position. He asserted all
material on the case in question had been removed from Wikipedia, but in
covering it on Wikinews there is a real and serious concern that the court
would not make the distinction between Wikipedia and Wikinews.
Why is Wikileaks digging this up again? Why am I being made out to be a
puppet of the Foundation office staff? And, once again, why can't Wikileaks
do the goddamn job properly and contact people for input? My email address
isn't that difficult to find.
Brian McNeil
-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Safoutin [mailto:jason.safoutin@wikinewsie.org]
Sent: 17 June 2008 23:27
To: Brian McNeil
Cc: 'Wikileaks Press Release'; 'Wikileaks News Releases'
Subject: Re: [WL-News] Did the Wikimedia foundation lie about muzzling
Wikinews?
Also note, that this is a PR based on something said during the issue at
hand. I am also wondering why this is coming across now?
Jason Safoutin
Brian McNeil wrote:
> I would like to thank Wikileaks for demonstrating that they are prepared
to
> go against accepted journalistic practices when reporting material they
> consider sensational. Due diligence involves making a reasonable effort to
> contact involved parties.
>
> I am the "Brian McNeil" mentioned in this article and not one person
> attempted to contact me to discuss my take on this issue. Private emails I
> have sent have been shared and I have, consequently, lost a great deal of
> trust in various members of the Wikinews community. The context in which
> these emails were sent is not conveyed in an effort to catch a headline
that
> someone is a liar.
>
>
> Brian McNeil
> Wikinews administrator & accredited reporter.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: news-bounces(a)lists.sunshinepress.org
> [mailto:news-bounces@lists.sunshinepress.org] On Behalf Of Wikileaks Press
> Release
> Sent: 17 June 2008 21:41
> To: Wikinews
> Cc: Wikileaks News Releases
> Subject: [WL-News] Did the Wikimedia foundation lie about muzzling
Wikinews?
>
> Wikileaks Press Release
> Tue Jun 17 20:28:25 GMT 2008
>
> DID THE WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION LIE ABOUT MUZZLING WIKINEWS?
>
>
http://ljsf.org/wiki/Did_the_Wikimedia_Foundation_lie_about_muzzling_Wikinew
> s%3F
>
> ERIN HALASZ & staff
> Tuesday June 16, 2008
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation ordered an admin to delete two controversial
> Wikinews articles, and Jay Walsh, the Foundation's head of
> communications,
> knew more about this than he would like to admit, according to Wikinews
> author Jason Safoutin.
>
> Safoutin contacted me after listening to this interview with Walsh.
Walsh
> denied first-hand knowledge of an internal conversation about the
deleted
> articles and emphasized Wikinews administrator Brian McNeil's role in
> deleting it.
>
> But Safoutin, who has written 750 articles for Wikinews under the
screen
> name DragonFire1024, said Walsh did not tell the whole story.
>
> "I have proof, and also proof that Mr. Walsh knew of these actions,"
> Safoutin wrote.
>
> The proof: a series of emails, available online, between McNeil,
> Wikimedia
> Foundation lawyer Mike Godwin, and Sue Gardner, the Foundation's
> executive
> director, with Walsh CC'd. The emails reference the deleted articles.
>
> "If this was not an action of the foundation," Safoutin wrote, "why
would
> a contributer (Brian), who has been on Wikinews longer than me and
about
> the time it started, write a concerning e-mail to all these people
> (Godwin, Sue Gardner, Jay), saying that Godwin TOLD him to delete BOTH
> articles saying `Mike has got me to effectively perform office actions
> and
> delete two articles in the past day or so?'"
>
> Gardner, Godwin and McNeil also discussed other Wikinews issues, such
as
> the problems of writing about an organization you work for and the idea
> of
> creating a private site where writers can edit articles out of the
public
> eye before they're published.
>
> In his interview, Walsh did admit that the Wikimedia Foundation advised
> McNeil that Safoutin's articles might be libelous because of what they
> said about Erik Mo:ller, the Foundation's deputy director. Mo:ller has
> brought the Foundation some bad press for allegedly approving of sex
> between very young children, and Safoutin's article referenced the
> allegations.
>
> But for Safoutin, the main problem was that the article was deleted
> without any input from him. He loves writing for Wikinews and has
> continued to write in spite of his frustration with some people in the
> organization.
>
> I emailed him to find out more about his views on Wikinews, Walsh, the
> Foundation and the controversy surrounding his deleted articles. He
> responded with some thoughtful insight on what happened to his articles
> and what is in store for the Wikinews project.
>
> The full Q&A is below:
>
> Wikileads.net: I'm curious if this is the first time in your experience
> with Wikinews that something like this has happened - that people
inside
> the Foundation have gotten involved with deleting a story. If it's
> happened before, when and why?
>
> Jason Safoutin: This was the first time in my history that this has
> happened. If this has happened before, then it was before I joined
> Wikinews which was January of 2006.
>
> WL: What about other articles that haven't worked (if there have been
> any)? What were they about? Were there other legal concerns?
>
> JS: We published an article about Wikimedia/Wikinews getting a
copyright
> infringement notice from the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormon
Church)
> about a web link in an article to Wikileaks which they claimed violated
> the DMCA (Digital Media Copyright Act). The Link was removed pending
> legal
> review, and was later re-added. Someone leaked the request the Church
> sent
> to Wikimedia and we wrote an article on that. Concerns were brought up
> about the leaked request, but nothing about the article itself, or
> general
> legal concerns. Only the initial concern was the actual request itself,
> and whether or not it was valid. Here is that article:
>
>
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_receives_copyright_infringe
> ment_claim_from_Mormon_Church
>
> WL: Jay did say in the interview that the Foundation gives legal advice
> to
> users over issues such as libel and defamation. Have you asked them for
> legal advice before? Was their advice before this ever to delete an
> article?
>
> JS: If they give any kind of legal advice, on an individual level or on
a
> community level, then they have never, until these articles, given
legal
> advice to me. I have never asked them for legal advice because I was
not
> aware I needed any nor was I aware that they provided free legal advice
> to
> contributers on any project. If they do provide it then they sure don't
> make it aware to anyone.
>
> WL: What about Erik Moller? Were the quotes you cited untrue? Or just
> embarrassing for Wikimedia?
>
> JS: What I wrote about Moeller was based edits he made to Wikipedia,
and
> papers/reports he wrote in school. I never once stated that Moeller was
a
> pedophile. I stated that based on my research that he supports the idea
> and concept of pedophilia. Other blogs and websites stated that he was
or
> seemed to be one. I contacted Moeller and Godwin for a statement to
deny,
> confirm and or give a statement regarding the allegations and within an
> hour or so the article was deleted on grounds it was "false." If it was
> false, then I should have been allowed to correct those portions with
> advice and/or counsel, but was not given the chance. I would say that
the
> whole situation in general would be embarrassing for Wikimedia, but
they
> are able to exert control over Wikinews and other Wikimedia projects.
> Based on conversations I had with individuals from all over, I would
say
> that yes this is quite embarrassing for Wikimedia...not just the
> deletions
> without a general cause to the public/community and me (at least prior
to
> deletion), but the way they did it and how they did it.
>
> WL: What do you think about the conversation in those emails you linked
> to
> about creating a private space to edit articles so that issues like
libel
> are better avoided?
>
> JS: I think it is a great idea, provided it is not just talk to keep us
> entertained for a little bit. It was widely supported by the community
on
> Wikinews. We had submitted the proposal in January of 2008 to the
> developers at Wikimedia, but was denied because it "had to go through
the
> committees". I asked some people, including a board member who had no
> clue
> what "committees" meant. It is my understanding that the developers
> cannot
> begin a new "project" or space for Wikimedia, without approval from the
> language committees or the board of trustees. That being the case, I
> don't
> see how Sue Gardner, or anyone else working for Wikimedia, can hand us
> that Wiki or any other space on a silver platter.
>
> A link of this denial is here:
> https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12528
>
> That said, its a great idea. I just want to see the effort to get it to
> us
> first rather than just talking about it.
>
> WL: What are some issues you see in the Foundation and Wikinews that
need
> to be figured out?
>
> JS: The foundation needs to recognize us as a project. I hear
individuals
> complain about other websites that misquote Wikimedia all the time and
> then we need to hear about how bad that website is afterwards. If
> Wikimedia would come to Wikinews first and get the story out, then that
> problem might not exist. I don't see Wikimedia doing anything for us,
at
> least until we do something they might see as "bad", like the recent
> situation for example. There is not enough communication or help when
we
> ask for it. We are a project of Wikimedia just like any other and we
> should be treated with the same respect.
>
> WL: How often does the Foundation intervene in the reporting and
writing
> process?
>
> JS: They have never interfered on Wikinews prior to this. If they have
it
> was long before my time.
>
> WL: Have you written other articles about Wikimedia controversies? Did
> similar things happen?
>
> JS: I wrote an article about Carolyn Doran and about Mike Godwin not
> attending an ethics panel discussion on Wikipedia. I also wrote about
the
> IP address which made an edit to Wikipedia on the wrestlers article
Chris
> Benoit, who posted the death of his wife 14 hours before police knew
> about
> the murders of her and his son. Did they ever intervene then? Not once.
> In
> fact Moeller helped us with Benoit for a moment when FOX News took some
> of
> our work and tried to call it their own. But this is the first time
that
> anything `negative' came of an article that did not show Wikimedia in a
> good light.
>
> WL: For this article, did you have the option to update the article
> before
> it was deleted?
>
> JS: No. I didn't have a chance to remove any alleged false information
or
> correct any of the alleged mistakes in either of the two articles. I
was
> not told what could have been wrong with them until after they were
> deleted.
>
> WL: Do you think you'll still write for Wikinews once this is resolved?
>
> JS: I still am as we speak and don't have any plans to stop writing. My
> concern is not with Wikinews which I love to death, but with the
> Wikimedia
> staff/board members and how they handle their concerns. Things around
> Wikinews and other projects are generally done on consensus and office
> actions are needed for extreme situations. I have written about 750
> articles since January 2006. I think this situation could have been
> treated with a bit more respect towards me and the community. I was
> working hard on two articles, one of which was nowhere near completed.
> This could ave been done a lot nicer.
>
> WL: Any more thoughts on the subject? Things that haven't been
addressed?
>
> JS: Yes. I want to respond to a few things about the interview with Jay
> Walsh: We do write interesting things about interesting people. I don't
> know if he takes the time to read Wikinews at all, even while this is
> going on, but he would see we work incredibly hard for something we do
> not
> get paid to do. The deletions were done by a Wikinews administrator who
> was told to do so (delete them) by Mike Godwin. I know this because the
> initial e-mail to Sue Gardner and Mike Godwin was also sent to Jay
Walsh.
> So unless he doesn't read his e-mail, then he was made very aware of
this
> situation at about the time the articles were deleted. The discussion
was
> forwarded to him and note that neither Godwin or Sue denied that the
> articles were deleted as an office action. Here is that e-mail in
> question:
>
>
http://www.nabble.com/FW%3A-Wikinews-reporting-on-WMF-and-projects-p17170959
> .html
>
> Evidence from the foundation-l mailinglist
>
> On the foundation-l mail-list, it is clear that the foundation's view
of
> Wikinews should be be able to publish freely, only:
>
> "When doing so doesn't compromise our goals, yes." -- Dalton
[1]
>
> Brain McNeil declares the articles as libel.[2] He also admits wanting
> case-law buildup and says something not nice about Bauer.[3]
>
> Mike Godwin acknowledges the theory of office actions that look like
> community actions (even if the theory is questionable):
>
> "So the theory here is that we're clever enough to cloak an
> OFFICE
> action as a community action, and even to convince some
community
> members that they believe they're merely acting on advice
rather
> than under a "WMF mandate," but not quite clever enough to fool
> you about our cloaked agenda?"[4]
>
> Despite issues of conflict of interest, it is clear that the nature of
> the
> "request" is pivotal between office and community actions:
>
> "On that, I would agree. However, when it -is- WMF taking an
> official action, it should be clearly marked as such. If it is
> not, it should be made absolutely, 100% clear that this is
"Mike
> Godwin, the editor" not "Mike Godwin, the WMF representative"
> putting forth the position. What should be studiously avoided
> (ESPECIALLY in cases where the material at issue is critical of
> WMF) is some grey area between the two."[5]
>
> Dalton acknowledges the precedence of legal matters over community
policy
> (i.e. the "request"):
>
> "But would you ever dismiss it if it was the foundation's
lawyer
> telling you there were legal concerns? We all know the law
trumps
> community policy."[6]
>
> The conflict of interest is obvious. The request being made to the
> community from the foundation, or the foundation taking unilateral
action
> can, both, be seen as identical:
>
> "True, but I'd still say such a situation is pretty much
> identical
> to the WMF performing the action itself." -- Anthony [7]
>
> It is also acknowledged that sysops/admins are unwilling go against
> foundation (or undo) suggestions,[8] and that "preventative" reactions
> are
> swift.[9]
>
> It is clear that Wikinews is essentially controlled by the WMF,
> astroturfing attempts to conceal the control not withstanding:
>
> "The attempt to make this look like a community decision when
it
> really appears to be a WMF mandate ("strong suggestion", or
> whatever we want to call it) is what I find disturbing
here."[10]
>
> The lack of a clear editorial independence of Wikinews opens a can of
> worms:
>
> "One other point, and then I'm done for the day. What is the
> foundation going to do when the people who would otherwise sue
> the
> foundation realize they can't do so and turn to the community
> members who implement these "suggestions" and sue them instead?
> Will it help them defend themselves, or will it leave them to
> fend
> for themselves?".[11]
>
> NB. Wikileaks is unrelated to the WMF or Wikinews.
>
> _______________________________________________
> News mailing list
> News(a)lists.sunshinepress.org
> https://lists.wikileaks.org/mailman/listinfo/news
> http://wikileaks.be/wiki/Contact
>
>
>
>
