I am of the opinion, based on the (lack of) progress on fr.wikipedia.org that we need to seriously reassess the "new site" rules.
First, it needs to be harder to start, and it needs to be demonstrated that the existing wikipedia community supports it. This is important because we want to transmit the values of quality and neutrality to the new sites.
Second, it needs to be made clear that if a site falls inactive, it will be closed.
----
Separate issue: the logo *really* needs to say BETA on it, ASAP. This is already causing confusion. People have come to me demanding to know why I authorized that Wikinews no longer be in beta, but I did not. It needs to be in beta for probably 2 years.
--Jimbo
Jimmy-
First, it needs to be harder to start, and it needs to be demonstrated that the existing wikipedia community supports it.
I'm currently moving towards supporting a combined requirement approach:
1) 2-3 Wikimedia (not Wikipedia) regulars in that language supporting it 2) certain key documents being created / translated on Meta (mission statement, Wikinews-NPOV, FAQ, Main Page etc.)
I'm not sure what you mean with "demonstrated that the existing Wikipedia community supports it". Would you like local polls for each language? I'd personally not want to use that approach, because I'm worried about it leading to a loss of coherence within the Wikimedia community over time, just because of some localized statistical fluctuations in such polls.
Regardless of what approach we use, it will always be difficult to predict the success of a new language edition before it is set up. It really depends on the passion and dedication of the handful of people who start working on it. A single highly motivated volunteer can run a very successful Wikinews edition all by himself. I want to see this happening as well, and not put the burden so high that good people will be deterred. That's why I think a policy based on people doing work on Meta first, rather than on some poll or vote, might lead to better results.
Second, it needs to be made clear that if a site falls inactive, it will be closed.
We need to distinguish between temporary inactivity and long-term inactivity though. Temporary inactivity will happen on any wiki, it's just much more visible on Wikinews with its chronological Main Page. Which length of inactivity would you suggest before the wiki be shut down? Would it be just read-only? How exactly is inactivity defined? No new stories, or just no changes?
Separate issue: the logo *really* needs to say BETA on it, ASAP.
As we discussed on IRC, I'd prefer not to deface the logo to do this, but to put it in the place where Wikipedia says "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". All Wikinewses can edit this at MediaWiki:Tagline. On the English one, I'm now changing it to:
"Wikinews - the free news source (BETA)"
It needs to be in beta for probably 2 years.
I think with regard to the Beta, treating all the Wikinews editions the same is not desirable. I'd like to have a set of criteria which a Wikinews edition must meet to be considered non-Beta, such as:
* large (e.g. 25) average output of stories per day on a wide variety of topics * RSS feeds * regular original reporting and associated policies * solid fact-checking, review and archival process
The problem with just saying "We'll be Beta for two years" is that it's a very top-down approach. A lot of people have complained to me about Wikinews being in Beta and them not knowing what to do about it and who decides that and why. As with the policy for creating new editions, I'd like to follow an approach which gives people goals to work towards, rather than letting them wait for something which they cannot influence.
This would also necessarily mean that, for example, the English Wikinews might move out of Beta before the Bulgarian one, which I think is the right thing to do.
What do you think?
Peace,
Erik
Jimbo,
As we discussed on IRC, I'd prefer not to deface the logo to do this, but to put it in the place where Wikipedia says "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". All Wikinewses can edit this at MediaWiki:Tagline. On the English one, I'm now changing it to:
"Wikinews - the free news source (BETA)"
Instead of "beta" -- which I find very techie and unclear to people without knowledge of Greek letters -- can we call it a "Project in Development" or a "Project in Testing"?
-ilya
Erik Moeller wrote:
- 2-3 Wikimedia (not Wikipedia) regulars in that language supporting it
- certain key documents being created / translated on Meta (mission
statement, Wikinews-NPOV, FAQ, Main Page etc.)
I am not sure that 2-3 people is enough.
I'm not sure what you mean with "demonstrated that the existing Wikipedia community supports it". Would you like local polls for each language? I'd personally not want to use that approach, because I'm worried about it leading to a loss of coherence within the Wikimedia community over time, just because of some localized statistical fluctuations in such polls.
I'm not sure I follow. I think there's a much greater risk of loss of coherence if we let 2-3 people make the decision rather than if we track a broader consensus of the community with a localized poll.
Regardless of what approach we use, it will always be difficult to predict the success of a new language edition before it is set up. It really depends on the passion and dedication of the handful of people who start working on it. A single highly motivated volunteer can run a very successful Wikinews edition all by himself.
I think this last bit is what is not true. Wikinews differs from Wikipedia in that news is constantly changing, whereas encyclopedia articles are timeless. If a single highly motivated volunteer writes 100 articles at a rate of 2 per day, then even if no one else joins, those articles have permanent lasting value whenever more people do come along. With an encyclopedia, laying down a base of work is always valuable, if anyone helps or not.
With news, though, stories are stale after just a few days.
Therefore, a much higher number of participants than 1 is needed for a successful wikinews. If only 2-3 people are involved, it is likely to falter after a few weeks.
Look at fr.wikinews.org for a demonstration of this. At the moment, the top headline is for 15 Feb -- and it is now 3 Mar.
be deterred. That's why I think a policy based on people doing work on Meta first, rather than on some poll or vote, might lead to better results.
This is a very good idea, yes.
The problem with just saying "We'll be Beta for two years" is that it's a very top-down approach.
No, I didn't mean that exactly. It is my prediction that we will want to be in beta for at least that long. I do think that some set of criteria makes a lot of sense of course.
A lot of people have complained to me about Wikinews being in Beta and them not knowing what to do about it and who decides that and why.
I think this can be clarified, and I think that the bar should be set quite high *and* people should know that this is our method of deflecting certain types of criticism, not a negative thing.
Google News is still in beta.
The idea is: if someone wants to write an article saying Wikinews is not yet very good, we want to be able to respond: of course, we are not claiming that it's a released product yet.
This would also necessarily mean that, for example, the English Wikinews might move out of Beta before the Bulgarian one, which I think is the right thing to do.
Yep.
--Jimbo
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales
I am not sure that 2-3 people is enough.
Actually, this could be enough, if the site would launch as a beta. In my opinion, a beta version of Wikinews doesn't need so much Wikip(m)edians - just look at pl.Wikinews. We're slowing down, but we had the most number of people who wanted to work on this project (from the three Wikinews sites launched lately). This could be due to number of reasons, but anyway - if we want to have Wikinews in a beta stage, 2-3 people is enough. If we want to start with a full-fledged news service, we need way more people - 10 may be enough.
As for the local poll, it wouldn't be good, in my opinion. Many people would want this project to be made, but only a few of them would contribute.
Erik Moeller wrote:
- 2-3 Wikimedia (not Wikipedia) regulars in that language supporting
it 2) certain key documents being created / translated on Meta (mission statement, Wikinews-NPOV, FAQ, Main Page etc.)
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales: I am not sure that 2-3 people is enough.
_______________________________
David: Maybe we when a new Wikinews is formed, we should send a one-time invite to all the admins of that language's Wikipedia to come in and help out.
-- David Speakman http://www.DavidSpeakman.com 501 Moorpark Way #83 Mountain View CA 94041 Phone: 408-382-1459
Jimmy-
I'm not sure what you mean with "demonstrated that the existing Wikipedia community supports it". Would you like local polls for each language? I'd personally not want to use that approach, because I'm worried about it leading to a loss of coherence within the Wikimedia community over time, just because of some localized statistical fluctuations in such polls.
I'm not sure I follow. I think there's a much greater risk of loss of coherence if we let 2-3 people make the decision rather than if we track a broader consensus of the community with a localized poll.
2-3 people? There was a global vote from October 22 to November 12 in which people from most, if not all, major languages participated. That sample size is much, much larger than any individual language community poll. There was a demo site. The project has been approved by the Board of Trustees. 10 language editions have been launched. To have future editions meet another test, namely a local community poll, seems like an unfair increase of the burden of proof for those language communities.
I have always said that, if there are reasons specific to a language community why the project shouldn't be launched, then these reasons should be carefully addressed. This is what I tried to do with the Wikinews China poll. But I really don't see why we need to question again and again and again whether Wikinews should exist at all, and I fear that if we do, the decisions that will result will be wildly different and dependent on factors which we cannot influence (e.g., one local community leader being a very strong opponent of Wikinews could have a lot of influence on that community).
If Wikinews is a bad idea which drains resources, then all resources should be drained equally; if it is a good idea which leads to innovation and progress, then all sites should innovate and progress at the same pace. Otherwise we risk losing a coherent Wikimedia identity, and just because some French or Russian or Indonesian people don't like the Wikinews idea, their local Wikimedia set of projects will develop differently from all others.
But if we require these polls, then we should make absolutely sure that we avoid a situation where one new language has 49% local approval, and doesn't get launched for another year, while another one has 51% and does get launched, in spite of both languages having people willing to work on Wikinews. So these local community polls could be kept open indefinitely, and once a certain threshold is crossed (which could be higher than 50%) and the conditions are met, there's no way back and the project is launched.
A poll will NOT help at all, in my opinion, to predict the activity on a local edition of Wikinews. You could have 100 people willing to work on a local Wikinews edition, but 60% of the language community opposing it, or you could have everyone supporting it, but nobody willing to work on it.
I think this last bit is what is not true. Wikinews differs from Wikipedia in that news is constantly changing, whereas encyclopedia articles are timeless. If a single highly motivated volunteer writes 100 articles at a rate of 2 per day, then even if no one else joins, those articles have permanent lasting value whenever more people do come along. With an encyclopedia, laying down a base of work is always valuable, if anyone helps or not.
With news, though, stories are stale after just a few days.
You underestimate the value of open content archives. A big problem with news publication today is that virtually all news site archives are locked down after a certain period of time. AP etc. seem to be quite keen on making sure that no permanent copies of their content are made available for free over a longer period of time. If our hypothetical volunteer has written 100 articles, and then quit, those articles *will* have lasting value to anyone doing research on the events they describe, over the coming decades. Simply put, that content will not be there if we choose to make the burden of proof too high before allowing the person to write these articles. I would find that regrettable.
Therefore, a much higher number of participants than 1 is needed for a successful wikinews. If only 2-3 people are involved, it is likely to falter after a few weeks.
Define "falter". I have suggested before that we should simply have a frontpage notice if a Wikinews falls into a temporary period of inactivity. To me, the real risk is not that the site is inactive for a while, but that it is inactive permanently, while attracting spam and requiring maintenance. So we need to distinguish between the two.
Furthermore, there's no need to be *too* afraid of a project faltering if we have clear procedures, i.e. to make a wiki temporarily read-only and require certain conditions to be met before it is made active again. What is the risk of that? I understand the urge to become more professional, but we should also not forget that wikis rely on wild experimentation in open spaces.
Look at fr.wikinews.org for a demonstration of this. At the moment, the top headline is for 15 Feb -- and it is now 3 Mar.
And since then, two articles for March have been written. I have no idea whether they are any good, but the point is, we should allow projects time to exist in a slightly embarrassing state -- this is OK as long as we make it clear to the visitor that the site is still beta.
No, I didn't mean that exactly. It is my prediction that we will want to be in beta for at least that long. I do think that some set of criteria makes a lot of sense of course.
OK, I will try to come up with some criteria for the Beta / Non-Beta transition.
Peace,
Erik
wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org