[Foundation-l] the features...

[Erik Moeller]

Anthere:
> For the first point Erik, it seems some people are not 
 > happy with the way decision making happens on wikinews.

I think that there are many different problems that have happened in 
recent days:

1) There has been a very big fight about the use of the DynamicPageList 
extension to automate story display. I was not involved in that. Those 
who opposed it felt that the other side eventually pushed their solution 
through without discussing it.

2) Davodd has some concerns that we're not accepting enough local 
stories. I'm not quite sure where that comes from, but we're discussing it.

3) There's the inputbox extension. It is meant to address one problem 
with the list of "developing stories" (those which have {{Develop}}). 
When the new automatically generated list of developing stories was 
added, it was not easy anymore to create an article simply be editing a 
page and by linking to it. For some time, we had two lists of 
"developing stories", which was a bit silly. Ilya Haykinson suggested 
that in the context of Wikinews,

	Edit template => Add link => Follow link => Save page

is not really a particularly good way to create new pages. The main 
rationale for this process in the wiki world -- where you want to have 
high interlinking between pages -- is weaker for Wikinews, where 
categories serve the same purpose.

I liked this suggestion a lot, so I implemented it, and while I was at 
it, I thought it might be a good idea to also offer the option (!) of 
preloading text into the inputbox, as Wikinews uses a few templates 
which a newcomer will not be aware of. Previously, we used a page called 
"Submit a story" to accept submissions from newcomers unaware of the 
syntax. This was very unwiki-like, as it suggested a distinction between 
submitters and editors. The new system allows us to put every user on 
the same level as the existing community of editors. We can also provide 
custom help when creating a new page.

I put the inputbox on the Main Page to demonstrate it. Nobody reverted 
the suggestion, and everyone who commented said they liked it, and that 
it would make editing a lot easier. That is, for the first hour or so. 
Then Amgine started criticizing it a lot, and finally, Pechorin also had 
some reservations (specifically, he didn't want it on the Main Page).

I said that I would like to have a discussion about what content, if 
any, should be preloaded. Amgine then started accusing me of "unilateral 
changes", abusing "my position", left the project, and a couple days 
later, has started this "Open Wikinews" proposition.

Amgine is the only one who is personalizing this dispute against me, 
while others have more general problems with Wikinews, as the discussion 
shows. This is not the first conflict between me and Amgine, and I have 
frequently been under the impression that anything I do will drive him 
ballistic, because he sees my edits as being "more important" than 
others (due to my founding role in the project). It should also be noted 
that Amgine has threatened to fork the project before, when he didn't 
get the technical changes he wanted implemented. I have always made it 
absolutely clear that my edits should be treated like any other, and 
that I hold no special role in the project.

> 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).

This is an untrue generalization; the only editor who is, in fact, 
referring specifically to my actions is Amgine.

> How do you suggest to improve this in the future ?

I want to have a constructive dialogue with the other members of the 
Wikinews community about the best way to operate the site.

> First, the box does not start empty, it is already prefilled with 
 > a whole bunch of preformatted content.

That content can be edited, or blanked, at
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Template:New_page
which is actively being done.

 > If the editor wants the story to be visible to the reader,
 > he must replace the development tag by a publish tag

Thanks to a recent change by Ilya to DPL, we will hopefully soon be able 
to make the {{Develop}} tag unnecessary, as we can make a list of all 
stories that are *not published* instead (we will first have to move all 
non-articles out of the main namespace, and tag all previous articles as 
published, though).

> * a more "similar" appearance to all articles

Actually, we've always enforced the look & feel rather rigidly, similar 
to the Wikipedia Manual of Style.

> * a strong reminder to the editor that he should list his sources

I'm not too happy with this part, as it might discourage original 
reporting. It's also very heavy syntax.

> * if you are a new editor, chances is you will be very 
 > perplex in front of all this complex synthax.

It's a matter of balance. Some prefilling is helpful and gives the new 
editor a rough idea of how things work, too much is going to be harmful 
instruction creep. We're actively discussing the best balance on
	http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Template_talk:New_page
with me being a lead advocate for keeping things simple.

> but when wikinews grows, it might be that the system does not scale 
 > so well and that articles are not quickly published.

That's a problem I'd like to have ;-). But I think we'll find new 
solutions if that does indeed happen, such as date-tagging developing 
stories and prioritizing those which haven't been dealt with for a long 
time.

 > 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.

As noted, the {{Develop}} tag will likely be deprecated soon.

> 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.

Less complex than the previous system, where you had to carefully edit 
multiple templates to get your story from development to publication. I 
would say that the new system is easier for people with no wiki 
experience, and a little unusual for people with wiki experience.

> * it is simple synthax
> * create an article, edit, save and this is it !

Yep. That's how it works now ;-)

> I think these two issues should be community enforced 
 > and taught by model (looking at what already exist).

I don't think an extreme position is helpful here, as I said, I think 
the trick is to find the right balance.

> 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 ?

Wikinews is not Wikipedia. Stories are published in multiple categories 
and automatically displayed there using the DynamicPageList extension. 
This is necessary - a manually maintained frontpage is not scalable. 
Even Amgine's proposed frontpage makes extensive use of the DPL, as you 
can see here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Open_English/Main_Page
He was one of the initial proponents of DPL, and contributed code to it. 
So while there have been disagreements about exactly how much automation 
we need, everyone seems to agree that we need *some* level of it.

But, DPL depends on stories being properly tagged by category. This is 
accomplished with the {{date}} tag and the {{develop}}/{{publish}} tags. 
These add the correct categories, which DPL then uses to fetch the 
latest stories from those categories. As noted above, {{develop}} will 
likely be deprecated soon, making it necessary to only remember {{date}} 
and {{publish}} to post a story.

Wikipedia has no such dependencies. I follow a link and I start writing. 
If my article is not perfect, that's fine, because it's still linked 
from the right places. People can see it. People will eventually fix it 
for me. In general, there's less things to know, and less things that 
can go wrong.

Now, don't get me wrong. This complexity is *undesirable*. Instead of 
templates, we will eventually want shiny buttons and comboboxes; 
intuitive and obvious user interfaces. This is a matter of further 
software changes. We're trying to achieve the best results with the 
technology we have today.

With that technology, it makes sense to guide ordinary users through the 
process of publishing a story. First empirical data indicates that this 
works. We no longer have to resort to the crutch that was 
Wikinews:Submit a story, and instead can give ordinary users the tools 
they need to publish stories.

We will continually work to make Wikinews easier to use. Eventually, 
wiki technology will incorporate more and more elements of blog 
technology. As we guide users, we must take care to avoid instruction 
creep. I want to engage in productive discussions with those who are 
afraid of instruction creep, and improve the site to avoid it.

> 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 ;-)

I'm very much in favor of that, actually, and asking other people as 
well. But, in terms of our usability goals, I'm quite aware that we are 
not there yet. But the recent changes are an improvement, and should 
help to make the site easier to user for newcomers than it was before.

Best,

Erik