I'd say, not on a pass - unless it does more in-depth checking to see if a user has a smallish number of contributions.
For a fail, do you notify the person who added the {{review}} template, or the person who initially created the article, or both when they're different? Do you notify IPs?
Brian.
-----Original Message----- From: wikinews-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikinews-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of bawolff Sent: 07 September 2009 15:36 To: Wikinews mailing list Subject: Re: [Wikinews-l] Wikinews is too rigid? Introducing someflexibility?New contributors?
Would it perhaps be helpful to make the peer review gadget spam the author of the article if the review of their article fails (or even a congratulations message if it passes)? Only problem is that it would probably annoy the regurals to get hundress of "congrats your article passed" messages.
-bawolff
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Jon Daviswiki@konsoletek.com wrote:
Something else to consider, maybe we should make some more user talk page templates that can be used to help people along (especially if we can drop them _before_ they goto our deletion warning messages, like {{abandoned}}. Example: "Hey, I see you've started a new article, remember to do these 3 very important things and put it into {{review}} when you're read" -- Basically any common problem we have, we should have a talk page template for it and we should make sure EVERYONE uses them. If you want to mark an article as {{abandoned}}, inform the user. I've seen more than a few
cases
where users have come back later and said "Hey, why did you mark this as abandoned/deleted it. I was done". Let's be fair, our way of doing this
is
unique to the ENTIRE WMF community. Additionally, I recently stole off Commons "User Messages" Gadget (goto Preferences > Gadgets > UI Gadgets -- to turn it on). Basically it adds a SHIT TON of options in your Toolbox when on a Usertalk page. This makes it _ultra_ simple to leave talk page messages (You don't even have to remember what exactly they say, there is help text).
I am also considering stealing off with their "Quick Delete" gadget which would enable us to have 1 click to tag an article (for example) as
abandoned
_AND_ notify to user. Might require some fine tuning by our local JS masters, but it would be useful.
As for {{copy edit}}. I'm not saying make it required, but it would be
nice
as an option. I can review any article I want, because I've got editor,
but
I can't copy edit for shit. There are other people who can copy edit superbly, but don't have Editor yet. Make it easy for everyone to find
each
other. I realize this was shot down when the system was being developed, but it's been around for a while, would others find this helpful? Or am I the only failure of a writer around here?
-SGN/Jon
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 04:35, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
Okay, I wont dispute that the [[WN:SG]] is long, and something pretty difficult to sit down and go through. The old welcome template used to effectively tell all new contributors they had to read the entire set of policies, and that was why I introduced {{Howdy}} and the associated
essay
[[WN:ARTICLE]]. Despite this, and Tempodivalses efforts as our local Wal-Mart greeter, virtually nobody seems to read it dozens of stories appear with Camel Case titles, people bypass article creation forms and dont have date templates, and there are a lot of {{copyvio}}s put up.
Thats a focus on our traditional article, and it is what we ideally want a lot more of. Problem is, the reality of the world is that *most* people couldnt string something like that together if their life
depended
on it. Combine that with recent media trends to dumb-down and be highly partisan (eg Fox News Fair and Balanced myth), and you have a
situation
where most people wouldnt know neutrality if it bit them in the ass, you end up with a widespread belief that news needs to be sensationalist
before
anyone will take an interest in it. Even some of Wikinews most prolific contributors are influenced by this sensationalising.
So, Jons suggestion seems to be to diversify somewhat and I think thats worth pursuing.
Photoessays?
Yup, itd be nice to see more photographic work featured on Wikinews, and ideally this would be accompanied with a short associated article that
puts
the photographs in context. It isnt happening, so how can we lower the
bar
and get more photoessays? Ive no problem with trimming back the writing requirement to the equivalent of a single entry in our current shorts style as long as the event where the photos were taken is put in
context,
i.e. some attempt to cover the 5W & H.
The place to recruit people for this sort of work is Commons. The obvious pitch to them is getting their photographs showcased, and an article collecting them linked to from Google News. Id be happy to take that up
on
Commons equivalent of the Water Cooler and try and engage Commoners in working towards [[WN:PHOTOESSAY]] as an equivalent to [[WN:ARTICLE]].
Perhaps for this type of article we need a slightly different {{peer review}} template?
Ultra-shorts
So, were talking a single paragraph to answer 5H&W, and some mechanism
to
present these on the main page outside the main Latest news section. Assuming we figure out how to do that we really have to consider that
some
of these will go on to become full articles. We dont want the
ultra-short
bit expanded dramatically, but a complete whole article. In any case, the current shorts is a nightmare when it comes time to review it.
Local
Really local news has been done in the past, just not very well. There is a category Local news, and its trivial to exclude that from the main
page.
Verifiability is the biggest headache there.
{{copyedit}}
Nope. This was part of my initial proposal for an article flow, and was shot down. From experience of what has happened since FlaggedRevs was introduced I would say copyediting should be a part of the review
process.
Now that Ive adopted the peer review gadget I frequently see myself
using
the comments parameter to tell people to look at the edits I made before reviewing and publishing. I think we really have to accept that reviewers are going to be required to do a lot of the copyediting.
Brian.
-----Original Message----- From: wikinews-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikinews-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jon Davis Sent: 06 September 2009 07:27 To: Wikinews mailing list; scoop@wikinewsie.org Subject: [Wikinews-l] Wikinews is too rigid? Introducing some flexibility?New contributors?
All, I've been kicking around some thoughts for a while, and I felt it was
time
to share and see if I can get some feedback on and maybe some traction
for
change.
== Long Version == We all want new contributors, after all, there is like 20 of us that are really active at any given time. Hell, I could probably give the names
of
everyone that is reasonably active on Wikinews off the top of my head.
We
all know when someone goes missing, because something drops, either
article
output falls a few articles a day or audio wikinews ceases to exist all together, or the review queue backups. Wikinews biggest problem is burn
out,
we _all_ have to contribute a significant amount of time or the project
dies
(See also: Holidays).
So how do we get new contributors?
KISS. Keep It Simple, Stupid. Our "defining guide" is [[WN:SG]]. Who here can honestly say they've read every single line? I'm sure a few
can,
but I know I haven't. It is 20 printed pages. The only "easier" guide
on
getting started that I know of is [[Wikinews:Writing an article]] and
that
is 6 pages, that is still too length in my book. We should have a goal that a new user (who understands Wiki-syntax) can come in, read the
basics
and get started writing in less than X time. What is X time? I'd say 15 minutes, tops.
Second part, user interest in the topic. I'm interested in many things, but I'm not that much of a news writer that I think I can scratch out 3 decent paragraphs on it, which is our minimum. This leads to me to my
next
point...
While I love what goes on with Wikinews, sometimes I get the feeling that we're too rigid. As mentioned previously our Style Guide is lengthy, and not only is it the guide - it is basically our rules for publishing.
Part
of that is that we must have 3 paragraphs. While I think that is great because it forces us to push up the quality of articles... but we set the bar very high for new contributors. You can come into Wikipedia and
create
a new article with one sentence and it might have a chance of staying
around
and becoming worth while. Wikinews, it won't, period. I think we might want consider alternatives to the "regular article" and what standards we should have for those. Hopefully these can lower the barrier to entry,
and
give us some flexibility into helping people get their stories published rather than the flat "too short, stale, delete it" mind set.
For example: Shorts, local & photo journalism. All 3 of these types of news we accept in some form now, but maybe not as easily as should. For example shorts have to be combined into a days worth of shorts (with at least 2 or 3 stories). Local news is the same as any other news. Photo Journalism? Well I haven't seen too much of it, and that which I've personally submitted, I've had to beg and bribe (ok, mostly bribing) to
get
it published without 3 paragraphs of accompanying text.
We could consider adding something like "Shorts: " to the beginning of a short story, and allowing it to go as a one paragraph story. We could
even
have a "Shorts" category that would exclude it from being published in
the
"Latest News" section on the Main Page we have now. Maybe it can have
it's
own little section on the front page. Local could follow the same
theory,
allow it to be shorter in order to entice users to come and write a
little
bit about their on goings of their home town. If they write something large/long/good enough we'll even remove the "hide from 'latest news'
flag"
(What ever that would be) and that would push it up out of the dark
depths.
That entices people to not only come and start (because it is easier to write one paragraph) but it also entices them to write more/better as
they
get more accustomed to our way of doing things because they want their article to get more promotion.
Photo Journalism. Basically if the user is submitting a majority of pictures (say more than 5-6 pictures of an Event), the requirements for writing anything more than clear and concise caption should be tossed out the window. How many people go to events and take a bunch of pictures
that
could be turned into an interesting "Photo Essay" (or what ever you want
to
call it) that turn away from Wikinews because they don't want to write paragraphs and paragraphs? I know that I personally have opt'd to not "cover" something because I didn't think I could manage to write 3 paragraphs on what ever it was. Hey, I'm a photog, not a writer. That
even
was on my Accreditation Request, it's not like it was a secret.
Something that is underlying to all of this that I haven't mentioned previously: We need to make Wikinews _single writer friendly_ NOW. It
has
long since been established that unless something major is going on, you
are
probably going to be the only one writing an article. If we start to
pull
in people covering local events, this is going to be doubly so. So we
need
to do everything in our power to make the process friendly for one person
to
go through. I honestly don't have any suggestion on what that should be, other than to keep that in mind.
Lastly, I'd like to propose the addition of one optional step to our publishing process. A {{Copy Edit}} or similarly named template that basically states "Hey, I've finished this article, but I'd appreciate it
if
someone would copy edit this article before placing it into review".
Again,
personal experience, I'm not a very good writer, I know my work needs to
be
copy edited. Why not make it easier for the copy editors out there to
seek
out what they should work on. I've got two people who I've managed to
drag
in on occasion to do copy editing because they are good at it. I've only done it for my work, or what I happen to see as being egregiously bad.
== Short Version ==
- Make short versions of our key "getting started" documents (WN:SG,
Wikinews:Writing an article, etc)
- Allow single story Shorts (Won't be published under "Latest News")
- Allow short local news (Similar to Shorts)
- Allow Photo Journalism stories w/o text (other than captions)
- Make WN writing process "Single User" friendly
- Add optional {{Copy Edit}} step to publishing process.
Sorry all that this was so long, but I've been mulling over these issues for a while. I'm CC'ing scoop in hopes of getting more people to reply
to
this mail.
-- Jon [[User:ShakataGaNai]] http://snowulf.com/ - Blog http://snowulf.imagekind.com/ - Pictures This has been a test of the emergency sig system.
Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
-- Jon [[User:ShakataGaNai]] http://snowulf.com/ - Blog http://snowulf.imagekind.com/ - Pictures This has been a test of the emergency sig system.
Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
_______________________________________________ Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l