User:Microchip08/Log

[21:06:54] * pizero claps xyr hands firmly, and counts how many times the echo bounces back across the empty chamber [21:09:31]  ECHO [21:09:32]  echo [21:09:34]  echo [21:09:35]  ech [21:09:36]  ec [21:09:37]  e [21:09:38] . [21:24:04] --> BarkingFish has joined this channel (~thor@wikipedia/BarkingFish). [21:26:16]  Well this is a lively debate, isn't it? [21:26:20]  Where is everybody? [21:26:40]  Oh, is it meant to have started? [21:26:50]  Yes, 20 minutes ago [21:27:02] * MC8 got all the timezones mixed up [21:27:04]  20H UTC is 21H British Summer Time [21:27:13]  it's now 21.23 [21:27:22]  Well, I actually got the 24h clock mixed up [21:27:37] * MC8 has missed trains based on misunderstanding 24h clocks [21:27:37] <-- wn-log has left this server (Remote host closed the connection). [21:28:01] --> wn-log has joined this channel (~wn-log@li187-123.members.linode.com). [21:28:02] <-- wn-log has left this server (Changing host). [21:28:02] --> wn-log has joined this channel (~wn-log@wikimedia/Microchip08/bot/Picochip08). [21:28:02] *** ChanServ sets mode: +v wn-log [21:28:51]  My contribution so far is to try and wrest control of #wikinews-en-admins [21:28:59]  It's not working very well [21:29:07] --> Badmin has joined this channel (~Sandman@wikinews/Blood-Red-Sandman). [21:29:16] <BarkingFish> evening Badmin :) [21:29:24] <Badmin> hey [21:29:31] --> dendodge has joined this channel (~dendodge@wikinews/Dendodge). [21:30:06] <BarkingFish> Anyone wishing to view the agenda for this evenings meeting, please go to http://enwn.net/492B0 [21:30:09] * MC8 needs to find a better log bot [21:30:18] <BarkingFish> I know it's in the topic, but how many of us read it? :) [21:30:41] *** You set the channel topic to "Welcome to the Wikinews Workshop! Everyone is welcome to make and discuss suggestions for improving Wikinews here. Please be respectful of others. | This channel is publicly logged. | Improving PR amongst other Wikimedia projects. How do we recruit more users and make ourselves more attractive for prospective contributors?". [21:31:01] The agenda has one thing on it... [21:31:20] <MC8> this is even worse planned that the bbq I went to last night [21:31:22] Stupid question: are we logging yet? [21:31:30] <MC8> !help [21:31:30] <wn-log> This channel is publicly logged at http://chippy.ch/logs – to say something off-the-record, say !off at any point during the message. [21:31:30] <wn-log> Anyone can restart the (rather rudimentary) bot if needed; contact MC8 for details. [21:31:30] <wn-log> [21:31:45] <MC8> ^ [21:31:51] Hm. [21:31:53] <MC8> (yes) [21:32:02] <MC8> If the bot decides to behave this time [21:32:10] <Badmin> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Blood_Red_Sandman - I've been told of a specific user to possibly recruit [21:32:14] !off I like cheese. [21:32:56] <BarkingFish> Well this is a small turnout, let's hope we can make some use of the time. [21:33:54] <BarkingFish> So, improving PR among other WMF projects. Funnily enough, I was discussing this last night with geniice in #wikipedia-en [21:33:58] !off I propose that we add to the agenda: Tina O'Brien or Amy Pond? 9_9 [21:33:58] <-- wn-log has left this server (Remote host closed the connection). [21:34:32] <MC8> bad bot [21:34:40] heh [21:34:52] Laughter is good exercise, though. [21:34:53] --> wn-log has joined this channel (~wn-log@li187-123.members.linode.com). [21:34:54] <-- wn-log has left this server (Changing host). [21:34:54] --> wn-log has joined this channel (~wn-log@wikimedia/Microchip08/bot/Picochip08). [21:34:54] *** ChanServ sets mode: +v wn-log [21:34:56] * MC8 just stuck a link to here in the site notice [21:35:00] *** ChanServ sets the channel topic to "Welcome to the Wikinews Workshop! Everyone is welcome to make and discuss suggestions for improving Wikinews here. Please be respectful of others. | This channel is publicly logged. | Improving PR amongst other Wikimedia projects. How do we recruit more users and make ourselves more attractive for prospective contributors? | Tina O'Brien or Amy Pond?". [21:35:01] Is the meeting on hold while we wait for the bot to finish its tea break? [21:35:14] <Badmin> I mean, uh, this is very serious. [21:35:15] Oh, it's back :P [21:35:17] <MC8> nah, I expect most people are logging in here [21:35:30] <BarkingFish> Apparently, we produce what geniice refers to as "churnalism" - that is, taking everyone else's work and simply rehashing it when it's already out there. [21:35:46] <Badmin> ...Like Wikipedia? [21:35:47] Well, we do :P [21:35:57] We need OR, and lots of it. [21:36:04] <BarkingFish> This is one of the reasons why Wikipedia doesn't view us in a very good light. [21:36:20] Because we do what they do, but more reliably? [21:36:26] <MC8> "Hey, come visit Wikinews! We vomit up other news sources under a free licence!" [21:36:26] <MC8> ] [21:36:29] <Badmin> Side-note: I have major OR in the works, but for legal reasons exactly what cannot be revealed yet. [21:36:56] Quality OR is massive work *and* requires that you already know what you're doing (from writing synthesis). [21:37:44] <Badmin> Well, a little OR is easy for many stories - think of someone at least tangentially able to comment, give their press office a ring or email. [21:38:01] <Badmin> We should do more of that 'base' OR as well as the occasional major stuff. [21:38:23] <MC8> BarkingFish: your bug went up to critical/highest, btw [21:38:29] <BarkingFish> yes, I saw [21:38:30] We should be aiming to get some OR in ~75% of our stories, really. [21:38:33] <BarkingFish> Max put it up there [21:38:33] <-- wn-log has left this server (Remote host closed the connection). [21:38:38] It's easy for a veteran Wikinewsie to say it's "easy". [21:38:43] * MC8 gives up with the bot [21:38:47] Even if it's just, "Person X told Wikinews..." [21:38:54] <Badmin> MC8: For the benefit of people reading the log some time later, please explain what bug. [21:39:06] <BarkingFish> Anyway, just as an example, I'd like to show you 2 responses I got during the discussion - one from Prodego, one from Geniice. [21:39:17] <BarkingFish> Prodego> BarkingFish: so should we link to the article published by professional journalists, or by people editing a wiki? [21:39:17] <BarkingFish> BarkingFish the problem is that wikinews' niche is already filled by blogs and indymedia [21:39:18] <MC8> 28685 [21:39:19] <Wikilink2_> https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/28685 [21:39:31] <Badmin> lol blogs [21:39:41] --> lustre has joined this channel (~jbeebz@wikimedia/fetchcomms). [21:39:42] Since when have blogs had NPoV? [21:39:47] <BarkingFish> Someone even suggested that the WMF should close Wikinews [21:39:48] <Badmin> (that's about all I have to say about that) [21:40:03] *Bad* OR is easy, and if we encourage a lot of OR, that's what we'll get. Project standards will start down a slippery slope... [21:40:13] Someone tell me why a workshop is being held on IRC? [21:40:14] Wikinews doesn't need closing. It just needs to be refocused. [21:40:31] lustre: So we can discuss things quickly and easily? [21:40:38] Informally, then? [21:40:43] dendoge: Since never. [21:40:46] I mean, what exactly is the goal of this? [21:40:52] No, it's formal in here. [21:40:55] Everything official will need to be repeated onwiki, anyway. [21:41:00] Badsically, we discuss ideas. [21:41:06] That's why it has public logs. [21:41:06] <Badmin> This is why we don't listen to the criticism - because it's rubbish. We need *decent* criticism, and frankly we can supply much of that ourselves. [21:41:10] IRC doesn't hold weight, despite the fact that the WMF board meets on it. [21:41:15] That's why it has public logs. [21:41:23] dendodge, it's still no excuse for onwiki discussion. [21:41:25] People can read the logs, and then commend on what was said. [21:41:32] *comment [21:41:50] <Badmin> The feedback from the journalism students will be most interesting. [21:41:51] <BarkingFish> well how's this for criticism [21:42:02] <BarkingFish> "accept that wikinews can never do more than rehash the work of real journalists so it's utterly pointless" [21:42:12] Yes, I'd be interested in what the journalism students have to say. [21:42:18] Wikinews was a horrible idea. [21:42:20] We can do our own OR. [21:42:24] Who proposed it? [21:42:26] <Badmin> Yeah, which is why we ignore most of it BFish. [21:42:40] <MC8> lustre: andrea iirc, don't quote me on that [21:42:40] lustre: The original proposal was from an anon IP. [21:42:40] <Badmin> lustre: Are you here to do anything constructive? [21:42:44] Yes. [21:42:45] <BarkingFish> The point is, Badmin - we shouldn't be ignoring it. [21:42:47] I have lots of criticism. [21:42:51] Erik Möller refined it, IIRC. [21:42:54] Ugh, anons ruining life. [21:42:55] <BarkingFish> I got a lot of suggestions last night. [21:43:20] <BarkingFish> "We need to focus on OR, since mixing it with the kind of churnalism we turn out kinda devalues the OR aspect" [21:43:31] We do need to focus on OR. [21:43:37] I've been saying that for a long time. [21:43:41] It's hard when you only have 20 active editors. [21:43:43] *** ChanServ sets mode: +o Badmin [21:43:45] But yes, it's ncessary. [21:43:50] necessary* [21:43:57] <BarkingFish> "Anyone with a couple of hours to spare could walk into a court tomorrow and pick up 5 to 10 newsworthy stories" [21:44:03] We need to work on in-depth, collaborative, OR stories. [21:44:14] The problem is that no one likes reviewing long articles. [21:44:20] <BarkingFish> dendodge: Well we saw one recently, the photojournalist deaths one. [21:44:21] <Badmin> BarkingFish: That, OTOH, is a very good comment [21:44:29] That's where the wiki model will be an advantage. Collaboration. [21:44:34] [Completion] Possible completions: Badmin BarkingFish. [21:44:36] *** ChanServ sets mode: -o Badmin [21:44:42] We don't have enough users to get the good stuff published. [21:45:07] <Badmin> (well, not anyone. I can't walk to Edinburgh or Newcastle to get to a decent court) [21:45:12] <BarkingFish> I think the etherpad experiment between AutisticPsycho, MC8, and myself was a good example of constructive, active collaboration [21:45:17] <Badmin> (but I get the point) [21:45:25] <MC8> It's something I'd like to repeat [21:45:35] I spent two days in the local Mags once. The most interesting case was a lady who stole some ham from Asda. [21:45:45] <BarkingFish> lustre: If the other projects would stop putting us down as half baked and promote our work, maybe we'd have more users [21:45:59] <Badmin> dendodge: I said decent for a reason :p [21:46:11] I've suggested before we should have a model for collaborative review. Last time I got yelled at mercilessly for it. But big articles, like good OR, are exactly when this becomes most important. [21:46:12] Yeah, the Mags hardly count. [21:46:13] BarkingFish: Agreed, but some users (well, mainly one user) has earned us a reputation for being rude [21:46:27] and that's why I've been told multiple times to stay away from WN. [21:46:32] <MC8> lustre: that's something we need to rectify [21:46:41] We can't. [21:46:46] <BarkingFish> lustre: there's more than one user, I can think of at least 2 and one of them is me. [21:46:51] There's so few users a cabal is inevitable, and has formed [21:46:57] BarkingFish, you're too new. [21:47:04] <BarkingFish> 0.0 [21:47:10] It does seem to be the old people vs the new people. [21:47:22] I was told that WN is horrible two years ago. [21:47:29] <BarkingFish> and I joined 2 years ago [21:47:31] near when I first started editing WP [21:47:39] well, you weren't an admin then :P [21:47:43] <BarkingFish> no. [21:47:50] Some, like MC8 and myself, have managed to cross the line and join the "cabal"—most newer users, however, give up and quit in frustration. I can't say I blame them, TBH. [21:47:51] <BarkingFish> But I was still a vicious little sod [21:47:55] dendodge, WN has too steep a learning cuve [21:47:59] curve* [21:48:05] Wikis are not meant for writing news. [21:48:07] It does. We expect too much from people. [21:48:08] <MC8> it has a massive learning curve [21:48:19] <Badmin> Indeed. [21:48:27] We expect people to come in and be as good as real journalists right away. [21:48:31] <BarkingFish> lustre: So why does Wikipedia include so much current affairs stuff? [21:48:32] And that's never going to happen. [21:48:42] BarkingFish: more users [21:48:44] <BarkingFish> Shouldn't they be dunking that in favor of writing an encyclopedia? [21:48:46] lustre: I did suggest a template to gentle the learning curve. Just haven't had time to pursue it yet. [21:48:51] people like adding more pages to their "created" list [21:49:18] <BarkingFish> lustre: at the expense of accuracy, thinking stuff through, vandalism and general crap which people have to clean up later. [21:49:22] WN has less users, therefore more laziness, therefore less interest in cleaning up ugly pages. [21:49:25] <BarkingFish> We do it the other way round, mostly [21:49:40] Even on WP, you see areas where it depends on one/two users [21:49:48] i.e., copyright cleanup [21:49:51] <MC8> pizero: Amgine's quite anti-template; apparently shiny magic templates kill contribs [21:49:57] People hate the menial stuff [21:50:00] <BarkingFish> We start by planning the work, collaborating to write it, checking it, verifying it prior to publication, THEN publishing. [21:50:17] <BarkingFish> Wikipedia is simply : Publish it now, tidy up the cockups later [21:50:27] We generally have articles "owned" by a single person. What we need to do is work *together* on stories. Whether that be with newer users, to gently introduce them to the process, or with established editors to produce our best possible stories. [21:50:32] This template would be a form for new users to fill out; they'd never see the template end of it. [21:50:36] oh yeah, ownership. [21:50:47] news articles are "owned" everywhere else. [21:50:58] <MC8> tbh they're owned here too [21:51:00] That's why every other site has bylines. We don't. But it operates the same way. [21:51:01] They shouldn't be "owned" here. [21:51:14] <BarkingFish> dendodge: They're not always. [21:51:19] They should be collaborative—that's the point of a wiki. [21:51:20] <MC8> they shouldn't be in theory. But they are much of the time [21:51:26] BarkingFish: No, they're not always. [21:51:33] But they usually are. [21:51:43] <BarkingFish> Someone starts a story, someone else goes in and cleans up the typos, copyedits the work, maybe adds something new... [21:51:44] Exceptions are both rare and, usually, our best work. [21:52:15] <MC8> BarkingFish: the majority is generally written by the same author though [21:52:21] pizero: we need an article wizard [21:52:28] <Badmin> +1 [21:52:30] <MC8> +1 [21:52:33] I've said it multiple times and no one helps make one. [21:52:46] * Badmin lacks the ability [21:52:53] <BarkingFish> I lack the concern [21:52:59] lustre: That's kind of what I'm talking about, only I'm going for a low-tech approach. [21:53:16] <BarkingFish> We already have the "start a new story" thing in the newsroom. [21:53:26] that's not good for new users, though. [21:53:39] <BarkingFish> It prepages the box with the necessary templates, all they have to do is type the stuff for the story in. [21:53:41] <Badmin> Nobody ever looks at the newsroom, either. It's of limited use imo. [21:53:42] An extension would really be good, but I don't trust the devs. [21:53:46] I do! [21:53:51] I use the newsroom all the time :P [21:53:58] I don't. [21:54:02] Do people really ignore it? I didn't realize that. [21:54:06] I haven't visited the newsroom for months. [21:54:07] * Badmin just uses RC [21:54:08] "start a new story" is only a step or two away from what I'm talking about, though. [21:54:12] I always have to check to make sure I'm not writing a duplicate. [21:54:16] <BarkingFish> same here [21:54:35] <Badmin> If we had more changes running through, Newsroom might be more useful [21:54:36] I check the newsroom mainly for articles mispublished. [21:54:43] <BarkingFish> and I use the start a new story box too, simply because I forget which dang templates to put on if I start one normally [21:55:00] I use the box, yeah ^_^ [21:55:01] <MC8> I generally start with the box on the MP [21:55:02] I've never started one manually :P [21:55:13] I use the one on the MP, too :) [21:55:14] <Badmin> Yeah, I use the MP box [21:55:37] (On that note, Main Page redesign FTW) [21:55:52] <Badmin> Fascinating though this is, however, we're drfiting more wildly off-course than an Adam Air flight. [21:55:52] omg yes [21:56:01] *** You set the channel topic to "Welcome to the Wikinews Workshop! Everyone is welcome to make and discuss suggestions for improving Wikinews here. Please be respectful of others. | This channel is publicly logged. | Improving PR amongst other Wikimedia projects. How do we recruit more users and make ourselves more attractive for prospective contributors?". [21:56:10] <MC8> (why the hell was that in the topic?) [21:56:15] <Badmin> Yes, Main Page redesign. That's a better thing to discuss than who uses what box ;) [21:56:17] Oh. Are we not going to discuss Tina and Amy? [21:56:24] <Badmin> lol [21:56:27] No. [21:56:41] tiny > amy [21:56:42] <Badmin> MC8: Breaking the ice, mainly. [21:56:47] Amy > Tina [21:56:54] <MC8> Badmin: as well as going into public logs [21:56:54] <Badmin> Tina > Amy [21:57:05] :") [21:57:23] *is* this being logged, still/yet/again? [21:57:32] anywho. [21:57:33] <MC8> yeah, I'll stick it up manually [21:57:33] Yes, it is. [21:57:58] Anyway, back on topic... [21:57:59] <Badmin> Well, yes. Everyone should be able to smile. I see no reason why there can't be occasional humorous exchanges in corporate meetings. Heck, even Parliament. Happier discussions are productive discussions imo. [21:58:07] <BarkingFish> What is happening here is precisely what I raised at the last meeting. All the indians and no bloody chief. [21:58:21] can I ask HOW we fix our issues? [21:58:21] <BarkingFish> Can someone please make sure when we have these meetings that a person takes control of them? [21:58:34] Because it just looks impossible due to how WN is structured. [21:58:36] *** ChanServ sets mode: +v BarkingFish [21:58:41] <MC8> there you go [21:58:43] lustre: Does it? [21:58:56] as reviews are mandatory [21:59:06] and few reviewers review long articles [21:59:09] What we need to do is get our established contributors working together, and with newbies, on collaborative pieces. [21:59:18] and long articles are better than short pieces of fluff [21:59:18] And we need to get rid of mandatory peer review. [21:59:22] <BarkingFish> MC8: I meant someone preferably with experience :) [21:59:33] What happened to that doscussion, anyway? [21:59:35] dendodge: have fun with that, wasn't that being discussed two months ago? [21:59:36] <MC8> BarkingFish: like? [21:59:37] * Badmin wonders why the review problem prevents addressing all the other problems [21:59:38] It seemed to just die. [21:59:44] Long articles are the ones for which collaborative review would be useful. [21:59:48] exactly--WN discussions always die. [21:59:54] *** ChanServ sets mode: -v BarkingFish [22:00:01] <BarkingFish> Like the people who ran the first one, Tempo and Amgine. [22:00:17] <BarkingFish> neither of whom appear to be here, but it should be controlled either way [22:00:18] Tempo didn't even turn up... [22:00:25] <BarkingFish> for the first one? [22:00:27] <MC8> heh, that's the hour up [22:00:29] Yag [22:00:30] <BarkingFish> I thought he was there. [22:00:33] No [22:00:34] <-- Badmin has left this channel ("Atmosphere not great in here"). [22:00:44] <BarkingFish> +1 [22:00:55] Mandatory peer review is what makes us not a blog. [22:01:06] If we write articles that aren't so time-dependent, then publication can take as long as it likes ^_^ [22:01:25] Last week's atmosphere was *much* better. [22:01:35] <-- BarkingFish has left this channel ("Disorganisation is only one step away from chaos."). [22:01:36] again: why are we using IRC? [22:01:42] that's what happens. [22:01:51] Because it allows for real-time discussion. [22:02:01] real-time chaos, too. [22:02:24] WN->volunteers->not paid->lazy without consequence->not enough quality articles [22:02:39] Unfortunately, these workshops have an implicit premise that the existing arrangement must be bad, so bad atmosphere is probably an inevitable trend for them. [22:02:46] WN->quality->lots of rules->new users=confused [22:02:58] those are the two issues I see. [22:03:17] the review process and the complexity. [22:03:25] --> Mattisse has joined this channel (~chatzilla@dt021n80.tampabay.res.rr.com). [22:03:26] collaboration is not hard, we have etherpad. [22:03:27] That's why I proposed to give new users something easier to do than write fully-fledged publication-quality articles. [22:03:45] briefs? [22:03:49] those died out ages ago. [22:04:18] I perked up at etherpad because it sounds great, but haven't had time to investigate it yet. [22:04:57] If it's still *another* different interface, that doesn't seem too promising, though. [22:05:02] <MC8> hello, Mattisse [22:05:17] <Mattisse> hello [22:05:35] yeah, hi Mattisse. 'Fraid things aren't going as smoothly this week. [22:05:40] pizero: it's easy [22:05:49] just type and don't delete anyone else's typing :P [22:06:49] --> Tempodivalse has joined this channel (4a6b4e33@wikimedia/tempodivalse). [22:07:01] <MC8> Tempodivalse: you missed the show [22:07:12] <Tempodivalse> Have we started yet ? [22:07:18] * MC8 blinks [22:07:18] Is it possible that IRC moves *too* fast, and we'd do better running these biweekly workshops on-wiki? [22:07:38] Isn't that the punchline of a joke? [22:08:00] <MC8> Tempodivalse: it started an hour ago [22:08:09] "Ready when you are, C.B.", or something like that. [22:08:15] <Tempodivalse> Really? I must have my time zones mixed up [22:08:23] <Tempodivalse> I don't see the log bot in here, are we on air? [22:08:26] <MC8> yes [22:08:32] Somehow or other. [22:08:41] <Mattisse> This is not the topic. Just curious. Why is the main page being redesigned? [22:08:42] <Tempodivalse> Well, a rather disappointing showing .. hardly a quorum [22:08:52] <MC8> Well, you didn't turn up... [22:09:28] <Tempodivalse> !time [22:09:29] <Wikilink2_> Tempodivalse: UTC: 21:09:29 - San Francisco: 14:09 - New York: 17:09 - London: 22:09 - Brussels: 23:09 - Moscow: 01:09 - New Delhi: 02:39 - Hong Kong: 05:09 - Tokyo: 06:09 - Sydney: 07:09 - Auckland: 09:09 [22:09:56] <MC8> Mattisse: because it's old [22:10:13] Mattisse: look at any other news site [22:10:16] look at wikinews [22:10:18] uggggleeeee. [22:10:21] <Tempodivalse> !time UTC [22:10:22] <Wikilink2_> Tempodivalse: UTC: 21:10 [22:10:26] <Tempodivalse> mc8: wrong [22:10:36] <Tempodivalse> it's started just ten minutes ago [22:10:54] <Tempodivalse> Remember that the UK is no longer on UTC, but an hour ahead ... [22:11:06] <MC8> "Next meeting at April 24 at 20:00 UTC." [22:11:18] Mattisse: Our main page has been in place for some time, and is ugly and out-of-date compared to other news sites. [22:11:26] We just need a change, is all :) [22:11:47] It's not *that* bad. I'm not opposed to some improvements. [22:11:56] it's too ... short [22:11:56] <Tempodivalse> MC8, just because i'm not here, shouldn't mean the workshop can't take place [22:12:08] <Tempodivalse> fetchcomms, actually, i think shorter is better [22:12:16] why? [22:12:21] it shows we have little content to showcase. [22:12:22] <Tempodivalse> I'm a minimalist. [22:12:24] :P [22:12:31] <Tempodivalse> We *do* have only a little content to showcase. [22:12:37] <Tempodivalse> That's the point. [22:12:41] It has been taking place, though the atmosphere drove off one person. [22:12:42] yes, but we have to disguise that. [22:12:51] Tempodivalse: Have you seen my design?  It's only marginally different to the current one, ATM. [22:12:54] <Mattisse> agree on minimalist [22:12:58] People don't want to read a news source that has little news. [22:13:11] <Tempodivalse> Well, then they won't come to WN ... [22:13:15] But we'll have no way to fill all the boxes you want, lustre. [22:13:26] There just aren't enough recent stories. [22:13:40] <Tempodivalse> Content has got to come first, imo [22:13:44] what do you mean, dendodge? [22:13:59] Remember when someone posted on the cooler that they always read Wikinews first, because it's the most neutral site around? [22:13:59] Tempodivalse: but we need to expand our reader base--and through that, our writer base. [22:14:13] <Tempodivalse> we can have the most beautiful ever front page but it's useless if there's no stories to go around [22:14:14] that's half good. [22:14:25] Tempodivalse, yes, but we can have both [22:14:28] lustre: We don't have enough news to fill the various boxes on your design. [22:14:38] you mean the country boxes, or the leads? [22:14:45] The country boxes. [22:14:53] hmm [22:14:54] There's never any news for Oceania. [22:14:59] that's true. [22:15:04] Ever. Not any more, since all our Ozzies left. [22:15:11] well, somwhat [22:15:21] We've had several Australia stories just recently. [22:15:33] <Mattisse> why did the ozzies leave? [22:15:34] That's because of our journalism students, though, isn't it? [22:15:43] <Tempodivalse> more stories = more readers = more contributors. It's that simple, really [22:15:58] That was years ago. They just left. They used to be really active, and interest just faded. [22:16:03] I'm not sure why. [22:16:16] hmm [22:16:19] <Mattisse> why is an important question [22:16:29] dendodge, what about using topic boxes vs region ones? [22:16:41] We should at least be able to have a good number of stories to feature that way. [22:16:46] I still don't think we could fill them. [22:16:58] We usually have less than 20 stories in a week. [22:17:08] I wish there was a way we could rotate the more popular ones [22:17:15] but DPL isn't that smart, I don't think. [22:17:26] <Mattisse> newbies should be treated better [22:17:31] i.e., the top two or three categories each week [22:17:32] <Tempodivalse> Well, trying to disguise that we have a low output isn't the way to go, imo [22:17:42] Mattisse, yes, and making an article should be easier. [22:17:51] <Tempodivalse> ^ and that [22:17:52] We need to be honest, and say, "We're small, but we're friendly. Come and join in!" [22:18:08] --> diegogrez has joined this channel (~diegogrez@186.20.214.99). [22:18:12] Tempodivalse: what can we do, though? news is visual--people won't read if they aren't used to the format. [22:18:14] <Tempodivalse> Just make sure you live up to that [22:18:14] Of course, friendly is an issue we need to work on :P [22:18:33] <Tempodivalse> lustre: Write more stories. [22:18:38] Both of which - treating newbies better and making an article easier - are addressed by the "story form" concept. [22:18:44] Tempodivalse: i know [22:18:51] but I mean, why a wiki as a news platform? [22:18:55] it's weird. [22:18:55] <Mattisse> but when a newbie writes a story and the reviewer fails, saying "read the style guide", that's not friendly or informative [22:19:02] So we can collaborate on news stories. [22:19:04] Mattisse: that's the laziness issue [22:19:09] which is why no one reviews long articles [22:19:21] spam> Tornadoes damage hundreds of Missouri homes, force closure of airport [22:19:21] <Wikilink2_> http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Tornadoes_damage_hundreds_of_Missouri_homes%2C_force_closure_of_airport [22:19:23] review that. [22:19:25] :P [22:19:42] What we need is for established editors to join in and help newbies with their articles. [22:19:54] laziness--no incentive [22:19:57] <Mattisse> for example, do you ever post on the newbie's page, notifying them that their article failed and why? [22:20:06] also ownership, i sense people are afraid to "take over" an article. [22:20:06] Mattisse: using a story form would avoid failing newbies articles on most SG issues. [22:20:07] Rather than just failing it, they should sit down and fix it, and try to guide the user through the process by example. [22:20:29] The story form would *also* bring together newbies and experienced Wikinewsies. [22:20:34] <Mattisse> yes, I agree dendodge [22:20:36] <Tempodivalse> dendodge: exactly [22:20:37] dendodge, exactly, although they would feel it's wasted if the noob never edits again [22:20:57] can we name some non-MSM sources that ARE successful, and analyze why? [22:21:03] like newser [22:21:23] <Mattisse> There is almost zero personal interaction with a newbie who has submitted an article. [22:21:49] then again, newbies don't interact back. [22:22:05] they expect their writing to be perfect and don't check to see if the review passed--sometimes, at least. [22:22:06] <MC8> ok, the first hour is up at http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:IRC_workshop/April_24,_2011&action=purge [22:22:27] <Mattisse> suppose a newbie writes an article but doesn't know about the Newsroom? [22:22:51] And not checking back would *also* be partly remedied by a "story form". [22:22:59] MC8: Hey, why am I pink? [22:23:07] <MC8> dendodge: I thought you suited it [22:23:07] * pizero does realize xe's talking to xyrself. [22:23:16] no. [22:23:24] i'm half listening :P [22:23:27] <MC8> pizero: I was reading, couldn't think of anything to say back [22:23:48] MC8: Oh. [22:23:50] by story form, you mean a wizard thing? [22:23:58] or a "form of story"?> [22:24:14] A form, with some boxes to fill out... [22:24:28] Probably short boxes for each of the basic questions, [22:24:43] for maybe up to four sources, [22:24:56] yeah [22:25:11] and maybe a few further details. [22:25:15] we need that, but are we going to get it? no. because no one is going to figure out how to put it together. [22:25:18] that's WN for ya. [22:25:20] :P [22:25:26] <Mattisse> aren't there ways a person could start contributing gradually, like at the other wiki sites, without starting off by writing a full article? [22:25:33] <-- diegogrez has left this channel ("Fuckers."). [22:25:52] tempo, look at http://www.newser.com/user-grid.html [22:26:07] they get 3-5 user stories/day [22:26:25] we get around the same, I think. [22:26:27] Mattisse: I don't think so, other than many months of copyediting (which is what I did). [22:26:40] So I figured that should be fixed. [22:26:41] yet we just somehow seem more pitiful [22:26:53] <Tempodivalse> hmm [22:26:56] Mattisse: WN is boring :P [22:27:08] copyedit or write an article or say random things at talk pages [22:27:41] * MC8 edits for the community. (Most of) the community is awesome. [22:28:16] another thing: [22:28:22] users write random stories about everything [22:28:46] so a) no user focuses on a specific area (except like nascar1996) and b) we don't cover the BIG HEADLINES. [22:29:07] <MC8> you can't force users to make certain articles [22:29:11] I know [22:29:14] Nor should we. [22:29:22] but that's one problem. [22:29:33] and how do we solve it other than getting more users? [22:29:50] <Mattisse> i gave up on the big headlines because after I wrote it I would find someone else already had [22:30:01] We do get more users. But [22:30:27] it *can't* happen overnight, and if we tried to make it happen overnight we'd just wreck the things we do have going for us. [22:30:42] So we keep whittling away at the problems. [22:30:53] I'll tackle the "story form" this week. [22:30:58] <Mattisse> why did users leave here? what happened? [22:31:07] people thought it was getting off topic [22:31:33] Mattisse may be talking about the Great Exodus of 2010. [22:31:40] oohh. [22:32:00] let's not talk about that >.> [22:32:02] <Mattisse> what was that? [22:32:06] <Tempodivalse> ugh [22:32:06] other than it was a dark time in WN history. [22:32:17] There was lots of drama, and a few users resigned over it. [22:32:21] <Tempodivalse> More than a few [22:32:26] Let's not spend the *workshop* talking about it. [22:32:34] <Mattisse> it's referred all the time, but I don't know what happened [22:32:53] <Tempodivalse> mattise, it's a long story [22:33:09] The crux of it was the Matthewedwards fiasco. Search the WN:AAA archives for that name. [22:33:29] Mattisse: basically some shit went down and people were hella rude. [22:33:31] We do need to avoid drama. [22:33:38] <Tempodivalse> There were other facets that were nearly as bad too [22:33:40] and then it was all a misunderstanding and people got mad. [22:33:41] Note that Matthewedwards xyrself stayed, and became a reviewer. [22:33:55] largely inactive, now, though. [22:33:56] Just when things get working quite well, we have a massive argument and everything breaks. [22:34:10] <Tempodivalse> I know. The community hurts itself. [22:34:11] It happens every so often in WN history. [22:34:26] There were issues of not assuming bad faith, though, and whether or not to assume good faith, and (really) reviewing standards. [22:34:28] <Tempodivalse> 98% of the drama we have can be very very easily avoided by not being so brusque [22:34:32] It usually involves an established editor and a newbie pissing each other off. [22:34:51] >_> [22:35:01] anywho [22:35:15] the problem with WN is that it's all volunteers, and it's a hobby. [22:35:37] you can't run a major news site on hobbies without a massive number of volunteers, like WP has. [22:35:41] I've got some ideas about replacing AGI, but I've hesitated to put them on-wiki until they're ready... [22:35:54] and you can't get volunteers without making it nice for them. [22:35:59] like yahoo answers. [22:36:00] <Mattisse> but is nothing is ever discussed, then how does a newbie find out anything? Like me. I feel like I don't know what's going on here. [22:36:14] everything is dumbed down for the computer-illiterate. [22:36:23] Mattisse: WN needs a much better help structure, yes [22:36:37] and Mattisse you don't WANT to know about the Great Exodus thinger [22:36:43] Wikis run on *idealism*. Our idealistic vision is free, neutral, reliable citizen journalism. (Have I missed anything?) [22:37:07] <Mattisse> but all the wikipedia sister projects are all volunteers [22:37:14] <Tempodivalse> Well, i think the first priority (other than writing articles) is to foster a caring, encouraging environment for others [22:37:48] <Mattisse> why do "established" editors hardly ever write articles? [22:37:55] <Tempodivalse> For instance, in the last few weeks I had serious thoughts of just quitting again and giving up. [22:38:28] Mattisse: Some of us (like me) are just too busy, while others (like Brian) prefer working on long-term projects. [22:38:39] <Tempodivalse> Everything seems, well, futile. I hate to be pessimistic, but from personal observations a lot of other users feel the same way [22:38:47] Tempo: Yeah. And do it *without* compromising the idealistic vision. Believing one can do both is itself idealistic. And it's why I'm passionate about Wikinews. [22:38:48] <MC8> right, I've logged up to 2130UTC, could someone do the rest? [22:39:07] Mattisse: you wonder why Wikiquote is horribly in need to cleanup, Wikiversity has major internal issues, and Wikibooks is less-than-half-baked? [22:39:11] I've pretty much given up on writing for WN, since it's a lot of effort, and nobody will ever read it. [22:39:15] wikisource is half decent. [22:39:17] <Tempodivalse> dendodge: same here [22:39:41] And I'm so busy IRL—since I started college, I haven't had time for WN. [22:39:42] <Mattisse> wikisource has a very pleasant atmosphere [22:40:03] dendodge: you stupid brits, getting into college at 16 or 17 [22:40:16] So between college and personal issues, I'm kept too busy to write articles. [22:40:16] Mattisse: that's because there's nothing to bicker over. [22:40:36] personal--girl/boyfriend giving you issues? ;) [22:40:53] <Mattisse> what is there to bicker about here? [22:41:16] <MC8> lustre: college != university [22:41:24] lustre: I don't really want to say in a publicly logged channel :P [22:41:45] Wikinews is *exciting*. Because finding a way to reconcile higher quality demands with wiki-hood is the future of all the projects, and here we're on the front lines of that. [22:41:48] <Mattisse> if editors here don't feel they have the time to write articles, how can you expect a newbie to? [22:41:59] MC8: oh lol [22:41:59] <-- dendodge has left this server (Quit: Read error: Fell off the pier). [22:42:13] <Tempodivalse> I don't really find wikinews exciting any more [22:42:18] dendodge has a girl/boyfriend? o_O [22:42:35] <MC8> lustre: he wishes [22:42:39] --> dendodge has joined this channel (~dendodge@wikinews/Dendodge). [22:43:22] Oops.  I sorta clicked the wrong button :P [22:43:31] hah. [22:43:36] [16:42] lustre dendodge has a girl/boyfriend? [22:43:38] [16:42] MC8 lustre: he wishes [22:43:42] Tempodivalse: doeds anyone [22:43:45] does* [22:43:48] <Mattisse> why don't editors join to cover a particular area? Like on wikipedia - all the editors from India? [22:44:04] really, I only write stuff that's interesting to me. [22:44:05] Hey, I said I didn't want it discussed in a publicly logged channel! [22:44:16] Mattisse: Nascar1996, for example? [22:44:21] <MC8> Mattisse: I like the idea of a workforce, but the problem is getting them there [22:44:26] not enough users. [22:44:27] <Mattisse> but that's true of all the wikis [22:44:30] depressing to write on your own [22:45:22] <Mattisse> yes, like Nascar 1996 [22:46:22] <Mattisse> people from Australia covering Australia, etc. [22:47:46] When I've written, I've looked for a story I wanted to share with Wikinews readers 'cause they might not have heard of it. If that happens to be stories on one topic, fine, but maybe it isn't. [22:48:18] Never gonna get the big stories, that way. [22:48:21] <Mattisse> there was an editor who said he was from china. He wrote an article that sat for days. I finally rewrote it and it was publish but by that time he was gone. [22:48:44] *** ChanServ sets mode: +o MC8 [22:48:49] *** MC8 sets mode: +F [22:48:50] *** MC8 sets mode: -o MC8 [22:48:55] . [22:48:59] remind me what F is. [22:49:11] <MC8> allow forward [22:49:48] A "story form" might also get established editors more into the habit of editing newbies' articles, and that *might* spill over into the non-form ones too. [22:50:20] (Is it just me, or do I sound like a broken record?) [22:50:51] no. [22:51:06] <Mattisse> but if no one here is willing to write article, why should a newbie? [22:51:14] <MC8> pizero: I like the idea of a story wizard, not sure how one could implement it [22:51:35] * MC8 secretly enjoys metaspace more than mainspace [22:52:08] Mattisse: I'm willing. I just don't have time. [22:53:11] <Mattisse> there is something wrong that I don't know about. [22:53:11] Tornadoes damage hundreds of Missouri homes, force closure of airport [22:53:12] <Wikilink2_> http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Tornadoes_damage_hundreds_of_Missouri_homes%2C_force_closure_of_airport [22:53:15] SOMEONE REVIEW THTA. [22:53:17] THAT*. [22:53:53] <Mattisse> reviewers don't review [22:54:23] <Mattisse> the Tornadoes damage article is very good and it is well sourced [22:55:54] <MC8> lustre: American Airlines needs local linking and/or added as a cat [22:55:55] <Wikilink2_> http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/American_Airlines [22:56:14] Mattisse, one piece of the puzzle you *might* be missing (I'm just guessing here) is how big a task peer-reviewing an article actually is. Everything on all sides kind of revolves around that. [22:56:38] <Mattisse> Some one is finally writing Renowned Indian guru Ṡri Satya Sai Baba, dies aged 84 ⋅ [22:56:40] <Mattisse> I have been looking at that for days. [22:56:51] crap. Forgot about this thing:P [22:57:11] Lustre: I'm reviewing that now. [22:57:20] yay thankssss [22:57:24] Is anyone else reviewing it? If they are, I'll stop, since I just started. [22:57:26] <Mattisse> But reviewing an FAC or GAN is a big job too, bigger than reviewing an article here. [22:57:42] gopher65: don't think so, mikemoral said he would later if no one else did [22:57:48] k [23:01:28] Mattisse: I expect the whole relentless-news-deadlines thing makes a profound difference. [23:02:06] <Mattisse> but wasn't this site successful once? [23:02:27] yeah [23:02:37] last year we had tons of articles published each day [23:02:40] <Mattisse> why? [23:02:50] there was a writing contest--lots of stuff [23:02:57] then users just dropped off the radar [23:03:02] More people, I'd say. [23:03:06] interest declined. [23:03:20] morale declined. [23:03:37] spiraled downward, actually. [23:03:56] <Mattisse> why? [23:04:26] bad morale creates more bad morale. [23:04:42] <Mattisse> most places on the web people are wanting to publish [23:05:11] idk. [23:05:21] this whole irc is depressing me [23:05:39] <Mattisse> me too [23:05:40] this workshop has been super-depressing. [23:06:01] ...which is a morale problem. :-) [23:06:45] Mattisse: are you a reviewer yet? [23:06:48] if not, become one [23:06:54] we need active peeps like you [23:07:03] before you become disillusioned and leave [23:07:05] :D [23:07:30] Well, more probably do what I do [23:07:32] <-- dendodge has left this channel. [23:07:44] <Mattisse> Well, I was turned down. Then I was nominated for check user. So I don't think I want to become one. [23:07:53] Periodically have a week of activity, then stop for a month or two, then have a week of activity. It's a good way to avoid burnout:) [23:07:59] And you don't get bored that way [23:08:13] <Tempodivalse> well, personally i think this site isn't going to be a success unless it radically changes its editing environment [23:08:25] <Tempodivalse> the status quo is not working. that should be painfully obvious by now [23:08:30] Burnout *is* a hazard, with a site this intense. [23:08:33] If everyone did that, we'd have a more steady flow of articles, with two or three people a week writing/reviewing articles, instead of the current bursts of activity [23:08:41] pizero: make the WMF pay us? :P [23:08:46] we need /incentive/ [23:09:10] <Tempodivalse> A few days ago I seriously considered quitting. Sometimes I think I still will ... [23:09:22] <Mattisse> how come people are willing to make hundreds of edits a day on wikipedia for years? [23:09:22] <Tempodivalse> anyways ... too depressing :b [23:09:34] <Tempodivalse> WP is more interesting, probably, and more rewarding [23:09:39] <Tempodivalse> to them [23:09:42] idealism is the incentive. That, and getting one's high-quality articles published. (There's the rub: rewarding low-quality articles does no good.) [23:09:52] <Tempodivalse> idealism isn't realism [23:10:09] No, it's not, and that's why it motivates volunteers. [23:10:31] I've experienced this on multiple projects. [23:10:50] You look into it, discover they're trying to do something impractical, [23:11:22] and think, "wow, these folks are really idealistists; how can I be a part of that?" [23:11:37] <Mattisse> I sill don't understand why there aren't more Nascar types. This is an ideal forum for someone that wants news covered on a particular topic [23:12:21] <Mattisse> look at wikisource. why isn't there burnout there? [23:12:37] No news deadlines. [23:13:24] also, proofreading is easy. [23:13:38] As an alternative to Tempo's sense that things have to change really radically, I think lots of things are somewhat out of whack, and it all adds up. [23:13:40] <Mattisse> the deadlines are a problem. the two to three day thing. it means you have to wait until a topic has been out a few days and try to judge when it is going to go stale. [23:13:52] <Tempodivalse> A project is only as stressful as you think it should be [23:13:56] WP gets more eyes than WN [23:14:01] <Tempodivalse> We don't have to have stress if we don't want to. [23:14:08] Late review has been proposed, repeatedly. [23:14:09] if you think people will appreciate your work more = incentive [23:14:16] <Mattisse> proofreading is the way newbie get into projects [23:14:27] b/c it's easy [23:15:32] <Mattisse> wikisource is harder than here, as it is so relentless technical. [23:15:41] Man Fetchcommons:). You really scoured those articles for info [23:15:42] Heh [23:15:46] hehe. [23:15:54] proofreading is how I got into this project; but there isn't enough scope for it to support the number of new contributors we need to train up. [23:16:05] I like how you put two and two together to come up with some interesting stats, like the "30000 homes still affected out of 47000". Good job. [23:16:26] it speaks volumes about how much a life i have on a saturday night. [23:16:27] errr, residents, not homes [23:16:28] :P [23:17:02] <MC8> saturday night I feel the air is getting hot (like you baby) [23:17:15] <Mattisse> the Tornadoes article is really good. I tried to save it but thankfully Fetchcommons took over. [23:17:24] * MC8 throws that in to make log licensing complicated [23:17:52] Mattisse: "Hard" does not necessarily imply the sort of time-oriented intensity we have here. [23:18:56] <Mattisse> well, if the stress level doesn't work here, then maybe the timeframe thing should be modified [23:19:14] Late review again. Each time it's brought up, [23:19:27] Brian McNeil opposes it. [23:19:37] Not without a rational reason. [23:20:08] His reasoning, as I understand it, is that if you make significant changes after the "freshness horizon", [23:20:17] <Mattisse> a couple of days ago, about six article went stale in one day. No one had reviewed any for several days. [23:20:53] ... you can't be neutral because you know what happened, and you're sliding into encyclopedia territory. [23:20:59] <Mattisse> But "real" news sites do it all the time. [23:21:21] --> Wackywace has joined this channel (~Wackywace@5e0c2187.bb.sky.com). [23:21:26] oh yes [23:21:26] <Mattisse> But the first info out is often wrong. [23:21:31] We NNEEEEED an udpate system [23:21:42] it can be as easy as renaming to "UPDATE: [title]" [23:22:13] Update is good too, but we can already do that, sort of, can't we? [23:22:21] <Mattisse> sometimes just after an article is published, the news actually gets covered but TOO LATE [23:22:41] Late review is about not slapping down newbies because they didn't get the article in shape fast enough. [23:23:16] <Mattisse> you can just slap UPDATE on an article? [23:23:28] Not exactly, no. [23:23:37] You can write a new article. [23:23:44] You can just update the article directly, as long as it has been less than 24 hours since publication [23:24:11] If it has been longer than that, then it probably warrents a new article in any case. The new article can, however, reuse much of the background material from the old article [23:24:23] except then people have to re-review that old stuff [23:24:29] And since it is using material from a Wikinews article, it can be just cut and paste [23:24:35] Yeah, there is that problem. [23:25:01] If the new story is too different, you may want to make it a separate article even within 24 hours. [23:25:08] <Mattisse> the first news out is usually wire info and copyies of wire info. Then after you write the article, interesting stuff gets published. [23:25:20] What I'd like to see is some stuff on the talk page saying soething like: "only the first 2 paragraphs are new, everything else was copied from the previously reviewed wikinews article". [23:25:27] That way we know what to review [23:25:59] <Mattisse> yes, why is there no "collaboration" on the collaboration page? [23:25:59] CNN does that kind of crap all the time:P [23:26:11] There can be. [23:26:27] (Is *this* being logged?) [23:26:36] doesn't have to be :P [23:26:45] unless MC8 is still puttering away. [23:26:47] <Wackywace> Except last time a breaking article was updated - the sub shooting one - the whole article was essentially "two people were injured; no-one arrested" before an update was slapped on the end without updating theorist of the article saying essentially "one was killed and a sailor has been arrested". It's just embarrassing. [23:26:50] <Mattisse> they all do it - the Guardian, Los Angeles Times etc. [23:27:08] <-- Tempodivalse has left this server (Ping timeout: 252 seconds). [23:27:09] * MC8 is logging, but I'm not planning to add pretty colours again [23:27:14] hm. [23:27:24] why can't we just buy the AP crap, free or not. [23:27:29] then we actually have /stories/ [23:27:31] :P [23:27:48] or like the serbian WN [23:27:55] SR wikinews sucks though:P [23:27:59] Mattisse: That doesn't keep us from aspiring to better. [23:28:00] they have the CC licensing agreement with the beta site [23:28:13] Then we'd just be a mirror site, and I don't see the point to that [23:28:17] meh [23:28:17] <Wackywace> Didn't someone ask the WMF about buying wire articles a while back? [23:28:20] true [23:28:27] Then the 'pedians saying "why does wikinews even exist?" would have a real point. [23:28:34] Wackywace, if they did, there was shit about non-free content. [23:28:50] Because I sure as heck wonder why serbian wikinews exists, since it is just a bot run mirror site. [23:29:06] <Mattisse> I agree. there is too much wire stuff in the news as it is. no point in adding more. [23:30:16] <Mattisse> much of writing an article is figuring out how to reconcile conflicting sources, as the breaking news inevitably is inaccurate. [23:30:38] <MC8> gopher65: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects I dare you [23:30:56] please do [23:31:07] we can watch Brian protest [23:31:12] ;) [23:31:28] ...much of it is, if one already knows some other things that we know but most newbies don't. [23:32:04] I don't like the nasty edge to this workshop. [23:32:39] Nasty edge? [23:32:58] meh. [23:34:07] Serbian wikinews is literally a bot run mirror site. There are 0 articles from wikimedias. All they do is copy content from other sites. That's hardly project worthy of supporting. [23:34:13] <-- Wackywace has left this server (Quit: Colloquy for iPod touch - http://colloquy.mobi). [23:34:18] And I'm not going to lie and say otherwise just to be PC about it:P. [23:34:26] These workshops always had the potential to be a gathering place for discontent. Basically negative vibes.  They seem to be more prevalent this time around.  Not that some of this hasn't been great constructive stuff. [23:34:44] anywho [23:34:48] i'm off for summer [23:35:02] *** lustre is now known as lustre|afk. [23:35:12] Without dissent leads to discord, and discord leads to discussion, and discussion leads to understanding. [23:35:18] -Without;) [23:35:58] thought you were headed for "leads to the Dark Side". :-) [23:36:01] <lustre|afk> i meant supper [23:36:04] * lustre|afk fails. [23:36:17] And understanding leads to supp... [23:36:19] wait [23:36:22] <lustre|afk> haha [23:39:08] At what point does this "end"? [23:39:10] <Mattisse> it feels like there are parents in the room. can't discuss anything in front of them. [23:39:41] When everyone stops talking [23:39:47] I think I came in when it was already over [23:40:05] What the log is for, maybe. [23:42:22] <MC8> I'll paste the lot again