User talk:Lyellin~enwikinews/Thoughts

Comments

 * Stevertigo : IOW, what does Wikinews do exactly? The "central repository" idea is off IMHO. This isnt a MemoryHole to keep stuff in. We can't presume to get into news gathering or reporting, true: Indymedia has the ball on that one. We can however say that "WikiMedia" does Wiki right, and that Wiki might be right for a news project. It's a long-term experiment to see if the Wiki model can be applied to News editing. This is in contrast to a project like The New Standard, which is in a similar position of just starting out, rewriting existing stories from a more neutral POV, but has an editorial heirarchy and payscale, etc.


 * News requires more than speed, IMHO - it requires development before release. Development requires investigation, and investigation requires funding. I agree with the decision to do away with much of the cumbersome overhead process (with enourmous page headers to boot) - these dont work. It could just be that a MediaWiki is not conducive for an editorial portal as it is. It could be that degrees of privacy and security and a concentrated heirarchy and concensus-standards of editorialship are necessary to make for a "news source." Ideally this would be the place where Indymedia editors and writers might come to collaborate more openly for stories which it might run - but this would require that we change the notion of "non-ownership" to owned articles. Is that possible? Can there be places on Wikinews where only logged in editors can conspire to write stories - or where writers can keep private notes on the site, visible only to editors? On top of all of that, business news is about presentership and scoopage. "We got the news, they dont." I could go on, but if its about democratizing journalism, does this mean necesarily circumventing an editorial process? Balance?-Stevertigo 22:46, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * To address your first point - I see the repository as the very basic, most simple thing we can provide. It is one of many things, IMHO, but it's always good to list what you can do. I'll address the others a bit later, after dinner. :) Lyellin 23:15, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't know what IMHO means, and I know I have a lot to learn here, but I KNOW that this interface is the number one thing the world needs to make journalism what it needs to be. I was about to start it myself when I realized the hard part is done. I plan to help any way I can. sorry i don't know what to call myself--some of my edits are on another IP SORRY


 * IMHO = In My Humble Opinion. In order to get a name, go up to the upper right corner, click "create an account/log in". Make an account, then when you amke a comment like the one above, sign it like this ~ and your name and timestamp will appear. Use 3 ~'s for just your name. Lyellin 01:27, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * "...this interface is the number one thing the world needs to make journalism what it needs to be." Well, its an experiment. The idea for using a Wiki for an encyclopedia was obviously a good one. The idea for using it for news development or other fancy, forward, and witty things remains a challenge. There may be a need for it: There are problems with both commercial media and underfunded or independent blogs that may be able to be addressed through a platform which is somewhere inbetween. -Stevertigo 01:47, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I remember when there was no internet, but a bunch of bulletin boards that were essentially a file-sharing network. No one then would have imagined the evolution to the www. Basically, the internet is a big bulletin board that has superceded the smaller ones. The commercial nature of media has clearly made its journalistic role impossible. Seems to me all that's needed to make people come somewhere true for the truth is to provide it. The blogworld is disorganized and unorganizable. People can go to their favorite ones for opinions, but there is no system for integrating the reports of events around the world where they can be found at all, no less easily. If ebay could organize the categories of things to sell, and become a force in the marketplace, chiefly by the nature of its structure, why can't this site revolutionize what matters? IMNHO!

Hi Lyellin. I agree with most of what you say, especially the importance of quality, and the idea of looking to weekly magazines as a model rather than trying to compete with AP and Reuters (at least in the short term). I've written up my own piece saying the essentially same thing. My only criticism is there aren't really any ideas here on how to address this issue. Bureaus and Digests do not address the quality of the articles themselves. Changes to the review policy may help with accuracy, but will not address the fact that we are simply not providing much information or background to the stories we're putting out. Nor can we sit around and wait for more people, because only quality will bring, and keep people here. The piece I linked to has my idea on how to improve quality, though I'm beginning to doubt if my suggestion there would be enough. I'd be interested in your feedback, as well as ideas to specifically address improving quality. - TalkHard 00:39, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * "Quality of articles" depends on writing and editorial skills. Skills by definition are abilities which most people may not have. Thats not to say that they cant be learned or that Wikinews wouldnt be a good place to learn them. This is however to say that good writing is a skill and that good writers need to be both trusted with editorial powers over those less skilled, and be responsible for helping new writers develop. Professional level editors and writers will not be as at odds with each other about what can and should go into every story as newbies to internet forums are. Short news stories are written by solitary editors and writers in a few moments or even seconds. Real-time communication is essential. But where time is a factor, (as in news) the wiki model does not seem to work as it currently does for the encyclopedia. I imagine that in order to work, sysops must be entrusted with a lockdown ability for articles to freeze their excessive "development." We can each learn better the skill of writing and editing news articles, and this should make them pallatable for use as an RSS digest feed for all sorts of articles.


 * What do you guys think of the idea of using a story number system instead of titles - when they are done, they get a title, which is protected as final. Rewrites of that story get a new article number, and editors make the call as to whether they can be replaced. -Stevertigo 07:08, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * My response is, explain the improvement to service, please. Right now it seems ideal to me. Don't change a thing, as naive as it seems. The personality is truer to the beauty that is Wika, keeping things wordentified. Let's get to work on vital things like Wikimap... Wikimusic... Wikimedicine and I'm sure some more as critical, YES, but don't abandon this! It is already a thing of true Beauty, and so far participation is minimal. The real-time nature and the potential for massive amounts of participation will combine to make more and more sense if this catches on. The number of people that know about this, relative to the number of people that just don't, implies that there is a subset, only, of people who would make the effort that is necessary to carry this through the activation anergy, and they can only be reached by finding them in the first place. Let's have Wikipoll to find out if people don't like the way this works, and are thus not participating, as you seem to be presuming, IMHO, or are just not able to commit the time this requires, ...actually that's a good point, i'll shut up now so you all don't waste yours reading this babble. i'll get to writing articles so i can convince you, IMNHO, that i would make an excellent contribution working full time for 32 days. It so happens the people not up-to-speed, like me, are the ones you need to find out about this. And some of us can write when we're not rushing to hit save before we decide our thoughts might not be worth yours. Don't encourage that with your numbers and editors. Thanks for reading.
 * LOL - OK. Well if you were looking for a username, I suggest User:Scattered would be perfect for you at this time in your budding career. ;) -Stevertigo 22:33, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)