Wikinews:IRC workshop/April 10, 2011



[14:00] <- Logging START -> [14:00]  Meetings yay! [14:01]  So what do we do first? apologies for absence? Move to approve the minutes of the last meeting? [14:01] == BarkingFish [~thor@wikipedia/BarkingFish] has joined #wikinews-workshop [14:01] Well, first of all let's see what's on the agenda that we can tackle [14:02] == Nascar [4a2294de@gateway/web/freenode/ip.74.34.148.222] has joined #wikinews-workshop [14:02]  How about peer-review? Is it too strict? [14:02]  Salut / Good Evening / Guten abend / Buenos noches / Buonasera [14:02]  Saluton BarkingFish. [14:03]  Have I missed anything? [14:03] No, not really too strict. When it gets too *lax*, so we start making a lot of mistakes, that creates tension on the project. [14:03] Yes. That was an issue I'd like to highlight: What do we do about peer review? Do you agree with the proposal to allow selfpublishing and peer review live side by side? Why or why not? [14:03]  by the way, who's chairing? [14:03]  Nope, just kicked off Nascar [14:03] No chairman, KillingVector - this is just an open meeting [14:03]  because I have a sense that there's not a lot of point drafting an agenda and then having a free-for-all discussion. [14:03]  Why you kick me? [14:04] There's no strict flow or anything, we'll just take the discussion wherever people want to take it. The agenda is just a suggested starting point from which we can launch new ideas. [14:04]  I think he meant we just started, Nascar. [14:04]  No, Nascar - kicked off is another way of saying "it's started" [14:04]  Ah OK. Well, in that case. [14:04]  Sorry, I had the other meaning of kicked on here. :/ [14:04] OK, have we started logging? [14:04] <- logging START -> [14:05] * Nascar feels we need to change the display of our site. [14:05]  We started already. [14:05] Ah, right, sorry. I forgot. Anyways, back on topic [14:05] <Mikemoral> At 21:00. [14:05] <St-Lemur> The proposal put forward by some editors to loosen peer review to the extent that some articles would be published without review is fundamentally flawed, in that it addresses the wrong problem while putting the integrity of the project at risk. [14:06] <St-Lemur> The problem we face immediately is an insufficiency of new editors becoming engaged with the project and developing to the point where they write good, publishable articles. [14:06] <Nascar> I think we do need to remove it, but we don't need to publish nonsense. [14:06] <diegogrez_> BarkingFish: Buenas noches ;) [14:06] == Tyrol5 [60ec95f5@gateway/web/freenode/ip.96.236.149.245] has joined #wikinews-workshop [14:06] == BarkingFish [~thor@wikipedia/BarkingFish] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] [14:06] <diegogrez_> Hi Tyrol5 [14:06] == BarkingFish [~thor@wikipedia/BarkingFish] has joined #wikinews-workshop [14:06] <Tyrol5> Hey Diego! [14:07] <BarkingFish> sorry about that, my network died [14:07] <St-Lemur> The question that should be asked, then, is "how do we engage new editors?" The proposal to drop peer review makes a vague, hand-wavy attempt to answer this by saying that if what people submit is automatically published -- regardless of quality -- then first-time editors will be encouraged to write a second article. [14:07] St-Lemur, I agree to some extent. At the same time though, I don't feel the status quo is working for us either. As I've said before, we're perpetually stuck "behind the curve" because articles wait hours or days before they're published [14:07] <diegogrez_> So what is this all about, last time I didn't pay attention [14:07] We don't want to publish copyvios, or factual errors, or POV. That's most of peer review right there. [14:07] Then they're of no use to anyone, because the MSM has long moved on to fresher topics [14:07] <St-Lemur> But even if this is so, what will, then, encourage editors to write a *good* second article? [14:08] <St-Lemur> The essential confusion is that the proposers are mixing up total article count with total number of articles worth reading. [14:08] <Nascar> Our newest editor is Mattisse, we haven't had one to write multiple articles since then. [14:09] Wikinews can't do synthesis articles that are as up to date as their sources; and the cure for *very* late is more contributors, which gets us back to recruiting and retention. [14:09] <diegogrez_> Nascar: well... Matisse isn't the "newest" editor, but the most notorious recently [14:09] Just as a comparison, does anyone know whether we published a lot of POV/poorly-written material in the days when selfpublish was the norm? [14:09] <St-Lemur> pizero, yeah, by definition synthesis articles will be behind the curve. [14:09] How do we stand now in terms of reliability and NPOV compared to then? Is it markedly better? [14:10] <Nascar> I meant the last editor who is newer than most of us who has created more than one article. [14:10] <BarkingFish> I wouldn't know unfortunately, tempodivalse - since I wasn't around on WN when you used to permit self publish [14:10] <Nascar> Maybe come up with a right that if you get past a certain point people can trust you not to right copyvio etc? [14:10] <BarkingFish> But in my eyes, with our presence on GNews and our wish to keep ourselves reliable, the option to permit self publication is not one I would support in any form. [14:10] That's an idea we floated around a bit, Nascar [14:10] <St-Lemur> Nascar, but that trips over the problem of getting *new* people [14:11] My sense trawling the archives (for categorization) is that our quality is distinctly higher. [14:11] The community can allow certain editors to self-publish [14:11] That means that the number of articles in the queue becomes lower [14:11] <St-Lemur> in this way the "unpublished articles" problem is actually two problems -- one, new peoples' articles not being published because they're crap and the experienced people aren't fixing them; and two, experienced peoples' articles languishing in the queue. [14:11] and allows reviewers to focus on newbies' articles [14:11] <BarkingFish> If peer review is falling behind so far that we're losing stories because of staleness, we need to look at making sure reviewers clear the queue in a timely fashion, maybe making some of them "duty" staff [14:11] == brianmc-phone [~brianmc@wikinews/brianmc] has joined #wikinews-workshop [14:11] Nobody is beyond making mistakes. [14:12] <Nascar> Ah I don't even have review right now, so I most definately can't self publish my own articles. [14:12] pizero, true. I'm just trying to find a balance here. [14:12] <diegogrez_> hi brianmc-phone [14:12] So, let's phrase this another way: Is the status quo working? Do we need to change anything at all? [14:12] == Nascar has changed nick to Nascar1996 [14:12] <St-Lemur> My recollection from 2 - 2 1/2 years ago is that on IRC, experienced reviews would "swap" tasks -- someone would say "I'll review your article if you review mine", and I thought this worked quite well. [14:12] <BarkingFish> The status quo isn't working. The question is, how do we change it without screwing the system? [14:13] <BarkingFish> St-Lemur: That doesn't work well. [14:13] <BarkingFish> I fell into that "trap" and wound up resigning. [14:13] <St-Lemur> There are ways it fell down. I generally don't review sports articles much, simply because I don't give a fuck about sports. [14:14] <BarkingFish> pizero knows the full story behind that. [14:14] We need to work on helping newbies, and on keeping things from blowing up between newbies and established Wikinewsies, and between established Wikinewsies. [14:14] <brianmc-phone> It does if the community is static, or very slowly growing [14:14] <Nascar1996> To get more editors (or 'new' people) we need to get more people to know this wiki exists. Most people thinks Wikipedia is the only one. [14:14] <Nascar1996> *think [14:15] <St-Lemur> so the whole issue really is about how effectively we recruit [14:15] <BarkingFish> pizero: The problem with that is, that my feeling certainly is that those of us who are "established" wikinewsies shouldn't be dumbing down so the newcomers can keep up. [14:15] <St-Lemur> Could we maybe look at news-on-Wikipedia articles and wikistalk promising editors? Say, "Hi, I noticed you're editing an article about x, did you know that there's en.wikinews.org for..." [14:15] St-Lemur, yes. Not only that, though, but how to retain contributors. Wikinews has a far higher burnout rate than any other WMF wiki I've seen. [14:15] <BarkingFish> Maybe a little bit when they first join, but they need to get up to speed, and quick [14:15] * Nascar1996 does believe Wikinewsies shouldn't be as harsh as they are. [14:16] st-lemur, I don't think wikipedians would enjoy that sort of linkspamming [14:16] <Tyrol5> I think that if you actually approached editors on WP that are explicitly interested in journalism about WN, we might get some new faces around here [14:16] They've frowned upon that in the past [14:16] <St-Lemur> tempodivalse, who has? [14:17] Wikipedians. They don't really appreciate canvassing to other projects [14:17] == dendodge [~dendodge@wikinews/Dendodge] has joined #wikinews-workshop [14:17] <St-Lemur> the users themselves or jealous admins? [14:17] <Nascar1996> Most don't. [14:17] Well, I don't know about that. I'm not in a position to comment on en.wp politics. [14:17] <brianmc-phone> I tried to get Wikinews mentioned in various ongoing event-type templates... Went down like a lead balloon. [14:18] <BarkingFish> BRS is the best person to ask about that, since he's got admin on both projects, tempodivalse [14:18] <BarkingFish> when he's about that is. [14:18] <Tyrol5> I wouldn't be upset by it. Although, I mainly found WN on a whim [14:18] <St-Lemur> I mean, if it's just Sceptre being a pain in the ass... [14:18] I think we need to stop worrying about WP and comparing ourselves to them all the time [14:18] <brianmc-phone> Mace beats Sceptre. :p [14:19] <Nascar1996> Wikipedia is the majorly active Wiki other than Commons. [14:19] Nod. And perhaps Wiktionary. [14:19] The newbie experience on Wikinews is *rough*; I got through it by going slowly, just copyediting here and there for many months. Until we can help newbies up to speed better, putting more of them through the wringer is of limited use. [14:19] <BarkingFish> I think we need to nom someone to control this discussion. It's a free for all atm. [14:19] <Tyrol5> @Tempo That's hard to do, considering that most of us spend time there [14:20] <diegogrez_> Nascar1996: yeah, but that doesn't mean we can't make Wikinews popular ;) [14:20] <Nascar1996> Most newbies' first articles seem to be ignored. My first article was about to go stale when it finaly was publsihed. [14:20] The only reason I stuck with Wikinews in the first place was because the community was so welcoming. It seems something has changed since then... [14:21] same here, dendodge [14:21] The more popular Wikinews is, the more people will be motivated to hang on long enough to get the hang of it.  That's not all that's needed, but it's a help. [14:21] <Nascar1996> The reason I have after all of this is that I just find Wikinews very inviting. [14:21] <diegogrez_> dendodge: yeah [14:21] <diegogrez_> although my first articles were ... deleted [14:21] <diegogrez_> i decided to hang around [14:21] <BarkingFish> Nascar1996: They're not ignored, but as I said in the last meeting, sometimes even a newcomers best efforts are at the titanic end of the market. [14:22] <Mikemoral> I stuck with Wikinews because Tempo welcomed me warmly. It's seems like a small, happy community then. Less so now. [14:22] <BarkingFish> Mostly unsalvageable [14:22] <Nascar1996> True. [14:22] Wikinews is an amazing concept, but the execution is teh sux. [14:22] Newbie articles are more work for reviewers, hence a reviewer with limited time will naturally choose a different article; that's perfectly reasonable from the *reviewer's* perspective. [14:22] <Tyrol5> Luckily, my first article last July went well, so I stuck around. I didn't find the place to be particularly inviting [14:22] == Mattise [~chatzilla@dt021nbe.tampabay.res.rr.com] has joined #wikinews-workshop [14:22] <BarkingFish> Here's a proposal for you then. [14:23] <diegogrez_> agreed pizero [14:23] <BarkingFish> How about we set up a staff of Wikinews users as a Newcomer Assistance Team [14:23] BF, we used to have that - Wikinews Welcomittee [14:23] It didnt' really work. [14:23] <Mikemoral> Made useless by the bot. [14:23] <St-Lemur> Who on WN doesn't bite? We all bite. I bite. [14:23] We were having trouble being inviting in July; we were kind of demoralized at the time. [14:23] <brianmc-phone> @Tyrol5 main problem is how awful a lot of first articles are: basically faster to rewrite than salvage [14:23] I think we should be devoting more time to newbies' articles. Those first two or three stories are *so* important in establishing a person's perspective of the project. [14:23] <BarkingFish> I don't just bite, i chew and spit the bones out St-Lemur [14:23] * Nascar1996 stays away from most newcomers. [14:24] <Mikemoral> I don't bite, much. [14:24] <Mikemoral> I try to be helpful. [14:24] <BarkingFish> Evening Mattise :) [14:24] What we need is one of three things: a) Drastically change the review process; ß) Shift our focus from lots of small bit stories to longer collaborative OR, which is more suited to the wiki model; or ?) Somehow get many, many, more contributors. [14:24] <Mattise> Evening to you [14:24] News is intense; it's hard not to bite, and even harder not to appear to bite. [14:24] <BarkingFish> Mikemoral: The welcommittee may have been made useless by the bot, but having a set of users who will help newcomers can't be too bad a thing. [14:24] Preferably all three. [14:25] dendodge: I think we pretty much already know that, that's been said over and over again. [14:25] The question is, how. [14:25] <BarkingFish> Do we, for example, have a template? [14:25] I don't know. [14:25] <Tyrol5> I think that if some editors were readily available to assist with first articles, we might have more people that stick around. I've seen users not come back b/c their first article was deleted [14:25] BF, yes! That's a good idea. [14:25] I'm just putting it out there. [14:25] <Mikemoral> BarkingFish: True. Sort of like WP's newbie helpers. [14:25] <BarkingFish> WP use one, to alert admins that the user requires assistance [14:25] For us, as a community at the moment, the first two are easy. [14:25] <St-Lemur> I don't have any idea about most of the templates we have, and I've been here for a while [14:25] <BarkingFish> that would at least be a start [14:26] <Tyrol5> agreed [14:26] <Nascar1996> Similar to WPs? [14:26] <BarkingFish> yes [14:26] There isn't a drastic problem with the review process. As I remarked way early, copyvio and accuracy and NPOV are most of review. [14:26] <diegogrez_> I think we should get rid of the bot [14:26] The thing is, nothing will work unless the new contributors feel welcome. Nobody wants to stick around on a project where they're not appreciated. I think we could improve in that regard [14:26] <BarkingFish> pizero: The biggest problem with review is that sometimes, the length of articles which a person takes on to review is in itself, a discouragement. [14:26] The review reforms are pretty much ready to be implemented, but we're not doing it. And we can easily get a few of the long-term contributors to work together on some ground-breaking OR. [14:26] <Tyrol5> This is true, the bot seems a bit impersonal [14:26] Once we do that, our contributor base will grow exponentially. [14:27] <BarkingFish> We ummed and ah'd about brianmc-phone's interview, primarily because of the length. It was a damn good interview, no question, but it's an example of one thing that puts a reviewer off. [14:27] Editors ready to help newcomers won't work without better techniques for helping newcomers. I put huge effort into helping Mattisse, and I'm sure Mattisse will agree that just didn't work out well. [14:27] Tyrol, yes, but the idea was to educate newbies about our cornerstone policies before they have a chance to do something clearly out of scope [14:27] <Mattise> If you are talking about the welcome template, I found it very helpful and still use it to start an article. [14:27] <Nascar1996> Bad part is that we can't figure a way how to change the review process. [14:27] == Jersey [43b7aa90@wikimedia/S3CR3T] has joined #wikinews-workshop [14:27] a bot is much more efficient than a team of users could be. I'm uncertain that it's impersonal [14:28] <brianmc-phone> Don't ditch the bot. Make the Welcommittee different; responsible for pushing stuff back to dev with some pointers and c/e. [14:28] <BarkingFish> The welcome bot is a good start [14:28] Yes, Welcomittee can play a key role here. But make sure it is *welcoming*. [14:28] <BarkingFish> but a personal service from someone who will stay and help you through what you're trying to do has got to be 100x better [14:28] <St-Lemur> The culture we need to have in reviewing is one of actively fixing things, instead of just slapping a template on it and the words "3/20 SEE ME" in red pen on the top. [14:28] <Mattise> I liked getting my welcome [14:29] <Tyrol5> Tempo: Although I might suggest that Wikinewsies offer a welcome as well, even after the bot [14:29] St-Lemur: bingo. I'm frustrated at how people fail articles just because they are missing a category or something, when everything else is fine [14:29] <BarkingFish> Mattise: Would you have felt differently with a personal welcome rather than a bot issued one? Would it have made a difference? [14:29] == Mattise has changed nick to Mattisse [14:29] <Mattisse> Hey, the name change worked this time! [14:30] <BarkingFish> :) [14:30] <Mikemoral> I appreciated a personal welcome. Imo, the bot does indeed seem impersonal. [14:30] Yes, how can we make actively fixing things more a part of the process, given that a reviewer has to remain independent if they're going to review? [14:30] <St-Lemur> then reviewer 1 does the re-write and reviewer 2 reviews and publishes [14:30] <St-Lemur> that's collaborative. [14:30] Instant de-reviewer for publish without a copyedit? :P [14:31] <diegogrez_> seems like tempodivalse welcomed me :D [14:31] <Tyrol5> The fact that I was welcomed by Tempo instead of the bot made a difference (albeit small after the success of 1st article) in staying [14:31] pizero: I think moderate alterations to articles shouldn't make a reviewer "uninvolved" [14:31] <Mattisse> What good is a personal welcome? Would the welcomer continue helping that newbie? [14:31] <brianmc-phone> Can we identify the key 1st submission failings? I put 'slapping review on too early' at the top of my list; it's asking to be bitten. [14:31] St-Lemur: But that means we need more editors to publish. that'll drive up review times, not lower them [14:31] <Tyrol5> Possibly, we could introduce some sort of mentoring/adoption program [14:31] * dendodge was welcomed by brianmc-phone :) [14:31] <BarkingFish> Ok Mattisse - I see where you're coming from with that. [14:31] <BarkingFish> And Tyrol5 - you just beat me to it [14:31] <St-Lemur> It hasn't in the past, since an article that's all written and ready to go can just be reviewed and go out the door [14:32] <BarkingFish> I was just about to suggest something again from WP, the "Adopt a newcomer" program [14:32] <Tyrol5> Sorry :) [14:32] * Nascar1996 wasnt welcomed by any. :( I asked Tempo for help. [14:32] * tempodivalse wasn't ever welcomed [14:32] Moderate alterations don't make a reviewer uninvolved.  *Big* alterations do; in mainstream newsrooms, I gather an editor can become effectively a ghostwriter of the article if xe wants. [14:32] <Tyrol5> Welcome to WN Tempo! (how's that) :) [14:32] <St-Lemur> pizero, also a good point [14:33] :) [14:33] <brianmc-phone> I, at one time, was the Wikinews 'WalMart greeter'. [14:33] <BarkingFish> you got me too, brianmc-phone :) [14:33] <BarkingFish> My welcome when I came back to WN was from you [14:33] I still haven't been given the new welcome template... :( [14:33] <Mattisse> Couldn't there be a way to get a "second opinion" if a reviewer feels he has made major changes? [14:34] There is, in a way - IRC. [14:34] <St-Lemur> hm... [14:34] Although that's not a very transparent way to do business. [14:34] <St-Lemur> this may be a stupid and technically difficult idea, but could we have the IRC channel running in a java applet on the newsroom page? [14:34] <Mattisse> IRC is not transparent and not open to newbies. [14:34] mattisse: fully agree [14:34] <BarkingFish> dendodge: you have now [14:34] st-lemur: that's cool, i'd support that idea [14:34] A big moment for me was when I got a copyeditor's barnstar from Tempo. Of course, I'd been around a while, but it *did* encourage me to stick with it. [14:35] but, technically possible? probably not [14:35] I'd look into it though. [14:35] BarkingFish: :DD [14:35] <diegogrez_> St-Lemur: that isn't hard to do, but let's see if Wikimedia's mediawiki version can do it (I have done it with other wikis, dunno here) [14:35] pizero: I give out barnstars to people to help boost morale and put off any signs of burnout. I think it's a practise we should employ more [14:35] <BarkingFish> let me just go and have a quick word with #wikipedia-en-help, it's one of their bots which does the online helpme alerts from the helpme template. [14:35] <diegogrez_> Mattisse: maybe we could log publicly the IRC? [14:36] It shows your work is appreciated. [14:36] <Mattisse> I have a couple of times "rescued" a newbie article when it is fixable and the newbie doesn't return to fix it. [14:36] <Nascar1996> I cleared out the review category for about a week. [14:36] The wikinews chan could be publically logged ... that would boost transparency [14:36] <St-Lemur> I dunno if people would feel like reading logs [14:36] <St-Lemur> it's a fair point but I don't know if it would solve the immediate problem [14:36] <Mikemoral> I know I don't. [14:36] We could highlight issues where wikinews is being discussed [14:36] <brianmc-phone> Nascar, the problem is that can burn you out for multiple weeks [14:36] and cut out the off-topic banter [14:37] <diegogrez_> let's do it then - @St-lemur I think most loggers have a search box [14:37] <St-Lemur> diegogrez_, yes, but who really wants to trawl megabytes of text file for the one time someone mentioned some keyword? [14:37] <St-Lemur> search box or no? [14:37] <Nascar1996> Ah, no. If you have seen what I used to do on WP. You might change your mind. Making a race article weekly is a lot of work. [14:37] <diegogrez_> whatever, it would make irc more transparent (remember the Nascar1996's thing last weeks) [14:38] <St-Lemur> I don't object to it, I just don't think it solves the new user problem. [14:38] Thing is, if you cut out the off topic conversation, there's not really a whole lot of discussion left to put in a log [14:38] it might be feasible if we could get people to move casual talk to a social chan [14:38] But I'm not sure this is a critical issue at this time. [14:39] <brianmc-phone> Since we've already sprawled into here, yet another channel, why not #wikinews-newsroom - always logged, and running in an applet on the newsroom? [14:39] <Mattisse> This is the only IRC I have participated in. Are there IRCs where wikinews talks daily? [14:39] <Nascar1996> #wikinews [14:39] <BarkingFish> I'd disagree with having the main Wikinews channel publicly logged, tempodivalse - we have #wikinews-public for that. [14:39] <diegogrez_> brianmc-phone: there was a public channel [14:39] <diegogrez_> #wikinews-public [14:39] <St-Lemur> brianmc-phone, fine by me, although it should be an en-newsroom in case other languages want to do this [14:39] <diegogrez_> I ran the logger bot, but as nobody ever used the channel... I shut it down [14:39] I wasn't aware a newsroom chan existed [14:40] Tempo: I was acutely aware after you left there were scarcely any barnstars being given out for some time. I don't have the knack of it myself. [14:40] <brianmc-phone> It doesn't, we can create them at-will [14:40] <Nascar1996> I learned most of the channels by the WN page. [14:40] <Mattisse> I have the feeling (maybe wrong) that not much is discussed on wiki. There is so little interaction. [14:41] Mattise, yes. Most user-to-user interaction takes place on IRC. [14:41] <Mikemoral> There's usually a lot done on IRC. [14:41] Which is why logging it might give more transparency [14:41] <Mattisse> No wonder I never know what is going on. [14:41] Logging IRC would just produce thousands of pages of links to photos of Tina O'Brien... [14:42] <diegogrez_> I logged #wikinews-public until January 2 :P http://toolserver.org/~diegogrez/wikinews-logs/ [14:42] <Mattisse> Why can't discussion such as this one happen on wiki? [14:42] <brianmc-phone> I'm opposed to logging #wikinews or #wikinews-en - hence suggesting another channel, also displayed in the newsroom. [14:42] Think of all the edit conflicts that would result. [14:42] <BarkingFish> bingo [14:43] brianmc, what exactly is wrong with logging? [14:43] <BarkingFish> This is the fastest live communication we have, Mattisse - it's the easiest way for everyone to commune in one place and talk together [14:43] == Jersey [43b7aa90@wikimedia/S3CR3T] has quit [Quit: ~] [14:43] <Nascar1996> Most of us hates edit conflicts. [14:43] <Mattisse> But what is ever resolved here? [14:43] Shifting the real-time interaction on-wiki seems inherently simpler and therefore more transparent than anything we can do to make IRC more transparent. [14:44] <Mattisse> I agree. [14:44] <brianmc-phone> I dislike it unless up-front. Both channels I mention have a long history of not being logged. [14:44] <BarkingFish> ok, then the next option is that we have an ajax chat page embedded into the wiki. [14:44] doesn't quite answer my question, but ok [14:44] When something is resolved here, folks on-wiki get upset about it. Not unreasonably. [14:44] <BarkingFish> there is already an extension to do that [14:44] <Mattisse> I think (the other place) is more of a community because much more happens on wiki. [14:44] <BarkingFish> we can keep realtime chat, but at the same time have it on wiki [14:44] <Nascar1996> The channels on here are like they are on wiki. [14:45] <diegogrez_> there are already links on that page to the irc chat, wouldn't solve anything [14:45] So maybe one key is to move IRC onto wiki, instead of trying to log IRC. [14:45] <Nascar1996> I agree with Tempo [14:45] But how would that work, exactly? Most people prefer IRC because it's so simple - just type something in and bingo, it's out [14:46] <St-Lemur> *nod* either way, the real collaborative work of news is being done on IRC [14:46] <Mattisse> Some of the major players (at the other place) don't ever use IRC. [14:46] <BarkingFish> Mattisse: No, that's true. But for collaborative effort, there's gonna be no faster way available to us than IRC. [14:47] WN is more time sensitive than WP [14:47] <BarkingFish> other than slapping an ajax chat onto WN [14:47] meaning IRC - which is quicker - is more convenient than running into 10x edit conflicts [14:47] <Mattisse> If it all takes place on IRC then forget newbies. The feeling I got when starting here, and still have, is that I am not part of wikinews [14:47] <BarkingFish> it's IRC without all the hassle [14:47] <Mikemoral> WP isn't time sensitive. [14:47] <brianmc-phone> Wikipedia can afford to move so slow they could discuss things using IP over Avian Carriers [14:47] <Nascar1996> I keep the feeling my edits are worthless. Most of the time I ignore the feeling. [14:48] <diegogrez_> why? [14:48] <Mattisse> It's not like a massive amount of interaction goes on wiki. [14:48] Mattisse: keep in mind, I started using IRC about three hours ago. [14:48] Mattisse: How hard is it to load IRC web chat and idle in here? It's not exactly complex... [14:49] <Mattisse> Well, you are one of the few editors I have some feeling for. Probably because I get a sense of you on wiki [14:49] <St-Lemur> I remember one article we were writing, it was breaking news about someone stealing an airplane, and we were feeding in from multiple news sources on IRC and coordinating the editing so we wouldn't conflict [14:49] == C628 [a6f800e9@wikinews/C628] has joined #wikinews-workshop [14:49] <Mattisse> I mean pizero [14:49] <Tyrol5> Hi C628! [14:49] <C628> hi [14:50] OK, I'm going to be on-and-off the next hour or so, pings might not be replied to immediately. just so everyone knows [14:50] <BarkingFish> ok [14:50] <Nascar1996> ok [14:51] <Mattisse> Where do all these breaking news discussions take place/ [14:51] <diegogrez_> so [14:51] <diegogrez_> whatever we are going to do [14:51] <diegogrez_> what is it? [14:51] mattise, #wikinews, usually [14:52] <Mattisse> I decided never to do breaking news ever again because, as a newbie it is very unpleasant not knowing what is going on. [14:52] <Mattisse> Besides, you hear the news on the radio before anything appears as a story. [14:53] <BarkingFish> The first thing I think we need to get sorted on a helpme alert for the channel, so we know when a user needs help. It works wonderfully for WP, and there is a bot which notifies the channel when a user asks for assistance. [14:53] <BarkingFish> I'm trying to get info on it now. [14:53] <Nascar1996> Mattisse: How did you decide to become a Wikinews editor and why? (This might be the same for most newcomers) [14:54] <diegogrez_> I support Dendodge's idea, we should do more OR. I love to take photographs when anything happens (best example is the Japanese tsunami emergency article) and I try to do my best, original reporting should be encouraged. [14:54] <BarkingFish> OR is encouraged, diegogrez_ [14:54] <Mikemoral> BarkingFish: The bot also does alerts for protected page edit requests. [14:55] <diegogrez_> I mean, to the newbies [14:55] <Mattisse> To Nascar, because it is relatively easy to write a story and I like to write. But I didn't know about wikinews for years [14:55] <BarkingFish> Ok, I'm gonna look at the source of the helpme template on WP, and see about whipping it into WN. I'd rather be bold and try it, if no one minds [14:56] <Tyrol5> I'd say go for it [14:56] <Nascar1996> I learned about Wikinews by portals on WP that display realated news from Wikinews. If you look at my first edit it was for a WP portal. [14:56] <diegogrez_> BarkingFish: http://helpmebot.org.uk [14:56] Keep in mind, a newbie generally needs to learn some basics before they're ready for OR, cutting xyr teeth on synthesis. OR is hard. [14:56] <Nascar1996> BF, I'd like to help! [14:57] <BarkingFish> that's the point of it, Nascar1996 - we all can. [14:57] <Nascar1996> No with the Help me template. [14:57] <BarkingFish> ah, ok. Let me see what importing it entails, and I'll grab you in a sec :) [14:58] <Nascar1996> We have a help me template! http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Template:Helpme [14:58] <Mattisse> It's a very closed society here. You have to belong to a particular culture or you don't understand what's going on. [14:58] <diegogrez_> um, why do you say that matisse? [14:59] <diegogrez_> *mattisse [14:59] <Mattisse> No matter how "welcoming" a template is, a newbie will go by what he sees on wiki, which is not much. [14:59] <Tyrol5> I agree [14:59] <Nascar1996> For help, I looked at the recent changes and asked the first editor I seen for help. [14:59] <BarkingFish> Nascar1996: Ok then, that works. If it categorises users correctly, I'll test it with helpmebot and see how we go on. [15:00] <Mattisse> I perceive it. But also I was tolk to watch a 1990s UK sit com if I wanted to understand what editors were saying [15:00] <Nascar1996> BarkingFish: Looks like http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Category:Wikinewsies_looking_for_help is the category. [15:00] <BarkingFish> that would need changing [15:00] <Nascar1996> What should it be moved to. [15:00] <BarkingFish> The bot responds to articles added to Category:Help [15:01] <BarkingFish> but we can't do that [15:01] <C628> i don't think the issue is the culture, it's the people. there is very much a dividing line between old people like BRS, Brian Mc, TUFKAAP, etc and reletive newbies, and that line is *extremely* hard to cross [15:01] <BarkingFish> because that category already exists [15:01] <St-Lemur> any article needing review is spammed into the channel... [15:01] <St-Lemur> how about any page with is similarly spammed? [15:01] <Mattisse> Agree with C628 [15:02] <Tyrol5> @C628 I think that's a common problem a young (relatively) project would fix [15:02] <Nascar1996> BarkingFish: Can I change the WN template to look similar to the WP template. The WP template looks better anyway. [15:02] * dendodge managed to cross the line, sort of. [15:02] * dendodge is a middly. [15:02] <Tyrol5> *have, not fix [15:02] Mattisse: I think he just meant that a number of editors use jokes from there. I'd never heard of that sitcom (and still haven't looked it up). [15:02] I've never heard of it. [15:02] <C628> i think Mattisse's example of being advised to watch a TV show in order to find out wtf is going is a perfect example [15:02] <BarkingFish> Nascar1996: Hm [15:02] <Tyrol5> Will be away from computer for some time (about .5 hr) [15:03] <BarkingFish> Let me look at that and see. [15:03] I think he was just saying we exhibit a similar warped sense of humour to the writers of that sitcom. [15:03] == diegogrez_ [~diegogrez@186.20.52.44] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] [15:03] But all he was doing was recommending a TV show. I don't think he was saying you had to watch it. [15:03] <Mattisse> Well. that implies a narrow cultural perspective. [15:04] Mattisse: Hey, have you ever seen Star Trek? I think it's a great show. You might like it. [15:04] <Nascar1996> Do we have a IRC channel to help newcomers? Similar to #wikipedia-en-help ? [15:04] <C628> but that's not helpful. I'm american, and I have no idea what he's talking about. it makes it seem like it's an in-joke you have to know to be a part of the community [15:04] <brianmc-phone> Yes, dendodge [15:04] == diegogrez_ [~diegogrez@186.20.124.45] has joined #wikinews-workshop [15:04] He was just saying that :) [15:04] <Mattisse> That was his analysis of why I was having trouble. If I watched the tv show I would understand [15:04] <brianmc-phone> Two countries separated by a common language [15:04] If you don't like in-jokes, I recommend you stay well away from #wikinews-on-wheels :P [15:05] (Unless you like Tina O'Brien, in which case you'll love it) [15:05] <Nascar1996> BarkingFish: Do we have a IRC channel to help newcomers? Similar to #wikipedia-en-help ? [15:05] <brianmc-phone> [15:05] <Mattisse> wikinews should be about more than 2 countries. [15:05] <diegogrez_> who's tina o'brian? *looks with moronic face* [15:05] <BarkingFish> Mattisse: Wikinews exists in about 20 languages [15:05] diegogrez_: A British actress [15:05] <brianmc-phone> Where are you, diego? [15:05] <Nascar1996> It is. Its about 5 Chile, US, UK, Libya and Japan [15:05] Ask BRS. He knows who she is ;) [15:06] <Mattisse> I know. the other wikinews are more friendly [15:06] <diegogrez_> I'm kidding :P [15:06] Mattisse: I didn't think he meant it that way. But then, I've had years to get used to Brian McNeil on-wiki. [15:07] <Nascar1996> BarkingFish: The helpme template was copied from WP in 2006. [15:07] <Mattisse> What did he mean? I've never heard of the show [15:08] == Nascar1996 [4a2294de@gateway/web/freenode/ip.74.34.148.222] has quit [Quit: Have to mow the grass.] [15:08] <Mattisse> If anything, I 'd think there would be a news room culture here, which there doesn't seem to be [15:08] He meant you might enjoy it, and it would give you an insight into the kind of humour we employ. [15:08] He's probably the only one of us who has seen it. [15:08] <BarkingFish> I think we're on for the helpme template, stwalkerster, who runs helpmebot, is looking at making some changes to the bot so we can have our own instance for alerting us when a user needs help. [15:04] <Nascar1996> Do we have a IRC channel to help newcomers? Similar to #wikipedia-en-help ? [15:04] <C628> but that's not helpful. I'm american, and I have no idea what he's talking about. it makes it seem like it's an in-joke you have to know to be a part of the community [15:04] <brianmc-phone> Yes, dendodge [15:04] == diegogrez_ [~diegogrez@186.20.124.45] has joined #wikinews-workshop [15:04] He was just saying that :) [15:04] <Mattisse> That was his analysis of why I was having trouble. If I watched the tv show I would understand [15:04] <brianmc-phone> Two countries separated by a common language [15:04] If you don't like in-jokes, I recommend you stay well away from #wikinews-on-wheels :P [15:05] (Unless you like Tina O'Brien, in which case you'll love it) [15:05] <Nascar1996> BarkingFish: Do we have a IRC channel to help newcomers? Similar to #wikipedia-en-help ? [15:05] <brianmc-phone> [15:05] <Mattisse> wikinews should be about more than 2 countries. [15:05] <diegogrez_> who's tina o'brian? *looks with moronic face* [15:05] <BarkingFish> Mattisse: Wikinews exists in about 20 languages [15:05] diegogrez_: A British actress [15:05] <brianmc-phone> Where are you, diego? [15:05] <Nascar1996> It is. Its about 5 Chile, US, UK, Libya and Japan [15:05] Ask BRS. He knows who she is ;) [15:06] <Mattisse> I know. the other wikinews are more friendly [15:06] <diegogrez_> I'm kidding :P [15:06] Mattisse: I didn't think he meant it that way. But then, I've had years to get used to Brian McNeil on-wiki. [15:07] <Nascar1996> BarkingFish: The helpme template was copied from WP in 2006. [15:07] <Mattisse> What did he mean? I've never heard of the show [15:08] == Nascar1996 [4a2294de@gateway/web/freenode/ip.74.34.148.222] has quit [Quit: Have to mow the grass.] [15:08] <Mattisse> If anything, I 'd think there would be a news room culture here, which there doesn't seem to be [15:08] He meant you might enjoy it, and it would give you an insight into the kind of humour we employ. [15:08] He's probably the only one of us who has seen it. [15:08] <BarkingFish> I think we're on for the helpme template, stwalkerster, who runs helpmebot, is looking at making some changes to the bot so we can have our own instance for alerting us when a user needs help. [15:16] The last piece of real collaboration I remember is the Fort Hood shootings article. [15:16] This gets back to the need for a reviewer to remain sufficiently uninvolved if they want to review at article - and the fewer active reviewers there are, the more motivated a reviewer is to try to remain sufficiently uninvolved, 'cause nobody else is likely to review if xe doesn't. [15:17] <BarkingFish> pizero: It's pretty much a catch 22 [15:18] <BarkingFish> The problem is, the more people contribute to an article, the higher the chance that there isn't going to be an uninvolved reviewer [15:18] <brianmc-phone> BarkingFish: Too long to edit on phone. Change point 5 on 1st tab to "ask here, or put on the relevant Talk/Discussion page" [15:18] <BarkingFish> ok [15:18] <Mattisse> That is only if you have a very small pool of reviewers [15:19] <BarkingFish> Mattisse: the size of the pool doesn't matter, when the reviewers are not significantly motivated enough to review an article anyway [15:19] == diegogrez_ has changed nick to diegogrez [15:19] <Mattisse> there are something like 160 reviewers. I have never seen more than a couple of people work on an article [15:19] <BarkingFish> brb, just going to sort out the welcome template [15:20] This is why we need to do something. The super-slow review process is, when it comes down to it, the root of *all* our problems. [15:20] The solution is less clear. [15:21] <Mattisse> What do editors enjoy doing here? [15:21] <Mattisse> Talk on IRC rather than have a transparent community? [15:22] <Mikemoral> brianmc: The goes on the user [15:22] <Mikemoral> 's talk page, along with their question. [15:22] Mattisse: exactly [15:22] == dendodge [~dendodge@wikinews/Dendodge] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] [15:22] <brianmc-phone> BarkingFish: Also add pretty much the same on the writing an article tab. Might I also suggest that the editing help in main namespace has a link to create a section on the talk? [15:22] <Mattisse> If a bunch of people collaborate on IRC, whose to know who is "involved" and can't review? [15:23] <BarkingFish> yep, ok brianmc-phone [15:23] <BarkingFish> I'm trying to work out what to edit and where, so be patient, I don't want to screw this up :) [15:23] <brianmc-phone> Collaboration on IRC is finding sources, highlighting relevant points, less-so on the actual writing. [15:24] == dendodge [~dendodge@wikinews/Dendodge] has joined #wikinews-workshop [15:24] <BarkingFish> brianmc-phone: Would I be editing Template:Howdy/content ? [15:24] <Mattisse> So that means collaboration on IRC doesn't mean you can't review? [15:24] Sorry, Firefox just crashed. [15:25] <brianmc-phone> Errr, maybe - it is under FR, so chill if you screw it [15:25] <BarkingFish> ok [15:25] dendodge: The slow review process isn't the root of *all* our problems. Some of our problems come from the fact that we haven't figured out a smooth way to help newbies scrabble up the initial learning "curve". [15:25] <brianmc-phone> Not unless you're contributing content. [15:26] <BarkingFish> brianmc-phone: that looks right - I'm gonna save it [15:27] <brianmc-phone> Who's doing the embedded channel in the newsroom then? [15:27] Also, newbies who aren't up to speed can contribute significantly to the review times, so the problems reinforce each other nicely. [15:27] <BarkingFish> just gonna warn #wikimedia-tech there maybe a bit of a job queue, this edit is gonna affect about 80000 pages [15:28] <brianmc-phone> Lol [15:29] <BarkingFish> there it goes :) [15:29] <BarkingFish> there it goes :) [15:30] <BarkingFish> does that look ok on the template? [15:30] He's right, it's about 80000 pages; I counted them when I put the template on the  documentation. [15:31] <BarkingFish> i only found out when I went to edit and got warned it was used on a shedload of pages [15:31] <Tyrol5> looks good to me, BF [15:32] <Mattisse> What is the point of putting in on 800000 pages, when hardly any of those are actually editors who edit here? [15:32] <Tyrol5> It's the bot [15:32] Matisse, the hope is that someone will be motivated by the template to write [15:32] and the bot can't distinguish between "real" users and those who had an account auto-created by the WMF wiki-farm software [15:33] <Mattisse> I don't think it is lack of motivation that's the problem [15:33] <BarkingFish> anyway, the information is there, so we're gonna start to see that template in use I'd imagine [15:33] == C628 [a6f800e9@wikinews/C628] has quit [Quit: Page closed] [15:33] <BarkingFish> and stwalkerster is going to sort out the helpmebot for us :) [15:34] <BarkingFish> I've asked him to drop it in #wikinews for now until we open a help channel [15:34] We need our own help chan? [15:34] * diegogrez won't be around for the next hour - needs to ride his bicycle a bit :P [15:34] tempodivalse: perhaps #wikinews-help [15:34] <BarkingFish> tempodivalse: Not necessarily [15:34] <brianmc-phone> BarkingFish, also mention it on the start an article tab, but to put it on the article discussion page. [15:35] <BarkingFish> it's just that the bot normally runs in a help channel [15:35] I imagine people could just come to #wikinews-en [15:35] <BarkingFish> brianmc-phone: I don't think the template is meant to work anywhere other than on a user talk page [15:35] <BarkingFish> I'll check it over [15:36] <BarkingFish> the helpme was originally designed to use on talk pages for peeps asking questions, i think it would look funny for articles to start asking for help too :) [15:38] <St-Lemur> sorry, I had to AFK for a bit suddenly. What's been decided? [15:38] <Tyrol5> We're going to set up an irc help channel w/ bot [15:38] Not much, it appears. We were discussing the welcome template. [15:39] <Tyrol5> for use w/ [15:39] <St-Lemur> ah OK. I still think embedding the IRC channel in the newsroom would be the rockingest thing we could do [15:39] <St-Lemur> meanwhile back in real life, "Embattled Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, in negotiations with the African Union, has agreed in principal to a deal that would end the conflict in the nation he's ruled for 42 years, South African President Jacob Zuma told reporters Sunday." (CNN) [15:40] <Mattisse> That's old news [15:40] <BarkingFish> I'll pop it on the start an article tab as well, brianmc-phone - it would work, just direct people to ask question about the article or the edit on their own pages [15:40] <Tyrol5> I think the irc in the newsroom idea was tossed around a little bit ago [15:40] <Tyrol5> Any final decision? [15:40] I'd love to have irc embedded in the newsroom [15:40] <BarkingFish> do it [15:40] <BarkingFish> anything for "transparency" [15:40] <Tyrol5> i agree [15:41] * brianmc-phone nearly finished creating #wikinews-en-newsroom [15:42] <St-Lemur> yay [15:42] <Tyrol5> How is it to be embedded? [15:42] <BarkingFish> I still reserve the right to discuss things out of earshot though. There are some things I won't make public in any form. [15:42] I'd prefer we used an existing chan for this purpose [15:42] #wikinews-en can fit the bill, it's off teh beaten track [15:42] <BarkingFish> transparency is one thing, stupidity is another and I'll be damned if I'm gonna mix the two in one place [15:42] What about the help chan? [15:42] do we need it seperate? [15:43] <brianmc-phone> It seems more logical to me to have a newsroom channel mirrored on-wiki [15:43] <BarkingFish> i don't think so [15:43] == Amgine [~Amgine@wikinews/Amgine] has joined #wikinews-workshop [15:43] <Tyrol5> Hi Amgine! [15:43] <BarkingFish> since most of the users congregate in #wikinews, seems more sense to have it there tempodivalse [15:44] <brianmc-phone> A help channel would belong on WC/Assistance [15:44] <Amgine> Sorry, I was busy with house restruction. [15:44] #wikinews is multilingual. If other chans want to have helplines that would conflict [15:44] <brianmc-phone> Alerts can be posted in #wikinews, don't start logging and/or publicly posting it [15:45] <BarkingFish> you don't. All the bot does is tell you who needs the help, and allows you a direct link to their page to answer the question. [15:46] <BarkingFish> it presents a wikilink, and I assume Wikilink2 will turn it straight into a link for us [15:47] <Mikemoral> Hmm... [15:47] <BarkingFish> It also nags you if a user's been waiting more than an hour for help :) [15:47] <Mikemoral> Helpmebot creates link automagically when someone types !link. [15:48] <BarkingFish> yes, but with wikilink2 in the channel, that won't be needed unless the link goes from your scrollback, in which case typing that will give you the link of the last person who asked for help [15:48] <Mikemoral> Or the last link someone said in . [15:50] <BarkingFish> yeah [15:51] <BarkingFish> But there is a way of calling up users who still need help if I remember [15:51] <BarkingFish> which would bypass the !link thing [15:52] <Mikemoral> !helpme [15:52] <BarkingFish> that's the one [15:52] <BarkingFish> I knew it was there somewhere [15:52] <BarkingFish> brb [15:53] <Mikemoral> The bot also nags about protected edit requests. Would we want that? [15:54] <BarkingFish> I think stwalkerster is only setting ours up for helpme requests [15:54] <BarkingFish> he's altering the database for us [15:56] <Tyrol5> There's never that many per's anyway [15:56] <BarkingFish> I've hardly seen any tbh [15:59] <BarkingFish> The other thing I'd like to look at is a Speed dial option for new users. Sort of a reference list of places they can immediately click on to do different things [16:05] <brianmc-phone> Can people join #wikinews-en-newsroom ? Hope not too locked down, and need to template people... [16:11] <BarkingFish> right, I've set nascar on the task of giving the helpme template a facelift [16:12] <BarkingFish> basically just to add a little more info, make it a bit brighter and generally hose down the outside :) [16:12] *wonders what are we going to do...* [16:12] <BarkingFish> we don't need a seperate helpme for admin questions do we? Maybe a link from helpme to the AAA should suffice [16:13] yeah [16:22] <Mikemoral> Seeing that discussion has died down, could we call this meeting to an end? [16:22] <Amgine> Make it so. [16:23] <Mikemoral> Oh, wait. [16:23] <- Logging END ->