Wikinews:Water cooler/miscellaneous/archives/2011/August

What to do when an interviewee states a fact wrong
For my interview with Andy Martin, he states "The president of the Senate is third, not the speaker, so Reid is a practical choice. Boehner is fourth"

This is wrong. Reid is not the President of the Senate (which is the Vice President) and neither is he the President pro tempore of the Senate (Daniel Inouye), which follows the Speaker (John Boehner) in the line of succession. The goes: How should it be noted in the interview article that the interviewee is mistaken?--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Vice President
 * 2) Speaker of the House of Representatives
 * 3) President pro tempore of the Senate
 * [sic recte]? Or just [sic (whatever your correction is)]. See Sic. Or if you have to give a longer explanation, an [Editor's Note: ...] might help. Best, Ragettho (talk) 04:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You didn't bring this up when you asked follow-up questions? Ragettho (talk) 06:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The interview was highly contentious and Mr. Martin has signaled that it is over.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a bit of a judgement call. I feel there's no obligation to ever place corrections - just to repeat what the interviewee said. An editor's note would be acceptable for a glaring error such as this. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 11:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd go for putting an editor's note immediately after the question, something like this:
 * Editor's note: Reid is not the president of the Senate, as this position belongs to the vice president, Joe Biden; nor is he president pro tempore of the Senate&mdash;this is Daniel Inouye. Boehner, as the speaker of the House of Representatives, follows the vice president in the line of succession, and would be followed by the president pro tempore, Inouye.
 * That may be a bit wordy, but I'm not familiar with US politics, so I didn't want to miss anything important. DEN  DODGE  George Watson  14:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Editor's note" sounds more appropriate and accessible than "sic". It should be fine to place either immediately after the question or as a linked footnote. I know little about the intricacies of US government, but Dendodge's wording seems good. Should the note be backed up with reference to a reliable source? the wub "?!"  18:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's the text of the note I added, perhaps it is too wordy but I feel the quotes give it more authority:

According to Article I, Section III of the United States Constitution, the "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate". Therefore, Vice President Joe Biden is President of the Senate, not Harry Reid.

According to the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, "if, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President." Therefore, John Boehner, as the speaker of the House of Representatives follows the vice president as second in the line of succession. In the event of Boehner's inability to assume the office, the act specifies that "the President pro tempore of the Senate shall, upon his resignation as President pro tempore and as Senator, act as President." Therefore, President pro tempore of the United States Senate follows the speaker as third in the line of succession.

--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're going to write that much, then definitely do it as a footnote. Perhaps an [Editor's Note: The line of succession is actually as follows: Biden, Boehner, Inouye], followed by an inline citation linky that leads to your to your longer, more descriptive footnote. Gopher65talk 00:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The above was added as a footnote to the end of the page. I do not know if it would be best to place a comment within the text.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo on Wikinews at Wikimania
I was at Wikimania last week and during the board Q&A, Jimmy Wales mentioned Wikinews. From my :


 * Open source developer asked the board why they haven't started any new wiki projects since the opening of  in 2006, hinting at the potential benefits of creating Wikipedia-level, Foundation-blessed sister projects to collect material on  (to break the hold of proprietary database services) and also to collate bibliographic material and annotations to academic papers and documents, perhaps to connect with the increasing quantity of open data being published by scientists. Board member  (SJ) described how the board "don't have a clear process" for deciding on the creation, closing and modification of scope for existing projects but pointed to work being done by the Movement Roles project.
 * Jimmy Wales took a different tack, not endorsing the creation of new projects and not ruling them out, but suggesting that the Foundation and the board could do a better job of focussing on improving support for the other projects including specifically : "the Foundation has never provided much to Wikinews". Specifically on Wikinews, Wales noted that it "has not been the success it could have been", and compared it to the  which has been much more successful using a partially volunteer-driven model even though "it's not high quality" in terms of fact checking and neutrality like an improved Wikinews could be.

Just thought the Wikinews community might find this interesting. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * When last Jimbo stopped by Wikinews, he exhibited classic inability to comprehend how Wikinews works. As far as one could tell, he perceived anything different from the Wikipedian way as a foolish mistake to be corrected; his comments at that time helped to advance my thinking on fundamental incompatibilities between Wikipedian and Wikinewsie mindsets.  I didn't see any sign, by the end of that incident, that Jimbo was coming away from it any more clueful than he'd arrived; I've no way of knowing what went on elsewhere, of course, but I've never seen any reason for optimism.


 * Although we like to complain about the lack of respect we get (like Rodney Dangerfield or, perhaps, like anyone complaining about institutional cafeteria food), the above Wikimania comments make me think of an imperial colonial power massing troops on the border of a small neighboring republic and talking of the need to "liberate" it. --Pi zero (talk) 12:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Would you rather have us remain at the dismal position we're in right now? I'd be happy to consider any of the Foundation's suggestions for improvement.
 * How closely has Jimbo worked with the Wikinews community. When Wikipedia started out as a small group of volunteers, Jimbo seemed to have made all the right decisions to turn the project into the world's most famous encyclopedia. Perhaps it would be wise of us to seek his — and other WMF staff's — assistance. Ragettho (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A few thoughts (tip of the iceberg, really).
 * Disagree with the use of the word "dismal". Notably, the project cannot be properly judged by the yardstick of comprehensive, virtually instantaneous coverage of the biggest stories of the day.  Increasing success of the project could eventually produce an approximation of that as a side-effect.
 * It isn't a choice between status quo and Jimbo's vision. Change is slow here for (at least) two reasons: because writing/reviewing reduces time for infrastructure, and because our infrastructural challenges are novel and authentically difficult.  Slow, determined change is totally different from stasis.
 * I'm wary of Jimbo's ideas (which is not like not listening), because of his entrenched misapprehensions when last here. People who have had a really great idea do sometimes get swacked on it and have trouble adapting to situations where something different is called for.
 * --Pi zero (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

notice of unavailability
Hey Wikinewsies! I will be on vacation starting today until Sunday night, so I won't be available to review any articles until Monday. Under normal circumstances I wouldn't even bother to tell everyone, but given the large amount of articles currently in the queue, I figured that it's best to inform you all of my absence. Happy editing! :) Ragettho (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Enjoy your vacation! And thanks for the heads up &mdash; We Have Been Warned. :-)   --Pi zero (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)