Wikinews:Water cooler/miscellaneous/archives/2013/February

General interest??
Local papers/news outlets have certainly facilitated citizen journalism for many years (decades?), and nearly all tv/magazine/newspaper sites have some sort of a "You report it" section where there are user-submitted add-ins scattered within; this, however ............. http://www.tylerpaper.com/article/20130208/NEWS01/130209814  (scroll to bottom of page) is the first time I've ever seen a source aggresively try to recruit citizen journalists.....I think it's pretty cool! --Bddpaux (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Nieuwe bestuursleden gezocht - Algemene Ledenvergadering 23 maart 2013 Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland
Dit Nederlandstalige bericht is geplaatst in De Kroeg of soortgelijke pagina op de projecten Wikipedia, WikiWoordenboek, Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wikisource, Wikispecies, Wikiversity, Wikivoyage, Wikinews, Commons, Wikidata, Outreach in de bestaande taalversies Nederlands, Fries, Limburgs, Nedersaksisch en Zeeuws van deze projecten. Dit bericht is in de eerste plaats bedoeld voor mensen die in Nederland wonen. Voel je vrij om dit Nederlandstalige bericht te vertalen in het Fries, Limburgs, Nedersaksisch of Zeeuws. De Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland ondersteunt onder andere het werk van de vrijwilligers die op Wikipedia of een van de zusterprojecten daarvan actief zijn. De vereniging houdt op 23 maart 2013 de jaarvergadering. Het zittende bestuur legt verantwoording af met jaarverslag en jaarrekening over het jaar 2012. De zittende bestuursleden zijn allen benoemd voor de periode van een jaar welke termijn afloopt met de komende jaarvergadering. Een aantal zittende bestuursleden zal zich herkiesbaar stellen. De vereniging zoekt nieuwe bestuursleden en werft met name onder jullie, degenen die actief bijdragen aan een of meer Wikimedia projecten en goede contacten hebben met overige leden van de gemeenschap. Wil jij meebepalen welke richting de vereniging opgaat, of ken je iemand die daar uitgesproken ideeën over heeft, schroom dan niet daarover contact op te nemen met voorzitter AT wmnederland DOT nl of om jezelf voorstellen op de Algemene Ledenvergadering van 23 maart 2013. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

An experience from an outsider
(already posted under my article, but it is a general notion, so I put it here, if anyone wants to be interested)

I have already written the Czech language blog about the situation here, and now I see the situation is even worse. The system here doesn't work. I am a journalist myself, an educated professional, but to write the article for Wikinews is so complicated that I do not see a possibility of trying it again. Writing the news article for the English Wikinews is by far more complicated than writing the article for Wikipedia, which should be focused here. The news-reporting is valuable only then, if it is fast. The English Wikinews are not fast. And more, writing article here is like putting it into a random black box where there is no guarantee what will get out of it and - especially - when it will happen. It does not have anything with the fact there are or there are not kind, good-willing and hardworking editors here. They certainly are, but they run out of their own capacities under this system.

So let me sum it: The English Wikinews system is extremely complicated, rigid and slow-working, it is meticulous on wrong places, and overall author-unfriendly. You should really start thinking about it. Okino (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The article was submitted with about half the information in it unverified by the sources. English Wikinews is not to blame for the article being substandard.  There's nothing complicated about "provide sources for everything", and if insisting on being sure of one's facts before publishing them is "rigid" then so be it.


 * The suggestion that we're not thinking about how long it sometimes takes to review things is, at best, foolhardy. --Pi zero (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * A lot of the information that You ask to be verified in it is well described in any encyclopedia, because they are generally known as facts, not the opinions or temporarily valid information. I can easily delete them (as You even recommended to me), but will that mean the article is going to be better?
 * I do not blame English Wikinews for the fact the article is substandard. I was myself ready to try to make it better. I was willing to try to learn how to write the articles as good as I could. I have written here a few articles and I repeatedly collided with the new changes and a very little support.
 * I blame Wikinews it does very little to improve substandard articles itself (except the text copyedit). I blame Wikinews it obstructs the creation with need to verify information that are quite easily available everywhere. And especially, I blame Wikinews it takes days (do You understand, what I mean: it takes days - in news-reporting) long to find what is the problem with the article - and then the English Wikinews asks to rewrite the article, because it happened to be too old. And finally I blame the editors of being harsh and unsupportive to outsiders.
 * I do not know, whether it is foolhardy, or not, or even whether it is foolhardy "at best". I know that my interest in improving and publishing an news article that was becoming older and older was falling down - and it fell to zero as I was asked to update it because of the system failure.
 * Maybe You are not interested in new editors from a country as small as Czech Republic. Maybe You think an article that is abandoned means no loss for Wikinews (and just in these few days I found at least two or three articles being abandoned, while I do not know if any other was published meanwhile). Maybe You think my opinion that this is quite probable is "at best, foolhardy". Maybe everything is perfect. But maybe there is something wrong and You should at least try to think about it...
 * I am not willing to discuss it with You. I am just an outsider that maybe will, maybe won't come again and try to write another article (although I was quite enthusiastic about coming and I am much less now). And although I am an experienced Wikipedia and Czech Wikinews editor, which means I do know something about the procedures in Czech Wikinews and various Wikipedias, I still do not want You to follow me. I just advice You should discuss it Yourselves here, because losing three articles in three days is quite luxury even for the Wikinews as large as English Wikinews. Okino (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * We'd love to have contributors from Czech Republic. A sad concatenation of circumstances caused that article to fall through the cracks; even at times when we've had far more reviewer labor available, some articles are lost in that way, because demand for review always expands to exceed supply.  Btw, there may possibly have been a misunderstanding regarding my review comments.  I did not recommend a course of action on that article; I tried (as best I could) to make clear that if the article were not to be abandoned, it would need not only sourcing of the missing material, but also some sort of new developments to refresh it.


 * If you don't ask why we do things the way we do, but instead assume we must not have good reasons, there won't be a basis for collaboration (the first pillar described at WN:Pillars of Wikinews writing).


 * Case in point. Off hand, I can think of four reasons why it's unworkable to have articles submitted with incomplete sourcing and then expect reviewers to go off on research expeditions to try to fill in missing sources for the material.  I can think of that many reasons pretty easily because we've put years of labor and deep thought into the way we do things, because we care deeply about news and about the project.  But you didn't ask why we don't do things that way.  Instead, you asserted that it would be easy to do, and implied that we don't know what news is, haven't thought about these things, and don't care.  --Pi zero (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but I did not say anything about Your reasons. I know rather well the reasons as I am a long-time Wikipedian, long-time Wikinewser and long-time journalist and I know the reasons are good. Nevertheless the reasons are a part of "wiki-theory". The situation on Wikinews is a part of "wiki-practice". And it seems to me the requirements defined by the "wiki-theory" overwhelm the "wiki-practice" and cause considerable losses. And that means, the reasons are purely good, but the outcome is not as purely good, if it is not even mediocre or bad...
 * I do not ask You to consider leaving non-sourced materials in Wikinews at all! I ask You to consider non-news factual information (of historical and/or permanent nature) to be different information than the news information (what is "new"). The first one can be verified through Wikipedia etc., the second through included sources. And after the reviewer fails to easily verify such first-kind information, let him ask the author for special sources for special information.
 * If You press Your point, You can force the authors to leave the articles less informative than it should be, just because the author surrenders the effort to find source for some information. Or he/she can overstuff the article with sources, just to have a source for anything. The reviewers job will be even more difficult, if he has to find the information in ten or more extensive sources (and he/she does not know, where to find the information). As I see from the current front page news, Wikinews do not use inline references to lead the reviewer/reader in the proper source. Trying to verify the same-sex legislation story now from eight sources is a heck big portion of work. In my story, I at least tried to add the comments to lead You or another reviewer to the proper sources, but does anyone else do that? And is it better to read many pages of the presented sources looking for one single information, or simply google the internet for it? I bet the second one is true. The first one means the writing process is more difficult, the reviewing process is more difficult, it thus gets longer and it thus means other problems again...
 * Well, once again, try to think it out... Okino (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedian experience is deeply unlikely to give you any insight into our reasons. And you're still, apparently, making a lot of unwarranted assumptions (looks like you've even added some new ones to your earlier comments) and not asking anything.  --Pi zero (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source. They even say so themselves. Experience on Wikipedia is not relevant to Wikinews, because you have multiple lifetimes to perfect the prose on Wikipedia. Wikinews? Well, you've got about 24-48 hours to fix issues that a reviewer may find.
 * I think you've got things arse-backwards about sourcing. Sourcing is the responsibility of the individual submitting the article. Human memory is often faulty, It is easy to recall details incorrectly or have picked up information via Chinese whispers.
 * If you give some examples regarding what you consider 'universally known facts' that have been challenged, then I can give an opinion on that. Wikinews is supposed to take such as-given. However, being too-lax on that could lead to endless discussions about whether we evolved or were created.
 * I do have quite some sympathy for viewing the current review process as overly-onerous. But, I've seen the train-wrecks where people who subscribe to certain conspiracy theories try to contribute here. I would like an easier, and faster, review turnaround – with the intent being to provide reporting of a standard that respectable broadsheets were known for about 30&mdash;40 years ago. The collegiality of those past-era newspapers was the foundation of exposing the Watergate scandal; reporters and editors knew each-other well enough to 'get over' the sort of facts you might be referring to as "Just look in Wikipedia"; Quite simply, it's a trust thing.
 * Pi zero's reviewing is something I would not pick much fault with. Where I suspect it is most-likely to frustrate would-be contributors is in the "academic" nature of it. We've had three semesters of J-school students run through the project; and, the best value to the students, and their respective universities, is pushing for a 'gold standard'.
 * I would like to see reviews being less 'exacting'. But, I would also like to see the quality of submitted prose upped by a couple of orders of magnitude. I'm open to discussing how things can be improved, how a closer working relationship between contributor and reviewer could be established. And, I'm prepared to put my money where my mouth is. We've had writing competitions in the past, how's about this for one:
 * I'll set aside £200.
 * For every contributor whose first main namespace edit was 12-12-2012, or later, I will pay out £25 if they can get a Featured article before 12-12-2013.
 * That's around US$40. People aiming for that would need to work through getting a few 'lesser' articles published first.
 * If you still want to see the review process changed, then it is down to understanding the Wikinews point of view. I will not disagree when there are complaints it is particularly onerous, but the need is to have people who understand the value it adds before they try to take it apart. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Oooh. ^^ The first article I contributed to was an interview where I did live translation, translated and transcribed the text from Spanish to English, and English to Spanish with the article appearing on the front page of English and Spanish Wikinews at the same time. LauraHale can confirm it. The interview was done this month and pi zero nominated it for featured. Wikinews_interviews_Spain%27s_most_decorated_Paralympian,_Teresa_Perales Am I eligible to collect the prize? :-) Raystorm (talk) 10:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You also asked at least one of the questions, as I recall. --Pi zero (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Brian, for more emphatic answer. I just want to stress (probably not for the first time): I do not blame any individual, nor You, neither Pi zero, and I do not blame even the dozens of the authors that are not here now, simply just because they are busy with their other duties or for different reasons, I know it well that Wikinews is a volunteer project. I really believe they/You all do all what they/You can and I appreciate it sooo much. I just think that just seeing this, that everyone does all what he can - and stories are being slowly reviewed and finally dropped, the problem is not on the side of the Wikinews-ers, but on the side of Wikinews process. I do not know, maybe some of You is an (co)author of the process and therefore You can be offended by my criticism. I am sorry for that.

Just a one more remark: I am happy to read that You had a group of journalism students who learnt a "pushing for a gold standard" here. However, exactly this seems the problem of English Wikinews to me. It teaches future professionals to push for a gold standard. Can You imagine Wikipedia teaching future scientists or encyclopedia writers to push for a gold standard? Do You think Wikipedia would be such a phenomenon if it has such harsh criteria for all its authors? In Wikipedia, the newbie can start with writing a Wikipedia:stub, then can push for a normal article, than for a Wikipedia:good article and maybe for a Wikipedia:featured article. Substandard articles are left for future development, and only very poor articles are deleted. Here, the substandard stories are deleted after few days, and possibly even the good stories are deleted if they fail (not by their fault) to be reviewed in time.

I understand there is a different nature of Wikinews. There is not time to leave the article for weeks to make it better. Anyway - where do You want to get Your authors, when You say to the newbies: This story is not good, make it better - and as they start to make it better (if they have not left already), You maybe finally ask them to rewrite it completely, because it has already become outdated? Do You think this will keep them working for Wikinews? I think the compromise between the needs of Wikinews and the resources of Wikinews is not set as it should be. And maybe I am wrong and I am trying to let You carefuly think about it Yourselves.

And now, as Pi zero asks for questions, here are the questions:


 * 1) [to be honest]: What are the important reasons for disallowing any article being published without all information verifiable in Wikinews linked sources? [I put my own answers somewhere on the internet, so I am interested how much I differ from the reality...]
 * 2) And on the contrary one You should be honest: What is the state of Wikinews community, do You grow, stagnate or decrease, are the new authors staying or are they leaving, and are You able to replace the past authors with new ones?
 * 3) What can an author do to avoid a possibility that his story will be deleted just because the reviewers are not available to make the review in time and the story gets old?
 * 4) Is it good for the English Wikinews to drop and delete articles only for their substandard quality [I believe it probably is, but I am not sure the substandard is well defined here]? And is it good to do that because the review process fails from the reasons on the Wikinews side?
 * 5) Do You think the English Wikinews is newbie-friendly, in regards to the all requirements the Wikinews ask from the new authors and in regards of its approach to the work done by the authors, that can be thrown to thrash in the review process?
 * 6) and finally: Is the current review process, excellent for the quality and credibility of the Wikinews, combined with the number of active reviewers prompt enough to answer the needs of Wikinews growth?

Thanks for answers. And be sure, the answers are not as much important for me, as they are important for the English Wikinews. Okino (talk) 14:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * For the benefit of third-party observers: I have regretfully concluded the questioner's primary interest is in verbally abusing me, therefore it would be wasteful for me to expend a significant share of my available Wikinews labor on this thread. --Pi zero (talk) 04:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not know Mr. Pi zero at all and I do really appreciate the work he is doing all the time. As anyone can see, there is no question aimed against him, all the questions relate to the system. I do not want to verbally abuse anyone. I just want to lead you to thinking about the work of the newbies.
 * On Wikipedia, there is an important rule Assume good faith. As I see, on Wikinews, you have an even more strict WN:Never assume. I am sorry if I made anyone thinking I am here just to abuse anyone. But in fact, as you are strict when applying the rules on me regarding the article (that I - with an aversion, but nevertheless - followed), you should follow your rules. Although the criticism of Pi zero was aimed directly on me (instead of my criticism of Wikinews, which was not personal), I still tried not to assume he is doing it in bad faith, I still tried to explain my position, even follow his instructions, when he asked me to ask questions, I did it, when he asked me to add sources, I did it. And you see, what happened.
 * Maybe Pi zero feels harmed by my criticism of Wikinews. I feel harmed with the approach of Wikinews to my work, when I spent long time preparing an article, following the instructions of Pi zero, improving the story and trying to find the way, what to do with that, and the result? The story will probably be simply deleted, and not that anyone shew an empathy to the story I have contributed, on the contrary - I was accused of verbally abusing someone. Until now I do not blame anyone in person for an unjust behavior, but now I do. Pi zero has finally hurt me in person, it is him, who abused me first.
 * I am really sorry if I unwillingly insulted anyone. I tried as soon as the discussion got hot to describe precisely what I want, but I was not met with the same approach. I have left my opinions and my proposals here. It seems not to be much probable you will accept and implement them. Well, that happens. I just wish there are not many other newcomers that will be treated the same way. Okino (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

And now I saw Pi zero's expression on the story's talk page: "If you wanted help, you would not be spewing bile at those you pretend to ask for help. So be it." - as an answer to a question, whether there is something to be done with the story, or whether the story is really doomed to be deleted. If he doesn't want to help me, he simply can say no, if he doesn't know the answer, he simply can say I don't know, or he even does not have to answer at all (which is not polite, but still...). What do you, the other Wikinews editors think: Is this really a good reviewer's answer? Do I spew bile - or does Pi zero? Am I the wrong one? I ask for an advice, whether I shall stay or better go. Thanks for any. Okino (talk) 12:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, Pi zero has given a lot of help and time of his in order to help you and has left a lot of feedback from which you can improve the article and that you could have spent the time doing that instead of arguing here.--Computron (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Pi zero and others have tried to assist you a lot. Rather than looking at things as an educational and learning experience, you came in with bad habits and then told the community how it should run.  I think it is clear the one in the wrong here is you.  Submitting an article with no changes to address the issues brought up in a review is a major faux pas and demonstrates contempt for the process.  We encourage you to stay but you need to put community before yourself. --LauraHale (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

No, sorry... [ See you in better times.] Okino (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, just go then! We don't need to know about it, you keep wasting everyone's time! --Computron (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikinews contest

 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source. They even say so themselves. Experience on Wikipedia is not relevant to Wikinews, because you have multiple lifetimes to perfect the prose on Wikipedia. Wikinews? Well, you've got about 24-48 hours to fix issues that a reviewer may find.
 * I think you've got things arse-backwards about sourcing. Sourcing is the responsibility of the individual submitting the article. Human memory is often faulty, It is easy to recall details incorrectly or have picked up information via Chinese whispers.
 * If you give some examples regarding what you consider 'universally known facts' that have been challenged, then I can give an opinion on that. Wikinews is supposed to take such as-given. However, being too-lax on that could lead to endless discussions about whether we evolved or were created.
 * I do have quite some sympathy for viewing the current review process as overly-onerous. But, I've seen the train-wrecks where people who subscribe to certain conspiracy theories try to contribute here. I would like an easier, and faster, review turnaround – with the intent being to provide reporting of a standard that respectable broadsheets were known for about 30&mdash;40 years ago. The collegiality of those past-era newspapers was the foundation of exposing the Watergate scandal; reporters and editors knew each-other well enough to 'get over' the sort of facts you might be referring to as "Just look in Wikipedia"; Quite simply, it's a trust thing.
 * Pi zero's reviewing is something I would not pick much fault with. Where I suspect it is most-likely to frustrate would-be contributors is in the "academic" nature of it. We've had three semesters of J-school students run through the project; and, the best value to the students, and their respective universities, is pushing for a 'gold standard'.
 * I would like to see reviews being less 'exacting'. But, I would also like to see the quality of submitted prose upped by a couple of orders of magnitude. I'm open to discussing how things can be improved, how a closer working relationship between contributor and reviewer could be established. And, I'm prepared to put my money where my mouth is. We've had writing competitions in the past, how's about this for one:
 * I'll set aside £200.
 * For every contributor whose first main namespace edit was 12-12-2012, or later, I will pay out £25 if they can get a Featured article before 12-12-2013.
 * That's around US$40. People aiming for that would need to work through getting a few 'lesser' articles published first.
 * If you still want to see the review process changed, then it is down to understanding the Wikinews point of view. I will not disagree when there are complaints it is particularly onerous, but the need is to have people who understand the value it adds before they try to take it apart. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Oooh. ^^ The first article I contributed to was an interview where I did live translation, translated and transcribed the text from Spanish to English, and English to Spanish with the article appearing on the front page of English and Spanish Wikinews at the same time. LauraHale can confirm it. The interview was done this month and pi zero nominated it for featured. Wikinews_interviews_Spain%27s_most_decorated_Paralympian,_Teresa_Perales Am I eligible to collect the prize? :-) Raystorm (talk) 10:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You also asked at least one of the questions, as I recall. --Pi zero (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I did. :D Raystorm (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Digital Journalism
Apparently there's a new Journal entitled, Digital Journalism......sounds pretty cool. Stumbled onto this article http://www.sciencetogrok.com/2013/02/editorial-crisis-you-wont-read-all-this.html      .......written about a specific article in that journal......this blog post wasn't written very well, but the REAL article looks pretty cool. A timely bit of happenstance that I stumbled onto that.....check it out. --Bddpaux (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)