Wikinews:Water cooler/policy/archives/2010/June

Original reporting and verifiability
After our recent fiasco involving Matthewedwards, it's been brought up that our current standards for accepting original reporting are quite lax in terms of verifiability. All a trusted user has to do is slap a comment on the talk page saying "I talked with this bloke" or "I was present at this event", and anything he puts into the article will be unequivocally accepted as true even though there really is no way to back it up. This is especially true for email interviews; all we require now is that the email be forwarded, which really doesn't prove anything.

Of course, our current reporters are working for the good of the project and wouldn't think of doing this, but what I'm saying is that it's not difficult for a user wishing Wikinews harm to create and have published falsehoods.

So, to get to the point: My suggestion is that we require some sort of verifiability standards for original information. If you say you attended an event, you must upload videos or pictures to help back it up, if you had a person-to-person interview, you should provide audio as well as the transcript. Open to thoughts... Tempodivalse [talk]  17:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * For emails, we could scoop@wikinewsie.org as the reply-to address, so scoop gets a copy of the original email, without the chance for the reporter to edit it first? Δεν δοδγε  τ\c 17:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I seriously think you should go away and think long, and hard, before this turns into another dispute that drives away contributors. A cooling-off period prior to having this discussion seems in order. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with a cooling off period. discussing policy changes well everyone is all riled up about something is only going to cause reactionary type policies. How about we wait a week, and then start a discussion on if any reforms need to be made to OR and/or accreditation policy. Bawolff ☺☻ 18:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * -Shrug- Actually, people have been talking about this for some time now, it's not just because of this recent mess. Although I wouldn't be opposed to a cool-down period so we can think more rationally. Tempodivalse [talk]  18:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have half a mind to go create an account using a random wifi connection somewhere (ie, not my IP) and post a non-libelous fake interview with someone quasi-famous, just for demonstrative purposes. Careful with publishing OR from now on, you never know when it might be me setting up my test of the review system:P. The reason it hasn't happened yet is the same reason there aren't many Mac viruses: so far we're simply too small, insignificant, and piddly for the trolls and assholes out there to bother with. I think we all hope that one day that isn't the case;). Gopher65talk 18:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I support Dendodge's idea, that's a good way to verify it. Griffinofwales (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Revdelete
I think we should discuss the use revdelete. I've been noticing its use to hide spam revisions, and I really wonder why we are doing that. The history of the page serves as a record of what happened, there is no harm with having spam on it. The spammers get no benefit from it being in the history, and keeping it there preserves a sense of transparency. I personally think we should only use revdelete in circumstances where there is a good reason for the masses not to be able to access the revision. Bawolff ☺☻ 17:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. We need to be as transparent as possible. Benny the mascot (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Yeah, I concur. The only really pressing reason I'd see for using the function is to hide personal information or maybe obscene usernames. Spam doesn't seem like something one needs to oversight, seems like it would be hidden enough in the page history. Tempodivalse [talk]  17:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed it to prevent looking at/linking to the history and getting spam, mainly on the logic that if that was the only revision we'd delete. I'm not at all opposed to a policy prohibiting this - I was thinking as I did it that we really need to decide when we will and won't use the feature. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sports Prefixes
Myself and user have had a bit of disagreement about what prefixes to use for sports articles. I originally wanted to use "2010 Stanley Cup Finals:" and "2010 NBA Finals:," whereas Fox wanted to prefix them "Ice Hockey:" and "Basketball:" respectively. It has been my experience with Wikinews that these more specific prefix are acceptable, if not preferred. However, being trained in journalism and AP Style in America may bias me, as NBA or Stanley cup are synonymous with a certain sport. Looking across the pond and coverage of the NBA Finals from the BBC does not mention the term basketball once in the story. The BBC article is under the basketball category of the Sport site, but you would only know that if you are familiar with the BBC Sport layout.

Articles in question are: Stanley Cup Game 1, Stanley Cup Game 2, Stanley Cup Game 3 and NBA Finals Game 1.

Any thoughts on this? —Calebrw (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, Calebrw, titles should be descriptive enough, but Basketball and Ice Hockey on the titles sound extra-weird. By my side, I have written just one article on sports, Rodeo:_Cristóbal_Cortina_and_Víctor_Vergara_win_Chile_Championship, but I named the Championship/league, that is good too in my opinion. --Diego Grez return fire 19:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: I've written two, Rodeo's and Chile_announces_official_list_of_players_for_South_Africa_Football_World_Cup. --Diego Grez return fire 19:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

What about "Football"? In the US that's football, in the rest of the world that's soccer. -- Shakata Ga Nai ^_^ 19:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we should make the sport clear in the title, and preferably text too. I doubt many people outside of North America will know what the "NBA" or "NFL" is; we're writing for an international audience, whereas the BBC page you linked to is intended for a more local audience. (after edit conflict: well, don't we usually call "soccer" football, and gridiron "American football"? that seems pretty straightforward ...) Tempodivalse [talk]  19:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * About the "Football" difference - the vast majority of the world will call American football just that and the word "football" is generally associated (no pun intended) with soccer. Fox (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I obviously think, where the sport IS NOT specifically mentioned in the title (e.g. Manager Benitez parts company with Liverpool Football Club explicitly mentions "football", England defeats Australia and wins 2010 Twenty20 Cricket World Cup explicitly mentions "cricket") that you SHOULD at the very least include a prefix to indicate what sport it is. You can't expect the whole world to know what NBA is, what NFL is, what the FA Cup is, what Twenty20 is, what the Stanley Cup is... Fox (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I should also note that the BBC is pretty bad at assuming people have knowledge of its layout. Fox (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think it matters much. The sport should be generally guessable from the title, but as to if it uses a prefix, I think that should be up to the author of the article. There are plenty of sports articles with prefixes, and plenty without. Bawolff ☺☻ 20:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I really, really dislike this prefix idea. Use of a colon in a title should be a last resort. Starting to use prefixes has that tendency to lead to unmanageably long titles for articles.
 * While bearing in mind that titles cannot ever be reused,please try and keep them concise, but descriptive. Yes, a challenging balancing act; the project is better for it and regular readers will get used to it. There is little lost if abbreviations such as NBA are used and the fact that it is about sport can be readily inferred from the title.
 * I never look at the sports page in newspapers, or on the BBC site; those seeking such will quickly learn where to look for such on Wikinews.
 * Remember, your title is - to some extent - an advert for the article. The flip-side is that it is a caution for those such as myself who have zero interest in sports journalism. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections
Well, another year has come and gone, and the ArbCom elections will be rolling around soon. While emotions are still charged from the recent, and unresolved, Matthew Edwards scandal, and it would probably be best to wait until people cool down, I think we should start thinking about this soon. Last year we were late, and the elections were held in August, but I'd like to propose that we roll them back to July, as has been done for the past three years. This is partly because of Brianmc's resignation, so that we can get a sixth seat back more quickly.

As far as schedule is concerned, I'd propose opening things up for nominations in about a week's time, and hold the elections themselves about a month later, for a two-week period (as is current practise). IMHO, we'll need a longer nomination period as it appears several users currently on ArbCom will not be standing again, so we need time to scout out more candidates so people will have a better choice on whom to vote for.

Meanwhile, would there be any user willing to take on the duty of election judge? We'll need at least two.

Open to thoughts ... Tempodivalse [talk]  13:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, I propose that we reduce the number of committeemen to 5. That removes the possibility of a tie. Second, I would like to volunteer as election judge, as long as training/orientation really isn't that hard... Benny the mascot (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Mm, yeah, that's an interesting thought. It's actually been discussed before, and some people were concerned that having five members would make it too much of a cabal and exclusive, too much power concentrated in too few hands. I do agree though that an odd number is better; if anything, we should increase it to seven seats. Tempodivalse [talk]  14:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * From my experience as a clerk on en-WP ArbCom the even number versus odd number often becomes a moot point due to reclusions or inactivity. I appreciate that ArbCom here is a whole kettle of fish and feel strongly neither one way nor another and therefore I also -shrug- à la Tempodivalse. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

-- I think just the opposite for the timeframe. We should wait longer, not sooner. Especially due to current incidents, more time should be allowed for everything to settle down. At least August, perhaps September. No harm is likely to come from having one less committee member for a short period of time. -- Cirt (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * September is probably excessive, I don't imagine this mess dragging on for so long. In any case, I'd suggest we just "play it by ear"; if tempers have settled down within a week or so, we can consider posting up nominations; if not, wait a bit more. Tempodivalse [talk]  14:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No I think that would be way too soon. We should most definitely wait at least a month before starting anything. There is no rush. -- Cirt (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Cirt. As far as I am aware, the ArbCom isn't exactly overwhelmed with cases to deal with and the loss of one member, whilst extremely regrettable, doesn't bring its ability to function to a grinding halt. Of course should the ArbCom resign en masse before September arrives that would change things. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * -shrug- Fine with me either way, we can host them in August. True, there's not exactly any rush or pressure for a sixth seat. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]
 * ArbCom terms end on July 31, though. If we hold the elections in August (which already kinda violates the policy on WN:ARBCOM), we will have no ArbCom for a full month. Benny the mascot (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, then perhaps end of July would be best. -- Cirt (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I was under the impression that the seats expired on August 31. If it's July, then yes, definitely hold elections then. How about July 17-31 as an election date, and start accepting nominations whenever we feel the drama here has subsided sufficiently? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tempodivalse (talk • contribs)
 * Perhaps let's not accept nominations until July 1. -- Cirt (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

<-July 1-14 for nominations and question, July 15-16 for questions, and July 17-31 for voting. Does that work? Griffinofwales (talk) 01:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How about July 1-17 for nominations, July 17-31 for voting and questions? IIRC this is the way we've done it previously. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  01:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think three stages would be better. Why do we need two weeks for noms anyways? IMO, the questions stage is by far the most important. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * IMHO we need the extra nomination time to scout out more potential candidates; right now we have only five people standing for six seats, if we want any sort of choice on the ballot, then we'll need to get three or more additional candidates. I agree questions are important, but former practise has been to allow them only after the start of the vote (although I wouldn't be opposed to allowing them throughout both nomination and voting periods). <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  13:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess that would work. Griffinofwales (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You want I should set up the page based on WN:ACE08, boss? Also, I'll take up election judge if you want 2 of 'em. --Thunderhead (t - e - c) 22:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Intention not to restand

 * I will say it here as it is about as good as anywhere: I have no desire to restand for ArbCom. The recent infighting leads me to believe that any future case would be a mess... Well, it would be a mess by definition or it wouldn't be at ArbCom, but you know what I mean. The key issue, for me, is what happens in terms of general interaction between community members from now on; that is something I will watch closely. I always thought of this as a place where we might be blunt or even rude from time to time, but we'd get the job done and we'd think no less of each other for it. If need be, things said will be retracted and moved on from. We seem to be moving away from that - if so, I may no longer be an ideal Arbitrator. I may re-run in the future; I am capable of diplomacy to those who are responsive to it - but I will want to see exactly where we go before I know if I can offer anything to ArbCom or not. I probably can - but I will not run the risk of needing to bow out halfway through.  Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I interpret this as similar reasoning to my own; Wikinews was a community where we took the job seriously, but never ourselves. This seems to no longer be the case. I do not know if the project can get back to where it was; I hoped to get the contributor base increased without careening headlong into the same sort of nonsense that plagues controversial Wikipedia topics. As news, there is inevitably always going to be that risk of topics being controversial; and, those where we can do the best coverage, are the most controversial. The aftermath of "The Matthew Edwards Incident" does not seem like the same project I've poured five years of my life into. Should I stay involved? Not unless a lot of people up their game and stop treating this like a junior school project. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't make up your mind for you in terms of the community as it currently stands. In terms of quality, the other thing I've noticed you griping about - I'm currently typing out a new section to this page. There's a massive, obvious and easily resolved problem under our nose on that one - and it isn't about the problems with Reviewers themselves. It's a systematic error. So; I think we can save this place on that front. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would totally and utterly hate to hand the nay-sayers the victory of seeing Wikinews die. You're someone I have a gut feeling cares enough, is smart enough, uncompromising enough, and flat-out bloody-minded enough to help keep the project moving upwards.
 * I cite a quote below, and I must, frankly, say that if you do not find it reasonable, and one you would live - and die - by, you should not be involved with this project in any way:

""The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." -George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman (1903) "Maxims for Revolutionists""


 * Is that unreasonable enough for everyone in the cheap seats rattling their jewellery? --Brian McNeil / talk 22:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I sahll do what I can. I don't have a freighter to sail to Gaza, I can't dash into Sudan with a splinter cell to storm al-Bashir's pad. I have only words to fight with - and I intend to fight on with them. Wikinews isn't dead yet and it isn't going to die anytime soon - not if I can bloody well help it. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Change to sighting; No more Autosight; Grab the bull by the horns and ride
Relult: Implemented June 14 We are having something of a slide in article quality. This requires two things to be done: The first is that we must face the fact that we have to tighten up our standards for the Reviewer right. Some Reviewers will have to go. But that isn't what I'm on about here.
 * Bug filed 13 June 2010: 23948 — μ 20:15, June 13 2010 (UTC)

Currently, whenever a Reviewer edits a page already sighted, it is Autosighted. This is a very serious problem. An article is reviewed for a reason: Everyone buggers it up from time to time, sometimes very badly. Factcheck and neutrality, in that order, are the most important aspects of a review (not counting copyright, which usually isn't a problem with established writers - though even that can be ballsed up accidentally, on a single line or so). However, once an article is reviewed, it is perfectly legitimate - indeed, vital - for users to add updates, or to expand with more information.

Right now, it gets autosighted and that's that. There is a method of undoing the sighting of a page; it's tucked away quietly. This will not do. If new info can get heaped in, drastically changing an article, then why did we review it in the first place? Such new material must be reviewed. It may be, for major changes, we need to seriously look at a new mechanism for signing off that the work has been done - maybe a trimmed-down version of the review template, and an entire subpage on each and every article to stick these on. Non-content edits should not need this, but everything else would. Non-content edits would be anything acceptable to archived article; all new information or major copyedits would need looked at closer. We could easily reduce the requirements to drop factchecking for diffs where no actual new info is added, but neutrality for major copyedits should be double-checked.

Regardless of wether we go that far, we certainly can't continue in this vein. I want autosight gone entirely, at least for mainspace. Instead, that 'review this revision' tickbox appears. Where Autosight would usually just do it, now it would be ticked by default - but easily unchecked. Edit conflicts or editing the draft would cause it to display as now - it will appear, unchecked.

Why didn't we do it at the time? Why have we never, as far as I can see, questioned it? I have no answers. I don't know why I've never brought it up, or even given it much thought. I can only suggest it is the same reason as the new upshoot in overautomation around the world. The computer really is your friend - but we need to stop and think wether automation is strictly needed, or even a good thing at all - and, much more than this simple, trivial example, we must prevent ourselves letting things run away with themselves until we know longer know the beast we created.

I'm not in the stone ages, but the fact remains that we've just let things get on with themselves under our very noses. Look at the real world. Die-by-wire has killed people. Remember the Air France didaster? Die-by-wire probably played it's merry role; not enough time flying means the pilots just didn't have a bloody clue how to handle the aircraft when they lost first airspeed (by way of pitot tube blockage) followed by all the computers they relied upon. Grab the bull by the horns, or the airliner by the throttles. You can maintain and monitor airspeed by playing with the throttle controls and reading the engines - but, after years of the plane flying itself, they couldn't. Don't let the media - or Airbus - blame it one the foreign pitot tubes. Is it what happened? Maybe not; but if I was a gambler (and the subject more appropriate) I'd put a lot of good money on it.

Wikinews, I feel, is in danger of losing its sense of direction - or, more critically, its airspeed. We've descended into dramahmongers and our quality control is dying on the vine. If we're going to avoid a stall then it's time we grabbed Wikinews by the throttles. We cannot allow ourselves to become factions or, worse, Wikipedians who feel incapable to speak their mind for fear of the consequencies. That's how aircraft crash, that's how ships are sunk - not seeing each other eye to eye, not being able to question the man who happens to have the throttle or the rudder controls.

Let's get back on track and not allow ourselves to stall. I will not let Wikinews allow Dr Complacency to inject whatever he likes into us. When I'm on my deathbed, I want Wikinews to still be around - and I want to be able to say "I played a part in building that," and have people know instantly what the place is and why it's special. But if we can't even have facts independantly verified before Autosight comes in and throws it to the masses, without consulting even the author, then there's a crash site ust waiting for all of us - and we won't even get a final report to commemorate us. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * . We are having issues by reviewing pages right now and how do you think people will have time to review more changes? --Diego Grez return fire 22:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've thought about this before. Although the initial article gets rigorously checked over before publishing (or at least should be), any edits made after that by a Reviewer go largely unchecked by another pair of eyes. I would support disabling autosighting for the reasons laid out by BRS above; this would be a big step in improving factual accuracy, almost as big as the actual implementation of the review process. In regards to Diego, yes, that's an issue, but I feel the need to be as factual and reliable as possible overshadows that concern. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  23:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * because there are too damn many people think this is just a game. It is most definitely not. We set reviewer as "easy come, easy go", but people who have atrocious English spelling as a result of being non-native speakers have been granted the privilege. From a UK-centric point of view you should not have the privilege unless you could get an A at whatever the current equivalent of O-level is. That without diving into reviewing the POV, or credibility, of substantive additions post-publish. I despair at those who do not even know that Wikinews may be the last free bastion of The Fourth Estate. The responsibilities the project may be faced with, and ready to assume, are enormous. This is not a game; it is the difference between performing a vital public service and doing heart surgery while consulting Google with a laptop. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * because this would make us more reliable, but I am concerned about review times. <em style="color:blue">Δεν <em style="color:red">δοδγε  τ\c 23:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * - reviewing changes to an article does not take anywhere near as long as reviewing an entire article. Currently the edits made by non-reviewers get sighted pretty quickly in general. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Is the plan here to require independent review of substantial edits to published articles? Or of all edits to published articles? (And if the former, what is the threshold where independent review is called for?) --Pi zero (talk) 23:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The former, and the threshold is anything that would not be acceptable to an archived article i.e. all non-content edits. Those that don't actually add new info will not need reverified. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 00:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * We also need a policy/guideline explaining what reviewers are responsible for, but meanwhile, continued independent review after publication just makes sense. --Pi zero (talk) 00:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I like the idea, but I'm not sure there are enough active and willing reviewers to handle all those revisions. It's sometimes difficult just to find a reviewer to publish an article, let alone every new revision. Griffinofwales (talk) 01:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sure reviewing individual edits is not a bad as doing a full on article review. I'd much of the time it is simple spelling, grammar, formatting, etc. fixes. — Mike moral  ♪♫  01:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, such minor things could be reviewed by the person doing them. As far as reviewing the remaining revisions, you wouldn't have to review the entire article all over again - only what had been added. Most of the time you'd be reading minor copyedits to confirm they were NPOV - no need to factcheck a c/e since all the info was already factchecked, so you'd only do that if new info had actually been added. In short: Very few secondary reviews would actually require more than a minute or two's work. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Bug 23948 filed. — μ 20:15, June 13 2010 (UTC)

Limit page move to reviewers?
While we're waiting for developments on the FR/RFP nomination I made a hash of, there's something else that seems to me to warrant community attention. I've been reminded by two incidents in the past few days that an autoconfirmed non-reviewer, while they can't make their edits to a published article become published until a reviewer sights them, can rename the article with immediate effect. Neither of these two incidents was vandalism. [ One] was reasonably legitimate &mdash; at least, I wasn't sure it needed reversing, although I can see how someone might since it was more than 24 hours after publication. (I did revert most of the accompanying edits, which were a Wikipedian presumably echoing updates to the 'pedia article on the incident .) The [ other] was the author of the article simply not realizing that we start a new article for new developments, and I was glad to see they'd subsequently succeeded in writing a publication-worthy successor article. But it seems odd that someone who can't publish a spelling correction to a published article can move it. Of course it would be fine if we could simply disallow non-reviewers moving reviewed pages &mdash; in fact, that would be preferable, for non-reviewers developing articles in the newsroom &mdash; but I'm under the impression that Flaggedrevs can't do that. I think we can limit all page moves to reviewers, though. Should we? --Pi zero (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if it is technically possible to make page moves wait for sighting the same way as edits do. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That should be escalated to the developers post-haste. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's thataway ► ►. — μ 20:07, June 13 2010 (UTC)
 * I think a good approach to this would be having a new userright splitting up moving reviewed and non-reviewed pages. Then we could have it so that once a page gets sighted, only reviewers could move it, but before it gets sighted anyone can move the page. Bawolff ☺☻ 05:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

So like an über-review then? — Mike moral  ♪♫  05:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The most obvious way for users would be to automatically remove a page's 'sighted' flag when it is moved. --InfantGorilla (talk) 12:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the entire revision history is moved with the page, the previous sighted version is immediately under the new name. Having an unsighted version at the end of the history would bring it to reviewers' attention but wouldn't, I believe, prevent the move from taking immediate effect.  --Pi zero (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Good point. The most natural way for users (if there is one) is often more complicated technically.  I would suggest removing all the flags (so no version of the article is visible until it is reviewed again.)  --InfantGorilla (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't like that idea. a move vandal could then easily cause all articles to be de-published. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Brainstorming &mdash; If we restrict moving to reviewers, might we provide... something... that would make an obvious and convenient interface for non-reviewers to slap a move-request template on the article's talk page (akin to editprotected, only aiming at reviewers instead of admins)? --Pi zero (talk) 04:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Accreditation 2.0
Please see here, Tris' linked-to, somewhat lengthy, response, and pay heed to the initially proposed points.

As best I can work out, we will need !Editors on each continent who are prepared to divulge direct, personal contact details to all who receive accreditation. And, I do not mean just email addresses. I mean direct phone numbers, with hours that it would be reasonable to call such at. These need to be volunteers who will, with little-to-no-notice, get things sorted for anyone who gets into trouble.

The other critical point is ID cards. We've tiptoed round this in the past, and the "laminate yourself" ID is a crap option. These need to be credit-card style ID, with photographs. With full name & contact details that match any government issued ID you have, and contain real security features to confirm the card is genuine. So, yes, if you want to be accredited, it will cost money.

While keeping discussion short, I'd welcome feedback. Then, work up a proposal of several points to form the underpinning of a revised policy. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Last time the ID issue came up, Shaka did some cost checking. Based on our needs buying a printer would not be a good idea. Individually purchased cards are the best, easiest, and most reliable option, at least until we have ~100+ active accredited editors on a continuing basis. Each individual ID card is reasonably priced, and some of them have decent security options. Most currently accredited reporters won't have a problem buying one card every two years even at 11 dollars per card, and that's at the top end of the price range. Gopher65talk 22:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Points to consider that have, to-date, not been mentioned...
 * The committee, or board, who act as emergency contacts to/from Wikinewsies will need to be able to deal with contacting law enforcement, legal assistance, consulates, event organisers, and pro-rights/journalism groups.
 * The scope of tasks for the role will require people with serious Google-Fu.
 * I already have contacts for the Electronic Frontiers Foundation, Open Rights Group, Wikileaks, and sundry others. Yes, I'll share my Rolodex contents – there needs to be a commitment from those entrusted with it to only use in emergencies.
 * I can easily add Reporters Without Borders to my list of contacts, this may be essential – as may Amnesty International.
 * As highlighted in IRC, several of our current accredited reporters are under eighteen. This may be problematic for people taking responsibility over accreditation. I'm prepared to go through the hoops to be 'trusted' with "children" (despite the asshattery around this in the UK). Are others?


 * In other news, I've put the wheels in motion to remove the private registration from wikinewsie.org. While it has been suggested to go elsewhere for such services, I have to say "no thanks, I'll risk my address in the public domain". All of these services effectively take ownership of the domain – bad.
 * I have contacted a UK-based firm that makes hi-tech ID printers. No, not to purchase one (we can't afford such) but, to get the names of a few bureaux who might manage card production and verification. I do, however, have a fallback plan:
 * Purchase an SSL cert for wikinewsie.org
 * Create some relatively simple CGI code to generate hashcodes to be printed on ID.
 * Have an online system to verify the hashcodes.
 * Hack together an Asterisk-based system for automated phone verification of hashcodes.
 * Most of this would require that we move wikinewsie.org hosting to a dedicated server.


 * Now, I'll leave the above for people to cogitate over. I will, as time progresses, turn this into a firm proposal to revise the accreditation process and policy. The working name for the group managing it is, per IRC discussion, "Community Accreditation Board for Assistance and Logistics". --Brian McNeil / talk 22:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm wondering if we can get the Foundation to assist us. Honestly, I'd think it'd be best for the Foundation to handle our personal information and to also keep all this centralized. For the IDs, a private firm seems okay and is probably the easiest way for us to get our press badges. By the way, when was this IRC consensus discussion I seem to have missed. As a side note, IIRC, one of the local papers employs a few minors as journalists, but I cannot seem to recall the name. — Mike moral  ♪♫  06:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Assume Good Intentions - take two
I've recently tried to rework our new essay, WN:AGI, to be more consise [sic] and to-the-point. This is something we have needed for a long time, especially after the recent mess with Matthew Edwards. I'd like to get this community-approved as a guideline, so it has more weight, but first would welcome input on the page in its current state to see if this is something we can all agree on. Please read the page and comment on whether you think it needs something added, removed, or changed. Open to thoughts. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  16:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * One general thought. Moving forward on the page is important, but so is not hurrying the path to guideline status.  This is clearly hard to get right for Wikinews.  It's important to get it right.  It's important to not get it wrong.  And community sensitivity to the dangers is very high right now; the main function of the page is to guide the community in the long term, not the short term.  So we can and should take the extra time to be sure we've thought everything through thoroughly.  --Pi zero (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's only a guideline, it doesn't need to be perfect. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't just any guideline. Due to the pervasiveness of AGF elsewhere, this thing applies a lot of leverage to whatever status it's given.  AGF on Wikipedia (pardon my Anglo-Saxon) is "only" a guideline, after all.  --Pi zero (talk) 00:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to "hurry" along the process, just trying to boost community input into it since the discussion appears to have stalled in recent weeks and I was also interested in what other people had to think about my recent changes. Although yes, i agree we should take the time to phrase this appropriately because it will inevitably carry a lot of weight. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  00:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Based on above-input, I'd say there is a damn good reason why discussion has stalled. That being, people recognise it should be somewhat deprecated here. Whoopsie! I just, were this Wikipedia, broke AGI. That's WN:POINT, isn't it? --Brian McNeil / talk 01:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't build a strawman. I'd have to disagree with that, community consensus appears to be quite in favour of us having this, if the comments on the recent DR request and elsewhere on-wiki are any indication. At the very least I've not seen anyone - well, besides you - campaigning against it. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  01:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Strawman; not my intent. Yes, a need for something. WikiLawyering, and navel gazing do not further the primary project goals'. Quit bugging people for what you think is best. If you can't sum it up, and the fundamental differences from The Other Place™, in the average article's two-sentence lede, then asking people to review it is project disruption. --Brian McNeil / talk 02:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to pester everyone into supporting my position, and I'm disappointed you see it that way. Besides one or two comments at Pi zero's talk page, this is actually my first on-wiki post regarding the issue. So please tell me in what other way I can get attention; you know how easily discussions stall here unless everyone is reminded of them. That AGI is different from WP's AGF IMHO should be immediately obvious from the first few lines - but go ahead, suggest an alternative if you don't think so. I don't think that wikilawyering or navel-gazing applies here at all. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  02:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a stupid thing to argue about. AGF is a good thing (yes I said agf not agi. It doesn't matter what you call it, it all boils down to the same thing, especially because the definition of an action committed with good intentions is an action in good faith). Yes assuming good faith can be taken too far, but if you assume everyone is evil they will turn out to be evil. So basically: Too much of anything is a bad thing, thus create two guidelines/essays/whatever. One talks all about agf in all its glory, the other talks about Trust but verify (or something similar) Put on the top of both pages that both extremes are bad, and a happy middle should be found. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't share that vision of what we should be aiming for. --Pi zero (talk) 05:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we need two separate pages - couldn't it all be in one? I think that would get the point across more clearly, plus will emphasise the few differences between us and WP if it's kept trimmed and short (to avoid TLDR).
 * I do agree with Bawolff in general about AGF though. Really, I fail to see what this level of antiwikipedianism is all about - so just because they have some guideline with a similar name, it's utter trash and we can't adapt the good parts of it to suit our needs? <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  13:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)