Wikinews talk:WikiReporter

About this tool
This tool is being developed as part of the 2016 The Huffington Post and Change.org Editors Lab. Anyone with questions may contact user:Pharos or me user:bluerasberry.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   19:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * We've got nothing to do with HuffPo. I doubt we'd want to have anything to do with them.  En.wn follows a profoundly different vision of news than HuffPo, and our neutrality policy forbids advertising for them either.  --Pi zero (talk) 19:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sending someone to another site sounds very fishy, when it arises in the same breath with HuffPo. --Pi zero (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It also doesn't sound likely to produce anything at all close to what is acceptable at en.wn. --Pi zero (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It also doesn't sound likely to produce anything at all close to what is acceptable at en.wn. --Pi zero (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * We are a group of three independent Wikimedians who were invited to a hackathon to pursue our own project for the weekend, which happens to be at a physical office of Change.org (who are collaborating with HuffPo, NYTimes, and others for this event). We certainly have no interest in importing HuffPo's editorial policy here (!).--Pharos (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Noted.
 * Three? I see Pharos and Bluerasberry (hi, folks :-).  Who's the third, if I may ask?
 * Some general observations.
 * En.wn OR is quite demanding; we recommend aspiring writers learn the ropes with synthesis, getting a few published articles under their belt, before considering moving up to OR.
 * Regarding interactive assistance for Wikinews (or any other wiki, for that matter), I've got a major project underway for about four years now, described broadly at User:Pi zero/essays/vision/sisters. There are basically three levels to it, not chronologically separated:
 * provide the technical means for wiki markup to specify interactivity. After four years of development I've got most of that working; cf. Help:Dialog.
 * build particular interactive assistants using the low-level tools. I've been slowly easing into that part; cf. Assistant.
 * learn how to use the tools effectively, and hopefully build an interactive assistant for building and maintaining interactive assistants. Some of the low-level facilities have been/will be designed with the meta-assistant idea in mind.
 * --Pi zero (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The third on the team is Pablo Duboue. You can learn more about him from [his website, and you might read his research which includes data from Wikipedia.
 * Acknowledged, WN:OR is demanding. Wikinews generally is demanding and mostly not growing as a project. I do not have all answers to all problems, and while OR might be more difficult, it is also more attractive and fun than WN:Synthesis and does not compete with Wikipedia. Most people who do Synthesis go to their respective Wikipedias where comparable research journalism is supported with a larger community.
 * The tools you are developing seem like tools for a functionary community in Wikinews. For this project we are seeking to lower the barrier to entry for content creators.
 * I respect that Wikinews has quality standards and cannot accept content contributions that do not meet those standards. Still, I wish to explore the idea of using templates to encourage more people to try to cover events of all sorts in Wikinews. Our target quality standard will be existing Wikinews articles covering events. I hope that this exercise helps to articulate challenges and opportunities in the development of Wikinews as a publishing platform. If you have other suggestions or feedback then please share.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   20:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll be interested to see what you have in mind when you say "templates". You might be similarly interested in what I have in mind... except that I've long since realized the only really effective way I know to explain is to actually build it, and point and say "there, that's what I mean". The tools I'm developing are specifically designed to empower ordinary users.  I think there's been widespread misunderstanding, persistently over the decades, of what makes for a long-term-successful tool.  Bells and whistles, like Flow or VisualEditor, don't last; the things with real longevity are text-based... like wiki markup.  To make the approach I have in mind work, a lot of background work is needed, and so far I've poured about four years into it.  I'm aware that people won't necessarily see the potential in a set of low-level primitives, which is why merely providing those primitives is only the first part of what I need to do. Btw:  Our synthesis articles don't compete with en.wp.  Fundamentals of en.wp workflow make it impossible for any of its articles ever to qualify as journalism. Imho there's good reason to believe the low-activity problems of en.wn aren't caused by the high standards (or perhaps the emphasis there should go on the word caused).  I've been trying for some time now to scrape up the time to write an essay on my view of the challenges and potential solutions for en.wn.  I've got in mind (but not written down) a model of the dynamics of the project and the points where making things work more smoothly could enable project growth, and those points are key targets for interactive dialog.  --Pi zero (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The template will be presented tomorrow. The idea is to have someone enter data into a form connected to a database. This is a pilot, but there is also an idea to connect the database to Wikidata so that all events get a Wikidata item. From that point a text generator outputs a few sentences to constitute the outline of a Wikinews article on a gathering. Depending on how many form questions are answered, more sentences are generated, and if enough data is provided the hope is to output a minimally viable Wikinews article.
 * Wikipedia might not meet some definitions of journalism but in the information marketplace it is definitely competing with journalism.
 * I have no opinion about Flow or Visualeditor. Those are cosmetic interfaces and if I had to describe what we are trying to do, it is to create a quick interface to guide people to produce a set of objective data; publish that in a permanent, machine-readable repository; and output the data as a minimalist human-readable record that invites human journalism and other media contributions like event pictures and video. This is a two-day concept and project. We are seeing where the idea can go and what is possible.
 * has been judged by the Wikinews community as a good contribution. I would like to see articles like that for every sizable gathering ever in any context. Beyond just that, I want to encourage more human-written journalism on top of that.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   23:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * When Wikipedia tries to be journalism it violates its own policies, deludes itself, and does damage to its readers and to society. (What strong opinion?  Me?) We're agreed that Flow/VE are cosmetic; apparently we're on the same page there. The way you describe composition of a news article sounds... piecemeal.  Though that's just how it came across as a preliminary impression, obviously.  There's structure to a news article, and principles one needs to understand in writing the individual sentences.  To be clear on where my general skepticism is coming from: I maintain that WMF keeps producing worse-than-useless software initiatives because it's impossible for outsiders to know what's needed on a project, therefore the only way to produce the right tools is to crowdsource it to the ordinary users of the wiki in much the same way one crowdsources the primary content to them &mdash; hence my project to turn the construction of wizards into something ordinary wiki users can do. Anyway, if you're looking for at least an introductory understanding of en.wn, I suggest starting with WN:PILLARS, then WN:WRITE. Although I've found the people at Wikidata to be good folks and well-meaning, I'm not convinced that, in its overall effects on the sister projects, Wikidata ever does as much good as it does harm.  So if you're looking for a tough audience, I qualify. :-P  --Pi zero (talk) 00:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that I agree that Wikipedia tries to do anything. It is difficult for me to assign intent to anyone or any part of the project. I do appreciate that it attracts, collects, and categorizes criticism more readily than other media outlets. It is the last popular nonprofit media organization in the world (only it and archive.org are among the Alexa 500) and whatever else happens, if Wikipedia fades, that might be the end of nonprofit media for a long time.
 * Yes, I am describing minimalist journalism. This method will not produce good articles but I do want it to produce minimally acceptable ones, and to produce a lower standard that says, "at least this much is expected". I am at English Wikinews for this but the way this project is designed could be used with Wikidata translation so that 3-4 sentences about a given event could be translated into every language in the Wikimedia ecosystem, and anyone could do queries counting events and event characteristics. ("How many people protested government leaders in 2015?", "How many cities had LGBT pride marches in each year from 2010-2015"?) Wikinews can also surface related journalism for events that get press coverage that would be considered too fleeting in other contexts. I live in New York, and one US presidential candidate is doing 3 rallies here today. They are at schools so each school's newspaper will produce journalism on the events, but it would not be worthwhile for Wikinews to invest a lot in original journalism replicating each one. A combination of database records and automated article generation might be useful, and then a bigger journalism insight could be from analyzing collections of smaller events. Right now, lots of gatherings happen and hardly get logged in any meaningful public way, including for example in countries like America where politicians' public speeches may not even be recorded.
 * Yes, I am bringing Wikidata to encroach on Wikinews a little. Sorry, I know it is a bit invasive and not welcome. Still, I am just making a proposal and putting options on the table. Also - whatever opinions you formed about either Wikidata or the Wikimedia Foundation or the Wikimedia community go out of date quickly. Maybe you saw that Denny from Wikidata is off the WMF board of trustees as of yesterday. Besides that if you formed any opinions 6 months ago, the WMF has spent USD 50 million since then, had a board turnover of 50%+, and had staff changes on the order of 20%. There is scarcely anyone in the world that can follow everything that is going in the Wikimedia investment space on but I am sure that if anyone has highly objectionable ideas about organizational investment then people would squeal. Certainly in New York all sorts of external organizations look to Wikipedia's business. Huffington Post has nothing to do with this project, but on the other hand, they and 500+ other organizations make overtures to be involved in Wikimedia projects in some way.
 * Whatever you are doing to advance Wikinews and lay foundations for future development is on the right track. You would do well to write any philosophical manifesto you like as well, because Wikinews has not yet come to its peak of utility and when that time comes, it will be too late to establish its ideological history. There happen to be Wikipedians doing this demo for this project - maybe for the next project anyone might show up, and maybe they do not even do their development on-wiki. I am not the only one who sees value here. Thanks for the chat - I would talk more anytime.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   14:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * We're approaching the deep philosophical ideas &mdash; both mine and yours, I suspect &mdash; rather upside-down-and-backwards, starting from some far-downstream consequences and working our way erratically back. I do realize what you're doing is of limited scope and it can be valuable to get a different perspective.  I'm concerned that (1) a wikinews-article-writing assistant constructed by wikimedians who aren't experienced with Wikinews may tend to produce submissions that don't meet our publication threshold, and (2) a resulting influx of substandard articles could be frustrating all around.  (I do think you're missing the momentum of the WMF's corporate culture... argh; I can think of several other points to remark on too, but should probably save them for another day.)  --Pi zero (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikinews articles to consider emulating
This tool is a wizard for generating event articles. Here are some Wikinews event articles which might be model targets for the sort of text which the Editorslab tool should generate.
 * 1) Conferences
 * 2) Lectures
 * 3) Award
 * 4) Exhibitions
 * 5) Parades|}}
 * 6) Protests
 * 1) Lectures
 * 2) Award
 * 3) Exhibitions
 * 4) Parades|}}
 * 5) Protests
 * 1) Award
 * 2) Exhibitions
 * 3) Parades|}}
 * 4) Protests
 * 1) Award
 * 2) Exhibitions
 * 3) Parades|}}
 * 4) Protests
 * 1) Exhibitions
 * 2) Parades|}}
 * 3) Protests
 * 1) Parades|}}
 * 2) Protests
 * 1) Parades|}}
 * 2) Protests
 * 1) Parades|}}
 * 2) Protests
 * 1) Protests
 * 1) Protests
 * 1) Protests
 * 1) Protests
 * 1) Protests
 * 1) Protests

 Blue Rasberry   (talk)   20:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It's advisable to stick to models no earlier than 2009 (or 2010 to be very safe), as the modern review regime was imposed in 2009 and so articles from before then may have some characteristics that are no longer best-practice. Of interest is Featured article, noting that even featured articles from the earliest years of en.wn may in some cases be underdocumented by modern standards.  --Pi zero (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion and for dating some of these articles. Here are the featured articles since 2010 which seem to be about gatherings.
 * I do not expect to be able to learn all about Wikinews standards before tomorrow but I will do my best.
 * Can you direct me to any policy about the "Pride in London" article above? I notice that it is someone's photo collection but I would not have imagined a photo collection to be considered a featured article. Thanks.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   23:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I added a template on the talk page of that photo essay that provides a link to the nomination discussion that promoted it to FA. Photo essays are a different type of article, really; Original Reporting of a special kind.  Here's a link for a DPL of Featured photo essays:  .  --Pi zero (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not expect to be able to learn all about Wikinews standards before tomorrow but I will do my best.
 * Can you direct me to any policy about the "Pride in London" article above? I notice that it is someone's photo collection but I would not have imagined a photo collection to be considered a featured article. Thanks.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   23:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I added a template on the talk page of that photo essay that provides a link to the nomination discussion that promoted it to FA. Photo essays are a different type of article, really; Original Reporting of a special kind.  Here's a link for a DPL of Featured photo essays:  .  --Pi zero (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you direct me to any policy about the "Pride in London" article above? I notice that it is someone's photo collection but I would not have imagined a photo collection to be considered a featured article. Thanks.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   23:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I added a template on the talk page of that photo essay that provides a link to the nomination discussion that promoted it to FA. Photo essays are a different type of article, really; Original Reporting of a special kind.  Here's a link for a DPL of Featured photo essays:  .  --Pi zero (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata concepts of events and gatherings
See these Wikidata items. Wikidata suggests a list of properties which describe events, and which could be used as questions for a form which prompt reporters to give certain information when describing events.


 * event
 * protest
 * demonstration
 * lecture
 * parade
 * speech
 * presentation

 Blue Rasberry   (talk)   15:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Some more that are relevant:


 * venue
 * theme
 * keynote
 * convention
 * academic conference
 * located in the administrative territorial entity
 * point in time
 * membership

Pharos (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

First question would be "What sort of event happened?" These are the options. In Wikidata the event entry becomes "d:Property:P31 - "instance of" speech, protest or whatever. The following questions can also be asked:
 * d:Property:P175 performer
 * d:Property:P1478 has immediate cause
 * d:Property:P577 publication date
 * d:Property:P823 speaker
 * d:Property:P135 Movement
 * d:Property:P17 Country
 * d:Property:P276 location
 * d:Property:P585 point in time
 * d:Property:P710 participants (as a class of people)
 * d:Property:P1343 described by source

 Blue Rasberry   (talk)   15:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Political rally
Consider the March 25 political rally in Seattle by a United States presidential candidate. His own website and other news sources describe the event.


 * 1) What was the event?
 * speech
 * 1) What was the date?
 * 25 March 2016
 * 1) What was the location?
 * Seattle
 * 1) Who was the speaker?
 * Bernie Sanders
 * 1) Why was the event held?
 * 2016 United States democratic primary
 * 1) What was the topic of the speech?
 * Political positions of the Democratic Party

Possible news story: On (March 25 2016), (Bernie Sanders) presented a speech in (Seattle). The event was held because of (2016 United States democratic primary). The topic of the speech was (political positions of the Democratic party).  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   16:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Conference
Consider the 2016 AAAS Conference described by Science magazine in "AAAS 2016 Annual Meeting Program".


 * 1) What was the event?
 * conference
 * 1) What was the date?
 * 11-16 February 2016
 * 1) What was the location?
 * Washington DC
 * 1) Who were the notable attendees?
 * Christopher Dye
 * Jennifer Doudna
 * Jad Abumrad
 * 1) What was the general field of discussion?
 * Science
 * 1) Who were the conference presenters?
 * American Association for the Advancement of Science

On (February 11-16, 2016) in (Washington DC) the (American Association for the Advancement of Science) presented a conference. The general field of discussion was (science). Notable attendees included (Christopher Dye), (Jennifer Doudna), and (Jad Abumrad).

 Blue Rasberry   (talk)   17:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Parade
Consider the 2016 St. Pat's for All Parade, described in a local newspaper.


 * 1) What was the event?
 * parade
 * 1) What was the date?
 * March 6 2016
 * 1) What was the location?
 * Sunnyside, Queens
 * 1) Who were the notable attendees?
 * Bill de Blasio
 * 1) What was the reason for the event?
 * d:Q181817:Saint Patrick's Day
 * 1) Who were the event organizers?
 * organizers

On (March 6, 2016) (organizers) presented a (parade) in (Sunnyside, Queens). The reason for the event was (Saint Patrick's Day). Notable attendees included (Bill de Blasio).

 Blue Rasberry   (talk)   17:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Potential illustration of Sunnyside parade: https://www.flickr.com/photos/marcelamcgreal/25217864729/in/photostream/ --Pharos (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

- 2016 St. Pat's for All Parade happened.It was part of the Irish Americans movement.The event was held in reaction to Saint Patrick's Day.There was a march.It happened on March 6, 2016.It happened in New York City.It took place at Sunnyside, Queens.Notable attendees included Bill de Blasio.Event organizers included the parade organizers.

-- Test output, 3:15pm EST.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   19:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Protest
Generic:

was a associated with the movement, in reaction to, and held on in. Focused on the themes of and, the event was organized by  and  at , and featured speakers included who said , who said , etc.

The attendance was  according to , and  according to .

The event was (counter-)protested by.

Freely-licensed photographs of the event are available at.

Example:

Thousands take to streets protesting 'ratbag's Bedroom Tax

What is the name of this particular event?


 * 

What social or political movement is it associated with?


 * 

What precipitating incident, person or organization, was the event/protest held in reaction to?


 * 

What were the theme(s) of the event?


 * 

Miscellaneous parameters -


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * <crowd-source1=?>
 * <membership-participants1=1,600>
 * <crowd-source2=?>
 * <commonscat=Category:Edinburgh Bedroom Tax Protest, March 30 2013>

Pharos (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Questions for parameters

 * What is the event name?
 * What social movement in this a part of?
 * What is being protested?
 * How many attendees?
 * Another estimate?
 * Notable attendees?
 * Security presence?
 * Arrests?
 * Injuries?
 * What city is this in?
 * What specific location (park, building, street)?

Test drafts
No politics here! Just a test case.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   19:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * A Future to Believe In Rally in Seattle on 3/25

With a photo of Mayor de Blasio from the photo upload function.--Pharos (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * St. Pat's for All

Encouraging traffic to third-party sites
Firstly, you're likely breaching WMF rules by encouraging people to give any information to a third-party site. Has anyone at the Foundation been consulted regarding this? There's no real warning whatsoever people are being redirected to an external site, and no details regarding who gets the information input. The site name also implies an association with the project which does not formally exist.

Secondly, Huffington Post? Seriously? They were once credible, but now run lots of woo and other pseudoscientific bullshit. Definitely not a site Wikinews should be associated with.

Lastly, between the two users who've created this, only one has a handful of contributions to published articles; the most recent of such being back nearly eight years ago. That does not instil much confidence in an off-project, seemingly closed-source, wizard generating anything usable for the project. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I would talk more with you, if talking has any chance of a positive outcome.
 * Report this project to the WMF if you must. I wish that you would not, and I wish you would talk things through, but I will not deter you. Please see wmf:Contact us.
 * I am not sure how to respond to your criticism of Huffington Post. You seem upset, and I presume that is because you are worried that Huffington Post might be encroaching in Wikinews or Wikimedia projects somehow. The situation was that Huffington Post invited some media organizations to participate in a hackathon. It was a fun social event for exchanging ideas. I appreciate when media organizations or other organizations host events that encourage diversity. I also respect the well-deserved paranoia that Wikimedia community members have about having any organization touch Wikimedia projects in any way. If there is a problem here, I wish that you would direct your concern to me and not to Huffington Post, because I accepted the invitation, sat in their office space, and drank their coffee. They had no idea at all that I would propose a Wikipedia project and I wish that you would not hold it against them that Wikimedia contributors came to their event.
 * The wizard is open source. Get your own copy on Github. One of the developers is a Wikinews researcher and Pharos and I are Wikimedia contributors.
 * If you find that this project has caused an injury to Wikinews then speak up and I will address it. If you have questions then ask. You seem hostile to me and I wish you would not be. Email me if you want to talk and we can meet by video or phone chat. I find that looking face-to-face is a more humanizing way to discuss things. I almost get the idea that you think we came here to attack Wikinews, rather than to explore ideas in a way that does not encroach on others.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   01:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought brianmc was pretty clear in stating his concerns. Sending people off site, associating Wikinews with another site (HuffPo) that lacks journalistic integrity, and misleadingly claiming to "help" people who want to contribute to Wikinews.  The last two of which are definitely harmful to Wikinews.  If I might point out a basic flaw in what was done here &mdash; pardon me for being blunt &mdash; y'all came to a specialized project you know nothing about and created a page in project space claiming to tell people how to do one of the project's more demanding specialized tasks.  If anyone actually mistook this page for legitimate they'd get frustrated and offended at Wikinews when they produced material with no chance of passing review, and Wikinews would likely both lose that potential contributor and have one more person in the world thinking ill of us.  A disservice both to Wikinews and to the intended contributor.  --Pi zero (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What needs to be done here to end the suspicion that this project causes harm?  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   14:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * However well-meaning the wizard was intended to be, it needs done from experience of manually putting together articles for Wikinews. Since the majority of submissions are by a single author, an approach which might create a valid Wikipedia stub does not really help here; the usual upshot of that is an impatient new contributor who thinks pushing the review button means someone else will write the article for them. Regarding the Huffington Post? I think the anti-vax and other woo is massively downplayed on their Wikipedia entry; not being aware this casts doubt on their respectability as a source of journalism is all I'd set out to highlight. They're by no means the worst offenders of mainstream media, virtually everywhere now muddies the water in terms of what is editorialising and what is reporting.
 * Could some form of wizard be useful to Wikinews? I genuinely don't know. There are so many different approaches can be taken in writing an article that I would back away from attempting to write any sort of specification for such. That's with 25+ years experience of commercial software development. It is a genuinely hard problem, which a well-crafted article could deceive you into thinking a formula might exist. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * On the genuinely hard problem, one of my thoughts has been to crowdsource it. I originally figured that would be at least a two-level process:  low-level facilities to support semi-automated assistants, which I'm well along on; and above, idioms for using those low-level tools effectively, which I figured would be an open-ended adventure.  I now believe one needs, in the long run, to develop a semi-automated assistant for assisting in the building and maintenance of semi-automated assistants (which I've tried to provide some low-level hooks for).  A key to it all being to avoid any curtailment of human flexibility, because the human element is the whole point; assistants need to accommodate the human rather than vice versa.  --Pi zero (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Superseded by Wikidata
Routine activities in Wikidata have replaced and continue to replace most of what this tool could do. Among other examples, see I was looking at events in Wikidata and thinking back at this project. I still think Wikidata' interface could be simpler to use and have additional options for data input, but events are logged there now.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   14:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * d:Wikidata:WikiProject Events