Wikinews:Water cooler/miscellaneous: Difference between revisions

Refresh

Archive

---

Google news/community mirror

Google news has been unwilling to index us because we have no editorial approval process and concerns over vandalism. The do however include several of our mirrors. It has been proposed several times that we create a community run mirror, however each attempt at this has failed due to how much work manually copying each article is. I wrote a script that will copy an article on click and easily report the status of the article (is stored revision the latest) and prompt user to update if needed. It takes only a few seconds to update and should take care of most of Google's concerns. You can see the public side at http://thenewswiki.com/ and Wikinews admins can try the copy part by creating an account at http://thenewswiki.com/adduser.php (or anyone else can e-mail me) and logging in at http://thenewswiki.com/login.php While not yet coded if we decided to use it this could allow us to also have full text rss feeds and other stuff like that. If anyone can come up with a better name let me know, it is using an old name from the project I was going to start before I found Wikinews. --Cspurrier 19:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Craig,

This is fantastic news, I already tried it, it's incredibly easy. Question: is the "Dif"-function a comparison between the version on TheNewsWiki and the current Wikinews version, or just the latest diff on Wikinews? An article summary in RSS would be even better. I think the title is ok, maybe we should have a link to this site over there?

We probably need some rules to use the site: should we update articles if they have a single source-tag, for example? I believe we shouldn't. And a "back"-button on the move articles would also come in handy. Furthermore, do you think it would be possible to have a "remove" button for stories that get deleted here on Wikinews?

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The diff is between the rev saved in the DB and the current Wikinews version. I am willing to accept most any rules the community wants for it, so if the community approves of this we can come up with some rules. Back will be added as sooon as I get a chance to work on the code again (I hope this weekend). Adding some sort of delete feature is very high priority and will be added asap. --Cspurrier 02:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

PS: some characters might cause problems, such as Bathurst, NSW: Police find bones, "may belong to missing woman", which is being displayed at the bottom of thenewswiki with "& q u o t ;". --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Will fix, in this case it is converting html chars when it is not needed, should be quick fix. --Cspurrier 02:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think if we want to convince Google News, we'll need to work out some kind of 'editorial policy' (when I asked the last time, they responded that they "can't accept news sources without a formal editorial policy"). This should be very strict imho. We should have a clear set of rules when to upload stories from Wikinews. I suggest that before uploading or updating we check:

• the sources to confirm again, including a search for copyright violations
• the edit history for vandalism
• spelling, grammar, ...
• no dispute tags or single sources, even if it is breaking news
• the talk and comments page for any concerns

Also, I think to give Google News the impression that we are kinda strict, we should who has access to upload stories and how we decide to give these people access. The site should be developed further, so it looks more like a traditional news site. And I think we should give them the impression that Craig is the leader of this project and as such the de facto editor-in-chief; not that it would mean anything to us, but I think this will substantially increase our odds of getting us listed on Google News.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

We could adapt the historical editorial policy we used to have at wikinews. Spelling and grammar could also be semi-automated (always a good idea to double check though). CSpurrier being editor-in-chief for the mirror sounds fine to me (After all it is his mirror), as for being newsie like, I could help with the (x)html/css/(to a limited extent)php/whatever if you want. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Some more thoughts:

• The bottom date says December 31.
• What happens to older stories? They should be kept available on the site, if we want to link them from Google News we need to be able to archive them.

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 09:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I finally had some time to work on it. The December 31 bug has been fixed as has the encoding issues. A remove feature has been added and archives are now in place. Since the response to it so far appears to be positive, :) I have created it its own page.--Cspurrier 20:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Craig, this is a great tool. Kudos on putting it together. I will try to pass the word to Eloquence who may have contacts at Google, still. -- IlyaHaykinson 10:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary Words in the News

Hi Newsies, this is a heads-up from Wiktionary, to let you know we are linking to Wikinews on our Words In The News page. Whenever a topical or kinda-interesting word pops up in a Wikinews story, we link it to the corresponding article here, and (if necessary) add a definition for that wor. --Keene 22:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

That's great for Wikinews. Mabie we could create a "Words In The News" page here, select a word from a recent article, and link it back to the Wiktionary definition? —FellowWikiNewsie 20:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't know if a page would be useful, but certainly a link on the article, and working together with Wiktionary would help.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I linked back to wiktionary in the McJob article which was about a word. That seemed fitting at least. --SVTCobra 22:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That is cool . We also occasionally do inline links for uncommon words too. I'm not oposed to a Words In The News, problem is where would we put it. The main page is too stuffed as it is. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If that problem continues we could set up a second page, also with the News in pictures, which BrianNZ continues to oppose. (see other water cooler discussion).--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Since it would only be fair to link back to Wiktionary, is a little Wikt: logo linkable to the word's entry there. This could be an interesting addition to the points system for a writing contest. It's great wiktionary is helping drive traffic to our articles, go forth and expand thy vocabulary! Give them as many excuses as possible to link to us. ;-) --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Content of Wikinewsreports blog

Wikinews reports

User:DragonFire1024 posted 2 stories on the blog that are different from the previous blog postings, which were more related to Wikinewsies doing OR. I think we should use http://thenewswiki.com as a way of getting articles onto Google News (and possibly Digg in the future), and only use the Wikinewsreports blog for community aspects of our site, such as Original reporting, because these stories are read through http://en.planet.wikimedia.org => we don't want Wikipedia to start posting featured articles, do we?

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the 2 articles should be deleted. Furthermore, I would like to point out that if you add images from a url, they tend to appear in their original size on Planet Wikimedia. Therefore it's better to download the image, resize it (to like 3-400px) and then upload it to your post. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Zamimum knows how to remove them, ask him. —FellowWikiNewsie 16:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well sorry...but I was under the impression that it was for Any wikinews article. If not then remove the ones I added. I am not understanding what the purpose of Wikinews Reports is then. If not to get on google news, then what for? DragonFire1024 20:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well My intentions were to get the Wikinews Reports blog into Google News. I e-mailed the request and got a reply saying:

Thank you for your note. We've reviewed your site and will be adding it to our index for Google News. You should be able to find your articles in Google News within a few weeks. DragonFire1024 03:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The blog was started at the time Planet Wikimedia started up, and the point is to have a blog about Wikinews so we can promote Wikinews and our stories on Planet Wikimedia and other blog aggregators. If we are going for Google News, we should use http://thenewswiki.com , which will be a much better way to get all our stories on Google News. I hope you can send an email to Google to ask them to add The News Wiki instead of our blog. I certainly would like the ideas of other editors here about what we should use the blog for.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 08:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You cannot add craigs new thing until it works properly and has something more than just a list of articles. And no where does it state on that blog that it has anything to do with just original reporting diaries etc. I was simply trying to do Wikinews a favor by increasing readership, which is my biggest concern over a journal. If I had known that it was just for that, I would not have asked to be added. I am not interested in telling my POV of a story I wrote. I am interested in someone reading the article for the facts of what happened. DragonFire1024 08:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to apologize, I know your intentions were good, and I share your concern to boost readership. You're right that the blog doesn't explain what it's for, exactly the reason why I would like others to join in on the discussion, so we can decide if it is a good idea or not. But I think it would be a bad idea since the posts are listed on Planet Wikimedia, and that kind of content doesn't make any sense there. For the record, the other posts on the blog don't tell a certain POV of a story either: they are meant to explain the goings-on on Wikinews, like the other bloggers on Planet Wikimedia do on their blogs.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 09:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

If this is all just a trick to get Doogle <sp?> to index wikinews reports then the exercise is not worth pursuing. -Edbrown05 08:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Google wants stable versions, if you give them what you want, they will not get the current and best that this site has to offer. Who is right and who is wrong here. Give in to Doggle? Is there any way to address that? -Edbrown05 09:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I had said on IRC that the blog was for the behind the scenes stuff. And thats fine. Personally, I still would like the wikinews.blogspot.com used, it has a real wikinews skin, that is missing on WNreports Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 08:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Honestly I don't see the problem with adding a few stories here and there...Google will pick up on it and I was only planning on adding an article or two every so often. But we still need people willing to write regardless of what blog we use. DragonFire1024 09:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

To Dragonfire: The problem is that those posts are read by people on en.planet.wikimedia.org and other aggregators, who really don't have a need for such posts. I don't see why Google News should pick up on our blog, if we are posting our behind-the-scenes there, and if we have a perfectly good alternative for Google News already, The NewsWiki.

To BrianNZ: If wikinews.blogspot.com has the skin, than it has to be possible to transfer it to wikinewsreports.blogspot.com , no? I don't know who has access to the wikinews blog, but if you can copy the template for the blog we could paste it into the wikinewsreports blog.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 11:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:Commentthis

I understand that some of you want to "make promotion" for the tabs "add opinions" and "view opinions", but I think that, as it looks now, Template:Commentthis is very ugly.

For example, floating template should make disturbance with another template, as in Italy: protest for ice-cream in Senate.

I think it would be more 'discrete' to have a template without any background-color, without any floating property, added at the bottom of the page. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 12:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Grants available for local news tech

Verbatim from the Knight News Challenge:

In 2007, Knight Foundation will again award $5 million in grants to individuals, organizations or businesses with ideas and projects that will transform community news. Anybody, anywhere in the world is eligible for funding — if the project meets all of the following criteria:

1. Use digital media. 2. Involve new forms of news in the public interest. 3. Focus on specific geographic community.

This site will begin accepting applications on July 1, 2007.

Maurreen 17:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

See also our previous attempt: Wikinews:Knight Foundation proposal Bawolff ☺☻ 18:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Folks, just as a heads-up, we will be meeting with folks from the Knight Foundation next week. I don't have further details, but will update interested parties if there's any update. Feel free to email me if you have questions. -- IlyaHaykinson 10:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Blog CC-BY-2.5?

Anyone oppose WikinewsReports.Blogspot.com being available as CC-BY-2.5? Someone posted recently, using a bit of the article they wrote, and put a disclaimer on it saying "some of this blog post is from Wikinews", something like that. It would be a lot better if we just make every post the same free license as Wikinews itself. -- Zanimum 18:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why not. My personal blog is under the CC Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. --Nzgabriel | Talk 10:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I had already added a cc-by-2.5 license note at the bottom of the blog. I've copied that notice to the sidebar.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 10:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikimania

Looks like Cspurrier and Messedrocker are going to Taiwan... what are we going to ask them to do for Wikinews? At least take some pictures and report on the goings-on, maybe interview some Wikimedia celebrities? Harass some of the Board members to help Wikinews with some of it's problems, like getting an email address for accredited reporters? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The last point is something that would be really good to have. I wonder if we could actually partner with the Wikipedia Weekly podcast, as they're planning to do a lot of interviews, I hear. -- Zanimum 20:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Best ask in advance, maybe they'll agree to dually license their stuff on Commons. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If we're trying to harass board members, now is the best time due to the election. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Brianmc and myself have been doing so over on the candidate questions.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 10:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have applied for a press pass and will do my best to cover Wikimania. I will also be doing a BOF on Wikinews, it would be great if some Wikinewsies could attend. --Cspurrier 23:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Messedrocker maybe... what's a BOF?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 10:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"Birds-of-a-Feather (BoF) (45-60 minute informal meetup of group discussion on a particular topic)"--Cspurrier 22:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I also do work in Wikipedia Weekly. Not only could I be the liaison from Wikinews to Wikipedia Weekly, but I could probably do more than that! →MR 03:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

let's create link to Wikipedia

I was looking at the news today, and found myself trying to click on several 'blue' words. But they only search Wikinews, which makes sense.

Why not have a link on the Main Page to facilitate checking Wikipedia?

Katydidn't 18:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)katydidn't

If you poke around some more, you might notice that in the articles 'blue words' as you call them, link to Wikinews for things like countries and people in the news. Other 'blue words' link directly to articles in Wikipedia. If you look closely, you'll notice the two kinds, local links and interwiki links, have a slightly different shade of blue. Also, at the bottom of the Main Page there are links to all of Wikinews' main sister projects. If you meant something else, please elaborate. Thanks, --SVTCobra 18:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

On the pages which we link to locally, should be a box like the one at the side, which links to a wikipedia article. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Benoit confession on Digg.com

I did not add this to digg.com and not sure who did. But if you are signed up there, or want to be, then add your digg to the article :) DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 07:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

London/Glasgow Car Bombings

Ok so you've probably seen the news, here, here and here Anyway does anyone else feel that an article should be writen seperatly for both event which occurred with more information - such as the fact that both these incidents are linked and should the article contain up to date information on the investigation into both attacks?

The NYT on Wikinews

So indistinct has the line between past and present become that Wikipedia has inadvertently all but strangled one of its sister projects, the three-year-old Wikinews — one of several Wikimedia Foundation offshoots (Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wiktionary) founded on the principle of collaboratively produced content available free. Wikinews, though nominally covering not just major stories but news of all sorts, has sunk into a kind of torpor; lately it generates just 8 to 10 articles a day on a grab bag of topics that happen to capture the interest of its fewer than 26,000 users worldwide, from bird flu to the Miss Universe pageant to Vanuatu’s ban on cookie imports from neighboring Fiji. On bigger stories there’s just no point in competing with the ruthless purview of the encyclopedia, which now accounts for a staggering one out of every 200 page views on the entire Internet.

All the News That’s Fit to Print Out –Doldrums(talk) 03:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The premise of the linked to article by Doldrums, written by novelist Jonathan Dee and published by the New York Times is fucked up. Wikipedia does not do news, that news is done by 'other' journalists. Sadly, Wikinews is not doing news. Therefore this project suffers. It must do Original reporting, it is its mandate, otherwise, contributions amount to: get the fuck off this planet. -Edbrown05 10:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Some brass by writers/contributors and a receptive attitude by administrators seems perhaps almost hopeless (We want sources). Give it up, you ain't gonna get it in Original reporting, the best you get is notes, and the best you get beyond that no notes. Either you want to report it or you don't. "Nobody believes anything you say"... that is the weakness at this point when nobody believes anybody because they refuse to believe them in the first place. Original reporting cannot be performed until the community comes to accept new users, insist on notes ( I guess) and accept on good faith that the report is respectable. Later, if a a report proves not true, deal with it then. Blocking now is the wrong time, blocking for a demonstratable acts of ill-faith is the right time. -Edbrown05 11:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem at Wikinews is that it doesn't trust people who use the Internet. That in itself says a lot. This site cannot work unless responsible news is posted. There is a way to weed out the right from the wrong. If you report here, develop a track record of reports that recieve no factual opposition. Blow your reputation by misrepresentation, that speaks for itself. -Edbrown05 11:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

From the Globe and Mail yesterday:

Ms. Gardner, who worked as a journalist in Canada for 10 years, recalled turning to Wikinews to keep abreast of developments in the Virginia Tech shooting on April 16 of this year while working for CBC.ca. "It actually was the first place that I went online because I knew that Wikinews, in effect, aggregates together multiple sources," said Ms. Gardner, who began working at the Florida-based Wikimedia Foundation on Monday.

Okay so admittedly she would be biased, since she works for the Foundation, but it shows that in some cases we get it right. Why would journalists from the MSM come here to read our stuff? To either rip it off outright, as we have seen, or lift ideas and facts from it. I've seen this a few times and wondered why stories come into the MSM a day or two after we've done something. I am guessing that the NYT person is just pissed that we don't output enough stories, which leaves him little to pick from. I agree with your preference for original reporting Ed, but I think we need to provide both (original and aggregate). We just need to provide more. It seems to me that the only complaint the NYT person had was our output of "just 8 to 10 articles a day". He's right. We need 50 to 100 articles a day, where the more regional stories could be sorted into their respective categories and the main page reserved for a few prominent international stories and a spotlight for OR. Jcart1534 12:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I've emailed Sue Gardner because (1) our mission statement says we are both like an aggregator and an outlet, and (2) because we have OR articles next to our referenced articles.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

She's very friendly, still trying to find her way around the job... --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I was interviewed by Jonathan Dee for this article. I am disappointed with how it came out. It seemed like he had a much more positive view of Wikinews when we were talking, then what ended up in his story. It may be nice if we developed a slightly more press friendly about us page, that I could have quoted or pointed him to. --Cspurrier 15:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Also note that this NYT article was written on the same day that Wikinews was picked up by every major news agency on the planet. In other words, this guy was under a rock before he wrote this. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 15:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• I think the NYT article is spot on in identifying one of the key problems of WN: That people, when there is major breaking news, tend to create and/or expand an WP article rather than a WN one. And instead of shooting the messenger, we should find ways to remedy this problem. --+Deprifry+ 15:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Won't be easy though, if we look at the ideas of User:Swatjester:

Wikipedia’s morphing into a news source, Rosenthal said, “is an inevitable step. Because the software is absolutely perfectly suited to that. And the rules, I’m sure unintentionally, are perfectly suited to it, with the emphasis on verifying and the neutral point of view.” As for Wikinews, he offered, with brutal kindness, that it was a good place for news that “doesn’t make Wikipedia’s radar.”

I think some of us should take on the job of being more active on Wikipedia, being active on the pages about the news of the day. It shouldn't be too much time consuming if we write up a basic "invitation to help Wikinews" message for Wikipedia talk pages. Also, we should maybe have some promotion for the writing contest: I've seen a WikiProject that uses banner advertisements, I'll hop over and take a look. All other suggestions are more than welcome, but there's probably no magical solution -unless a mentality change about sister projects.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I think some of us should take on the job of being more active on Wikipedia... What? Hello? This is Wikinews. That is Wikipedia. IMHO, they have no need for a news section and IMHO it is just a way for them to compete with us. They won't even, except in the Chris Benoit article, won't even use Wikinews as a reference.

It shouldn't be too much time consuming if we write up a basic "invitation to help Wikinews" message for Wikipedia talk pages. Good idea, but do you actually think that WIkipedia would go for that? They already have {{Wikinewspar}}, which again IMO I am surprised they even have. After all 90% of the time they get added to a WP article, is because a Wikinewsie adds it.

My point, we are not in competition. WP might think they are in one with us... We should be woring together, but at every turn it seems to me, we get run off the road by them. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 10:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• That article is a bunch of bull and a classic example of the decline of the NYT. But remember folks: there's no such thing as bad publicity. Dan100 (Talk) 18:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Image on Commons

This category contains freely licensed images now available on Commons, the local copy is redundant and should be deleted. I've moved nearly 100 such images to Commons and now there is quite a backlog of files that should be deleted locally. Before any administrator begins doing so, it is probably appropriate that we discuss this issue. This is because DragonFire1024 has expressed his wish that his images should not be deleted locally, saying that "Commons or not, This image, I request as the author, should remain on Wikinews. Please do not delete local upload of this image", however I question the justification for doing so.

I therefore feel it is important before work begins to remove these images and update internal links where appropriate, that the community confirms whether this is the desired approach for freely licensed images and whether we should continue to discourage such uploads locally. Adambro 18:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

In support, Commons has changed. It is not the big bad wolf that it once was Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 19:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm really a big fan of Commons, for the simple fact that it promotes the collaboration with other projects and languages, saving smaller Wikinews projects in other languages tons of work. Images can now be undeleted on Commons so I see no reason to keep them here.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

In regards to images/photos I took, until I can see that none of them will be deleted under my nose on Commons, I would like them to stay locally uploaded to Wikinews. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 09:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Local uploads for me. Commons, unless I misunderstand the place, will remove photos using their pocesses in which they delete photos no longer deemed "worthy". What they are achieving is very good, but it is ultimately an unworkable scheme for all cross-wiki images to reside on that Wikimedia platform. I'll upload my meaningless, but relavent, news story images here. -Edbrown05 10:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Please vote

Dear wikinewsies,

16 users have already voted for the board elections... If you are eligible, please vote because it is the only way to have a say in a democracy! We need your votes if we want a say in the foundation, imho.

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)