Wikipedia talk:In the news 3.0: Difference between revisions

Copied from Talk:Main Page. The original section was at: Talk:Main Page#ITN issues in detail

Short Summary by Eraserhead1

There have been a number of complaints made about the In the News processes. This proposal is to make the guidelines more specific and clearer so that outdated news isn't displayed on the main page and that the news coverage is more consistent across topics. The aim of the proposal is to increase participation.

The main way of doing this is to create a template (see below) which has several criteria to formalise and streamline nominations with the idea that each nomination is checked as to whether it meets those criteria. As well as the traditional news requirements these criteria also give some weight to articles which are Good article class or higher.

Additionally there is a monthly target of posting 60 stories, which is more in line with the other sections on the main page and which means a story should be posted on average every 12 hours. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see the #Discussion section below for comments. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Listed on WP:CENT. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Introduction

• I don't think that changing the label and leaving the same ITN process will do any good. The issues regarding poor ITN performance have been raised too often in the last months, and either some action is taken, or we'll see more complaints in the future, which could lead to a compete scrapping of the section from the Main Page one day. I have collected a set of proposals for improvement of the ITN process, both suggested by other editors and my own. I think it is better to discuss the proposals here (at least initially) than on the ITN talk page, since the interest of the wider community may help to implement some actual changes, while the conservative attitudes of regular ITN editors are more likely to get all proposed changes sunk in the discussions with no outcome. GreyHood ^Talk 21:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• A) Increasing ITN participation. ITN needs more regular editors, more admins and more people that are not regulars but nominate something from time to time. This will help to post more news and update more articles, as well as improve balance of topics.
  • This is not so much a proposal, but rather an aim and indicator of success of proposals below or other possible proposals. If we manage to make ITN nomination process less slow, more predictable and friendlier to non-regular editors, than I'm sure we'll achieve the aim of inreasing participation.
  • However, specific actions could be taken to try to increase participation. For example, I've seen a number of people leaving messages on the talk pages of new users encouraging them to nominate their articles for DYK. Something similar could be tried for ITN, if there are people who are ready to take the task.

• B) Making ITN guidelines more specific. The main page of WP:ITN, the WP:ITN/C and other ITN-related pages should contain a more clear statement of ITN purpose for the encyclopedia, highlighting its similarities to, as well as differences from an ordinary news ticker.
  • The minimum requirements for posting the news should be stated in detail and in prominent places: the age of the news, the expected size of update, requirements of neutrality, non-violating copyrights and BLP, etc (see below, the last proposal).
  • Detailed recommendations should be made on what news items are considered non-trivial: international significance, rarity of the event, major effects on a large number of people, etc (see below, the last proposal)
  • The ITN policies should give Featured, Good and A-class articles, as well as Featured lists a priority in posting (though the trivial news involving such articles should be excluded, of course).
  • Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items should be expanded (The voting for the new ITN/R proposals is already under way, so at least this point is already in the midst of implementation).

• C) Making sure that ITN doesn't display outdated news. This is a major source of complaints concerning ITN, and should be dealt with. Whatever we call ITN and whatever encyclopedic applications it will have, the basic idea behind ITN is a news ticker. And this news ticker should not be ridiculously slow. ITN should be made closer in dynamics to other parts of the MP, and the articles on ITN should not enjoy too much display on the MP compared to articles in the other sections.
  • We could make removal of an obviously outdated news a part of the instruction for admins. This will cause, however, problems with MP balance that will have to be solved in the other MP sections.
  • The ITN timer should be set turning red after 12 hours, or at least yellow after 12 hours and red after 24 hours, so that to encourage posting of at least 2 news items per day. This will help to save the readers from stale news.
  • The goal of posting an average 2 news per day and 60 news per month should be made a clear priority in the ITN guidelines, a measure of quality of ITN performance.

• D) Formalizing ITN nomination process. The nomination and discussion process on WP:ITN/C should be made more formal, clear and predictable, and at the same time faster. ITN should include a review procedure, like it happens on DYK. Below I propose a form for the nomination review, which includes the typical criteria for the nominated blurb and article.

Formalized template

• Basics
  • Blurb: A Significant event has occurred in Someplace that resulted in things happening.
    • (✓ Pass if the blurb is well-worded and correct, ✗ Fail otherwise)
  • Article(s): Updated article
    • (✓ Pass if the article exists, ✗ Fail if not, or if it is only marginally related to the event)
• Minimum criteria
  • Date: Date
    • (✓ Pass if the event is less than 5 days old, ✗ Fail otherwise)
  • In the news: A news source from country A, A news source from country B
    • (✓ Pass if there are enough sources, ✗ Fail if too few or if the sources are questionable, or if there is lack of international interest)
  • Update/New article: Diff that shows the update or statement of the new article size
    • (✓ Pass if the update consists of at least one paragraph or a new article consists of at least 3 well-formed paragraphs and doesn't look like a mini-stub, ✗ Fail otherwise)
  • Style/Referencing: Copyediting is (not) required, references are (not) in place
    • (✓ Pass/✗ Fail)
  • Copyright/BLP/NPOV: (No) Copyright/BLP/NPOV issues detected
    • (✓ Pass/✗ Fail)

• Additional criteria
  • Recurring/Precedent: The article is on WP:ITN/R or a link to archives which shows a similar nomination posted
    • (✓ Pass if ITN/R or precedent is all right, ✗ Fail otherwise)
  • Featured content: the article's class
    • (✓ Pass if the article is Featured, A-class, or Good, ✗ Fail otherwise)
  • International significance: Country 1, Country 2, Country 3 involved, as well as an international organization
    • (✓ Pass if at least two large countries are involved, or more smaller countries, or a major international organization, ✗ Fail otherwise)
  • Unique/Rare: First time since a long while ago, involves the largest X and the longest Y, etc.
    • (✓ Pass if there are no significant objections or questions to the named records, ✗ Fail otherwise)
  • Scale/Implications: A large number of people seriously affected
    • (✓ Pass if many people died, displaced, or if there was a game changing election, or other life-changing event, ✗ Fail otherwise)

In cases of deaths of prominent individuals, the Death criteria should be used. GreyHood ^Talk 14:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Such a form (we could make a template for it) is filled either by nominator or by any other editor who likes to make a review. By default, the nomination is posted if it passes with basics, the minimum criteria, and either ITNR or two different additional criteria. Some of the additional criteria may be omitted from review (all but the first one in the case of ITN/R), and the whole procedure could be omitted ("speedy nomination") in case of too obviously significant event which has a good article (for example, in case of FIFA World Cup Final).

After initial review is made, the other editors either confirm that everything is all right, or help fixing the "failed" points, or disagree with a reviewer and change review marks to opposite or to , notifying of the change in their comments and explaining the reason. If an issue is addressed by someone, the mark is changed with notification in a comment. If at least one user, except the reviewer, confirmes that everything is all right, and all issues are addressed, an administrator checks the review history and posts the nomination. There should be no support/oppose votes, just comments on how nomination passess or fails particular criteria.

Hope this doesn't look too complex. Anyway, most of the current discussions on ITN go along these lines, and if we make a formal procedure, this may make things faster, though it will require more work from nominators/reviewers. Also, this will highlight the issues, and encourage nominators to prepare beforehand and propose articles that should pass the basics and minimum criteria, and choose news which are likely to pass more of the additional criteria. GreyHood ^Talk 21:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment I think this is a good proposal, but its going to need an RFC I think. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this is getting to a stage where a self-contained RfC is needed. —WFC— 00:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support the criteria aren't totally black and white, which does allow some latitude, but it should make discussions simpler, and for the criteria to be applied more consistently. Additionally it should be easy for admins to see what is worthy of posting. With the target as well it should lead to a similar quality of stuff being posted from different topics - I think 60 articles a month is a good target, but I see no reason it cannot be changed afterwards if the consensus is to post more or less content. I don't think there is any issue with the template criteria, they seem very well thought through - I think giving some weight to good content is a good idea. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Remove the section altogether per WP:NOTNEWS. Lugnuts (talk) 09:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • That's not the point of ITN at all. ITN isn't around as a news ticker, but to showcase encyclopedic articles about events that are in the news. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 10:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Although I've yet to see both of these arguments in the same sentence, there are those who use the notion that ITN is not a news ticker to argue against reform, yet at other times say that because the name sounds nice we should continue to call stories up to 8 days old news. I'm very much neutral on which way we tackle this from, but surely one or the other has got to give. If we're going to call it "news", we should generally be hitting a three-day turnaround. If on the other hand we are very happy with the way the system runs, we should ditch the ITN moniker on favour of something more relevant. —WFC— 11:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course if we aren't going to turn round stories reasonably quickly, in a comparable way to other content on the main page it becomes rather difficult to justify the sections existence. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Length of a piece of string issues abound: how large is a large country, how long was long while ago, how many people constitute a large number, what degree of affect is serious? What page of a newspaper/depth of linkage counts as coverage in the media? By this ticklist, the transfer of Robbie Fowler to transfer from North Queensland Fury to Perth Glory would have gone up: earning good article status has nothing to do with significance. Kevin McE (talk) 11:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

If article quality is never going to be even a partial criteria, then ITN is definitely a news ticker (if only a very slow news ticker) as it takes no account of the encyclopaedic value of the content.

Additionally while possibly tightening up these criteria would be better we can do so later. Greyhood has done a good job of spelling out the unofficial criteria often used and it gives latitude on ITNC for some discussion. I also don't think its clear that Robbie Fowler's transfer would have gone up, it is a GA, but its hard to argue its internationally significant, and it certainly isn't rare, nor does it affect a large number of people nor is there a precedent.

Now that would mean that if he was the first British player to play in Australia, or it was a record fee transfer in Australia then it could have gone up, but I don't think that would be an issue. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The criteria may be further specified to a large extent. For example, a "large country" may be defined as a G20 member. A "large number of people" affected depends on the type of event and effect: typically that would be 30 people dead in an aircraft incident or bombing, about 1000 of people displaced due to a flood, etc. GreyHood ^Talk 17:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we need a process to overhaul ITN. First, we need to define why the feature exists. Then, we need to name the criteria for what makes a good ITN entry. Then, we can add details about what should be excluded from ITN as well as other factors we should consider (geographic diversity, for example). I would caution against hard-and-fast numerical rules for notability, such as a certain number of people who die in a plane crash. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that hard and fast numerical figures a probably not the best idea. People weren't happy with the suggestion for elections. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've mentioned these your concerns in the proposals above. As for the "hard-and-fast numerical rules" such as numbers of people for determining notability, I'm also against such rules in fact, but I believe that we should have strong recommendations written in the guidelines. GreyHood ^Talk 20:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Mwalcoff, we need to consider how we handle this rather then just diving in to it headlong and hope something good comes out of this (history has shown that doesn't tend to work well on wikipedia with complex issues and substanial participation). For example I personally still believe the Template talk:In the news/Archive 11#Proposal: restructure the section (User:Monotonehell) was a decent idea. In fact I even started a proposal once User:Nil Einne/ITN reform but then decided it would require way too much work then I was willing to contribute so quickly gave up on it. Of course that was a fair time ago and things have moved on since then but I still believe there are a lot of good ideas we can take from there in ITN reform. (Including perhaps consideration of the name.) Not everyone may agree, but without defining what we want from ITN and what we hope to achieve I don't believe we will get anywhere useful. (To repeat an example I mentioned below, saying we want 60 per month which you then say we already get doesn't help explain what you're trying to achieve. To use another example, when most people say ITN is not a news ticker and in your proposal you say 'the basic idea behind ITN is a news ticker', it's also not clear how this is going to lead anywhere useful unless you can first convince people that ITN is a newsticker.) P.S. I would hope the read more about proposal doesn't come as news to any of the proposers since IMHO when you are making a proposal for reform, it's expected you are already somewhat aware of previous proposals, consensus and other common issues. Nil Einne (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose under "If its not broke dont try and fix it" ITN works because its largely because its ability to be flexible and often times quick to responding to current events. I have heard a general dislike to ITN do to its alleged promotion of WP:NOTNEWs article and events.... which is total bullshit. We usually screen out WP:NOTNEWS events really well very few item that end up on ITN that would even remotely fall under the criteria. I think our current system is a good screening process before posting articles. I have heard griping thats its the "least dynamic thing on the main page" which is valid observation but not a valid criticism. We get all sort of nominations everyday, i'd geuss we only post maybe 1/4 to 1/3 of stuff nominated. I agree that we need more particpation but no on is but No one thinks ITN is that relevant. But when a Senator gets shot and then ITN get flooded with all sorts of editor clamoring to get our article for the event on the Main page. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 01:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems you had written this comment before you actually read the discussion on Talk:Main Page. GreyHood ^Talk 14:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It is a valid criticism as you could include something else instead that was more dynamic, and get more content onto the front page. Increasing the rate to one post every 12 hours doesn't appear to be far off the 2009 rate anyway. EDIT: Of course if you have a better suggestion of how to deal with the issues with ITN I'm all ears, there may be better solutions than this proposal. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

If the rate is already what you want, then what exactly are you trying to fix or achieve? How are you going to get more content onto the main page if you've already agreed we're in fact already close to achieving your target. I would note you've made the claim that keeping an item on the main page for 3 days is 3 times longer then FA or FP. This is fairly misleading. FAs are linked to from the main page for 4 days. When they are no longer TFA, they are still linked. Further while SA/OTD items are generally only present for a day, many of them particularly important ones reoccur year after year. Further despite some of the claims above, I haven't see any evidence complaints about ITN are increasing. We have been getting complaints of all sorts (why isn't this item on ITN, why is this item on ITN et al) about ITN since the 6 years I've been here. We've also been getting complaints about language number categories, the general look of the main page, too many games on FA, FA being crap/unimportant, lack of censorship, the cursor not appearing in the search box, and what have you. This doesn't mean all these complains are completely without merit, but it also means we don't have to do something just because there are complaints. So we get back to the question, what do we want to achieve? If we are already close to your desired rate, then it remains unclear. It seems to me a bad idea to try to force us to have an update every 12 hours. The nature of world is that sometimes days go past without anything significant happening, sometimes a series of significant things happen within hours. ITN as it's not a news ticker is by nature is always going to reflect this to some extent. If we are already achieving close to the desired rate, this means we should either hold off on items even when they are ready just so that we have one every 12 hours when in fact they should be posted sooner then that or perhaps even we should exclude important events simply because they happen too close together while adding othr elss important events simply because there's less happening. Either way this seems like a bad idea to me. Now I recognise we could try to add items faster and there are some problems in getting updates, in getting consensus to add an item and in getting someone to add the item but that's a different thing from saying that we need to have one every 12 hours. Nil Einne (talk) 14:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The rate is far from what we want, you must have missed or misunderstood something. In 2009 the rate might have been all right. But now it is not, and during the last two months there were long discussions of ITN problems on Wikipedia talk:In the news and on Talk:Main Page. GreyHood ^Talk 14:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• I support all the criteria listed above. I think perhaps we don't need some of the more complex rules there (and either ITNR or two different additional criteria) but overall it looks flexible and clear.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add that we should keep our Death criteria, which should work well with the above. Also, one of the few criteria for general news items that we do have is that we reject items deemed trivial. I'd suggest adding something along those lines to the minimum requirements above (news item is not 'trivial' or something like that). In general, I do not support exclusionary criteria, but I think that is one basic standard all ITN items should meet.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely agree on Death criteria, I have added a note to the end of the template. As for the rejecting of items deemed trivial, that also is a valid point, of course. But then we need a definition or criteria of triviality. GreyHood ^Talk 14:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Remove the section altogether. It doesn't work, it never has worked. Not least because nobody can even agree what the hell it is for, let alone get enough people interested in putting up with its time-wasting idiosynchrasies to make it work as it sort of is intended to work as of now. Take the name for examle - it's clearly utterly wrong, which is pointed out several times each week, yet nothing ever happens. That's before you even get into specific problems of the process:
  • the complete disparity between classes of event considered ITN worthy (elections vs. anything else, space vs. anything else, earthquakes vs. anything else, people pretending 8 completely different motorsports are all the same class of sport, yet variants of handball are all super important world sports etc etc etc, the tedious demand for American college sports while other professional world championships are completely ignored, the posting of the completely expected deaths of Nobel prize winners while ignoring their achievements when alive), and there are frankly a 101 different examples of these completely incomprehensible outcomes, which while they are often defended as 'consensus', ITN is in reality the most lax place on the pedia for demonstrating how to divine what is the properly argued non-vote counted consensus
  • the fact that the divination of 'consensus' in ITN/C discussions flip flops between POV arguments and objective evidence and back again pretty randomly day to day, in a way that would be completely unnacceptable in any other discussion venue
  • the uselesness that is ITN/R notwithstanding which produces most of the problems instead of solving them, the completely arbitrary nature of every single other discussion
  • the complete inability to figure out what needs a sticky or how to deal with ongoing events
  • the waste of time that are the existing clear instructions which require an update before you even think of posting to ITN/C. And we want to make it more beaurocratic? Why? Who even cares if the current rules are being followed?
  • the rather suspect decisions of several admins who turn up now and again and seem to think several aspects of ADMIN don't apply to ITN discussions and post items they vote on and see a mere 3 one word votes as 'overwhelming support' in the face of one detailed rebuttal
  • the time-wasting and tediously repetitive obsession with bias, which is completely and utterly pointless when you can't even answer the question, what's ITN for?
  • the fact that some deaths are posted even though there is a sticky link to recent deaths - why is it even there?
  • the fact that it takes hours to post events that are obvious ITN items and are known about well in advance - the World Cup Final, the Super Bowl, the Wimbledon tennis final, etc etc
  • the fact that it's normally a complete waste of time even suggesting blurbs even in those obvious item circumstances, a passing admin will just draft it however the hell they choose
  • and finally, the fact that for big enough events, or lameness like the Wiki10 posting, it doesn't really matter what the hell any of the regulars think are the facts of the matter of all these issues, as the board is just flooded with votes to simply list or delist an item, which despite NOTAVOTE, is normally pretty successful
• It's broken, it's irreparable, and it takes up space that could be used so much better. I can say with absolute certainty based on years of experience of ITN, that you aren't going to increase participation without major changes. You aren't going to increase the turnover without major changes. And tweaking the guidelines or the rules is generally a waste of time, and the ones proposed above are miles from the major changes required. There have been proposals to 'reform' ITN for years, they have all been a waste of time as nobody has ever tackled the elephant in the room of its basic purpose, or been prepared to face up to its major problems even if they think that is a settled issue. Everybody is seemingly happy that it just limps on like this without majorly fucking up frequently, while in comparison, things like TFA and DYK are the very epitomy of valuable, structured, understandable processes that absolutely deserve their place on the Main Page. Those processes have undergone many developments over the years, as its easy to do that when you know what the basic purpose of it is, while the only change I've ever seen actually get implented on ITN by contrast, is to get a TOC sorted. The people insisting it's not a news ticker are simply wrong, or are at least completely misguided in their belief that the wider community don't see it as one. It's a news ticker which is simply very slow, as it cannot get its act together and figure out how to be an efficient and usefull news ticker, and cannot figure out how to reform itself to make it not appear as if its a news ticker. And anyone who doesn't think ITN encourages daily creation of articles that are the very epitomy of NOT#NEWS violations, hasn't been watching it long enough. ITN is one of the biggest drivers of the massive and relentless Google age driven RECENTISM MickMacNee (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)