Hello,
I would like to invite everyone who is intrested to participate in the
Wikinews Future Talk 2. The Wikinews Future Talk 2 will be the second
Future Talk, this one will focus upon the the portal/neighborhoods
proposals on the en Wikinews and the future of Audio Wikinews and WNN.
It will be an open, unmoderated IRC session taking place on #wikinews.
Members of all Wikinews editions are invited,espesically those
interested in starting audio project in their local Wikinews.
Craig Spurrier
Hi all,
Recently, I have decided that it was time I adopt a
new project. A small one :-)
So, I started participating to wikinews in french.
It is quite a challenge I must say, because there are
a handful of very nice participants... but most of
them are not participants to wikipedia, so quite
newbies on some issues. On the other hand, plenty of
motivation and ideas which is good :-)
Still, today, I have something disturbing me a little
bit. A new main page was set up this morning; Looking
at it, I realised the html was probably not standard
(some wrong columns size or locations) and saw that
some areas were just empty (for example, it did not
mention other projects or other languages).
So it appeared to me to be a working stage, and it did
not seem a good idea to make changes live; So I
reverted the page to yesterday version and moved the
new version to a temp page :
http://fr.wikinews.org/wiki/Discuter:Accueil/temp
I then was told this version had been approved and the
vote ended yesterday. So, it should be the main page
in any cases.
Then, to list the problems of the html, I looked more
precisely at it. And I discovered 3 new sections.
One is the "Analysis section". There is one example of
it, the link being a user sub page. So, first, it
means it is very likely a non editable page (since it
is a user sub page). Second, there is a mention below,
stating "the section can be ambiguous in terms of
NPOV, as it is only partially submitted to it"
Two other sections are "Editorial" and "carte blanche"
(I am not sure I really see the difference). These
sections are empty for now, and a note indicates
"These two sections do not respect NPOV and have not
been adopted by the community".
I then commented in saying that these sections should
probably not be here in any cases, since NOT adopted
by the community. I was answered they actually were
adopted, so the little text should be modified, but
they should be on the main page.
I looked for a discussion, and found this
http://fr.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews%3ASalle_caf%C3%A9#PDV_.21.21
So, to me, a site with
1) articles submitted to NPOV,
2) personal analyses only partially submitted to NPOV
and not editable, and
3) editorials not submitted to NPVO
has a name, Indymedia.
Not wikinews :-)
And I do not agree. I think all wikimedia projects
should adhere to NPOV. Strictly. As much as we can.
But I then thought I had no idea what other wikinews
have been doing on this issue and that possibly some
of them have adopted editorials (which will quite
naturally report a pov).
Is this the case ?
If so, how did you organise yourself to explain
readers the difference between the neutral parts of
the site and the non neutral parts ?
And do you try to maintain an overall neutrality
within editorials ?
Or do you limit the topics concerned by editorials ?
Thanks in advance for your comments.
anthere
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
I'll be in California (Santa Clara County) for a few days, and will have
free time on Tuesday, Wednesday late evening, and possibly Thursday
morning. If you're from nearby and you're interested, we can try to set
up a little meetup. I've created a page for it here:
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Meetup/California
Best,
Erik
As previously announced, a Japanese language edition of Wikinews has now
been set up:
http://ja.wikinews.org/
I have announced this on the Japanese Chatsubo and will ask the editors
of the site to help with spreading the word further.
Good luck to this new member of the Wikimedia project family.
Best,
Erik
WikiTalk TL 1.00 is a freeware program for Wikipedia users to make
Searches
from Wikipedia and to Speak the search result
WikiTalk Features:
Talking head
Speak Several different languages
Text to wav
Text to MP3
Clipboard to wav
Clipboard to MP3
Controls Internet Explorer and Acts as Wikipedia navigator and shows
the founded page by IE.
Planned so that also persons with limited sense of sight can use it
easily
WikiTalk TL 1.0 needs an Internet connection(SDL)to work.
Tested with IE6 and XP
Program is available in address: <http://www.bercutfinland.com>
www.bercutfinland.com
I have noticed that editorials are now posted regularly on the German
Wikinews, at http://de.wikinews.org/ - these are basically regular pages
signed by a single user. Examples:
http://de.wikinews.org/wiki/Kommentar:_Chinas_Langer_Marsch_ins_Allhttp://de.wikinews.org/wiki/Kommentar:_Der_Bundeskanzler_bewegt_sich_mit_de…
I do think we should let the German experiment unfold for a bit, but I
also think people should be aware that it is happening, due to NPOV
concerns about the issue.
As an alternative to editorials, I have suggested moderated debates,
whose transcripts would be edited, summarized and published on the wiki:
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Debates
I believe this model allows us - by having the topics decided by the
community - to avoid the specter of the "In defense of white power" type
editorial, and to present opinions from notable individuals in an NPOV
manner instead.
Meanwhile, editorials in the user namespace are also being debated again
on the English edition:
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Water_cooler#Wikinews_Editorials
Which solution, if any, do you think might be best?
Best,
Erik
Two comments.
The first is about the recent crisis on wikinews.
The second is a comment about the new features.
For the first point Erik, it seems some people are not happy with the way decision making happens on wikinews.
It seems that this time, the trigger of the conflict is the way a new feature was put into use,
even though there was no clear agreement whithin the community to use it. I'd say, it is fair to complain about
software changes, when software changes are not agreed upon. It is good that you propose now a discussion over
whether this new feature should be used or not, but the discussion should occur *before* the feature is used, or
even better *before* the feature is developped.
I suppose you will answer that it was discussed, it was agreed, that it is the best solution so should be used...
this may be. But you can not at the same time claim this... and ignore the fact regular editors are so mad that it
appears to them their *only* options are to suggest another wikinews (fork) or obey you (not so benevolent dictatorship).
How do you suggest to improve this in the future ?
For Kyle, I do not think there was any abuse of Erik in his blocking NGerda.
I am more dubious of whether the same standards apply to everyone, but this is another story. NGerda apparently disrespect a rule all
wikinewsies should follow, so it is fair he is given a time out. I trust NGerda has a tough skin :-)
As for Erik, being under different pseudos or his own name is generally known and I do not think there is any abuse either on the matter
(there is only one wikinews account). He is Eloquence on wiki, Zirzon on irc and Erik as a real person.
I will add that he is indeed an officer of Wikimedia Foundation, but this has nothing to do
with him being an editor on wikinews and should not mean he should be treated differently than others. He should be entirely and only
judged by his activity on wikinews as an editor, not by any official position he has in the organisation. In short, if he does good,
congratulate, thank him and support him to do more good. If he does wrong, complain and discuss. If he does really wrong, block him.
As a simple participant, I would like to comment on the new feature which I think is called "inputbox extension" (or is it "DynamicPageList extension" ?).
Anyway, if any of you goes to wikinews and intends to start a new page, here is what he will get : http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Writing_an_article.
I invite you to enter the name of a new article and to edit it.
When you will get the edit box, you will notice two things :
First, the box does not start empty, it is already prefilled with a whole bunch of preformatted content. It indicates where to put the article. It has a table with pre-filled fields for citation of sources. It has a bunch of categories into place. And it has the "development" tag by default. If the editor wants the story to be visible to the reader, he must replace the development tag by a publish tag (this is quite clearly explained on top of the edit window).
On the positive side, I feel that the benefits of this are
* a more "similar" appearance to all articles
* a strong reminder to the editor that he should list his sources
* a system allowing to "publish" the article quite freely, without relying on an editorial team.
The drawbacks of this is
* if you are a new editor, chances is you will be very perplex in front of all this complex synthax.
* if you are a new editor, chances is you will not understand for a while the publish tag system, so your story will not be visible
As long as wikinews is small, there can be hope some oldbie will see and check the article and push it published... but when wikinews grows, it might be that the system does not scale so well and that articles are not quickly published. Still, we can hope some editors frequently check the list of articles with a "development" tag, so I am not sure it is really a problem.
The main problem I saw with this is not the publication system, but only the fact it will appear awfully complex to a new editor. The basic of wiki is
* it is simple synthax
* create an article, edit, save and this is it !
A more similar appareance and a reminder to cite sources is good, but I do not think the benefit balance the drawbacks of loss of easiness to edit.
I think these two issues should be community enforced and taught by model (looking at what already exist).
Last, I have been wondering how much difference there was with wikipedia. Indeed the publication system might be necessary, as the goal is to get on the main page and to get it *quickly*. So, the current semi-automatic tagging solution might not be bad.
However, Wikipedia just as well might propose pre-filled articles, with pre-formatted titles, subtitles, see alsos, external links, categories and international links. And IT DOES NOT. Why is it felt necessary on wikinews when it is not felt necessary on other projects ?
I have been caressing the idea of writing to Ward Cunningham and ask him to create a wikinews article... and tell us about his experience afterwards ;-)
Anthere
-----------------
Dear Wikinews community,dear interested individuals,I would like to invite you to participate in an open, unmoderated discussion about the future of the project, specifically the English edition. Members of other editions who want to learn about recent changes to the English version, and who want to debate whether these changes could be useful for their project, are also invited to join. Please sign up for a time that is convenient for you at:http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Future_TalkThe purpose of this IRC meeting is to discuss issues such as* Should the DynamicPageList extension be used?* Should the inputbox extension be used?* How should decisions about issues like this be made in the future?* How local can Wikinews stories be?* How can we make Wikinews more accessible for newcomers?Please feel free to add topics of discussion to the agenda.Note that we should not be trying to make decisions at this meeting - those should be openly documented on the wiki - but to reach a
basic consensus about how to proceed.Best,Erik
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn more.