Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2013-07-10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2013-07-10. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Discussion report: Featured article process governance, signature templates, and more (0 bytes · 💬)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-07-10/Discussion report

Dispatches: Infoboxes: time for a fresh look? (30,113 bytes · 💬)

  • Congrats on bringing the Dispatches back, and a very good job indeed Brian. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Apart from that minor point, a very thought-provoking piece. Thanks to both Brian and you. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I think people just need to start using collapsible infoboxes where only the most important information is shown uncollapsed. e.g. Reelin. --Tobias1984 (talk) 07:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I like collapsible infoboxes as well. Using one on Pennsylvania-class battleship allowed me to include an extra image and hide statistical information that many readers won't care about. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Collapsing infoboxes, or parts therein, is a bad idea. It defeats the purpose of providing our readers with a quick and convenient overview; and it makes it likely that editors who are updating facts in the body will see that they also need to to so in the infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
      • One of the key points of the article is that many infoboxes are neither quick nor convenient due to the unreasonable level of detail they contain for something giving a quick snapshot of a topic. Collapsing detail into relevant sections that readers can rapidly scan and expand as desired serves that purpose rather well. I don't think it's 'a bad idea' at all. Ale_Jrbtalk 14:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
        • I've been looking over the shoulders of friends and colleagues as they interact with Wikipedia for many years, and every single one has been surprised by the [Show] button in navboxes, and the ones that are making their way into Infoboxes (and data tables, and galleries), when I suggest that they click on the [Show].
          Editors are too often using "collapsible section" as a way of burying a dispute over whether or not to include something in an article. It's a bad habit for us, and a disservice to (at least a percentage of) the readers. –Quiddity (talk) 23:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Funny stuff! I didn't twig to the satire until the bit about geographic coordinates being out of place in an infobox for a geographic location. And the Empire State Building "example" which is simply the result of {{infobox NRHP}} being nested inside {{infobox building}}, not actually a clever scheme to randomly duplicate listed data? Brilliant. I look forward to more comedy at this level in the future. - Dravecky (talk) 09:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Let me add my voice in agreement with Brian here. Although I am inclined to agree with Dravecky's point as well: co-ordinates seem like a sensible thing to be in an infobox, especially since the link allows a map of the location to be viewed. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I find coordinates useful in infoboxes. It's a pity that Brian seems only to have considered his own personal preferences, and not the circumstances of others. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
      • You miss the point. I am not saying that coordinates should not be in infoboxes per se. They would for example be vital information for an article about a mountain in Antarctica. I am saying that they are pointless information for buildings that have fixed locations in cities; what is the point of knowing what the geographic coordinates of the Coliseum Theatre are? And how can this be justifid as "key information" on the subject such as to justify its appearance in the infobox? Brianboulton (talk) 13:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
        • On the contrary; I addressed your point directly: you don't see the need for coordinates in an infobox about a building in a city, so think those of us who do should be deprived of their usefulness there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
          • The question I am addressing here is whether, for buildings with known addresses in cities, the geographic coordinates represent "key information" about the building, such as justifies inclusion in an infobox. It's not a matter of whether you or a few other souls might find it convenient to have it there, it's whether its importance merits inclusion. However, I realise that you will never understand or accept this. Brianboulton (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
            • Coordinates are extremely useful for mobile phone users. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for this article Brian - I've been feeling the same thing. A problem with large/complex infoboxes is that they also can turn into resource-sinks, with editors (and especially newish editors) tending to focus on the infobox rather than the body of the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Editors are free to choose the aspects of Wikipedia to which they devote their efforts. Why should they not? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Fair point: My concern is that endless disputes over some infoboxes can distracts attention away from things which actually need fixing. I'm thinking of the infoboxes for the World War II and Pacific War articles in which there has been endless bickering over which countries to include and which order they should appear, and very little work to improve or maintain the quality of the actual articles. Nick-D (talk) 23:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Regarding "newish editors" and the way that infoboxes sometimes distract from article content, one of my particular pet peeves regards editors (mostly newish) who systematically excise significant information from the article text because it "repeats" information that is in the infobox. 'Nuf said. --Orlady (talk) 00:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
          • Oh yes. I have seen an IP delete most of the lead section of a city article on the grounds that it was duplicating the infobox. Cart before horse or what?--Charles (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Great article Brian. I agree wholeheartedly. Also agree with Nick's comment above. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Ack, that Winston Churchill one is horrible. That said, as we can see from the discussion above, any attempt to chop them back down to the basics will be difficult because everyone will have two cents to contribute on their own favourite bits of information. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC).
    • I agree that the succession/ prime minister information is superfluous in {{Infobox officeholder}} on that article; it's already in the succession boxes at the foot of the article. That infobox should also display persona biography (dates of birth and death, etc.) ahead of posts held. Discussion on how best to remedy these issues should take place on the template's talk page. I've started a discussion there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Amen! Infoboxes should be the basic facts about a subject, and not a dumping ground for any bit of information that can be communicated in four words or less. I strongly support any effort to cut them down. Infobox devotees should start a parallel website for non-encyclopedic, non-cited data about a subject. The predecessor/successor information is particularly silly and I would be happy to eliminate it completely. —Designate (talk) 13:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Fully agree. But when I tried to do just that was quickly reverted. Unfortunately resistance to any kind of slimming is much greater than tolerance of fattening, so infoboxes (as well as articles, navbars, category lists) keep growing and growing and growing while readers read less and less and less. --ELEKHHT 01:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Now that we have Wikidata (I’m surprised it is not mentionned in the piece, actually), perhaps we do not need to cram infoboxes with all possible data − just like we do not need to stuff articles with image galleries, as we can simply link to a category or gallery on Wikimedia Commons. No? Jean-Fred (talk) 13:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with above, Wikidata has changed matters. It should have been mentioned, but alas you may not have really known why it is important to Wikipedians. Wikidata is important for many of the reasons you gave. This has become a standard usage of infoboxes, to cram as much data as possible. Pushing the data into Wikidata will go a long way towards solving this problem, as it will provide a structured way to store, and recall, this rather important, yet in some ways superfluous, data. Maybe we can start creating "VerboseInfobox" versions for the bottom of the page to replace those rather numerous succession boxes currently in use? (Hopefully that automatically pull the relevant information from Wikidata.) Int21h (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • While I would agree that coordinates should not be in an infobox if they also appear at the top-right of the article page I would strongly dispute that the information is not important. The location of, say, a building is its prime identifier – it my be rebuilt, renamed, re-purposed, or even demolished: its location is its main and unchanging definition. I recall that I have myself in the distant past used the Wikipedia coordinates of the Empire State Building to find out where it was.   Oosoom Talk  15:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes agree totally that infobox bloat has become a cancer. As much editing, a very valuable skill is deciding what to leave out. As discussed above, one set of coordinates is probably fine for many articles. One good start would be to scale infoboxes to article size. This could be quite a subjective judgment, but there are other similar ones editors deal with. A couple more related complaints: biographies that put birth (and sometimes death) dates and other details like cities into the lead, the body, and the infobox. Only in perhaps a few very long and complex articles can that make any sense. Worse yet are company articles I have been dealing with recently that have a litany of all the "chief this or that officers", often without any sources, and probably out of date fairly quickly. Talk about vanity, when little startups of "three kids and an app" can give themselves all grandiose titles. Thanks for this much-needed discussion. W Nowicki (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I disagree with this op-ed. I like infoboxes and we should have them on every article. They bring out key facts for those that don't want to read the article itself. Your example of Denmark was a poor choice since the infobox doesn't protrude past the first level 2 heading on the article. I can see where you're going with the Winston Churchill example, but someone of his career and stature would naturally have more information in the infobox to display. I think the op-ed should have made the point that infoboxes should not evolve to replace/supplement navboxes, which is where this is heading. Ultimately, control of what fields belong in the infoboxes resides with the wikiprojects. Weak wikiprojects result in editors being too bold and letting things get out of control. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with what Chris says above, and I'll freely admit that I use infoboxes a lot when I'm browsing Wikipedia for information. You may think that GDP and GDP per capita is excessive information but I do look that stuff up and going to the country article and scanning the infobox is by far the quickest way to do it. I was not really responsible for the boxes on my own FAs Paul Kagame and Rwanda, those are the purview of respective wimiprojects. Butt would I change them? No, I don't think so. Apart from the aforementioned Gini index I personally think all of it is potentially useful. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Many people here are writing that they sometimes look up some particular bit of information, but that's not a good enough reason to put it in that spot. We can't possibly include every bit of information in a database format on top of an article just because someone, somewhere might have use for it. That's not what an encyclopedia's for. —Designate (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
      Actually, I'm pretty sure most encyclopedias do have something akin to an infobox on most of their more important topics. I seem to recall the printed Britannica having something of that nature anyway. And of course, I'm not arguing for the inclusion of every single little obscure fact, but I think we'd be doing the world a disservice if we insisted on removing things that many people might want to look up. International dialling codes, GDP figures, presidents, independence dates - all these things are available elsewhere, but not necessarily in the same place, and not in a place you can predict. If I want the timezone of Tuvalu, I *know* I can find it instantly without even going to Google just by whacking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuvalu into my 'puter. Some people seem to have suggested having collapsible sections for the more minor facts - I think that might just solve everyone's issues...  — Amakuru (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
      See my comment above, and many conversations elsewhere (many of which link to MOS:ACCESS). Collapsible sections are very problematic, and using them to brush disputes under the carpet is a bad habit that we need to examine, and should research how (or whether) readers use them, and possibly discourage more strongly. –Quiddity (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Google's gotten pretty reliable about this type of data. You can type "timezone tuvalu" or "gdp tuvalu" into your search bar and Google will give it to you instantly without having to navigate to another page. Wolfram Alpha also provides an outstanding amount of data just by typing a country's name in (seriously, check it out), and it's in a convenient format that allows you to perform calculations, compare a list of nations, make graphs, etc. I just don't see how a static page like Wikipedia can ever compare with the sites that do this much better. Maybe we should eliminate the infobox and just link to Wolfram so we can focus on the prose, which is our forte. —Designate (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
      • And one of the places Google (and no doubt, WA) gets such information is from our infoboxes. We're good at proving structured data, and our infobox data is used by many other services; that's our forte as well. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I suppose it would require an RFC on the matter, and it may be a necessary thing. Perhaps the infobox should be restricted from falling below the table of contents? I believe most editors don't intentionally intend for an infobox to subsume the article but instead believe that if the template has the parameter and the sourced information is available that it should be included. That has always been my assumption. :) John Cline (talk) 06:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • You make an excellent point, as does Amakuru, above. I began this article by reminding editors that infoboxes were originally intended to be short, sweet and to the point - key headline information. Unfortunately the designers have tended to add more and more parameters; editors cannot be blamed for thinking that these have to be be filled. That is why I have suggested fixing a limit to the number of parameters per infobox, which would force attention on what is really key information, and also help to restore some uniformity to the appearance of articles. Brianboulton (talk) 08:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • But "falling below the table of contents" on whose monitor? And at what resolution? If the infobox contains an image (such as a photo of the subject, a logo, or other relevant pic) should it contain less information than a similar infobox for a company with a smaller logo or a person for whom a photo is not available? Should lead sections be bloated to accommodate an arbitrary design aesthetic? Also, a global limit on the number of parameters will lead only to more intricate template designs, not smaller infoboxes. (For example, some take the latitude and longitude data as up to 8 parameters while others need editors to use the intricate {{coord}} template to place it on 1 parameter. The display is the same but the functionality and ease of editing is vastly different.) Knowing that, what benefit to the reader or the encyclopedia is gained by "fixing a limit to the number of parameters" in any one infobox? - Dravecky (talk) 09:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
    Your questions are valid considerations. To clarify my intent; I was thinking of tying an overflow with a vertical scroll bar to the TOC bottom. I'm not suggesting a limit on parameters, or that an editor should choose x from y available. The reason I suggested the bottom of the TOC is because as the article content grows, so should the lead summary grow proportionately, and the TOC generally grows as well. It seems like this would leave a large enough box exposed to be useful yet define an acceptable limit. And I personally dislike articles with long TOCs and a bunch of blank space to their right. I am perplexed that many editors prefer no infobox at all, to that alternative, but that's just me. Cheers. :) John Cline (talk) 10:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I completely agree with this article. Infoboxes have become total cruft piles. It's gotten so bad that I don't even add infoboxes to biography articles any more. In most cases, they are better off without them. Making the content collapsable will just make the problem worse, not better. Kaldari (talk) 04:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I tried that with Annie Landouw, and bare hours after it hit DYK it already had an infobox. "Padamu Jua" didn't even reach the main page before another editor added an infobox. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Excellent op-ed, I agree entirely. One thing you don't mention is (mostly in historical articles) the tendency of infoboxes to introduce inaccuracy - people feel compelled to complete all the fields even where the information is uncertain or just not easily summarized in one or two words. The House of Commons Brown/Cameron spat over the birth-date of Titian which some will remember (aides editing Wikipedia to agree with what their party leader had said) all arose because the infobox mistated what is in in fact just unknown. Johnbod (talk) 11:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Excellent op-ed, yes. But I disagree on one point. Buildings are rather static on the earth—London Bridge being an obvious exception—and where they are located is often interesting, and pin-pointable by coordinates linked to maps. So, in general, they should be pin-pointed. But please don’t hide that link to maps away in an info box: just stick it up in the default place, the top right-hand corner. Then everyone will know where to look. Ian Spackman (talk) 12:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Food for thought: the German Wikipedia community repeatedly opposed using infoboxes in biography articles. Exceptions were only made for sportspeople, astronauts and a few other cases, where there is numerical data such as no. of wins/goals/hits/olympic medals/space trips, etc.. that is better or easier displayed in tables/infoboxes than written out in text. Overall opinion seems to be that most persons' life is too complex to condense it into a few numbers and facts without much context. --Kam Solusar (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you Brian. Let's shift the cruft and concentrate on writing/improving articles.Smerus (talk) 13:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
That's what I do by adding an infobox to most of my articles, and everybody may look if Carmen would not be more attractive and informative with the short infobox suggested (instead of a navbox that repeats content from the footer navbox), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that's the right place for the author's navbox, but neither do I think the proposed infobox can be justified. Every single word of that infobox is written succinctly, point by point, in the first paragraph. It's completely redundant—and it's not clear why someone would need a tabular format for these five random facts rather than reading the lead and getting the whole story. How many living, breathing human beings will ever be in a position where they need to know the date of Carmen's first performance but care so little about the subject that they can't read a single paragraph?

I get the impression that people want infoboxes because the article looks right with an infobox and wrong without one, rather than a real sense of what's useful. I agree with the comments on the talk page—"These infoboxes will continue to be badly implemented until the box protagonists start asking themselves what the boxes are actually supposed to accomplish." —Designate (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Because when we first started Wikipedia we cared greatly about reaching people with different approaches to learning. We had a number of discussion on learning styles and how it related to how information was presented, how colors could be used and what information should be wikilinked. All of that seems to be forgotten nowadays. Yes I can sit down a read a book on cod but other will never get farther then an infobox. Yes I can read a four-color map with red and green but some color-blind person won't be able to. Rmhermen (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Some people will want to read the complete article, others may just want to find a date/language/author of the story. I am willing to serve both. The author's navbox is at the bottom, so the one on top is redundant, and I don't believe an infobox instead would "damage" the article. Project opera just made a consise box available, {{infobox opera}}, and I would like to see it used and tried, comments are welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I began the article by recognising the usefulness of infoboxes in making available certain kinds of data in a convenient form. My argument is not against infoboxes in general, but against the bloated boxes that have developed over the years, contrary to the original intention. As to your opera boxes, their time may come—provided the discussion is led by editors with a knowledge of and love for music and opera and the issue is not forced. Brianboulton (talk) 14:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I thank your for both recognising "the usefulness of infoboxes" and envisioning a time when operas will have them. The time that their use was introduced in the project's manual of style has come (18 June 2013, as noted on the Carmen talk). - In an opera, typically you get a time and location of the action. A simple infobox could do just that: position a subject in history and geography at a glance (example pictured), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to clarify a couple of things that Gerda has said about WikiProject Opera. We have a page which is a guide to writing articles on opera-related subjects. It is not part of the official Wikipedia Manual of Style. The infobox has been listed there simply as an option, not as a recommendation, and indeed members have objected to its use on several articles and removed it, leading to discussions on the talk pages of the articles concerned, where they belong. Voceditenore (talk) 10:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Again, everything in the infobox is in the first paragraph. "reading the complete article" isn't required. —Designate (talk) 23:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I think this contribution is absolutely spot on and should lead to action. Thanks to Brian Boulton for writing it. Opus33 (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Featured content: The week of the birds (934 bytes · 💬)

Typo: in a change a change of rule--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed Armbrust The Homunculus 09:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Just a note that the obverse of the $3 you see is from one of my new sources of coin images, Lost Dutchman Rare Coins of Indianapolis. He has been very helpful indeed. Since coins of that quality are expensive and my actual collecting interests are slight, sources like this are essential to keeping this series going as we slowly move through the 19th century coin issues.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation Board appoints world expert in women's issues, global south (3,718 bytes · 💬)

The "The Hoya" article was already covered in a previous article of the Signpost (it's more than two years old). Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks HaeB, not sure how that got in there. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I've just removed the story about the NZ Justice minister as it was totally wrong. It claimed the story was about the "Justice Minister’s editing of Wikipedia" which is not true - there's no suggestion that Ms Collins was editing Wikipedia. The statement that someone in her office "was found to edit her article along with several others related to her political activities" is also not in the story, and is actually not true. The story rightly says that someone in her office edited her article while also identifying themselves. The claims of Mr Brooking that the removal of material from various articles was conducted by Ms Collins staff are not correct - what has happened is that various editors (including myself) have removed the blatant BLP violations and POV-pushing Mr Brooking was posting in articles concerning the NZ justice system, and he's complaining about this after his sockpuppet accounts were also blocked. It's a shame that this was published without following up on the article's edit history, or even accurately reporting what the news story said. Please see the posts on Mr Brooking's main account's talk page at User talk:Offender9000‎ for background what's been going on here. Nick-D (talk) 08:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I support Nick-D's removal of this entry. A staffer of Judith Collins edited the Collins article, but only to add a better photo as was requested on the talk page. They also removed a paragraph from the David Bain article that they considered defamatory, but after the material was restored they did not edit war but conducted a civil discussion on a talk page. See also Critic claims censorship on Collins Wiki which contains quotes from me.-gadfium 09:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
For on-wiki context, there is also WP:AN#On-wiki badness moves to major newspaper. I apologize for not catching these pre-publication, but perhaps we'll be able to do a more accurate and more intriguing investigation in a full piece next week. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • WRT Ana Toni, yes but has she edited Wikipedia before? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
    A nice piece on our newest Trustee. She was not an editor before joining the Foundation; but a reader and user. She has edited wikis before - she did so to vote on the recognition of Wikimedia Uruguay :) – SJ + 20:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Op-ed: It's time to stop pretending the English-language Wikinews is a viable project (44,799 bytes · 💬)

Past proposal

In 2012, the main author of this Signpost article made a proposal for closing Wikinews, which ended up rejected. --Felipe (talk) 09:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The official criteria for closing WMF projects, to which that proposal went up against, are very narrow. --LukeSurl t c 10:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Also relevant, the March 2013 proposal to close Wikinews in all languages. --LukeSurl t c 10:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
A project done badly enough, while being promoted too much, can put Wikimedia projects as a whole into disrepute. However, I did not see anything on the level of misinformation, fringe theory promotion, and bias that I found in 2012 (Paragraph 2 in the section "My Problem" in that closure proposal) and, as such, felt no need to link to the much harsher criticism it deserved at the time, nor to advocate for it to be immediately shuttered. Should it become that bad again, though, the issue should probably be revisited - but for now, I think it's better to just stop trying to actively promote it here, as has been happening.
Further, LukeSurl, if anything, makes closing a project sound easier than it is. One requirement is that you notify the project in question prominently, and they can use sitenotice, make banners, etc. to send the people on the project - e.g. people who almost certainly support it - to the discussion. As such, the odds are stacked very, very strongly in the project's favour. But that's not really anything to do with the subject at hand.
Had I found problems on the levels of the ones I found in 2012, then I would have advocated shuttering it. I did not, and so chose to simply point out the issues with Wikinews now, not refight battles, however justified at the time, from then.
If you really want my conclusion on what should be done with Wikinews? I think it should simply get no particular special treatment here. We've removed some prominent links; it may be worth reevaluating whether Wikilinks in articles to Wikinews should be removed (it's not really a reliable source by our definitions, and the links seem to be solely down to it being a sister project - it's debatable, anyway), but I don't see that as particularly pressing.
How Wikipedia should treat Wikinews is my focus here. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Benefit

I buy your premise that it has been mostly unsuccessful in fulfilling its remit, but is there any real benefit to closing it? Gigs (talk) 13:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. What benefit is there in outlawing and closing down a project which has only a few active contributors? If you want to pay a staff of reporters and editors, then you can reasonably demand that they put out a daily news summary covering all the top stories. I check Google News every day for that purpose, if I do not manage to see the news on TV,hear it on the radio or read a major newspaper somewhere. If the few editors who spend their time on the project started using it to spread hoaxes, to promote their companies, to spread propaganda, or to attack their enemies, then i would call for shutting it down. The complaints in this opinion piece of not all important world news getting covered, and no updates on some days, might be answered if six more volunteers out of the hundreds of thousands who sometimes edit Wikipedia decided to help with news coverage. Journalism schools turn out thousands of graduates a year. This seems like a good outlet for would be news editors.Volunteer projects often wax and wane. Has there been a time in the past when there were more than 6 active participants in the project? I see no raging need to close down a well-intentioned and potentially beneficial project which is presently carried by too few volunteers. In my community there is a soup kitchen to feed the needy, but it needs more volunteers, so it is not perfect. There is a community band, which puts on concerts of classical and popular music and marches. They don't have enough volunteers playing clarinet and saxophone. There's a model railroad club which meets to operate a big layout of trains, but they are getting really old and sometimes fewer people than desirable show up. There's a Barbershop Harmony group, but the average age is about 75 and there are not enough tenors. Should we shut them all down and not let the volunteers do what they enjoy, because it is not our cup of tea so we don't want to help, and there are not enough people there to carry it off at our own personal high standard? Edison (talk) 14:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Realistically Wikinews wouldn't be shut down, but rather forked off from the WMF into a independent entity. In 2011 a fork, OpenGlobe, was created, but this withered away without the association of Wikipedia.
The question is, is the failure of Wikinews significantly problematic to the rest of Wikimedia to warrant this? As far as I am aware the cost of Wikinews in terms of the WMF's technical and paid-staff resources is quite negligible, so that's not a problem. The bigger concern is whether the association of the WMF with Wikinews results in an appreciable reputation cost for the successful projects.
The two Wikinews link removals discussed above stem from portions of the Wikipedia community not wanting to be associated with Wikinews, the links were determined to be unhelpful for readers as they lead them to an incomplete and low-quality site. The next question will probably be the use of Template:Wikinews and associated templates, which give prominent links to Wikinews in articles.
It seems apparent to me that Wikinews survives in the state it does not on its own merits, but because it is associated with the fantastically successful Wikipedia project. Here's the issue: are the link removals discussed above the beginning of a process whereby the Wikipedia community slowly cuts that lifeline? --LukeSurl t c 15:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • As the person who opened the RFC on removing the link from the main page, I would say I do feel it is a failed project, but I don't see why that means it should be forced to shut down. I don't use it as a source for news because there are so many other websites out there that have much better, up to date content and are just as free as wikinews. But it doesn't keep me awake at night knowing that a small "walled garden" of users prefer to spend their time on a project that doesn't really work. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I never actually called for it to be shuttered in the article, but see response one section above for reasons why a project might need to be shut down. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

  • @LukeSurl, I don't think Wikinews would be sustainable away from the Foundation. OpenGlobe failed for several reasons, but a key factor was an inability to cover day-to-day expenses. Wikinews, in its current condition, would likely face similar financial challenges, adding another burden to the userbase on top of the existing pressure to keep producing news. They would probably need some fundraising campaign a la Kickstarter. Reader donations would not suffice.
  • That being said, I am not enthusiastic to see Wikinews close. Many of the non-English language editions are actually doing respectably (Russian Vikinovosti in particular), so it should, theoretically, be possible for en.wn to stage some kind of comeback. But for that to happen, the current structure needs to change markedly, with an acknowledgment from the local community that the current setup has not been conducive to growth. Thus far, such has not been forthcoming. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Sofixit

{{sofixit}} — Feel free to submit an article. I'm happy to review articles from new contributors. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

No-one has the right to tell anyone else that they have to work for them. So fix it does not apply when you're trying to force people to work for you for days. I loathe the "So fix it" mentality, when taken away from its original point: to encourage people to, say, stop spending just as much time pointing out typos as you would to fix them. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Bigno! Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
One wikinews article wouldn't fix Wikinews. It'd need about 5 a day to be even marginally relevant. and I would argue that Wikis aren't really particularly suited for dealing with content that goes out of date very quickly, since there's far less time for collaboration. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Vanity project

These are interesting facts thanks for bringing them up. I would vote for Wikinews closure if I knew it had come up, based on this. While you're at it, Wikisource has degraded into a technobueracrcy that is unfriendly to all but the most determined and dedicated user able to muster the time and energy to learn and implement an arcane system that is frankly hard work and not very fun. And they are extremely conservative in outlook squelching attempts to do things like annotations (last I checked). This is what happens when you have a small rural town run by a few obsessed users, and not a city like Wikipedia. These smaller projects need freedom to experiment and encouragement of users who want to try different things because one never knows where it may lead in building up interest in the project. The goal of these projects should be number of editors and edits (and page views), not some hardline preset ideological mandate that may or may not be what actually works in terms of encouraging users to contribute. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

This is drifting a little off topic but, if anything, Wikisource is at least a significant commuter town with decent transport links within this analogy. It's one of the larger WMF projects, even if not on the same order of magnitude as it's big sister. I'm a Wikisource admin and prefer that project to 'Pedia, so I'm biased, but "an arcane system that is frankly hard work and not very fun" is a pretty subjective statement regardless. Proofreading isn't especially hard and I, and others, do find it fun. Proofreading might be a little more complicated than editing here but not by much and we've tried to make things less arcane for visiting Wikipedians.
Regarding a specific point, Wikisource actually had an RfC about annotations (and similar stuff) recently. I even left you a message about it. I still need to sort out the policy page a bit, to be fair, but we're working on it. Annotations are going to be limited in the future and we might ask Wikibooks to provide a home for some of the existing annotated works but this is due to the project's scope and aims (which are not the same as Wikipedias', or Wikibooks' obviously). Wikisource's goal is to make all literature open to all people; that's our part of allowing people to "freely share in the sum of all knowledge". This means faithfully reproducing works, and some annotations can undermine that by altering either the original text or the reading of it. Even a simple wikilink can draw attention to a specific word and potentially influence the reading of the whole peice. We have (now) agreed that some annotations are OK (there was strong support to keep wikilinks FYI) but a significantly annotated and amended work is more within the scope of Wikibooks than Wikisource.
Hopefully this will forestall a series of Op Eds attacking every sister project in turn. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
What is demonstrated here is that if anything is a vanity project, it is the Signpost. A tiny group use it as a soapbox for personal vendettas. Let's close this embarrassment down. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
On the contrary, Adam's position is well supported (and justified by hard data). A concern about the continuing misuse of resources is not a "personal vendetta". The opinions of active Wikimedians are important, they are not "soapboxes". If Adam "failed" in any respect, it is in offering a good solution to the problem. I believe that the duties and responsibilities of Wikinews are best met by the Wikipedia community who are already performing these tasks in the framework of current events. Even if our editors are constrained by WP:NOR, which prevents them from publishing original reports, we already duplicate many efforts of Wikinews in our news coverage. Wikimedia, whether you choose to accept or recognize it, is a new media organization, and as such, can best perform the tasks of Wikinews within the parameters of our current policies and guidelines. While there is wide agreement that Wikinews doesn't work, Wikipedia can take the failure of its sister project as an opportunity to become an educational media organization in practice, rather than in name only. Viriditas (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
On the contrary, I do accept that Wikinews is the new media, and have the media accreditation to prove it. There is no chance of the constraints of WP:OR and WP:NFCC being relaxed, so Wikinews occupies a vital niche. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Nobody writes for Wikinews and nobody reads it, therefore, it isn't working. We don't need to "relax" anything on Wikipedia. All we have to do is shut Wikinews down and keep covering the news ourselves, as we already do quite well. As for original reporting, we can create a new framework here on Wikipedia, because the one on Wikinews is obviously not working. The English Wikipedia can easily take over the job that Wikinews has neglected, and we've got plenty of good writers to draw from and many good ideas to get started. I would start by recommending the removal of all links to Wikinews and the immediate expansion of ITN, recruitment of Wikimedia journalists, and the implementation of a new educational journalist paradigm that draws on the endemic talent already present on this site. As for Wikinews, it should be shuttered. It was a great experiment while it lasted, but all good things must come to an end, and its end is here. Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Nobody writes for the Signpost and nobody reads it. Let's get rid of this crap. Wikipedia is worthless as long as WP:OR and WP:NFCC remain in place. Once we have scrapped them, then we can consider using Wikipedia for news. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Maybe you think that's an effective debate tactic, but it isn't. I'd venture that the readership of the Signpost is pretty high, maybe higher in some cases than Wikinews itself. Perhaps more importantly, Signpost doesn't purport to be a general news product for the world; it is a very niche publication covering only Wikimedia issues. And in that niche, it succeeds quite well - you may notice it is published regularly, features interesting and important information of breadth and depth, and is well edited. All things that can't often be said of Wikinews. Nathan T 15:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Which Wikisource project are you talking about? I recently dipped my toes into the English Wikisource project and found them to be a very welcoming and friendly bunch. Don't confuse "unfriendly" with "unwilling to let you run the project however you feel like without interference". Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC).

Statistics

For context, statistics for all the Wikinews projects and a summary of those for the English Wikinews. --LukeSurl t c 15:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

One caveat about those: In the second, "Articles" does not refer to successful news articles, in fact, it's giving a number about 2-3 times the count of articles actually published for the last few months; I think it might be including talk or some other form of discussion page. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
This page more reliably shows the number of articles published per month, starting from Nov 04 when the project was conceived. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Had I known about that, a graph would've been in the article. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Both are crap

Is Wikinews a disaster? Yes. Is Wikipedia's In The News section any better? No. When you peek behing the curtain and see how items are selected for posting, you soon realise it's a total basket case. Despite the name, it doesn't simply select items based on the fact they are in the news that day (check your local provider to see how much doesn't make it). But what criteria it does use to select items? It's a complete mystery. There is no logic to it at all, maybe because people can't even seem to agree on what the hell the section is for. Take a look at the recent suggestions, you can see people claiming that the first human powered helicopter is worthy of posting, but the first landing of a drone on a carrier is not. What the hell is that based on, exactly? Further down the page there are some utter retards opposing the posting of the British Lions rugby tour result because it was just an exhibition tournament, and they appear to have succesfully torpedoed that suggestion even thought it's totall bullshit, and in spite of the fact the last test result in 2009 was posted! It doesn't matter how far you go back either, you find examples of utter stupidity on a daily basis at ITN. It also seems to be the only place on Wikipedia where you can get away with being a total asshole too, which possibly explains why so few people are active there (the same problem applied to Wikinews, at least as far as Brian is concerned). In The News is just as bonkers and idiotic as Wikinews ever was. Neither should be anywhere near the Main Page. Mission Twelve (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Everything else aside, was it really necessary to call those who you don't agree with 'retards'? Or do you have evidence that the disabled are working at ITN, because that would be quite an accomplishment. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC).
I speak as I find. The evidence that some people there are not working with a full deck is there every single day in black and white. Either that or they're just trolling, saying things they know are total crap just to see if it gets a rise out of someone. No need to worry though, someone has helpfully protected the children by removing it, although hilariously they left your repetition of the word I used in tact. How utterly pointless. Mission Twelve (talk) 00:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
PS if people want to know what I originally wrote, look here. The 'personal attack removed' link rather deceptively suggests that only a couple of words were removed, but in reality whichever busy body did that actually excised a massive chunk of text. Given what was removed, and given the subject of this blog post, I doubt the removal was entirely innocent either. Mission Twelve (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I've restored the full post, as it led to a loss of context and we've traditionally allowed wide leeway to comment on talk pages. Hatting it would be as much as I'd like to allow. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that the removed text has been put back in here. These needlessly personal comments add nothing positive to what could otherwise be a worthwhile and constructive discussion. Pandering to behaviour like this that lies miles outside the standards of conduct that Wikipedia sets does nothing for the good of the projects. These standards are more important in meta discussions like this, not less. AndrewRT(Talk) 21:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing constuctive about pretending things that are dysfunctional are not. In the two days since I made those comments, I've seen people dismiss the Trayvon Martin murder trial as basic, landing a drone on a carrier as no big deal, label a cart-wheeling passenger plane as unexceptional, and all sorts of other examples of just rank ignorance, which sadly seem routine. Go and have a look, ITN has absolutely no controls whatsoever, you can say what you like, it doesn't matter how crazy or your logic is or completely made up/biased/subjective your views are, nobody comes even close to removing anything there as not "constructive". That's why it's so odd to see it being painted in here as something that actually works. In their own unique ways, ITN is as bonkers as Wikinews. They both also appear to have the same amount of regular contributors too, which tells you something. Mission Twelve (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Here's my logic: ITN may have a lot of problems, but, as a part of the Wikipedia mainpage, at least one of its purposes is to encourage Wikipedia to be kept up to date. Even if it has problems - and a lot of problems, apparently - by being on the main page, it promotes activities - updating articles - that help Wikipedia. (This is one of the reasons I was trying to get sounds onto the main page a couple years ago. Alas, Featured Sounds got shuttered while I was on Wikibreak, and restarting it - well, that's a debate for another time.) Now, ITN could certainly use a lot of improvement, but even if things fail to get on ITN, Wikipedia benefits from the work done, so it's not a total waste.
Also, unlike Wikinews, ITN has fairly obvious ways to be fixed. Fix the criteria up a bit, and ITN works a lot better. Engage the thriving Wikipedia community. And ITN has about twice the activity levels of Wikinews despite all its issues.
So, in comparison to Wikinews, ITN works. If I might suggest, a calm, well-reasoned article setting forth how to fix ITN could probably do a lot of good. Want to join the Signpost community? Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Template for deletion

Maybe someone needs to nominate Template:Wikinews for deletion and remove these links from all Wikipedia articles. Or perhaps less radically, establish a threshold for including a wikinews link higher than simply 'it exists on wikinews'. AndrewRT(Talk) 18:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

{{Wikinews category}} and {{Wikinews portal}} have been nominated for deletion - see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 14#Template:Wikinews category An optimist on the run!   11:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

So why did it fail?

An interesting problem. So - why did Wikinews failed? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

It's exactly the problems of the Wikipedia in microcosm. In a nutshell, falling participation. The reasons for this are much the same as the falling rate of participation in Wikipedia. Yet in many ways it is Wikinews that is the more valuable resource, because it generates valuable original content. It is the one that gave us our media accreditation. It is the one that has earned the recognition at the highest levels. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
You are talking absolute total rubbish. Wikinews never got close to emulating the Wikipedia model whereby enough people simply 'got it' and cracked on generating content to catapult it quickly to critical mass and beyond. As for the idea that Wikipedia is on a decline, if you measure new edits, it is still actually increasing. Due to its flawed model and the fact the main person involved in it has a serious personality flaws, Wikinews never even got close to critical mass, and now it is basically just flatlining in the phase described here, as basically a totally irrelevant vanity project. As for recognition, Wikipedia is known throughout the world. The public percetion of Wikinews doesn't even register by comparison. Mission Twelve (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
This has been discussed in the various closure proposals (see above), plus there was a fair degree of discussion on this topic after the OpenGlobe fork. The theory which I give most credence to is that the model which has been immensely successful in creating an encyclopaedia is fundamentally flawed when it comes to making a news website.
  • For Wikipedias, there is no deadline. The encyclopaedia can develop at a natural pace depending on the volunteer resources. If a small wikipedia has no new articles in a day, no problem. Every constructive edit slowly improves the body of content.
  • For Wikinews, there is a deadline. People expect new articles to exist within hours, perhaps minutes, of the stories occurring. If the article production rate doesn't keep pace with events the site immediately looks out of date, plus if Wikinews' article takes a day to be generated it's already irrelevant. A slow building of the content as in a Wikipedia doesn't work for Wikinews, a contribution on Monday, however constructive, is effectively moot when considering the quality of a news site on Friday.
Also:
  • While there is no comparable free encyclopaedia like Wikipedia, free news outlets in most languages are commonplace. Wikinews is effectively in competition with vastly better resourced outfits.
  • Volunteers are unlikely to be geographically situated where breaking and important news stories happen. Without the resources to dispatch reporters, original reporting is mostly limited to trivial local stories.
  • Wikinews has to synthesise and paraphrase mainstream reporting for most of its news, including the big international stories people expect front-and-centre of a news site. Thus, there is an in-built delay in the system. For news this delay is critical.
There are other contributing factors that have been discussed as well, though to me the fundamentally flawed model argument carries the most water. --LukeSurl t c 23:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


I've always thought its biggest challenge was the serious personality issues effecting its oldest and most prominent members. When the project "leaders" are apt to viciously berate other contributors, and suppress both dissent and new ideas, it's only natural that few others will happily join or remain in such an environment. (I should clarify that this is why I think it hasn't succeeded at the level of other niche projects within the Wikimedia sphere; for success beyond that it would need to offer something unique and valuable, but since free news of extremely high quality is widely available on the Internet the basic consumer offer was never very compelling. Nathan T 15:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

  • It's partly my fault. I said I'd work on Google News Sitemap extension, but I never got very far with it. I'm not sure if Wikinews ever got into Google news. Gigs (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

What Wikipedia can do

If Wikipedia wants to help finish off Wikinews, it needs to accomplish all of the following:

  • Accept Wikinews content en masse as part of Wikipedia. That means dustbinning the confusingly written "Wikipedia is not" style policy - preferably all of it, but at least the part that speaks of routine news coverage of things like weddings and obituaries, but which many fanatics are dead-set on applying even to stories covered in top newspapers from six continents.
  • Set up a mechanism within Wikipedia, OTRS, or some other site to actually confirm that interviews took place and that principals are satisfied with our publication of them. (Yes, we'll need to have a way to disseminate text of interviews, though some of that might be fobbed to Commons or Wikisource)
  • A major operational goal should be that Wikipedia should be able to run through the entire news cycle for a correction to a BLP: a) subject notices an error; b) an editor conducts a verified interview with the subject to set the record straight; c) we are unequivocally able to cite that interview in the BLP as evidence for the corrected fact, so that we can report the correct facts.
  • And... ask about all the many things I can't think of, do what is necessary to engage current Wikinews regulars in reporting for Wikipedia.

Until we find the institutional vigor to make such reforms, best to let Wikinews struggle on, hope someone gets interested enough to revitalize it. Wnt (talk) 03:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The alternative is to try to save Wikinews from slowly drowning in its irrelevance and neglect, by strengthening the prejudice against news in Wikipedia into tough rules. Like, say the RSs for an article must be at least a week old, apart from a single sentence at the top (or hatnote) giving a link to Wikinews. I don't much do news, but the damage made by Hurricane Sandy became a photograpic project for me, and I was much disappointed by the long persistent debris of old news in the Wikipedia articles. I am satisfied merely to speculate on whether the articles on today's floods, riots, scandals, royal family affairs and other ephemera will long continue to carry a load of such litter. 11:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I see no reason why Wikipedia needs to do either of those suggestions, regardless of what happens at Wikinews. Worst case scenario, Wikinews is archived, and all material is kept, just no new material is added; I have never seen a single person suggest Wikinews should simply be deleted outright.
Further, the idea of damaging Wikipedia just to encourage Wikinews to take up the slack is a terrible idea.
It is not Wikipedia's responsibility to make Wikinews viable, or to foster Wikinews-like editing upon it. If Wikinews is a viable idea, it needs to be able to do its role on its own. It cannot insist on Wikipedia creating rafts of new policy, or declaring a moratorium on keeping up-to-date, solely in order for it to have a place. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
As for whether Wikinews ought to be resuscitated, left to linger, or euthanized, I do not have an opinion. Nor do I think that de-emphasizing news in Wikipedia would necessarily do "damage" but on the contrary, if done properly it might be a significant improvement. However, for any who may seek ways to make Wikinews relevant, one new duty might be to alert local Wikimedians of crowd-source photojournalistic opportunites and organize the resulting reportage. See Commons:Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Current_event_needs_photography. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Obsolete

I would contend that the project is obsolete because news articles are created within Wikipedia. Within minutes of a major breaking news story someone creates a stub. Within a few hours or less it can be a start-class article. These current event articles are usually well-sourced, have plenty of editors and watchers and are superior to anything WikiNews could produce. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Correct. I believe the active community also recognizes this as true. The question is, what do we do next? Viriditas (talk) 01:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
News articles attached to encyclopedia articles through subpages? Could be a playground for POV forks though. I'm not sure news gathering is well suited to the wiki model in the first place. Gigs (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Sofixit mk 2

I'm a little loath to start providing unwanted advice to a project I know little about, but is there anything constructive to be done to improve Wikinews? If the problem is the lack of volunteers, which prevents it keeping up to date, perhaps it would help to modify the scope to move away from attempting to mimic the immediacy of a daily newspaper and become more of a news magazine/sunday edition. More news review and analysis, taking a wider look at events, rather than just simple "X happened today" reports. Differing from a Wikipedia article on the same subject becasue it could use concepts like synthesis, original research, etc; and still be "fixed" at a certain date, rather than in a permanent state of revision. Op Eds of its own are a potential problem, they risk the project being used as a blogging platform, but they probably have a place there too. I'm not sure how the review system works but placing artificial delays on top of the structural problems doesn't seem productive at this time; perhaps en.wn could take a risk and suspend them for a while. (The long term solution would be to get more volunteers, of course, but that comes afterwards.) Are there other options that might work, or opinions from wikinewsies? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

What a lot of small-time news websites do to cater for the fact they have a limited in-house reporting capacity is obtain a license to use content from a wire service such as Reuters or the Associated Press. However this would be expensive (+$1000/month), rather uninteresting for the volunteers, and the resulting content probably couldn't be published under a free license. --LukeSurl t c 21:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
One possibility might be to choose a focus they can handle well. If they wanted to cover, say, Canadian politics, or World festivals, or anything of a limited scope, they could probably do it well. But news of the world seems to be too broad. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
No doubt this is a stupid question, but why doesn't Wikinews integrate with Indymedia? Wnt (talk) 01:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
@Wnt: Indymedia is generally acknowledged to have a 'left' bias to its articles. Most Wikinewsies would no doubt feel that Indymedia's project goals and ideals fundamentally contradict Wikinews' and Wikimedia's -- both of which greatly value content neutrality.
@AdamBMorgan: You bring up a lot of good points; most of these have been proposed at one time or another, and generally swiftly rejected by the community. In the past I've made many similar suggestions myself, and even had an opportunity to implement them at the OpenGlobe fork (if you're interested, you can read them in my reply to this Meta thread).
I believe one of Wikinews' core problems is an excess apprehension of new ideas. Overall, Wikinewsies are highly dismissive of outsiders' suggestions on how to improve the project, insisting that they become active participants themselves before being taken seriously. This attitude is contrary to that adopted by most successful organizations, which eagerly court and contemplate reader feedback or critique. Caution is valuable, but nobody benefits from closed-mindedness. Tempodivalse [talk] 02:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Personally I believe that there is no genuine distinction between biased and unbiased; only between known and unknown bias. In any case, writing to a neutral tone for Indymedia, or writing editorials for Wikinews, would both be good experiences. There may be comparable right-wing outlets (and other points of view besides the two) which could similarly be integrated into a "vibrant" i.e. contentious range of points and counterpoints. Wnt (talk) 07:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
It's 2013. The 20th century, ideological trap of political POV only reinforces the false dichotomy of left-right politics. You speak of a "range" of views, but those views aren't actually political, but experiential. What is valuable is a real perspective based on experiential knowledge supported by a framework of evidence-based decision making. Seeing the world through narrow blinders of left and right politics is no longer relevant, informative, or helpful. Viriditas (talk) 11:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not the one who raised "left" bias. Nonetheless, in the U.S. the tactical polarization of politics has been so extreme for the past decade that this formerly illusory distinction has gained a certain reality, in that many of the available news sources are disagreeing even on basic facts. Wnt (talk) 11:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but those people are stuck in a 20th century frame of mind. Many people have moved on. They can continue weighing ducks and burning those who weigh the same as wood as witches, but there is no requirement that we join them. At some point you just have to draw a line in the sand and say, no more. Take a look at the conversation as only one example of the new journalism. Why is this type of news reporting not mainstream? Viriditas (talk) 11:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
So, to some extent I have been focussing on a specific topic: same-sex marriage, including a lengthy article on the UK parliamentary debate earlier this year, original reporting from a demonstration/celebration yesterday, and coverage of the DOMA case in the United States. But I write about other things too, and I don't see how this idea of "let's just go super-specialised" would work. Let's say Wikinews said next week "right, we're only going to cover Canadian politics". What do we do if someone who isn't interested in Canadian politics turns up and wants to write about, say, the Tour de France, or Italian politics, or any number of other things...? Tell them they can't? I just don't see how this idea is practical. The answer is we need more contributors (hence "so fix it"), not that we need to turn away contributors who don't want to write about a specific topic that we decide on. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Serving as a neutral clearinghouse for freely-licensed news produced elsewhere: A great way to fixit would be to start rebroadcasting and sharing translation efforts with groups such as GlobalVoices, which publishes news in dozens of languages every week, under a free and WN-compatible license. I think this is the fastest way to both expand the community, take advantage of WN's current visibility on the web, and broaden the scope of articles covered. Trying to create all new article from scratch under news-cycle deadlines doesn't make that much sense, when there are many other freely-licensed news sources out there. Providing a central place to track those existing sources, helping to translate news across languages and cutlures, and helping to counter systemic bias in a few areas, makes more sense to me. – SJ + 20:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

+1, this seems like a rational and sensible way to move forward and actually have Wikinews add value to what's freely available out there. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC).
Rational, sensible, value. These are words that one does not normally associate with Wikinews. I think there's a rough consensus on this page that people no longer have faith in the Wikinews project and no longer believe it can move forward. In such a case, the rational and sensible thing to do would be to stop associating with it. Viriditas (talk) 09:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Traffic report: Inflated view counts here, there, and everywhere (3,427 bytes · 💬)

Regarding Arrow (TV series), I can't see how this would cause a big jump, but WCCB changed its affiliation to The CW on July 1.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I think the Spike in interest with the Arrow had to do with it being listed in a list of most downloaded episodes from file-sharing services (I forget where exactly this list was). Then people (like me) where like - zuh? the Arrow? Really? That's one of the top downloaded shows? Really? And I imagine a number of them went to Wikipedia because they had no idea what this show was or why it would be so popular (I knew what it was, but I am still unsure as to why it is so popular) 173.61.149.213 (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
In regards to Yahoo!, the company has been in the news quite a bit recently. I'd guess that people like me who thought that it had gone out of business ages ago are Googling it and the Wikipedia article is one of the top results. Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • This is a great feature, always interesting to read, and the conversationalist tone used throughout complements the quirky nature of the subject matter. Please keep them coming! Daniel (talk) 00:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, Chikako Watanabe doesn't even have an entry on jp wiki? At least, no interwikis linked. If that's true, it's really weird. Another spam red flag? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject report: Not Jimbo: WikiProject Wales (0 bytes · 💬)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-07-10/WikiProject report


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2013-07-10&oldid=1125229839"