Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikinews-l] The systematic and codified bias against non-Western articles on Wikinews
I'm not about to re-subscribe to the waste of time that is foundation-l, just to comment that Ilya's remarks are by-and-large correct. Wikinews is not as successful as it should be due to the 800lb gorilla that is Wikipedia. That's no reason to kill it off - especially considering that many of those I'm informed are participating in this little discussion have me, personally, at the top of their hit lists. [If thine eye offends thee, pluck it out Tony1.] Put your own house in order first, gentlemen. Wikipedia *still* does not enforce their not a news site policy, and it is an utter waste of time bringing such up; numerous selfish Wikipedians reject efforts to direct news-writing efforts to Wikinews. I neither know, nor care, if this is because they're incapable of writing to the high quality standards Wikinews sets; or, because they prefer their egos being stroked by Wikipedia's high page-hit counts on articles where they wrote a dozen or less words. Trying to roll Wikinews back into Wikipedia would be a disaster. There are, as said, too many people who've been sitting, patiently, sharpening knives in preparation to kill the red-headed stepchild of the WMF. And, Wikipedia could never ever handle original reporting. That Wikinews is, currently, being used for a second semester of course assignments from an Australian university is - to me - a clear indication that what we do is valid, and valuable. Brian McNeil. -- Email: brian.mcn...@wikinewsie.org WikiMedia UK, interim Scottish coordinator/GLAM-MGS liaison. Wikinews Accredited Reporter | Facts don't cease to be facts, but news ceases to be news. On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 15:54 -0700, Ilya Haykinson wrote: In my opinion (as a one-time active Wikinews Bureaucrat, I helped drive forward many of the early site policies, though not including the new review regime), I think Wikinews problems run far deeper than the burden of reviews. At issue is the purpose of the project. Our early goals were to have a) a wiki structure that delivers b) an NPOV article base that is c) available under an open-content license allowing reuse. Of these three, I think we'd done pretty well by b) and c). We hadn't however, managed to attract a _growing_ user base to make a) really functional. Unlike all other Wikimedia projects, Wikinews cannot succeed via slow-but-steady improvement. We can't add one article a day and over time build a site with 10,000 relevant articles: we'd still end up with a site that has only one relevant article and a ton of maybe-historically-useful archives. Thus, we would require a lot of people contributing and reviewing things in order to achieve constantly high throughput and retain relevance. Unfortunately, Wikinews always had a problem with attracting a huge user base. We had to rely on a few hundred semi-active contributors, and maybe only a few dozen very committed people. We also would have a bunch of people who misunderstood the purpose of Wikinews and would post stories about their dogs, or biased rants, or things that were impossible to confirm given no sources (accident on corner of 4th and broadway, 3 people hurt). So our response was to focus on quality and process, rather than purely quantity. This meant that if a user showed up with a drive-by article creation -- dumping an article onto a page that was clearly not in the right shape to be published -- we would wait for someone to improve it. If nobody did, it got deleted or marked as abandoned. Imagine a Wikipedia in which every article makes it onto the homepage, immediately or within hours after creation. Either you have to have a lot of people to improve every article to some reasonable standards, or you need to have a process that requires high quality from the start but has a side-effect that restricts quantity. The latter is the direction in which Wikinews has headed over the last several years, and I think that's why we have always had (and continue having) people who're unable to publish legitimate stories: the process is just not optimized for this. My recommendation has been, for several years, to close Wikinews as an independent entity and add a News tab to Wikipedia. Just like Talk and main namespaces have different standards, the News namespace would follow Wikinews-like guidelines for what's acceptable. Articles would be closely tied to summary encyclopedic articles. It would be easy to create news summary pages. The (comparatively) huge number of Wikipedia editors would largely prevent low-quality articles from remaining in prominent positions. We could, thus, enable easy open editing capabilities. I continue strongly standing by this recommendation. I don't know whose call it would be to make this happen. I don't mean to discount the great successes of Wikinews to date. Nobody believed that it was possible to have a high-quality, community-contributed, _and_ generally-NPOV news source, and
Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikinews-l] The systematic and codified bias against non-Western articles on Wikinews
Wikipedia *still* does not enforce their not a news site policy, and it is an utter waste of time bringing such up; numerous selfish Wikipedians reject efforts to direct news-writing efforts to Wikinews. I neither know, nor care, if this is because they're incapable of writing to the high quality standards Wikinews sets; or, because they prefer their egos being stroked by Wikipedia's high page-hit counts on articles where they wrote a dozen or less words. That's a rather negative view; I've been evangelising the idea of pushing newsy/breaking content to WikiNews for some time - and encouraging people contributing to high profile current events to consider WikiNews as a more appropriately outlet. Wikipedia doesn't do current events very well - our editorial process is unsuited to it, and we end up with problems of recent-ism and undue weight (which take lengthy times to fix). I've long suggested a moratorium on recording current events - and instead leaving that job to our WikiNews colleagues... HOWEVER WikiNews is not simple to get into. That is a major problem. Even as an experienced Wiki user who used to contribute to WN (some time ago) it was hard to figure out the process of getting a piece of news from new page to published. Most of the other people I push your way are similarly discouraged. So whilst I can only comment broadly on the internal editorial process, and could well be wrong; I can comment on how approachable WN is as a project... it's not awful, for sure, but it doesn't make it as easy as possible to write an article. (FWIW just about every foundation project suffers the same issue to some degree or another) Several times I've cut unduely lengthy recent-event reportage from a WP article and considered dropping by WN to set it up in a more appropriate venue. But the time commitment to do so is discouraging. So perhaps this is something to consider working on. Trying to roll Wikinews back into Wikipedia would be a disaster. There are, as said, too many people who've been sitting, patiently, sharpening knives in preparation to kill the red-headed stepchild of the WMF. And, Wikipedia could never ever handle original reporting. Agreed - this is not a good idea or step. WP is unsuited to news. Why does everything have to be a fight, we're all far too defensive of our pet projects and initiatives; every time a piece of criticism comes up it is blasted without much consideration... not good. Tom ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikinews-l] The systematic and codified bias against non-Western articles on Wikinews
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Thomas Morton Agreed - this is not a good WP is unsuited to news. See item #3 in this Signpost re. death of Osama bin Laden. We nailed it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-05-09/News_and_notes Wikipedia seems to get a lot of hits when it keeps up with the news. I think it reflects well on the project and has a bit of a wow! factor. It also gets us press coverage. So I'm all for news in Wikipedia. en.User:Bodnotbod ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikinews-l] The systematic and codified bias against non-Western articles on Wikinews
See item #3 in this Signpost re. death of Osama bin Laden. We nailed it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-05-09/News_and_notes Wikipedia seems to get a lot of hits when it keeps up with the news. I think it reflects well on the project and has a bit of a wow! factor. It also gets us press coverage. So I'm all for news in Wikipedia. It's not *news* though - it's supposed to be a historical record. There is a lot more content that a news article could/should cover (with a different tense style for starters). We consolidate news into historical record; and people find that useful. But more often than not we get it wrong, or end up doing reporting rather than recording. The reason WikiNews exists is because WP is intended as a record! :) Tom ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikinews-l] The systematic and codified bias against non-Western articles on Wikinews
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Thomas Morton Wikipedia seems to get a lot of hits when it keeps up with the news. I think it reflects well on the project and has a bit of a wow! factor. It also gets us press coverage. So I'm all for news in Wikipedia. It's not *news* though - it's supposed to be a historical record. There is a lot more content that a news article could/should cover (with a different tense style for starters). We consolidate news into historical record; and people find that useful. The old canard, but quite a lovely one I feel, is that journalism is the first draft of history. Wikipedia is sometimes that. Does anyone want to argue for a policy that says Wikipedia does not record events until they are x days/months old? I'm sure there are hundreds of examples of edits made about current events that are regrettable and I'm sure BLPs are often plastered with something that happened yesterday out of all proportion to that person's life taken in toto. But I think we're capable of dealing with that. If the lifecycle of an article that involves current news is: Stable article - [news event happens] - article chaos - heavily edited/recentist - calms down but still recentist - stable and due weight accorded to event. I think that's fine. In fact I think the chaos is what gets people fired up and drives them to make something really good. Bodnotbod ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikinews-l] The systematic and codified bias against non-Western articles on Wikinews
Does anyone want to argue for a policy that says Wikipedia does not record events until they are x days/months old? Yes, this would solve a large number of problems (not least resolving the historical significance issue). If the lifecycle of an article that involves current news is: Stable article - [news event happens] - article chaos - heavily edited/recentist - calms down but still recentist - stable and due weight accorded to event. Many articles are still in a shoddy state of repair - current events keep on happening, and people willing to spend the time ensuring articles stick to policy and avoid the worst SPA problems are constantly moving on to the next one. Past events languish. Even then; during this period they are not good news, they are a quickly changing record - often inaccurate and usually poorly written. WN is better set up to cope with this process. Some of our very worst content is about recent events. Tom ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikinews-l] The systematic and codified bias against non-Western articles on Wikinews
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Thomas Morton Does anyone want to argue for a policy that says Wikipedia does not record events until they are x days/months old? Yes, this would solve a large number of problems (not least resolving the historical significance issue). I think we'd lose something valuable. As I say, we often get positive news coverage for our articles on recent events. Osama was one, the death of Michael Jackson was one, I think we got good reviews for the New Orleans hurricane too. Even then; during this period they are not good news, they are a quickly changing record - often inaccurate and usually poorly written. WN is better set up to cope with this process. Well, I haven't done any type of survey of our articles that fall into the area we're discussing, so I'll defer to you on your points. It wouldn't surprise me if it were the case that the articles are poor, that seems quite likely to me. Nevertheless I think it's like Samuel Johnson's comment, to misquote: Sir, an encyclopedia reporting on news events is like a dog’s walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all. I find news events covered in Wikipedia exciting. And it marks us out from the competition. Just out of interest, and I assure you I don't ask this as a way of trying to trip you up - I genuinely ask out of curiosity: let's say a celebrity dies of old age (and that there's not a great deal of interesting things to say about the death), would you apply the no news for x days/months rule to an edit to their dates? I'm presuming not. The question raises a thought for me, though. I think if we decide that we are not going to capture things because they are not far enough in the past, we may not capture them at all. People are invigorated by things that have just happened. If we say no, you must wait three months I'm sure that person isn't going to place a red cross on their calendar and come back to record it. It will simply not get written, I would suggest. Perhaps it will take a decade before the ultimate article on the Iraq War is written. But I'm glad we have *something* there now. Bodnotbod ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikinews-l] The systematic and codified bias against non-Western articles on Wikinews
The projects will always have some crossover (or grey areas if you prefer) because they present the same information, just in different ways. For example, a textbook (Wikibooks) presents the same information as an encyclopedia but in a more inclusive way. That is, it tries to present all the information on a subject, not link out to other books in the WP style. It is also worded in a more conversational style. The Wikinews / Wikipedia crossover is obvious. A news event is reported by Wikinews, usually as a synergy of other news sources and it evolved as difering source speculation turns to consensual fact. Eventually the story becomes static and if it remains noteworthy it should then form the solid basis for a Wikipedia article. This of course relates only to events not places or people. By that I mean if Osama is killed then of course the article about Osama is updated with the news of his death. But the news report itself is better started in Wikinews until it stabilises and only then becomes an article in itself in WP assuming it has the relevant significance. In an ideal world all news events would start on Wikinews this way, but that'll never happen so it's more a question of encouraging that kind of behaviour while accepting the world isn't perfect, isn't it? On 07/09/2011 14:05, Bod Notbod wrote: On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Thomas Morton Does anyone want to argue for a policy that says Wikipedia does not record events until they are x days/months old? Yes, this would solve a large number of problems (not least resolving the historical significance issue). I think we'd lose something valuable. As I say, we often get positive news coverage for our articles on recent events. Osama was one, the death of Michael Jackson was one, I think we got good reviews for the New Orleans hurricane too. Even then; during this period they are not good news, they are a quickly changing record - often inaccurate and usually poorly written. WN is better set up to cope with this process. Well, I haven't done any type of survey of our articles that fall into the area we're discussing, so I'll defer to you on your points. It wouldn't surprise me if it were the case that the articles are poor, that seems quite likely to me. Nevertheless I think it's like Samuel Johnson's comment, to misquote: Sir, an encyclopedia reporting on news events is like a dog’s walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all. I find news events covered in Wikipedia exciting. And it marks us out from the competition. Just out of interest, and I assure you I don't ask this as a way of trying to trip you up - I genuinely ask out of curiosity: let's say a celebrity dies of old age (and that there's not a great deal of interesting things to say about the death), would you apply the no news for x days/months rule to an edit to their dates? I'm presuming not. The question raises a thought for me, though. I think if we decide that we are not going to capture things because they are not far enough in the past, we may not capture them at all. People are invigorated by things that have just happened. If we say no, you must wait three months I'm sure that person isn't going to place a red cross on their calendar and come back to record it. It will simply not get written, I would suggest. Perhaps it will take a decade before the ultimate article on the Iraq War is written. But I'm glad we have *something* there now. Bodnotbod ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
