[Wikimedia-l] timeline for Project Grants

[Milan Dojchinovski]

Hi all,

does any of you have info on the deadline for the next project grants?

As far as I remember, it was June, but at the moment there is no info on
this at the official page.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project

Thanks,
Milan

--
Milan Dojchinovski
http://dojchinovski.mk
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing our newest chapter, Wikimedia Korea

[Abhinav srivastava]

Congratulations South Korea !

On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 at 12:57, Philip Kopetzky 
wrote:

> Congrats Korea! :-)
>
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 at 05:17, Roman Bustria Jr. 
> wrote:
>
> > In behalf of the East, Southeast Asia and the Pacific Regional
> Cooperation
> > (ESEAP) we would like to extend our congratulations to our member country
> > for being elevated as a fully recognized chapter!
> >
> > We are looking forward to our future regional meeting and collaboration!
> >
> >
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> >
> > Butch
> > Philippines
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Note: ESEAP is a regional collaborative composed of affiliates Wikimedia
> > Indonesia, Wikimedia Taiwan, Wikimedia Australia, Wikimedia Korea,
> > Wikimedians in Thailand, Philippine Wikimedia Community User Group,
> > Wikimedia Community User Group Malaysia, Wikimedia User Group China,
> > Wikimedia Community User Group Hong Kong, and Vietnam Wikimedians.
> > Membership also include Wikimedia communities and nationalities of
> Brunei,
> > Cambodia, Japan, Laos, Macau, Mongolia, Myanmar, New Zealand, Papua New
> > Guinea, Singapore, and Timor Leste (East Timor).
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019, 6:11 AM María Sefidari 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > I am happy to share that earlier this year, the Wikimedia Foundation
> > Board
> > > of Trustees approved our newest Wikimedia chapter - Wikimedia Korea!
> > >
> > > For more information about our newest Wikimedia chapter, Wikimedia
> Korea,
> > > please see the announcement on the Wikimedia Foundation website:
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/04/23/wikimedia-korea-new-chapter-affiliate-launches-in-south-korea/
> > >
> > > I want to congratulate the new chapter and recognize their commitment,
> > > efforts, and time involved in moving through the chapter recognition
> > > process over the past year. From their work building partnerships with
> > > universities, to supporting and training new editors in South Korea, we
> > > look forward to seeing the impactful work from our community members in
> > > South Korea as they advance in their new affiliate role.
> > >
> > > As many of you know, this is our first chapter approval in several
> years
> > -
> > > since the newest Wikimedia affiliate approval processes were put in
> > place.
> > > This marks a new moment in the history of our Wikimedia movement
> > > affiliates. The Board appreciates the amazing work coming from these
> user
> > > groups around the world, and is inspired to see how far some of these
> > > groups have come in terms of their impact both on our movement and
> their
> > > local communities. Indeed, we should all be proud of the impact our
> > > affiliates continue to have on our projects, our vision, and the world
> > > around us.
> > >
> > > Any affiliate interested in becoming a chapter or thematic organization
> > > must have at least two years of activities and experience as a user
> group
> > > before applying. Please check out the user group creation guide to get
> a
> > > user group started - it is meant to be very easy:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_user_groups/Creation_guide
> > >
> > >
> > > You can find a lot more information about our movement affiliates model
> > on
> > > Meta:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Models
> > >
> > > You may also reach out to the Affiliations Committee with questions or
> to
> > > begin the approval process for your group:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee
> > > Please join me in congratulating Wikimedia Korea for this important
> > > achievement and thanking the members of the Affiliations Committee and
> > > Wikimedia Foundation staff who supported and worked with them during
> this
> > > long process.
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > >
> > > María
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > María Sefidari Huici
> > >
> > > Chair of the Board
> > >
> > > Wikimedia Foundation 
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> 

[Wikimedia-l] strategy working group questions

[James Salsman]

Okay, let's see how these go:

CTO criteria:
 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Product_%26_Technology=19040328=18121474

Fundraising:
 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AStrategy%2FWikimedia_movement%2F2018-20%2FWorking_Groups%2FRevenue_Streams=revision=19040323=18351249

Advocacy:
 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AStrategy%2FWikimedia_movement%2F2018-20%2FWorking_Groups%2FAdvocacy=revision=19040315=18231444

Best regards,
Jim

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals]

[Benjamin Ikuta]

> On Apr 27, 2019, at 4:44 PM, Strainu  wrote:
> 
> They might just as well employ a bunch of journalists to write
> articles, it won't make it a successful project.
> 

That certainly wouldn't be the worst use of funds... 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals]

[Strainu]

Pe sâmbătă, 27 aprilie 2019, Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> a scris:

> Strainu,
>
> Simply leaving the world of news to others is not really an option for the
> Foundation.


The foundation doesn't really have a say in this. They might
push really hard for a wiki, but if the community isn't there, it's money
thrown away. They might just as well employ a bunch of journalists to write
articles, it won't make it a successful project.


>
> Recall that its vision is that
>
> > By 2030, Wikimedia will become the essential infrastructure of the
> ecosystem of free knowledge, and anyone who shares our vision will be able
> to join us.


That is the strategic direction of the movement. I see no promise there,
explicit or implicit, that a news wiki should or will exist. It just says
it should be easy for people to join our current projects, whatever they
are.

The WMF mission is even narrower: to empower and engage people around the
world to collect and develop *educational content* under a free license or
in the public domain, and to disseminate it *effectively and globally* (my
emphasis). It is highly debatebable if news beyond what Wikipedia covers
are educational. The mission also suggests that we should pick our battles
in order to be effective (don't forget that the discussion so far has been
mostly about the English wikinews, the status of other language versions is
even worse)


>
> It can't achieve that by abandoning news.


News and wikinews are 2 different things. Wikinews is just a tool. If
another tool works better, why not use that instead?

Strainu


>
> JPS
>
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 6:29 PM Strainu  wrote:
>
> > În mar., 16 apr. 2019 la 12:38, Dan Garry (Deskana) 
> a
> > scris:
> > >
> > > Splitting off the Wikinews discussion from the branding discussion...
> > >
> > > On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 07:52, Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> > > jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Compared to Wikitribune it is!  But more importantly, if Wikinews is
> > not
> > > > thriving, then why not?  Does it lack resources?  What could or
> should
> > the
> > > > WMF do to revive it?
> > >
> > >
> > > In my opinion, nothing. Wikinews was a nice idea, but it didn't work
> out,
> > > and I don't think the Wikimedia Foundation investing resources into
> > trying
> > > to bring it back to life is really worth it. In fact, I think the
> > Wikimedia
> > > Foundation isn't the right group to try to breathe new life into the
> > > project anyway—we, as a volunteer community, could invest our time in
> > > bringing new content into it. That doesn't happen though. Why is that?
> > For
> > > me, I'm voting with my actions rather than my words—it's because it
> just
> > > isn't important enough compared to other things. It's okay to think
> that.
> >
> > I personally believe the law of the hammer [1] had a very significant
> > contribution to the launch of Wikinews (as well as Wikiversity,
> > Wikispecies and Wiktionary): "we have a wiki, what else can we use it
> > for?" Stated differently ("we have a mission and an idea aligned with
> > that mission, what kind of wiki would we need for that?") the outcome
> > might have been radically different. Some projects might have never
> > happened, others might have been years ago where they are now and
> > again others might have happened later (e.g. a wiki does not seem a
> > great fit for University courses, but Wikiversity might have happened
> > anyway as part of the OpenAccess movement. Or not).
> >
> > It's a bit late to change history, but it's not too late to admit some
> > of the projects are a failure in the current form and start again - or
> > just drop them. As somebody else in the conversion put it "we must
> > have ways to try and fail fast".
> >
> > Strainu
> >
> > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_instrument
> >
> > >
> > > Also, I'd prefer to see the Wikimedia Foundation trying to do fewer
> > things
> > > but do them better rather than taking more on; I think the annual plan
> > > reflects that it is trying to do so.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Perhaps some of the money spent on rebranding would
> > > > be better spent on the  projects that are not doing so well as the
> big
> > > > Wikipedias -- or perhaps the WMF should cut its losses and close them
> > down,
> > > > on the principle of reinforcing success instead.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I suspect that significantly less money is being spent on this
> rebranding
> > > effort than people might think. A short engagement with an external
> > > consultant, and some staff time to think about it and publish some
> pages
> > to
> > > solicit comment, is a relatively small investment compared to what it
> > might
> > > take to bootstrap improvements to breathe life into a mostly dead
> > project.
> > > I don't think it's really helpful to guess about the cost of things...
> > yes,
> > > I broke my own rule right at the start of this paragraph. ;-)
> > >
> > > Dan
> > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals]

[David Gerard]

I seem to recall seeing a thread on this list every few years about
how to revive Wikinews and make it do something useful and
interesting.

In practice, it had a burst of enthusiasm for about six months after
it started and then went pretty much dormant, and has been there ever
since.



- d.

On Sat, 27 Apr 2019 at 23:17, Philippe Beaudette  wrote:
>
> But it won’t be. Wikipedia does a fine job of documenting a great deal of
> news: in an encyclopedic fashion.
>
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 11:48 AM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Strainu,
> >
> > Simply leaving the world of news to others is not really an option for the
> > Foundation.  Recall that its vision is that
> >
> > > By 2030, Wikimedia will become the essential infrastructure of the
> > ecosystem of free knowledge, and anyone who shares our vision will be able
> > to join us.
> >
> > It can't achieve that by abandoning news.
> >
> > JPS
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 6:29 PM Strainu  wrote:
> >
> > > În mar., 16 apr. 2019 la 12:38, Dan Garry (Deskana) 
> > a
> > > scris:
> > > >
> > > > Splitting off the Wikinews discussion from the branding discussion...
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 07:52, Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> > > > jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Compared to Wikitribune it is!  But more importantly, if Wikinews is
> > > not
> > > > > thriving, then why not?  Does it lack resources?  What could or
> > should
> > > the
> > > > > WMF do to revive it?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In my opinion, nothing. Wikinews was a nice idea, but it didn't work
> > out,
> > > > and I don't think the Wikimedia Foundation investing resources into
> > > trying
> > > > to bring it back to life is really worth it. In fact, I think the
> > > Wikimedia
> > > > Foundation isn't the right group to try to breathe new life into the
> > > > project anyway—we, as a volunteer community, could invest our time in
> > > > bringing new content into it. That doesn't happen though. Why is that?
> > > For
> > > > me, I'm voting with my actions rather than my words—it's because it
> > just
> > > > isn't important enough compared to other things. It's okay to think
> > that.
> > >
> > > I personally believe the law of the hammer [1] had a very significant
> > > contribution to the launch of Wikinews (as well as Wikiversity,
> > > Wikispecies and Wiktionary): "we have a wiki, what else can we use it
> > > for?" Stated differently ("we have a mission and an idea aligned with
> > > that mission, what kind of wiki would we need for that?") the outcome
> > > might have been radically different. Some projects might have never
> > > happened, others might have been years ago where they are now and
> > > again others might have happened later (e.g. a wiki does not seem a
> > > great fit for University courses, but Wikiversity might have happened
> > > anyway as part of the OpenAccess movement. Or not).
> > >
> > > It's a bit late to change history, but it's not too late to admit some
> > > of the projects are a failure in the current form and start again - or
> > > just drop them. As somebody else in the conversion put it "we must
> > > have ways to try and fail fast".
> > >
> > > Strainu
> > >
> > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_instrument
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Also, I'd prefer to see the Wikimedia Foundation trying to do fewer
> > > things
> > > > but do them better rather than taking more on; I think the annual plan
> > > > reflects that it is trying to do so.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Perhaps some of the money spent on rebranding would
> > > > > be better spent on the  projects that are not doing so well as the
> > big
> > > > > Wikipedias -- or perhaps the WMF should cut its losses and close them
> > > down,
> > > > > on the principle of reinforcing success instead.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I suspect that significantly less money is being spent on this
> > rebranding
> > > > effort than people might think. A short engagement with an external
> > > > consultant, and some staff time to think about it and publish some
> > pages
> > > to
> > > > solicit comment, is a relatively small investment compared to what it
> > > might
> > > > take to bootstrap improvements to breathe life into a mostly dead
> > > project.
> > > > I don't think it's really helpful to guess about the cost of things...
> > > yes,
> > > > I broke my own rule right at the start of this paragraph. ;-)
> > > >
> > > > Dan
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals]

[Philippe Beaudette]

But it won’t be. Wikipedia does a fine job of documenting a great deal of
news: in an encyclopedic fashion.

On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 11:48 AM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Strainu,
>
> Simply leaving the world of news to others is not really an option for the
> Foundation.  Recall that its vision is that
>
> > By 2030, Wikimedia will become the essential infrastructure of the
> ecosystem of free knowledge, and anyone who shares our vision will be able
> to join us.
>
> It can't achieve that by abandoning news.
>
> JPS
>
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 6:29 PM Strainu  wrote:
>
> > În mar., 16 apr. 2019 la 12:38, Dan Garry (Deskana) 
> a
> > scris:
> > >
> > > Splitting off the Wikinews discussion from the branding discussion...
> > >
> > > On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 07:52, Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> > > jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Compared to Wikitribune it is!  But more importantly, if Wikinews is
> > not
> > > > thriving, then why not?  Does it lack resources?  What could or
> should
> > the
> > > > WMF do to revive it?
> > >
> > >
> > > In my opinion, nothing. Wikinews was a nice idea, but it didn't work
> out,
> > > and I don't think the Wikimedia Foundation investing resources into
> > trying
> > > to bring it back to life is really worth it. In fact, I think the
> > Wikimedia
> > > Foundation isn't the right group to try to breathe new life into the
> > > project anyway—we, as a volunteer community, could invest our time in
> > > bringing new content into it. That doesn't happen though. Why is that?
> > For
> > > me, I'm voting with my actions rather than my words—it's because it
> just
> > > isn't important enough compared to other things. It's okay to think
> that.
> >
> > I personally believe the law of the hammer [1] had a very significant
> > contribution to the launch of Wikinews (as well as Wikiversity,
> > Wikispecies and Wiktionary): "we have a wiki, what else can we use it
> > for?" Stated differently ("we have a mission and an idea aligned with
> > that mission, what kind of wiki would we need for that?") the outcome
> > might have been radically different. Some projects might have never
> > happened, others might have been years ago where they are now and
> > again others might have happened later (e.g. a wiki does not seem a
> > great fit for University courses, but Wikiversity might have happened
> > anyway as part of the OpenAccess movement. Or not).
> >
> > It's a bit late to change history, but it's not too late to admit some
> > of the projects are a failure in the current form and start again - or
> > just drop them. As somebody else in the conversion put it "we must
> > have ways to try and fail fast".
> >
> > Strainu
> >
> > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_instrument
> >
> > >
> > > Also, I'd prefer to see the Wikimedia Foundation trying to do fewer
> > things
> > > but do them better rather than taking more on; I think the annual plan
> > > reflects that it is trying to do so.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Perhaps some of the money spent on rebranding would
> > > > be better spent on the  projects that are not doing so well as the
> big
> > > > Wikipedias -- or perhaps the WMF should cut its losses and close them
> > down,
> > > > on the principle of reinforcing success instead.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I suspect that significantly less money is being spent on this
> rebranding
> > > effort than people might think. A short engagement with an external
> > > consultant, and some staff time to think about it and publish some
> pages
> > to
> > > solicit comment, is a relatively small investment compared to what it
> > might
> > > take to bootstrap improvements to breathe life into a mostly dead
> > project.
> > > I don't think it's really helpful to guess about the cost of things...
> > yes,
> > > I broke my own rule right at the start of this paragraph. ;-)
> > >
> > > Dan
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals]

[Jennifer Pryor-Summers]

Strainu,

Simply leaving the world of news to others is not really an option for the
Foundation.  Recall that its vision is that

> By 2030, Wikimedia will become the essential infrastructure of the
ecosystem of free knowledge, and anyone who shares our vision will be able
to join us.

It can't achieve that by abandoning news.

JPS

On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 6:29 PM Strainu  wrote:

> În mar., 16 apr. 2019 la 12:38, Dan Garry (Deskana)  a
> scris:
> >
> > Splitting off the Wikinews discussion from the branding discussion...
> >
> > On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 07:52, Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> > jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Compared to Wikitribune it is!  But more importantly, if Wikinews is
> not
> > > thriving, then why not?  Does it lack resources?  What could or should
> the
> > > WMF do to revive it?
> >
> >
> > In my opinion, nothing. Wikinews was a nice idea, but it didn't work out,
> > and I don't think the Wikimedia Foundation investing resources into
> trying
> > to bring it back to life is really worth it. In fact, I think the
> Wikimedia
> > Foundation isn't the right group to try to breathe new life into the
> > project anyway—we, as a volunteer community, could invest our time in
> > bringing new content into it. That doesn't happen though. Why is that?
> For
> > me, I'm voting with my actions rather than my words—it's because it just
> > isn't important enough compared to other things. It's okay to think that.
>
> I personally believe the law of the hammer [1] had a very significant
> contribution to the launch of Wikinews (as well as Wikiversity,
> Wikispecies and Wiktionary): "we have a wiki, what else can we use it
> for?" Stated differently ("we have a mission and an idea aligned with
> that mission, what kind of wiki would we need for that?") the outcome
> might have been radically different. Some projects might have never
> happened, others might have been years ago where they are now and
> again others might have happened later (e.g. a wiki does not seem a
> great fit for University courses, but Wikiversity might have happened
> anyway as part of the OpenAccess movement. Or not).
>
> It's a bit late to change history, but it's not too late to admit some
> of the projects are a failure in the current form and start again - or
> just drop them. As somebody else in the conversion put it "we must
> have ways to try and fail fast".
>
> Strainu
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_instrument
>
> >
> > Also, I'd prefer to see the Wikimedia Foundation trying to do fewer
> things
> > but do them better rather than taking more on; I think the annual plan
> > reflects that it is trying to do so.
> >
> >
> > > Perhaps some of the money spent on rebranding would
> > > be better spent on the  projects that are not doing so well as the big
> > > Wikipedias -- or perhaps the WMF should cut its losses and close them
> down,
> > > on the principle of reinforcing success instead.
> > >
> >
> > I suspect that significantly less money is being spent on this rebranding
> > effort than people might think. A short engagement with an external
> > consultant, and some staff time to think about it and publish some pages
> to
> > solicit comment, is a relatively small investment compared to what it
> might
> > take to bootstrap improvements to breathe life into a mostly dead
> project.
> > I don't think it's really helpful to guess about the cost of things...
> yes,
> > I broke my own rule right at the start of this paragraph. ;-)
> >
> > Dan
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals]

[Strainu]

În mar., 16 apr. 2019 la 12:38, Dan Garry (Deskana)  a scris:
>
> Splitting off the Wikinews discussion from the branding discussion...
>
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 07:52, Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Compared to Wikitribune it is!  But more importantly, if Wikinews is not
> > thriving, then why not?  Does it lack resources?  What could or should the
> > WMF do to revive it?
>
>
> In my opinion, nothing. Wikinews was a nice idea, but it didn't work out,
> and I don't think the Wikimedia Foundation investing resources into trying
> to bring it back to life is really worth it. In fact, I think the Wikimedia
> Foundation isn't the right group to try to breathe new life into the
> project anyway—we, as a volunteer community, could invest our time in
> bringing new content into it. That doesn't happen though. Why is that? For
> me, I'm voting with my actions rather than my words—it's because it just
> isn't important enough compared to other things. It's okay to think that.

I personally believe the law of the hammer [1] had a very significant
contribution to the launch of Wikinews (as well as Wikiversity,
Wikispecies and Wiktionary): "we have a wiki, what else can we use it
for?" Stated differently ("we have a mission and an idea aligned with
that mission, what kind of wiki would we need for that?") the outcome
might have been radically different. Some projects might have never
happened, others might have been years ago where they are now and
again others might have happened later (e.g. a wiki does not seem a
great fit for University courses, but Wikiversity might have happened
anyway as part of the OpenAccess movement. Or not).

It's a bit late to change history, but it's not too late to admit some
of the projects are a failure in the current form and start again - or
just drop them. As somebody else in the conversion put it "we must
have ways to try and fail fast".

Strainu

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_instrument

>
> Also, I'd prefer to see the Wikimedia Foundation trying to do fewer things
> but do them better rather than taking more on; I think the annual plan
> reflects that it is trying to do so.
>
>
> > Perhaps some of the money spent on rebranding would
> > be better spent on the  projects that are not doing so well as the big
> > Wikipedias -- or perhaps the WMF should cut its losses and close them down,
> > on the principle of reinforcing success instead.
> >
>
> I suspect that significantly less money is being spent on this rebranding
> effort than people might think. A short engagement with an external
> consultant, and some staff time to think about it and publish some pages to
> solicit comment, is a relatively small investment compared to what it might
> take to bootstrap improvements to breathe life into a mostly dead project.
> I don't think it's really helpful to guess about the cost of things... yes,
> I broke my own rule right at the start of this paragraph. ;-)
>
> Dan
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals]

[Peter Southwood]

There are many subjects of images that can be objectively assessed, so this 
comparison is not very accurate. In many cases the metadata provides verifiable 
information too.
Cheers,
P

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Jennifer Pryor-Summers
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2019 1:15 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system 
for our 2030 goals]

Yaroslav

I think you have identified an important point -- I hestitate to call it a
problem -- about Commons.  We are dependent on the authority of the
uploader of an image, say, to say what it is an image of.  If they say it
is a certain locality, or object, we have to take their word for it (or
not, of course).  That doesn't fit too well with the requirement on other
projects for citation of reliable independent sources.

Jennifer

On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 11:34 AM Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:

> Hi Ziko,
>
> you could then argue that Commons is also not a collaborative project -
> only one person takes a picture (determines the story, the position, light
> etc), and others can at best perform some editing or add/remove categories.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 11:29 AM Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
>
> > Hello Philippe,
> >
> > Thank you for your points to which I generally can agree. Because this
> > is an important matter to my, allow me to explain what I exactly mean.
> >
> > Of course, there are several tasks or layers where people can (and do)
> > collaborate when working on journalistic content. But there is an
> > aspect where the collaboration cannot be a collaboration of equals
> > (which is necessary for the definition of what a wiki is).
> >
> > Imagine that reporter-editor P. has witnessed a speech of the mayor
> > and reports about it, calling it e.g. "enthusiast".
> > Stay-at-home-editor Z. reads this report and changes the word to
> > "euphoric". P. then protests and changes it back, claiming that he has
> > been there and knows better. So P. and Z. didn't have the same access
> > to the world that has to be described.
> >
> > That would be different in the case that P. and Z. only work on
> > material such as press releases and content from news agencies. I
> > believe that Andrew meant this kind of work when he wrote that we
> > don't need (another) website offering this.
> >
> > Another example for content unsuitable for
> > wiki-collaboration-among-equals is an autobiography. An autobiography
> > by definition is a personal account of what someone has experienced in
> > her life. No other person has the same world access. Other people in a
> > wiki can check the text for inconsistencies, orthography, structure
> > etc. (Great.) But the person of the autobiography has always a veto
> > right - otherwise, it wouldn't be an autobiography.
> >
> > An interesting question is whether fiction is suitable for
> > collaboration (and what kind of collaboration), but that would go to
> > far here.
> >
> > Kind regards
> > Ziko
> >
> > Am Fr., 26. Apr. 2019 um 18:26 Uhr schrieb Philippe Beaudette
> > :
> > >
> > > Respectfully Disagree. They can formulate questions, coordinate and
> fact
> > > check answers... and that’s off the top of my head.
> > >
> > > That said I think wikinews is fundamentally not one is our success
> > stories,
> > > but I don’t agree with what my friend Ziko said there. There are many
> > roles
> > > for community there.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 9:15 AM Ziko van Dijk 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > One of the central problems of Wikinews is that the content is not
> > > > suitable for collaboration.
> > > >
> > > > Content suitable for collaboration is related to a reality to which
> > > > the collaborators equally have access. Think if an encyclopedia based
> > > > on scholarly literature that (potentially) everybody can find in a
> > > > library.
> > > >
> > > > When a journalist has spoken to her 'sources' (relevant people), she
> > > > is the one who had a special access to theses sources. The editors in
> > > > the wiki did not have this access. They can correct typos but do
> > > > little more.
> > > >
> > > > Kind regards
> > > > Ziko
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Am Fr., 26. Apr. 2019 um 00:43 Uhr schrieb Philippe Beaudette
> > > > :
> > > > >
> > > > > The very smart Mr. Lih sayeth:
> > > > >
> > > > > I have been a fan of the times Wikinews did original interviews
> with
> > > > > notable folks [1] so this is perhaps a sustainable niche. But as a
> > direct
> > > > > news wire competitor to AP, Reuters or AFP, no.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://en.m.wikinews.org/wiki/Shimon_Peres_discusses_the_future_of_Israel
> > > > >
> > > > > Me too.  In fact, I think this is something that Wikinews has
> always
> > done
> > > > > very well.  It also strikes me as an excellent, and quite
> > functional, use
> > > > > for a Wiki.  A 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals]

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Now that the Wikidatafication of Commons allows for "depicts", there is
plenty to do. It will make it easier to find what is on Commons, it will
hugely increase the relevance of Commons beyond the Wikimedia Foundation
and within, it allows people to find illustrations in their own language


On Sat, 27 Apr 2019 at 15:09, Dennis During  wrote:

> It would be nice if more Commons images HAD proper location and context
> info. As it is experts are often needed to identify meaningful content and
> categories. Those tasks are not the equivalent of minor copyediting, not
> that proofreading is a minor matter.
>
> IOW, Commons *needs* more collaborative effort.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals]

[Dennis During]

It would be nice if more Commons images HAD proper location and context
info. As it is experts are often needed to identify meaningful content and
categories. Those tasks are not the equivalent of minor copyediting, not
that proofreading is a minor matter.

IOW, Commons *needs* more collaborative effort.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals]

[Ziko van Dijk]

That is an excellent point, Jennifer! This problem makes collaboration
on Commons even more difficult or unlikely.
The photographer sometimes has an unique access to the part of the
world he described with a picture. Often on Commons we simply ask the
photographer: 'where did you take the picture', or 'what is the
context' etc., because we cannot see that from the picture itself or
we cannot look it up by ourselves.
I think with wiki journalism it is quite similar.
Kind regards
Ziko

Am Sa., 27. Apr. 2019 um 13:15 Uhr schrieb Jennifer Pryor-Summers
:
>
> Yaroslav
>
> I think you have identified an important point -- I hestitate to call it a
> problem -- about Commons.  We are dependent on the authority of the
> uploader of an image, say, to say what it is an image of.  If they say it
> is a certain locality, or object, we have to take their word for it (or
> not, of course).  That doesn't fit too well with the requirement on other
> projects for citation of reliable independent sources.
>
> Jennifer
>
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 11:34 AM Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
>
> > Hi Ziko,
> >
> > you could then argue that Commons is also not a collaborative project -
> > only one person takes a picture (determines the story, the position, light
> > etc), and others can at best perform some editing or add/remove categories.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Yaroslav
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 11:29 AM Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Philippe,
> > >
> > > Thank you for your points to which I generally can agree. Because this
> > > is an important matter to my, allow me to explain what I exactly mean.
> > >
> > > Of course, there are several tasks or layers where people can (and do)
> > > collaborate when working on journalistic content. But there is an
> > > aspect where the collaboration cannot be a collaboration of equals
> > > (which is necessary for the definition of what a wiki is).
> > >
> > > Imagine that reporter-editor P. has witnessed a speech of the mayor
> > > and reports about it, calling it e.g. "enthusiast".
> > > Stay-at-home-editor Z. reads this report and changes the word to
> > > "euphoric". P. then protests and changes it back, claiming that he has
> > > been there and knows better. So P. and Z. didn't have the same access
> > > to the world that has to be described.
> > >
> > > That would be different in the case that P. and Z. only work on
> > > material such as press releases and content from news agencies. I
> > > believe that Andrew meant this kind of work when he wrote that we
> > > don't need (another) website offering this.
> > >
> > > Another example for content unsuitable for
> > > wiki-collaboration-among-equals is an autobiography. An autobiography
> > > by definition is a personal account of what someone has experienced in
> > > her life. No other person has the same world access. Other people in a
> > > wiki can check the text for inconsistencies, orthography, structure
> > > etc. (Great.) But the person of the autobiography has always a veto
> > > right - otherwise, it wouldn't be an autobiography.
> > >
> > > An interesting question is whether fiction is suitable for
> > > collaboration (and what kind of collaboration), but that would go to
> > > far here.
> > >
> > > Kind regards
> > > Ziko
> > >
> > > Am Fr., 26. Apr. 2019 um 18:26 Uhr schrieb Philippe Beaudette
> > > :
> > > >
> > > > Respectfully Disagree. They can formulate questions, coordinate and
> > fact
> > > > check answers... and that’s off the top of my head.
> > > >
> > > > That said I think wikinews is fundamentally not one is our success
> > > stories,
> > > > but I don’t agree with what my friend Ziko said there. There are many
> > > roles
> > > > for community there.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 9:15 AM Ziko van Dijk 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > >
> > > > > One of the central problems of Wikinews is that the content is not
> > > > > suitable for collaboration.
> > > > >
> > > > > Content suitable for collaboration is related to a reality to which
> > > > > the collaborators equally have access. Think if an encyclopedia based
> > > > > on scholarly literature that (potentially) everybody can find in a
> > > > > library.
> > > > >
> > > > > When a journalist has spoken to her 'sources' (relevant people), she
> > > > > is the one who had a special access to theses sources. The editors in
> > > > > the wiki did not have this access. They can correct typos but do
> > > > > little more.
> > > > >
> > > > > Kind regards
> > > > > Ziko
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Am Fr., 26. Apr. 2019 um 00:43 Uhr schrieb Philippe Beaudette
> > > > > :
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The very smart Mr. Lih sayeth:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have been a fan of the times Wikinews did original interviews
> > with
> > > > > > notable folks [1] so this is perhaps a sustainable niche. But as a
> > > direct
> > > > > > news wire competitor to AP, Reuters or AFP, no.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals]

[Ziko van Dijk]

Yes indeed, Wikimedia Commons sees not much of collaboration in that sense.
The collaboration on Commons is of an insular kind: people don't
(much) edit other people's work, but they together contribute to the
whole wiki.
Different is collaboration where several people edit the same content
and have sometimes to discuss about choices.  But on Commons, there is
no need for that. It does not have a macrostructure in which every
item (hypertext node, article) has to be unique. In Commons, if you
see a picture of the Notre Dame cathedral and you don't like it, you
simply upload your own. Different to Wikipedia: if you see the article
"Elephant", and you don't like it, you cannot simply create a new one.

The problem is that we use the word "collaboration" often without
distinction for several kinds of collaboration.
Kind regards
Ziko

Am Sa., 27. Apr. 2019 um 12:34 Uhr schrieb Yaroslav Blanter :
>
> Hi Ziko,
>
> you could then argue that Commons is also not a collaborative project -
> only one person takes a picture (determines the story, the position, light
> etc), and others can at best perform some editing or add/remove categories.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 11:29 AM Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
>
> > Hello Philippe,
> >
> > Thank you for your points to which I generally can agree. Because this
> > is an important matter to my, allow me to explain what I exactly mean.
> >
> > Of course, there are several tasks or layers where people can (and do)
> > collaborate when working on journalistic content. But there is an
> > aspect where the collaboration cannot be a collaboration of equals
> > (which is necessary for the definition of what a wiki is).
> >
> > Imagine that reporter-editor P. has witnessed a speech of the mayor
> > and reports about it, calling it e.g. "enthusiast".
> > Stay-at-home-editor Z. reads this report and changes the word to
> > "euphoric". P. then protests and changes it back, claiming that he has
> > been there and knows better. So P. and Z. didn't have the same access
> > to the world that has to be described.
> >
> > That would be different in the case that P. and Z. only work on
> > material such as press releases and content from news agencies. I
> > believe that Andrew meant this kind of work when he wrote that we
> > don't need (another) website offering this.
> >
> > Another example for content unsuitable for
> > wiki-collaboration-among-equals is an autobiography. An autobiography
> > by definition is a personal account of what someone has experienced in
> > her life. No other person has the same world access. Other people in a
> > wiki can check the text for inconsistencies, orthography, structure
> > etc. (Great.) But the person of the autobiography has always a veto
> > right - otherwise, it wouldn't be an autobiography.
> >
> > An interesting question is whether fiction is suitable for
> > collaboration (and what kind of collaboration), but that would go to
> > far here.
> >
> > Kind regards
> > Ziko
> >
> > Am Fr., 26. Apr. 2019 um 18:26 Uhr schrieb Philippe Beaudette
> > :
> > >
> > > Respectfully Disagree. They can formulate questions, coordinate and fact
> > > check answers... and that’s off the top of my head.
> > >
> > > That said I think wikinews is fundamentally not one is our success
> > stories,
> > > but I don’t agree with what my friend Ziko said there. There are many
> > roles
> > > for community there.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 9:15 AM Ziko van Dijk 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > One of the central problems of Wikinews is that the content is not
> > > > suitable for collaboration.
> > > >
> > > > Content suitable for collaboration is related to a reality to which
> > > > the collaborators equally have access. Think if an encyclopedia based
> > > > on scholarly literature that (potentially) everybody can find in a
> > > > library.
> > > >
> > > > When a journalist has spoken to her 'sources' (relevant people), she
> > > > is the one who had a special access to theses sources. The editors in
> > > > the wiki did not have this access. They can correct typos but do
> > > > little more.
> > > >
> > > > Kind regards
> > > > Ziko
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Am Fr., 26. Apr. 2019 um 00:43 Uhr schrieb Philippe Beaudette
> > > > :
> > > > >
> > > > > The very smart Mr. Lih sayeth:
> > > > >
> > > > > I have been a fan of the times Wikinews did original interviews with
> > > > > notable folks [1] so this is perhaps a sustainable niche. But as a
> > direct
> > > > > news wire competitor to AP, Reuters or AFP, no.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > https://en.m.wikinews.org/wiki/Shimon_Peres_discusses_the_future_of_Israel
> > > > >
> > > > > Me too.  In fact, I think this is something that Wikinews has always
> > done
> > > > > very well.  It also strikes me as an excellent, and quite
> > functional, use
> > > > > for a Wiki.  A wikivoices or wiki-interviews type project would be a
> > fine
> > > > > addition to the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals]

[Jennifer Pryor-Summers]

Yaroslav

I think you have identified an important point -- I hestitate to call it a
problem -- about Commons.  We are dependent on the authority of the
uploader of an image, say, to say what it is an image of.  If they say it
is a certain locality, or object, we have to take their word for it (or
not, of course).  That doesn't fit too well with the requirement on other
projects for citation of reliable independent sources.

Jennifer

On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 11:34 AM Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:

> Hi Ziko,
>
> you could then argue that Commons is also not a collaborative project -
> only one person takes a picture (determines the story, the position, light
> etc), and others can at best perform some editing or add/remove categories.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 11:29 AM Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
>
> > Hello Philippe,
> >
> > Thank you for your points to which I generally can agree. Because this
> > is an important matter to my, allow me to explain what I exactly mean.
> >
> > Of course, there are several tasks or layers where people can (and do)
> > collaborate when working on journalistic content. But there is an
> > aspect where the collaboration cannot be a collaboration of equals
> > (which is necessary for the definition of what a wiki is).
> >
> > Imagine that reporter-editor P. has witnessed a speech of the mayor
> > and reports about it, calling it e.g. "enthusiast".
> > Stay-at-home-editor Z. reads this report and changes the word to
> > "euphoric". P. then protests and changes it back, claiming that he has
> > been there and knows better. So P. and Z. didn't have the same access
> > to the world that has to be described.
> >
> > That would be different in the case that P. and Z. only work on
> > material such as press releases and content from news agencies. I
> > believe that Andrew meant this kind of work when he wrote that we
> > don't need (another) website offering this.
> >
> > Another example for content unsuitable for
> > wiki-collaboration-among-equals is an autobiography. An autobiography
> > by definition is a personal account of what someone has experienced in
> > her life. No other person has the same world access. Other people in a
> > wiki can check the text for inconsistencies, orthography, structure
> > etc. (Great.) But the person of the autobiography has always a veto
> > right - otherwise, it wouldn't be an autobiography.
> >
> > An interesting question is whether fiction is suitable for
> > collaboration (and what kind of collaboration), but that would go to
> > far here.
> >
> > Kind regards
> > Ziko
> >
> > Am Fr., 26. Apr. 2019 um 18:26 Uhr schrieb Philippe Beaudette
> > :
> > >
> > > Respectfully Disagree. They can formulate questions, coordinate and
> fact
> > > check answers... and that’s off the top of my head.
> > >
> > > That said I think wikinews is fundamentally not one is our success
> > stories,
> > > but I don’t agree with what my friend Ziko said there. There are many
> > roles
> > > for community there.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 9:15 AM Ziko van Dijk 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > One of the central problems of Wikinews is that the content is not
> > > > suitable for collaboration.
> > > >
> > > > Content suitable for collaboration is related to a reality to which
> > > > the collaborators equally have access. Think if an encyclopedia based
> > > > on scholarly literature that (potentially) everybody can find in a
> > > > library.
> > > >
> > > > When a journalist has spoken to her 'sources' (relevant people), she
> > > > is the one who had a special access to theses sources. The editors in
> > > > the wiki did not have this access. They can correct typos but do
> > > > little more.
> > > >
> > > > Kind regards
> > > > Ziko
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Am Fr., 26. Apr. 2019 um 00:43 Uhr schrieb Philippe Beaudette
> > > > :
> > > > >
> > > > > The very smart Mr. Lih sayeth:
> > > > >
> > > > > I have been a fan of the times Wikinews did original interviews
> with
> > > > > notable folks [1] so this is perhaps a sustainable niche. But as a
> > direct
> > > > > news wire competitor to AP, Reuters or AFP, no.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://en.m.wikinews.org/wiki/Shimon_Peres_discusses_the_future_of_Israel
> > > > >
> > > > > Me too.  In fact, I think this is something that Wikinews has
> always
> > done
> > > > > very well.  It also strikes me as an excellent, and quite
> > functional, use
> > > > > for a Wiki.  A wikivoices or wiki-interviews type project would be
> a
> > fine
> > > > > addition to the ecosystem, imho.  And it is very reasonable to
> think
> > that
> > > > > given its success in this area, Wikinews could very easily pivot to
> > fill
> > > > > that spot.
> > > > >
> > > > > But a news competitor to traditional news outlets?  Nope, that it
> > isn't.
> > > > >
> > > > > Philippe
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 4:05 PM Andrew Lih 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals]

[Yaroslav Blanter]

Hi Ziko,

you could then argue that Commons is also not a collaborative project -
only one person takes a picture (determines the story, the position, light
etc), and others can at best perform some editing or add/remove categories.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 11:29 AM Ziko van Dijk  wrote:

> Hello Philippe,
>
> Thank you for your points to which I generally can agree. Because this
> is an important matter to my, allow me to explain what I exactly mean.
>
> Of course, there are several tasks or layers where people can (and do)
> collaborate when working on journalistic content. But there is an
> aspect where the collaboration cannot be a collaboration of equals
> (which is necessary for the definition of what a wiki is).
>
> Imagine that reporter-editor P. has witnessed a speech of the mayor
> and reports about it, calling it e.g. "enthusiast".
> Stay-at-home-editor Z. reads this report and changes the word to
> "euphoric". P. then protests and changes it back, claiming that he has
> been there and knows better. So P. and Z. didn't have the same access
> to the world that has to be described.
>
> That would be different in the case that P. and Z. only work on
> material such as press releases and content from news agencies. I
> believe that Andrew meant this kind of work when he wrote that we
> don't need (another) website offering this.
>
> Another example for content unsuitable for
> wiki-collaboration-among-equals is an autobiography. An autobiography
> by definition is a personal account of what someone has experienced in
> her life. No other person has the same world access. Other people in a
> wiki can check the text for inconsistencies, orthography, structure
> etc. (Great.) But the person of the autobiography has always a veto
> right - otherwise, it wouldn't be an autobiography.
>
> An interesting question is whether fiction is suitable for
> collaboration (and what kind of collaboration), but that would go to
> far here.
>
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
> Am Fr., 26. Apr. 2019 um 18:26 Uhr schrieb Philippe Beaudette
> :
> >
> > Respectfully Disagree. They can formulate questions, coordinate and fact
> > check answers... and that’s off the top of my head.
> >
> > That said I think wikinews is fundamentally not one is our success
> stories,
> > but I don’t agree with what my friend Ziko said there. There are many
> roles
> > for community there.
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 9:15 AM Ziko van Dijk 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > One of the central problems of Wikinews is that the content is not
> > > suitable for collaboration.
> > >
> > > Content suitable for collaboration is related to a reality to which
> > > the collaborators equally have access. Think if an encyclopedia based
> > > on scholarly literature that (potentially) everybody can find in a
> > > library.
> > >
> > > When a journalist has spoken to her 'sources' (relevant people), she
> > > is the one who had a special access to theses sources. The editors in
> > > the wiki did not have this access. They can correct typos but do
> > > little more.
> > >
> > > Kind regards
> > > Ziko
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Am Fr., 26. Apr. 2019 um 00:43 Uhr schrieb Philippe Beaudette
> > > :
> > > >
> > > > The very smart Mr. Lih sayeth:
> > > >
> > > > I have been a fan of the times Wikinews did original interviews with
> > > > notable folks [1] so this is perhaps a sustainable niche. But as a
> direct
> > > > news wire competitor to AP, Reuters or AFP, no.
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > >
> https://en.m.wikinews.org/wiki/Shimon_Peres_discusses_the_future_of_Israel
> > > >
> > > > Me too.  In fact, I think this is something that Wikinews has always
> done
> > > > very well.  It also strikes me as an excellent, and quite
> functional, use
> > > > for a Wiki.  A wikivoices or wiki-interviews type project would be a
> fine
> > > > addition to the ecosystem, imho.  And it is very reasonable to think
> that
> > > > given its success in this area, Wikinews could very easily pivot to
> fill
> > > > that spot.
> > > >
> > > > But a news competitor to traditional news outlets?  Nope, that it
> isn't.
> > > >
> > > > Philippe
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 4:05 PM Andrew Lih 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 4:23 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> > > > > jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Andrew
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It seems to me that you're saying that, on the one hand, the
> policies
> > > > > that
> > > > > > make Wikipedia work well as an encyclopaedia (NOR, RS, V, NORUSH)
> > > are a
> > > > > > poor fit for a news-gathering operation and on the other hand,
> > > Wikipedia
> > > > > is
> > > > > > a success as a news-gathering operation.  These seem
> inconsistent to
> > > me.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > As Wikimedians we are secondary source news summarizers rather than
> > > primary
> > > > > source news gatherers. That’s where the difference lies primarily.
> > > > >
> > > > > I 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals]

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello Philippe,

Thank you for your points to which I generally can agree. Because this
is an important matter to my, allow me to explain what I exactly mean.

Of course, there are several tasks or layers where people can (and do)
collaborate when working on journalistic content. But there is an
aspect where the collaboration cannot be a collaboration of equals
(which is necessary for the definition of what a wiki is).

Imagine that reporter-editor P. has witnessed a speech of the mayor
and reports about it, calling it e.g. "enthusiast".
Stay-at-home-editor Z. reads this report and changes the word to
"euphoric". P. then protests and changes it back, claiming that he has
been there and knows better. So P. and Z. didn't have the same access
to the world that has to be described.

That would be different in the case that P. and Z. only work on
material such as press releases and content from news agencies. I
believe that Andrew meant this kind of work when he wrote that we
don't need (another) website offering this.

Another example for content unsuitable for
wiki-collaboration-among-equals is an autobiography. An autobiography
by definition is a personal account of what someone has experienced in
her life. No other person has the same world access. Other people in a
wiki can check the text for inconsistencies, orthography, structure
etc. (Great.) But the person of the autobiography has always a veto
right - otherwise, it wouldn't be an autobiography.

An interesting question is whether fiction is suitable for
collaboration (and what kind of collaboration), but that would go to
far here.

Kind regards
Ziko

Am Fr., 26. Apr. 2019 um 18:26 Uhr schrieb Philippe Beaudette
:
>
> Respectfully Disagree. They can formulate questions, coordinate and fact
> check answers... and that’s off the top of my head.
>
> That said I think wikinews is fundamentally not one is our success stories,
> but I don’t agree with what my friend Ziko said there. There are many roles
> for community there.
>
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 9:15 AM Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > One of the central problems of Wikinews is that the content is not
> > suitable for collaboration.
> >
> > Content suitable for collaboration is related to a reality to which
> > the collaborators equally have access. Think if an encyclopedia based
> > on scholarly literature that (potentially) everybody can find in a
> > library.
> >
> > When a journalist has spoken to her 'sources' (relevant people), she
> > is the one who had a special access to theses sources. The editors in
> > the wiki did not have this access. They can correct typos but do
> > little more.
> >
> > Kind regards
> > Ziko
> >
> >
> >
> > Am Fr., 26. Apr. 2019 um 00:43 Uhr schrieb Philippe Beaudette
> > :
> > >
> > > The very smart Mr. Lih sayeth:
> > >
> > > I have been a fan of the times Wikinews did original interviews with
> > > notable folks [1] so this is perhaps a sustainable niche. But as a direct
> > > news wire competitor to AP, Reuters or AFP, no.
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> > https://en.m.wikinews.org/wiki/Shimon_Peres_discusses_the_future_of_Israel
> > >
> > > Me too.  In fact, I think this is something that Wikinews has always done
> > > very well.  It also strikes me as an excellent, and quite functional, use
> > > for a Wiki.  A wikivoices or wiki-interviews type project would be a fine
> > > addition to the ecosystem, imho.  And it is very reasonable to think that
> > > given its success in this area, Wikinews could very easily pivot to fill
> > > that spot.
> > >
> > > But a news competitor to traditional news outlets?  Nope, that it isn't.
> > >
> > > Philippe
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 4:05 PM Andrew Lih  wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 4:23 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> > > > jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Andrew
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems to me that you're saying that, on the one hand, the policies
> > > > that
> > > > > make Wikipedia work well as an encyclopaedia (NOR, RS, V, NORUSH)
> > are a
> > > > > poor fit for a news-gathering operation and on the other hand,
> > Wikipedia
> > > > is
> > > > > a success as a news-gathering operation.  These seem inconsistent to
> > me.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > As Wikimedians we are secondary source news summarizers rather than
> > primary
> > > > source news gatherers. That’s where the difference lies primarily.
> > > >
> > > > I have been a fan of the times Wikinews did original interviews with
> > > > notable folks [1] so this is perhaps a sustainable niche. But as a
> > direct
> > > > news wire competitor to AP, Reuters or AFP, no.
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > https://en.m.wikinews.org/wiki/Shimon_Peres_discusses_the_future_of_Israel
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > However, I conclude from what you're saying that the best way
> > forward is
> > > > to
> > > > > fold the Wikinews operation into Wikipedia.  Is that right?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Fold Wikinews altogether so it