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

[Erik Moeller]

On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 5:54 AM Фархад Фаткуллин / Farhad Fatkullin
 wrote:

> I feel I can give a relatively neutral comment on the part quoted below.

Dear Farhad,

Thanks so much for sharing your observations re:
https://ru.wikinews.org/ . I'm glad to hear that the project is
publishing on a diverse range of topics, and that it includes original
reporting. It's also really good to learn that it's a place where
smaller language can publish stories before they're formally approved.

What really sets Russian Wikinews apart from the other Wikinews
language editions is that it's consistently been publishing stories
pretty much every day for quite some time now. I'd still love to know
if there's anything in particular that has made this possible, but
perhaps it's just "the right people at the right time", as is often
the case with smaller online communities. I very much hope that the
project will be able to keep it up.

In contrast, compare, for example, the month of April in the English
Wikinews edition:

https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:2019/April

Warmly,

Erik

___
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 schrie

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 

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

[Joseph Seddon]

What are the examples of successful citizen news websites?

What could we learn from them?


On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 5:15 PM 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 doesn’t confuse the public. Wikipedia
> > > editors are already doing a stellar job.
> > >
> > > Andrew
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 8:15 PM Andrew Lih 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:27 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> > > > > jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wikinews may not be doing too well, but (English-language)
> Wikipedia
> > > > > seems
> > > > > > to have taken up a news-gathering role not entirely consistent
> with
> > > its
> > > > > > encyclopediac mission: perhaps that's the reason.  Maybe the WMF
> > > should
> > > > > > sort out the demarcation issues.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Jennifer,
> > > > >
> > > > > This has been a topic of discussion for more than a decade and the
> vast
> > > > > majority of the community has converged on the conclusion that
> Wikinews
> > > > > hasn't and won't ever work at any scale given its fundamental
> > > properties.
> > > > >
> > > > > News is often described as "the best obtainable version of the
> truth
> > > > given
> > > > > the constraints of a deadline." News depends on memorializing
> direct
> > > > > observation at a point in time. Therefore, the following policies
> that
> > > > make
> > > > > Wikipedia work are a bad fit for original, deadline reporting:
> > > > >
> > > > > Wikipedia:NOR - no original research
> > > > > Wikipedia:RS - requirement for reliable sources
> > > > > Wikipedia:V - verifiability
> > > > > Wikipedia:NORUSH - there is no deadline/eventualism
> > > > >
> > > > > Most anyone who tries Wikinews first hand will experience this
> mismatch
> > > > and
> > > > > realize it is a poor fit.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, rather than lament why Wikinews doesn't work, we should
> > > > celebrate
> > > > > the fact that we have found a better mode: entries that evolve
> minute
> > > to
> > > > > minute (oftentimes second to second) to best reflect the world as
> we
> > > know
> > > > > it. Embrace that new, live, constantly updated snapshot of reality
> –
> > > the
> > > > > Wikipedia article.
> > > > >
> > > 

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

[Philippe Beaudette]

(Hit send too early).To my mind the larger problem is that the content
becomes static over time, Rather than growing and evolving as it does with
many of our more successful Projects.

On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 9:25 AM Philippe Beaudette 
wrote:

> 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 doesn’t confuse the public. Wikipedia
>> > > editors are already doing a stellar job.
>> > >
>> > > Andrew
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 8:15 PM Andrew Lih 
>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:27 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
>> > > > > jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Wikinews may not be doing too well, but (English-language)
>> Wikipedia
>> > > > > seems
>> > > > > > to have taken up a news-gathering role not entirely consistent
>> with
>> > > its
>> > > > > > encyclopediac mission: perhaps that's the reason.  Maybe the WMF
>> > > should
>> > > > > > sort out the demarcation issues.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Jennifer,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > This has been a topic of discussion for more than a decade and
>> the vast
>> > > > > majority of the community has converged on the conclusion that
>> Wikinews
>> > > > > hasn't and won't ever work at any scale given its fundamental
>> > > properties.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > News is often described as "the best obtainable version of the
>> truth
>> > > > given
>> > > > > the constraints of a deadline." News depends on memorializing
>> direct
>> > > > > observation at a point in time. Therefore, the following policies
>> that
>> > > > make
>> > > > > Wikipedia work are a bad fit for original, deadline reporting:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Wikipedia:NOR - no original research
>> > > > > Wikipedia:RS - requirement for reliable sources
>> > > > > Wikipedia:V - verifiability
>> > 

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

[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 doesn’t confuse the public. Wikipedia
> > > editors are already doing a stellar job.
> > >
> > > Andrew
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 8:15 PM Andrew Lih 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:27 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> > > > > jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wikinews may not be doing too well, but (English-language)
> Wikipedia
> > > > > seems
> > > > > > to have taken up a news-gathering role not entirely consistent
> with
> > > its
> > > > > > encyclopediac mission: perhaps that's the reason.  Maybe the WMF
> > > should
> > > > > > sort out the demarcation issues.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Jennifer,
> > > > >
> > > > > This has been a topic of discussion for more than a decade and the
> vast
> > > > > majority of the community has converged on the conclusion that
> Wikinews
> > > > > hasn't and won't ever work at any scale given its fundamental
> > > properties.
> > > > >
> > > > > News is often described as "the best obtainable version of the
> truth
> > > > given
> > > > > the constraints of a deadline." News depends on memorializing
> direct
> > > > > observation at a point in time. Therefore, the following policies
> that
> > > > make
> > > > > Wikipedia work are a bad fit for original, deadline reporting:
> > > > >
> > > > > Wikipedia:NOR - no original research
> > > > > Wikipedia:RS - requirement for reliable sources
> > > > > Wikipedia:V - verifiability
> > > > > Wikipedia:NORUSH - there is no deadline/eventualism
> > > > >
> > > > > Most anyone who tries Wikinews first hand will experience this
> mismatch
> > > > and
> > > > > realize it is a poor fit.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, rather than lament why Wikinews doesn't work, we should
> > > > celebrate
> > > > > the fact that we have found a better mode: entries that evolve
> minute
> > > to
> > > > > minute 

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

[Ziko van Dijk]

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 doesn’t confuse the public. Wikipedia
> > editors are already doing a stellar job.
> >
> > Andrew
> >
> >
> > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 8:15 PM Andrew Lih  wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:27 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> > > > jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Wikinews may not be doing too well, but (English-language) Wikipedia
> > > > seems
> > > > > to have taken up a news-gathering role not entirely consistent with
> > its
> > > > > encyclopediac mission: perhaps that's the reason.  Maybe the WMF
> > should
> > > > > sort out the demarcation issues.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jennifer,
> > > >
> > > > This has been a topic of discussion for more than a decade and the vast
> > > > majority of the community has converged on the conclusion that Wikinews
> > > > hasn't and won't ever work at any scale given its fundamental
> > properties.
> > > >
> > > > News is often described as "the best obtainable version of the truth
> > > given
> > > > the constraints of a deadline." News depends on memorializing direct
> > > > observation at a point in time. Therefore, the following policies that
> > > make
> > > > Wikipedia work are a bad fit for original, deadline reporting:
> > > >
> > > > Wikipedia:NOR - no original research
> > > > Wikipedia:RS - requirement for reliable sources
> > > > Wikipedia:V - verifiability
> > > > Wikipedia:NORUSH - there is no deadline/eventualism
> > > >
> > > > Most anyone who tries Wikinews first hand will experience this mismatch
> > > and
> > > > realize it is a poor fit.
> > > >
> > > > However, rather than lament why Wikinews doesn't work, we should
> > > celebrate
> > > > the fact that we have found a better mode: entries that evolve minute
> > to
> > > > minute (oftentimes second to second) to best reflect the world as we
> > know
> > > > it. Embrace that new, live, constantly updated snapshot of reality –
> > the
> > > > Wikipedia article.
> > > >
> > > > If you want to see some of the earlier debates about the origins of
> > > > Wikinews, October 2004 is a good place to look:
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > >
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2004-October/thread.html
> > > > [2]
> > > >
> > >
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2004-October/061017.html
> > > >
> > > > -Andrew
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l 

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

[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 doesn’t confuse the public. Wikipedia
> editors are already doing a stellar job.
>
> Andrew
>
>
> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 8:15 PM Andrew Lih  wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:27 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> > > jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Wikinews may not be doing too well, but (English-language) Wikipedia
> > > seems
> > > > to have taken up a news-gathering role not entirely consistent with
> its
> > > > encyclopediac mission: perhaps that's the reason.  Maybe the WMF
> should
> > > > sort out the demarcation issues.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Jennifer,
> > >
> > > This has been a topic of discussion for more than a decade and the vast
> > > majority of the community has converged on the conclusion that Wikinews
> > > hasn't and won't ever work at any scale given its fundamental
> properties.
> > >
> > > News is often described as "the best obtainable version of the truth
> > given
> > > the constraints of a deadline." News depends on memorializing direct
> > > observation at a point in time. Therefore, the following policies that
> > make
> > > Wikipedia work are a bad fit for original, deadline reporting:
> > >
> > > Wikipedia:NOR - no original research
> > > Wikipedia:RS - requirement for reliable sources
> > > Wikipedia:V - verifiability
> > > Wikipedia:NORUSH - there is no deadline/eventualism
> > >
> > > Most anyone who tries Wikinews first hand will experience this mismatch
> > and
> > > realize it is a poor fit.
> > >
> > > However, rather than lament why Wikinews doesn't work, we should
> > celebrate
> > > the fact that we have found a better mode: entries that evolve minute
> to
> > > minute (oftentimes second to second) to best reflect the world as we
> know
> > > it. Embrace that new, live, constantly updated snapshot of reality –
> the
> > > Wikipedia article.
> > >
> > > If you want to see some of the earlier debates about the origins of
> > > Wikinews, October 2004 is a good place to look:
> > > [1]
> > >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2004-October/thread.html
> > > [2]
> > >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2004-October/061017.html
> > >
> > > -Andrew
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > 
>
> --
> -Andrew Lih
> Author of The Wikipedia Revolution
> US National Archives Citizen 

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

[Peter Southwood]

Perception is in the eye of the beholder,
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Jennifer Pryor-Summers
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 6:20 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system 
for our 2030 goals]

Peter

Our brand is already on it in these cases, and yes it would be sending a
> message - "We want you to risk your time and effort on our projects but we
> may later decide to discard everything you worked for"
>

I don;t think "discard" is right.  The message would be "... but if it
doesn't work out then we won't continue to waste your time and effort and
our donations indefinitely". That's realistic.

JPS
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>


___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Andy Mabbett]

On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 at 16:48, Paulo Santos Perneta
 wrote:
>
> Sad memories of Orkut, Panoramio, and all the unvaluable repositories of
> online knowledge that have been completely destroyed in the recent past,
> because they were doomed as uncompetitive by big corporations as Google. I
> seriously hope we don't go that way.

I can think of at least two precedents that show that we are better
than that: the Kilingon Wikipedia and the 9/11 memorial wiki.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
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]

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

Sad memories of Orkut, Panoramio, and all the unvaluable repositories of
online knowledge that have been completely destroyed in the recent past,
because they were doomed as uncompetitive by big corporations as Google. I
seriously hope we don't go that way. 

Paulo

Peter Southwood  escreveu no dia quinta,
18/04/2019 à(s) 09:34:

> Our brand is already on it in these cases, and yes it would be sending a
> message - "We want you to risk your time and effort on our projects but we
> may later decide to discard everything you worked for"
> Cheers,
> P
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Jennifer Pryor-Summers
> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 8:19 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand
> system for our 2030 goals]
>
> Peter
>
> Putting your brand on a project that is visibly failing also sends out a
> message, to the world at large.  Is that a message you want to broadcast?
>
> JPS
>
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 3:32 PM Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > Abandoning a project and shutting it down sends a message to all
> > volunteers that their work could be similarly abandoned and lost one day.
> > Is that a message we want to broadcast?
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Ziko van Dijk
> > Sent: 17 April 2019 00:46
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand
> > system for our 2030 goals]
> >
> > Hello,
> > Some years ago, some volunteers have proposed a new Wikimedia wiki. It
> did
> > not turn out as expected. That‘s okay, the movement should try out thing
> > from time to time.
> > But this wiki should not be seen as an eternal obligation to be kept.
> > Kind regards
> > Ziko
> >
> >
> >
> > Samuel Klein  schrieb am Di. 16. Apr. 2019 um 23:56:
> >
> > > Jennifer -- as you say, there is a contradiction here in the self-image
> > and
> > > internal narrative of the projects and movement.  A classic branding
> > issue
> > > ;)
> > > * On the one hand, we lack clear, consistent language to talk about
> > topical
> > > subprojects (what do you call 'the Current Events specialists on the
> > major
> > > language Wikpiedias'?  some obvious names have already been taken)
> > > * On the other, for the few Names that we assign to Projects, we
> > > overspecify what they mean ('Wikinews is original news reporting or
> > > synthesis, done on a wikinews.org site').
> > >
> > > We propagate this confusion of identity to those outside the projects
> > > trying to understand them; which in turn leads to misunderstanding in
> the
> > > world at large, and fewer potential collaborators joining the projects:
> > >  I was recently at a gathering of international fact-checkers.
>  They
> > > all prized Wikipedia as a model for what rapid collective editing can
> > > accomplish; assumed wikinews and wikitribune were the best efforts to
> > date
> > > of applying that to current events; and began an enthusiastic
> discussion
> > > about how to do it better.  When I pointed out that Wikipedias did
> > exactly
> > > what they were discussing, for the most popular news, this was
> startling
> > > and satisfying to them.  However as there is no central cafe or village
> > > pump for current events editors, and what portals do exist are
> impossible
> > > to find for all but the most persistent, it is not obvious how to
> engage
> > > with them...
> > >
> > > This is a challenge of naming + identity that really holds us back:
> ways
> > > for people to form groups, projects, message streams; and channel,
> > > advertise, amplify, polish them; use them for flash projects and
> > > coalescence, for awareness and thanks.  We have tried many small steps
> in
> > > this direction but have never made groups or hashtags work as simple,
> > > functional tools of alignment.
> > >
> > > SJ
> > >
> > > 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
>

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

[Jennifer Pryor-Summers]

Gerard,

Not everything works out -- that's the way of the world.  Your argument
would imply that no project that had ever attracted anyone's time and
effort could ever be discontinued.  That is unsustainable.  The WMF has
limited resources and quite properly has to decide on priorities for
allocating its resources.  It also has to consider the non-monetary cost --
for example, damage to the reputation of the Foundation, of the movement it
leads, and the other projects it owns -- of continuing to support a project
that is clearly a failure.

JPS.

On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 7:18 AM Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> "your time and effort" is for those other people to waste. It is for them
> to decide what value they derive from spending it in this way. "our
> donations", donations is what donors offer. Once they have donated, it
> becomes the money of the Wikimedia Foundation. It is not our donations, it
> is not even our money.
>
> Then consider the cost, to the Wikimedia Foundation. It is largely the cost
> of serving the content, the management of the servers. In the big picture
> it is not much, it is also very much a question on the inclusivity of the
> Wikimedia Foundation that enables the continued existence of these
> projects. With a Wikipedia community as a movement we will be excluding
> others as we expel volunteers who are considered redundant because they do
> not fit our image.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 18:20, Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Peter
> >
> > Our brand is already on it in these cases, and yes it would be sending a
> > > message - "We want you to risk your time and effort on our projects but
> > we
> > > may later decide to discard everything you worked for"
> > >
> >
> > I don;t think "discard" is right.  The message would be "... but if it
> > doesn't work out then we won't continue to waste your time and effort and
> > our donations indefinitely". That's realistic.
> >
> > JPS
> > ___
> > 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]

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
"your time and effort" is for those other people to waste. It is for them
to decide what value they derive from spending it in this way. "our
donations", donations is what donors offer. Once they have donated, it
becomes the money of the Wikimedia Foundation. It is not our donations, it
is not even our money.

Then consider the cost, to the Wikimedia Foundation. It is largely the cost
of serving the content, the management of the servers. In the big picture
it is not much, it is also very much a question on the inclusivity of the
Wikimedia Foundation that enables the continued existence of these
projects. With a Wikipedia community as a movement we will be excluding
others as we expel volunteers who are considered redundant because they do
not fit our image.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 18:20, Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Peter
>
> Our brand is already on it in these cases, and yes it would be sending a
> > message - "We want you to risk your time and effort on our projects but
> we
> > may later decide to discard everything you worked for"
> >
>
> I don;t think "discard" is right.  The message would be "... but if it
> doesn't work out then we won't continue to waste your time and effort and
> our donations indefinitely". That's realistic.
>
> JPS
> ___
> 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]

[Jennifer Pryor-Summers]

Peter

Our brand is already on it in these cases, and yes it would be sending a
> message - "We want you to risk your time and effort on our projects but we
> may later decide to discard everything you worked for"
>

I don;t think "discard" is right.  The message would be "... but if it
doesn't work out then we won't continue to waste your time and effort and
our donations indefinitely". That's realistic.

JPS
___
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]

[Vi to]

Wait, wait. The risk to shut down to get enough consensus to shut down a
project with an active community which is not systematically violating any
fundamental principle is zero.

Vito

Il giorno gio 18 apr 2019 alle ore 10:45 Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> ha scritto:

> The difference here being that it is not a professional system. If you
> mess with the crowd the crowd does not generally go where you prefer it to,
> it goes home.
> Other potential contributors see what has been done, and decide not to
> waste their efforts where outsiders can throw their work away. (outsiders
> meaning people not from the project that is being closed).
> Preserving as read only in another place is far more acceptable and
> indicates respect for one's efforts, even when times have changed. Internal
> deletion, change and general editing is a completely different issue. It is
> a given when you start. It is implied by CC-by-sa licence.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Andy Mabbett
> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 6:50 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand
> system for our 2030 goals]
>
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 at 15:31, Peter Southwood
>  wrote:
>
> > Abandoning a project and shutting it down sends a message to all
> volunteers
> > that their work could be similarly abandoned and lost one day.
>
> For some value of "lost" - it's likely, in this case, that all the
> content would be preserved, either by making the wiki read-only, or
> perhaps migrating articles to, say, Wikisource.
>
> Sure, things like some portal pages, templates and categories might be
> discarded, but that can happen to the work of any of us, on any
> project, anyway.
>
> We have a related, but different, issue at Wikispecies .Technically at
> least, that project is now (or could soon be, with a few tweaks)
> wholly redundant to Wikidata, and could be populated using
> Listeria-like scripts or templates, from what is held in Wikidata.
>
> The Wikispecies community vehemently resist this, and respond with
> suggestions that data in Wikispecies (held in a variety of templates,
> as well as much unstructured prose) should be what is edited, and
> should be used in a reverse of the above process to somehow magically
> populate Wikidata.
>
> So we continue to maintain versions of the same data on two (or more:
> Wikipedias and Commons also do their own things with biological
> taxonomy) vastly different projects, diluting the impact of all of our
> volunteer-hours. Anyone who commissioned a system like this in a
> professional capacity would be sacked for incompetence.
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> ___
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Peter Southwood]

The difference here being that it is not a professional system. If you mess 
with the crowd the crowd does not generally go where you prefer it to, it goes 
home.
Other potential contributors see what has been done, and decide not to waste 
their efforts where outsiders can throw their work away. (outsiders meaning 
people not from the project that is being closed).
Preserving as read only in another place is far more acceptable and indicates 
respect for one's efforts, even when times have changed. Internal deletion, 
change and general editing is a completely different issue. It is a given when 
you start. It is implied by CC-by-sa licence.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Andy Mabbett
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 6:50 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system 
for our 2030 goals]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 at 15:31, Peter Southwood
 wrote:

> Abandoning a project and shutting it down sends a message to all volunteers
> that their work could be similarly abandoned and lost one day.

For some value of "lost" - it's likely, in this case, that all the
content would be preserved, either by making the wiki read-only, or
perhaps migrating articles to, say, Wikisource.

Sure, things like some portal pages, templates and categories might be
discarded, but that can happen to the work of any of us, on any
project, anyway.

We have a related, but different, issue at Wikispecies .Technically at
least, that project is now (or could soon be, with a few tweaks)
wholly redundant to Wikidata, and could be populated using
Listeria-like scripts or templates, from what is held in Wikidata.

The Wikispecies community vehemently resist this, and respond with
suggestions that data in Wikispecies (held in a variety of templates,
as well as much unstructured prose) should be what is edited, and
should be used in a reverse of the above process to somehow magically
populate Wikidata.

So we continue to maintain versions of the same data on two (or more:
Wikipedias and Commons also do their own things with biological
taxonomy) vastly different projects, diluting the impact of all of our
volunteer-hours. Anyone who commissioned a system like this in a
professional capacity would be sacked for incompetence.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>


___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Peter Southwood]

Our brand is already on it in these cases, and yes it would be sending a 
message - "We want you to risk your time and effort on our projects but we may 
later decide to discard everything you worked for"
Cheers,
P

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Jennifer Pryor-Summers
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 8:19 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system 
for our 2030 goals]

Peter

Putting your brand on a project that is visibly failing also sends out a
message, to the world at large.  Is that a message you want to broadcast?

JPS

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 3:32 PM Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> Abandoning a project and shutting it down sends a message to all
> volunteers that their work could be similarly abandoned and lost one day.
> Is that a message we want to broadcast?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Ziko van Dijk
> Sent: 17 April 2019 00:46
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand
> system for our 2030 goals]
>
> Hello,
> Some years ago, some volunteers have proposed a new Wikimedia wiki. It did
> not turn out as expected. That‘s okay, the movement should try out thing
> from time to time.
> But this wiki should not be seen as an eternal obligation to be kept.
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
>
>
> Samuel Klein  schrieb am Di. 16. Apr. 2019 um 23:56:
>
> > Jennifer -- as you say, there is a contradiction here in the self-image
> and
> > internal narrative of the projects and movement.  A classic branding
> issue
> > ;)
> > * On the one hand, we lack clear, consistent language to talk about
> topical
> > subprojects (what do you call 'the Current Events specialists on the
> major
> > language Wikpiedias'?  some obvious names have already been taken)
> > * On the other, for the few Names that we assign to Projects, we
> > overspecify what they mean ('Wikinews is original news reporting or
> > synthesis, done on a wikinews.org site').
> >
> > We propagate this confusion of identity to those outside the projects
> > trying to understand them; which in turn leads to misunderstanding in the
> > world at large, and fewer potential collaborators joining the projects:
> >  I was recently at a gathering of international fact-checkers.   They
> > all prized Wikipedia as a model for what rapid collective editing can
> > accomplish; assumed wikinews and wikitribune were the best efforts to
> date
> > of applying that to current events; and began an enthusiastic discussion
> > about how to do it better.  When I pointed out that Wikipedias did
> exactly
> > what they were discussing, for the most popular news, this was startling
> > and satisfying to them.  However as there is no central cafe or village
> > pump for current events editors, and what portals do exist are impossible
> > to find for all but the most persistent, it is not obvious how to engage
> > with them...
> >
> > This is a challenge of naming + identity that really holds us back: ways
> > for people to form groups, projects, message streams; and channel,
> > advertise, amplify, polish them; use them for flash projects and
> > coalescence, for awareness and thanks.  We have tried many small steps in
> > this direction but have never made groups or hashtags work as simple,
> > functional tools of alignment.
> >
> > SJ
> >
> > 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.
> > > However, I conclude from what you're saying that the best way forward
> is
> > to
> > > fold the Wikinews operation into Wikipedia.  Is that right?
> > >
> > > JPS
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 8:15 PM Andrew Lih 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:27 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> > > > jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Wikinews may not be doing too well, but

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

[Jennifer Pryor-Summers]

Dan

I've not seen any proposals involving shutting down projects without
> community involvement, so hopefully you shouldn't need to worry about this.
>

The problem with failing projects like Wikinews and Wikiversity is that
there is not a critical mass in their community.  I wouldn't go so far as
to say there is no community, but for all practical purposes that might as
well be true.  In such cases there isn't a realistic prospect of community
involvement and the WMF needs to decide how to manage that situation on on
of their projects.  A small investment to set up a user group to own the
new project under a new brand, move the content off the WMF servers,
removing the Wikim/pedia branding on the way, and maybe pay a few years
hosting charges as a sign of goodwill seems the right way to go.

JPS
___
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]

[Andrew Lih]

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 12:24 PM Samuel Klein  wrote:

> I see no reason to shut down projects, nor to tell participants to stop
> collaborating on X in the spirit of a Wiki.
>

Unfortunately, in theory, projects in zombie mode should not pose a problem
on their own.

In practice, they do affect our guidance to users in other projects and
often results in poor, contradictory or confusing advice. At least in
English Wikipedia, Wikinews keeps being referred to as a legitimate place
to steer people, either out of aspirational hope or ignorance of just how
dormant Wikinews is. Just peruse the Wikinews Recent Changes log, and on
most any given day you're hard pressed to find any meaningful edits. The
bulk of the changes are automated talk page additions, spam blocking, or
maintenance edits.

On the English WP:NOT page, we are serving users poorly by promoting the
fantasy that it is a legit companion to Wikipedia when we know it is not
the case.

In the spirit of comity, we tend not to detail the hard truths about the
deficiency of projects. (Actually we don't really have good ways to put
anything in review or probationary status.) Instead, when well-meaning
editors try the softer approach of removing over-enthusiastic endorsement
of failed projects in policy pages, we see the edit warring below.

Should we be OK with directing people in good faith to Wikinews in its
known failure state?

-Andrew


---

Over the years, it has been revert city regarding conflicting advice on
Wikinews in en:WP:NOTNEWS:

Wikinews is not a place to steer people:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not=763544913=763543985=source

Yes it is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not=763547213=763544913=source

No it isn't:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not=869215367=868178515=source

Yes, it is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not=869218732=869215507=source

No it isn't:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not=892851061=892427747=source

Yes it is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not=892895993=892851061=source

And so on.



-- 
-Andrew Lih
Author of The Wikipedia Revolution
US National Archives Citizen Archivist of the Year (2016)
Knight Foundation grant recipient - Wikipedia Space (2015)
Wikimedia DC - Outreach and GLAM
Previously: professor of journalism and communications, American
University, Columbia University, USC
---
Email: and...@andrewlih.com
WEB: https://muckrack.com/fuzheado
PROJECT: Wikipedia Space: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WPSPACE
___
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]

[Yaroslav Blanter]

My understanding is that this is exactly what we are discussing now. In the
scenario proposed by Asaf there is a vote (RfC) in which keep votes of the
Wikinews community would go against delete votes by Wikimedia users not
interested in keeping Wikinews.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 9:17 PM Dan Garry (Deskana) 
wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 at 15:41, Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
>
> > Indeed, I am not a fan of Wikinews and I do not particularly see the
> > project as in any way successful. However, if the project is shut down
> > against the will of the community (I now mean the Wikinews community, or
> > perhaps even specifically the English Wikinews community), I will ask
> > myself  whether Wikivoyage (I am active in the Russian Wikivoyage, where
> we
> > have a couple of dozen active users) could also be shut down one day
> > against the will of the community, just because we are not successful
> > competing with the brands like Lonely Planet, DK, or Michelin, for
> example.
> >
>
> I've not seen any proposals involving shutting down projects without
> community involvement, so hopefully you shouldn't need to worry about this.
>
> 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]

[Ad Huikeshoven]

Shutting down Wikinews is not the only strategic option. Wikinews is now
hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation. In the future it could be hosted by
another organization. For example Wikia. Or maybe the current users start a
Wikinews Association or Foundation and will start self hosting. Someone
from the Wikimedia Foundation should weigh in with a marginal cost estimate
of hosting Wikinews. It probably might be not much more than the cost of
the domain registration. For the Wikimedia Foundation the financial cost
saving would be not more than those domain registration fees. Currently
there is no case the existence of Wikinews hurts the reputation of
Wikimedia or Wikipedia in my opinion.

Regards,

Ad Huikeshoven

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 9:17 PM Dan Garry (Deskana) 
wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 at 15:41, Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
>
> > Indeed, I am not a fan of Wikinews and I do not particularly see the
> > project as in any way successful. However, if the project is shut down
> > against the will of the community (I now mean the Wikinews community, or
> > perhaps even specifically the English Wikinews community), I will ask
> > myself  whether Wikivoyage (I am active in the Russian Wikivoyage, where
> we
> > have a couple of dozen active users) could also be shut down one day
> > against the will of the community, just because we are not successful
> > competing with the brands like Lonely Planet, DK, or Michelin, for
> example.
> >
>
> I've not seen any proposals involving shutting down projects without
> community involvement, so hopefully you shouldn't need to worry about this.
>
> 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]

[Dan Garry (Deskana)]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 at 15:41, Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:

> Indeed, I am not a fan of Wikinews and I do not particularly see the
> project as in any way successful. However, if the project is shut down
> against the will of the community (I now mean the Wikinews community, or
> perhaps even specifically the English Wikinews community), I will ask
> myself  whether Wikivoyage (I am active in the Russian Wikivoyage, where we
> have a couple of dozen active users) could also be shut down one day
> against the will of the community, just because we are not successful
> competing with the brands like Lonely Planet, DK, or Michelin, for example.
>

I've not seen any proposals involving shutting down projects without
community involvement, so hopefully you shouldn't need to worry about this.

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, 

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

[Jennifer Pryor-Summers]

Peter

Putting your brand on a project that is visibly failing also sends out a
message, to the world at large.  Is that a message you want to broadcast?

JPS

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 3:32 PM Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> Abandoning a project and shutting it down sends a message to all
> volunteers that their work could be similarly abandoned and lost one day.
> Is that a message we want to broadcast?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Ziko van Dijk
> Sent: 17 April 2019 00:46
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand
> system for our 2030 goals]
>
> Hello,
> Some years ago, some volunteers have proposed a new Wikimedia wiki. It did
> not turn out as expected. That‘s okay, the movement should try out thing
> from time to time.
> But this wiki should not be seen as an eternal obligation to be kept.
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
>
>
> Samuel Klein  schrieb am Di. 16. Apr. 2019 um 23:56:
>
> > Jennifer -- as you say, there is a contradiction here in the self-image
> and
> > internal narrative of the projects and movement.  A classic branding
> issue
> > ;)
> > * On the one hand, we lack clear, consistent language to talk about
> topical
> > subprojects (what do you call 'the Current Events specialists on the
> major
> > language Wikpiedias'?  some obvious names have already been taken)
> > * On the other, for the few Names that we assign to Projects, we
> > overspecify what they mean ('Wikinews is original news reporting or
> > synthesis, done on a wikinews.org site').
> >
> > We propagate this confusion of identity to those outside the projects
> > trying to understand them; which in turn leads to misunderstanding in the
> > world at large, and fewer potential collaborators joining the projects:
> >  I was recently at a gathering of international fact-checkers.   They
> > all prized Wikipedia as a model for what rapid collective editing can
> > accomplish; assumed wikinews and wikitribune were the best efforts to
> date
> > of applying that to current events; and began an enthusiastic discussion
> > about how to do it better.  When I pointed out that Wikipedias did
> exactly
> > what they were discussing, for the most popular news, this was startling
> > and satisfying to them.  However as there is no central cafe or village
> > pump for current events editors, and what portals do exist are impossible
> > to find for all but the most persistent, it is not obvious how to engage
> > with them...
> >
> > This is a challenge of naming + identity that really holds us back: ways
> > for people to form groups, projects, message streams; and channel,
> > advertise, amplify, polish them; use them for flash projects and
> > coalescence, for awareness and thanks.  We have tried many small steps in
> > this direction but have never made groups or hashtags work as simple,
> > functional tools of alignment.
> >
> > SJ
> >
> > 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.
> > > However, I conclude from what you're saying that the best way forward
> is
> > to
> > > fold the Wikinews operation into Wikipedia.  Is that right?
> > >
> > > JPS
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 8:15 PM Andrew Lih 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:27 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> > > > jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Wikinews may not be doing too well, but (English-language)
> Wikipedia
> > > > seems
> > > > > to have taken up a news-gathering role not entirely consistent with
> > its
> > > > > encyclopediac mission: perhaps that's the reason.  Maybe the WMF
> > should
> > > > > sort out the demarcation issues.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jennifer,
> > > >
> > > > This has been a topic of discussion for more than a decade and the
>

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

[Andy Mabbett]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 at 15:31, Peter Southwood
 wrote:

> Abandoning a project and shutting it down sends a message to all volunteers
> that their work could be similarly abandoned and lost one day.

For some value of "lost" - it's likely, in this case, that all the
content would be preserved, either by making the wiki read-only, or
perhaps migrating articles to, say, Wikisource.

Sure, things like some portal pages, templates and categories might be
discarded, but that can happen to the work of any of us, on any
project, anyway.

We have a related, but different, issue at Wikispecies .Technically at
least, that project is now (or could soon be, with a few tweaks)
wholly redundant to Wikidata, and could be populated using
Listeria-like scripts or templates, from what is held in Wikidata.

The Wikispecies community vehemently resist this, and respond with
suggestions that data in Wikispecies (held in a variety of templates,
as well as much unstructured prose) should be what is edited, and
should be used in a reverse of the above process to somehow magically
populate Wikidata.

So we continue to maintain versions of the same data on two (or more:
Wikipedias and Commons also do their own things with biological
taxonomy) vastly different projects, diluting the impact of all of our
volunteer-hours. Anyone who commissioned a system like this in a
professional capacity would be sacked for incompetence.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
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]

[Samuel Klein]

I see no reason to shut down projects, nor to tell participants to stop
collaborating on X in the spirit of a Wiki.

I see a great reason not to limit conversation about what a project around
X *could be* to the current state of a project that has that domain name.
There is plenty of energy around using wikis for news, or wikis for
courses, which is absolutely not captured by any of our current Projects or
projects.

We need
* Flexible ways to modify, fork, and experiment with names and projects
* Flexible ways to redirect, merge, and split projects and namespaces (as
half-successfully attempted with the incubator) without losing history or
editability

SJ

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 10:41 AM Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:

> Indeed, I am not a fan of Wikinews and I do not particularly see the
> project as in any way successful. However, if the project is shut down
> against the will of the community (I now mean the Wikinews community, or
> perhaps even specifically the English Wikinews community), I will ask
> myself  whether Wikivoyage (I am active in the Russian Wikivoyage, where we
> have a couple of dozen active users) could also be shut down one day
> against the will of the community, just because we are not successful
> competing with the brands like Lonely Planet, DK, or Michelin, for example.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 4:32 PM Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > Abandoning a project and shutting it down sends a message to all
> > volunteers that their work could be similarly abandoned and lost one day.
> > Is that a message we want to broadcast?
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Ziko van Dijk
> > Sent: 17 April 2019 00:46
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand
> > system for our 2030 goals]
> >
> > Hello,
> > Some years ago, some volunteers have proposed a new Wikimedia wiki. It
> did
> > not turn out as expected. That‘s okay, the movement should try out thing
> > from time to time.
> > But this wiki should not be seen as an eternal obligation to be kept.
> > Kind regards
> > Ziko
> >
> >
> >
> > Samuel Klein  schrieb am Di. 16. Apr. 2019 um 23:56:
> >
> > > Jennifer -- as you say, there is a contradiction here in the self-image
> > and
> > > internal narrative of the projects and movement.  A classic branding
> > issue
> > > ;)
> > > * On the one hand, we lack clear, consistent language to talk about
> > topical
> > > subprojects (what do you call 'the Current Events specialists on the
> > major
> > > language Wikpiedias'?  some obvious names have already been taken)
> > > * On the other, for the few Names that we assign to Projects, we
> > > overspecify what they mean ('Wikinews is original news reporting or
> > > synthesis, done on a wikinews.org site').
> > >
> > > We propagate this confusion of identity to those outside the projects
> > > trying to understand them; which in turn leads to misunderstanding in
> the
> > > world at large, and fewer potential collaborators joining the projects:
> > >  I was recently at a gathering of international fact-checkers.
>  They
> > > all prized Wikipedia as a model for what rapid collective editing can
> > > accomplish; assumed wikinews and wikitribune were the best efforts to
> > date
> > > of applying that to current events; and began an enthusiastic
> discussion
> > > about how to do it better.  When I pointed out that Wikipedias did
> > exactly
> > > what they were discussing, for the most popular news, this was
> startling
> > > and satisfying to them.  However as there is no central cafe or village
> > > pump for current events editors, and what portals do exist are
> impossible
> > > to find for all but the most persistent, it is not obvious how to
> engage
> > > with them...
> > >
> > > This is a challenge of naming + identity that really holds us back:
> ways
> > > for people to form groups, projects, message streams; and channel,
> > > advertise, amplify, polish them; use them for flash projects and
> > > coalescence, for awareness and thanks.  We have tried many small steps
> in
> > > this direction but have never made groups or hashtags work as simple,
> > > functional tools of alignment.
> > >
> > > SJ
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 4:23 PM Jen

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

[Yaroslav Blanter]

Indeed, I am not a fan of Wikinews and I do not particularly see the
project as in any way successful. However, if the project is shut down
against the will of the community (I now mean the Wikinews community, or
perhaps even specifically the English Wikinews community), I will ask
myself  whether Wikivoyage (I am active in the Russian Wikivoyage, where we
have a couple of dozen active users) could also be shut down one day
against the will of the community, just because we are not successful
competing with the brands like Lonely Planet, DK, or Michelin, for example.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 4:32 PM Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> Abandoning a project and shutting it down sends a message to all
> volunteers that their work could be similarly abandoned and lost one day.
> Is that a message we want to broadcast?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Ziko van Dijk
> Sent: 17 April 2019 00:46
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand
> system for our 2030 goals]
>
> Hello,
> Some years ago, some volunteers have proposed a new Wikimedia wiki. It did
> not turn out as expected. That‘s okay, the movement should try out thing
> from time to time.
> But this wiki should not be seen as an eternal obligation to be kept.
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
>
>
> Samuel Klein  schrieb am Di. 16. Apr. 2019 um 23:56:
>
> > Jennifer -- as you say, there is a contradiction here in the self-image
> and
> > internal narrative of the projects and movement.  A classic branding
> issue
> > ;)
> > * On the one hand, we lack clear, consistent language to talk about
> topical
> > subprojects (what do you call 'the Current Events specialists on the
> major
> > language Wikpiedias'?  some obvious names have already been taken)
> > * On the other, for the few Names that we assign to Projects, we
> > overspecify what they mean ('Wikinews is original news reporting or
> > synthesis, done on a wikinews.org site').
> >
> > We propagate this confusion of identity to those outside the projects
> > trying to understand them; which in turn leads to misunderstanding in the
> > world at large, and fewer potential collaborators joining the projects:
> >  I was recently at a gathering of international fact-checkers.   They
> > all prized Wikipedia as a model for what rapid collective editing can
> > accomplish; assumed wikinews and wikitribune were the best efforts to
> date
> > of applying that to current events; and began an enthusiastic discussion
> > about how to do it better.  When I pointed out that Wikipedias did
> exactly
> > what they were discussing, for the most popular news, this was startling
> > and satisfying to them.  However as there is no central cafe or village
> > pump for current events editors, and what portals do exist are impossible
> > to find for all but the most persistent, it is not obvious how to engage
> > with them...
> >
> > This is a challenge of naming + identity that really holds us back: ways
> > for people to form groups, projects, message streams; and channel,
> > advertise, amplify, polish them; use them for flash projects and
> > coalescence, for awareness and thanks.  We have tried many small steps in
> > this direction but have never made groups or hashtags work as simple,
> > functional tools of alignment.
> >
> > SJ
> >
> > 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.
> > > However, I conclude from what you're saying that the best way forward
> is
> > to
> > > fold the Wikinews operation into Wikipedia.  Is that right?
> > >
> > > JPS
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 8:15 PM Andrew Lih 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:27 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> > > > jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Wikinews may not be doing too well, but (English-language)
> Wikipedia
> > > > seems
> > > > > to have ta

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

[Peter Southwood]

Yeah, Right.
P

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Paulo Santos Perneta
Sent: 16 April 2019 20:38
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system 
for our 2030 goals]

The WMF should not sort out any demarcation issues. In fact, it should not
sort out anything at all in the Movement. The WMF is administered by the
Movement, and it's main purpose and mission is to serve it, not do dictate
anything there. That is a boundary that should never be crossed.

Best
Paulo

Jennifer Pryor-Summers  escreveu no dia
terça, 16/04/2019 à(s) 19:27:

> Dan
>
> Wikinews may not be doing too well, but (English-language) Wikipedia seems
> to have taken up a news-gathering role not entirely consistent with its
> encyclopediac mission: perhaps that's the reason.  Maybe the WMF should
> sort out the demarcation issues.
>
> JPS
>
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 10:38 AM Dan Garry (Deskana) 
> wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
> > 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,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Peter Southwood]

Abandoning a project and shutting it down sends a message to all volunteers 
that their work could be similarly abandoned and lost one day. Is that a 
message we want to broadcast?
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Ziko van Dijk
Sent: 17 April 2019 00:46
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system 
for our 2030 goals]

Hello,
Some years ago, some volunteers have proposed a new Wikimedia wiki. It did
not turn out as expected. That‘s okay, the movement should try out thing
from time to time.
But this wiki should not be seen as an eternal obligation to be kept.
Kind regards
Ziko



Samuel Klein  schrieb am Di. 16. Apr. 2019 um 23:56:

> Jennifer -- as you say, there is a contradiction here in the self-image and
> internal narrative of the projects and movement.  A classic branding issue
> ;)
> * On the one hand, we lack clear, consistent language to talk about topical
> subprojects (what do you call 'the Current Events specialists on the major
> language Wikpiedias'?  some obvious names have already been taken)
> * On the other, for the few Names that we assign to Projects, we
> overspecify what they mean ('Wikinews is original news reporting or
> synthesis, done on a wikinews.org site').
>
> We propagate this confusion of identity to those outside the projects
> trying to understand them; which in turn leads to misunderstanding in the
> world at large, and fewer potential collaborators joining the projects:
>  I was recently at a gathering of international fact-checkers.   They
> all prized Wikipedia as a model for what rapid collective editing can
> accomplish; assumed wikinews and wikitribune were the best efforts to date
> of applying that to current events; and began an enthusiastic discussion
> about how to do it better.  When I pointed out that Wikipedias did exactly
> what they were discussing, for the most popular news, this was startling
> and satisfying to them.  However as there is no central cafe or village
> pump for current events editors, and what portals do exist are impossible
> to find for all but the most persistent, it is not obvious how to engage
> with them...
>
> This is a challenge of naming + identity that really holds us back: ways
> for people to form groups, projects, message streams; and channel,
> advertise, amplify, polish them; use them for flash projects and
> coalescence, for awareness and thanks.  We have tried many small steps in
> this direction but have never made groups or hashtags work as simple,
> functional tools of alignment.
>
> SJ
>
> 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.
> > However, I conclude from what you're saying that the best way forward is
> to
> > fold the Wikinews operation into Wikipedia.  Is that right?
> >
> > JPS
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 8:15 PM Andrew Lih  wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:27 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> > > jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Wikinews may not be doing too well, but (English-language) Wikipedia
> > > seems
> > > > to have taken up a news-gathering role not entirely consistent with
> its
> > > > encyclopediac mission: perhaps that's the reason.  Maybe the WMF
> should
> > > > sort out the demarcation issues.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Jennifer,
> > >
> > > This has been a topic of discussion for more than a decade and the vast
> > > majority of the community has converged on the conclusion that Wikinews
> > > hasn't and won't ever work at any scale given its fundamental
> properties.
> > >
> > > News is often described as "the best obtainable version of the truth
> > given
> > > the constraints of a deadline." News depends on memorializing direct
> > > observation at a point in time. Therefore, the following policies that
> > make
> > > Wikipedia work are a bad fit for original, deadline reporting:
> > >
> > > Wikipedia:NOR - no original research
> > > Wikipedia:RS - requirement for reliable sources
> > > Wikipedia:V - verifiability
> > > Wikipedia:NO

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

[Asaf Bartov]

(posting in my volunteer capacity)

Echoing Andrew's, SJ's, and Ziko's comments, I will add that perhaps all it
would take is some collective energy to endorse these long-standing
observations, and signal to WMF that we no longer have to pretend Wikinews
is a worthwhile model (as SJ, Paulo, and Andrew spell out, *to the extent*
we can do news (which is far from 100%, being mostly news-synthesis and
contextualizing), we do a far better job through and in Wikipedia).  I
think no action has been taken because it is neither an urgent problem, nor
an important one to most contributors, so if WMF were to "sunset" Wikinews,
it would upset the few die-hard Wikinewsies[1], and please almost no-one.

If a significant number of people were to see the *opportunity cost* we pay
due to this confusion and branding issue (ably described by SJ in his
anecdote about the fact-checker event), and express their concern (e.g. via
an RFC), perhaps there would be found more appetite to provide the formal
nod to shutter (not delete) Wikinews, and avoid misleading new volunteers
and outsiders into believing Wikinews can work.

I have tried to contribute toward this goal with a session at the Wikimedia
Conference 2013 (in Milan)[2] focused on *the cost* of keeping up the
appearance of Wikinews (and Wikiversity, and Wikipedias in languages with
~2000 speakers) as worthwhile endeavors.  While there were some who agreed,
I mostly managed to upset some people, and there was no appetite at WMF (at
the time) to take up that cause.

So we are probably doomed to have these conversations periodically (indeed,
that itself is one of the costs I listed), until such time as some critical
mass is reached and enough people want to be rid of this historical
baggage.  I would like to see us do so, but as a staff member, I think it
is not for me to start an RFC.

   A.

[1] Some years ago a Wikinewsie user group was created.  It failed to
sustain enough interest to meet the single user group duty of submitting an
annual activity report, and exist beyond its inaugural year.
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2013/Documentation/Day_3#Wikinews,_Wikiversity,_Rapa_Nui_and_other_lost_causes
seems to be the best (though not very good) documentation of that session.
Oh wait, there's also this, uh, Prezi:
https://prezi.com/gg3wadct9fec/wikinews-wikiversity-rapa-nui-and-other-lost-causes/

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 2:04 AM 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 doesn’t confuse the public. Wikipedia
> editors are already doing a stellar job.
>
> Andrew
>
>
> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 8:15 PM Andrew Lih  wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:27 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> > > jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Wikinews may not be doing too well, but (English-language) Wikipedia
> > > seems
> > > > to have taken up a news-gathering role not entirely consistent with
> its
> > > > encyclopediac mission: perhaps that's the reason.  Maybe the WMF
> should
> > > > sort out the demarcation issues.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Jennifer,
> > >
> > > This has been a topic of discussion for more than a decade and the vast
> > > majority of the community has converged on the conclusion that Wikinews
> > > hasn't and won't ever work at any scale given its fundamental
> properties.
> > >
> > > News is often described as "the best obtainable version of the truth
> > given
> > > the constraints of a deadline." News depends on memorializing direct
> > > observation at a point in time. Therefore, the following policies that
> > make
> > > Wikipedia work are a bad fit for original, deadline reporting:
> > >
> > > Wikipedia:NOR - no original research
> > > Wikipedia:RS - requirement for reliable sources
> > > Wikipedia:V - verifiability
> > > Wikipedia:NORUSH - there is no deadline/eventualism
> > >
> > > Most anyone who tries Wikinews first hand will experience this mismatch
> > and
> > > realize it is a poor fit.
> > 

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

[Andrew Lih]

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 doesn’t confuse the public. Wikipedia
editors are already doing a stellar job.

Andrew


> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 8:15 PM Andrew Lih  wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:27 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> > jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Wikinews may not be doing too well, but (English-language) Wikipedia
> > seems
> > > to have taken up a news-gathering role not entirely consistent with its
> > > encyclopediac mission: perhaps that's the reason.  Maybe the WMF should
> > > sort out the demarcation issues.
> > >
> >
> > Jennifer,
> >
> > This has been a topic of discussion for more than a decade and the vast
> > majority of the community has converged on the conclusion that Wikinews
> > hasn't and won't ever work at any scale given its fundamental properties.
> >
> > News is often described as "the best obtainable version of the truth
> given
> > the constraints of a deadline." News depends on memorializing direct
> > observation at a point in time. Therefore, the following policies that
> make
> > Wikipedia work are a bad fit for original, deadline reporting:
> >
> > Wikipedia:NOR - no original research
> > Wikipedia:RS - requirement for reliable sources
> > Wikipedia:V - verifiability
> > Wikipedia:NORUSH - there is no deadline/eventualism
> >
> > Most anyone who tries Wikinews first hand will experience this mismatch
> and
> > realize it is a poor fit.
> >
> > However, rather than lament why Wikinews doesn't work, we should
> celebrate
> > the fact that we have found a better mode: entries that evolve minute to
> > minute (oftentimes second to second) to best reflect the world as we know
> > it. Embrace that new, live, constantly updated snapshot of reality – the
> > Wikipedia article.
> >
> > If you want to see some of the earlier debates about the origins of
> > Wikinews, October 2004 is a good place to look:
> > [1]
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2004-October/thread.html
> > [2]
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2004-October/061017.html
> >
> > -Andrew
> > ___
> > 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,
> 

-- 
-Andrew Lih
Author of The Wikipedia Revolution
US National Archives Citizen Archivist of the Year (2016)
Knight Foundation grant recipient - Wikipedia Space (2015)
Wikimedia DC - Outreach and GLAM
Previously: professor of journalism and communications, American
University, Columbia University, USC
---
Email: and...@andrewlih.com
WEB: https://muckrack.com/fuzheado
PROJECT: Wikipedia Space: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WPSPACE
___
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]

Hello,
Some years ago, some volunteers have proposed a new Wikimedia wiki. It did
not turn out as expected. That‘s okay, the movement should try out thing
from time to time.
But this wiki should not be seen as an eternal obligation to be kept.
Kind regards
Ziko



Samuel Klein  schrieb am Di. 16. Apr. 2019 um 23:56:

> Jennifer -- as you say, there is a contradiction here in the self-image and
> internal narrative of the projects and movement.  A classic branding issue
> ;)
> * On the one hand, we lack clear, consistent language to talk about topical
> subprojects (what do you call 'the Current Events specialists on the major
> language Wikpiedias'?  some obvious names have already been taken)
> * On the other, for the few Names that we assign to Projects, we
> overspecify what they mean ('Wikinews is original news reporting or
> synthesis, done on a wikinews.org site').
>
> We propagate this confusion of identity to those outside the projects
> trying to understand them; which in turn leads to misunderstanding in the
> world at large, and fewer potential collaborators joining the projects:
>  I was recently at a gathering of international fact-checkers.   They
> all prized Wikipedia as a model for what rapid collective editing can
> accomplish; assumed wikinews and wikitribune were the best efforts to date
> of applying that to current events; and began an enthusiastic discussion
> about how to do it better.  When I pointed out that Wikipedias did exactly
> what they were discussing, for the most popular news, this was startling
> and satisfying to them.  However as there is no central cafe or village
> pump for current events editors, and what portals do exist are impossible
> to find for all but the most persistent, it is not obvious how to engage
> with them...
>
> This is a challenge of naming + identity that really holds us back: ways
> for people to form groups, projects, message streams; and channel,
> advertise, amplify, polish them; use them for flash projects and
> coalescence, for awareness and thanks.  We have tried many small steps in
> this direction but have never made groups or hashtags work as simple,
> functional tools of alignment.
>
> SJ
>
> 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.
> > However, I conclude from what you're saying that the best way forward is
> to
> > fold the Wikinews operation into Wikipedia.  Is that right?
> >
> > JPS
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 8:15 PM Andrew Lih  wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:27 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> > > jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Wikinews may not be doing too well, but (English-language) Wikipedia
> > > seems
> > > > to have taken up a news-gathering role not entirely consistent with
> its
> > > > encyclopediac mission: perhaps that's the reason.  Maybe the WMF
> should
> > > > sort out the demarcation issues.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Jennifer,
> > >
> > > This has been a topic of discussion for more than a decade and the vast
> > > majority of the community has converged on the conclusion that Wikinews
> > > hasn't and won't ever work at any scale given its fundamental
> properties.
> > >
> > > News is often described as "the best obtainable version of the truth
> > given
> > > the constraints of a deadline." News depends on memorializing direct
> > > observation at a point in time. Therefore, the following policies that
> > make
> > > Wikipedia work are a bad fit for original, deadline reporting:
> > >
> > > Wikipedia:NOR - no original research
> > > Wikipedia:RS - requirement for reliable sources
> > > Wikipedia:V - verifiability
> > > Wikipedia:NORUSH - there is no deadline/eventualism
> > >
> > > Most anyone who tries Wikinews first hand will experience this mismatch
> > and
> > > realize it is a poor fit.
> > >
> > > However, rather than lament why Wikinews doesn't work, we should
> > celebrate
> > > the fact that we have found a better mode: entries that evolve minute
> to
> > > minute (oftentimes second to second) to best reflect the world as we
> know
> > > it. Embrace that new, live, constantly updated snapshot of reality –
> the
> > > Wikipedia article.
> > >
> > > If you want to see some of the earlier debates about the origins of
> > > Wikinews, October 2004 is a good place to look:
> > > [1]
> > >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2004-October/thread.html
> > > [2]
> > >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2004-October/061017.html
> > >
> > > -Andrew
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

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

[Samuel Klein]

Jennifer -- as you say, there is a contradiction here in the self-image and
internal narrative of the projects and movement.  A classic branding issue
;)
* On the one hand, we lack clear, consistent language to talk about topical
subprojects (what do you call 'the Current Events specialists on the major
language Wikpiedias'?  some obvious names have already been taken)
* On the other, for the few Names that we assign to Projects, we
overspecify what they mean ('Wikinews is original news reporting or
synthesis, done on a wikinews.org site').

We propagate this confusion of identity to those outside the projects
trying to understand them; which in turn leads to misunderstanding in the
world at large, and fewer potential collaborators joining the projects:
 I was recently at a gathering of international fact-checkers.   They
all prized Wikipedia as a model for what rapid collective editing can
accomplish; assumed wikinews and wikitribune were the best efforts to date
of applying that to current events; and began an enthusiastic discussion
about how to do it better.  When I pointed out that Wikipedias did exactly
what they were discussing, for the most popular news, this was startling
and satisfying to them.  However as there is no central cafe or village
pump for current events editors, and what portals do exist are impossible
to find for all but the most persistent, it is not obvious how to engage
with them...

This is a challenge of naming + identity that really holds us back: ways
for people to form groups, projects, message streams; and channel,
advertise, amplify, polish them; use them for flash projects and
coalescence, for awareness and thanks.  We have tried many small steps in
this direction but have never made groups or hashtags work as simple,
functional tools of alignment.

SJ

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.
> However, I conclude from what you're saying that the best way forward is to
> fold the Wikinews operation into Wikipedia.  Is that right?
>
> JPS
>
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 8:15 PM Andrew Lih  wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:27 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> > jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Wikinews may not be doing too well, but (English-language) Wikipedia
> > seems
> > > to have taken up a news-gathering role not entirely consistent with its
> > > encyclopediac mission: perhaps that's the reason.  Maybe the WMF should
> > > sort out the demarcation issues.
> > >
> >
> > Jennifer,
> >
> > This has been a topic of discussion for more than a decade and the vast
> > majority of the community has converged on the conclusion that Wikinews
> > hasn't and won't ever work at any scale given its fundamental properties.
> >
> > News is often described as "the best obtainable version of the truth
> given
> > the constraints of a deadline." News depends on memorializing direct
> > observation at a point in time. Therefore, the following policies that
> make
> > Wikipedia work are a bad fit for original, deadline reporting:
> >
> > Wikipedia:NOR - no original research
> > Wikipedia:RS - requirement for reliable sources
> > Wikipedia:V - verifiability
> > Wikipedia:NORUSH - there is no deadline/eventualism
> >
> > Most anyone who tries Wikinews first hand will experience this mismatch
> and
> > realize it is a poor fit.
> >
> > However, rather than lament why Wikinews doesn't work, we should
> celebrate
> > the fact that we have found a better mode: entries that evolve minute to
> > minute (oftentimes second to second) to best reflect the world as we know
> > it. Embrace that new, live, constantly updated snapshot of reality – the
> > Wikipedia article.
> >
> > If you want to see some of the earlier debates about the origins of
> > Wikinews, October 2004 is a good place to look:
> > [1]
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2004-October/thread.html
> > [2]
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2004-October/061017.html
> >
> > -Andrew
> > ___
> > 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]

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.
However, I conclude from what you're saying that the best way forward is to
fold the Wikinews operation into Wikipedia.  Is that right?

JPS

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 8:15 PM Andrew Lih  wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:27 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Wikinews may not be doing too well, but (English-language) Wikipedia
> seems
> > to have taken up a news-gathering role not entirely consistent with its
> > encyclopediac mission: perhaps that's the reason.  Maybe the WMF should
> > sort out the demarcation issues.
> >
>
> Jennifer,
>
> This has been a topic of discussion for more than a decade and the vast
> majority of the community has converged on the conclusion that Wikinews
> hasn't and won't ever work at any scale given its fundamental properties.
>
> News is often described as "the best obtainable version of the truth given
> the constraints of a deadline." News depends on memorializing direct
> observation at a point in time. Therefore, the following policies that make
> Wikipedia work are a bad fit for original, deadline reporting:
>
> Wikipedia:NOR - no original research
> Wikipedia:RS - requirement for reliable sources
> Wikipedia:V - verifiability
> Wikipedia:NORUSH - there is no deadline/eventualism
>
> Most anyone who tries Wikinews first hand will experience this mismatch and
> realize it is a poor fit.
>
> However, rather than lament why Wikinews doesn't work, we should celebrate
> the fact that we have found a better mode: entries that evolve minute to
> minute (oftentimes second to second) to best reflect the world as we know
> it. Embrace that new, live, constantly updated snapshot of reality – the
> Wikipedia article.
>
> If you want to see some of the earlier debates about the origins of
> Wikinews, October 2004 is a good place to look:
> [1]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2004-October/thread.html
> [2]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2004-October/061017.html
>
> -Andrew
> ___
> 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]

[Andrew Lih]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:27 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Wikinews may not be doing too well, but (English-language) Wikipedia seems
> to have taken up a news-gathering role not entirely consistent with its
> encyclopediac mission: perhaps that's the reason.  Maybe the WMF should
> sort out the demarcation issues.
>

Jennifer,

This has been a topic of discussion for more than a decade and the vast
majority of the community has converged on the conclusion that Wikinews
hasn't and won't ever work at any scale given its fundamental properties.

News is often described as "the best obtainable version of the truth given
the constraints of a deadline." News depends on memorializing direct
observation at a point in time. Therefore, the following policies that make
Wikipedia work are a bad fit for original, deadline reporting:

Wikipedia:NOR - no original research
Wikipedia:RS - requirement for reliable sources
Wikipedia:V - verifiability
Wikipedia:NORUSH - there is no deadline/eventualism

Most anyone who tries Wikinews first hand will experience this mismatch and
realize it is a poor fit.

However, rather than lament why Wikinews doesn't work, we should celebrate
the fact that we have found a better mode: entries that evolve minute to
minute (oftentimes second to second) to best reflect the world as we know
it. Embrace that new, live, constantly updated snapshot of reality – the
Wikipedia article.

If you want to see some of the earlier debates about the origins of
Wikinews, October 2004 is a good place to look:
[1]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2004-October/thread.html
[2]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2004-October/061017.html

-Andrew
___
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]

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

The WMF should not sort out any demarcation issues. In fact, it should not
sort out anything at all in the Movement. The WMF is administered by the
Movement, and it's main purpose and mission is to serve it, not do dictate
anything there. That is a boundary that should never be crossed.

Best
Paulo

Jennifer Pryor-Summers  escreveu no dia
terça, 16/04/2019 à(s) 19:27:

> Dan
>
> Wikinews may not be doing too well, but (English-language) Wikipedia seems
> to have taken up a news-gathering role not entirely consistent with its
> encyclopediac mission: perhaps that's the reason.  Maybe the WMF should
> sort out the demarcation issues.
>
> JPS
>
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 10:38 AM Dan Garry (Deskana) 
> wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
> > 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]

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

Why is it not consistent? If the event is encyclopedic, it can (and should)
be treated by Wikipedia, same way as any other subject.
I confess I've never understood the mantra of "Wikipedia is not a source of
news", when it may be, indeed, and with great advantage, as it provides
*context*, a timeline, a sum/resume of the published news, hopefully the
state of the art of them - something you very seldom have in regular news
sources (and our context is WAY better than theirs, as we can use the whole
encyclopedia, while when they link to context at all, they tend to be
limited to their own newspieces on that specific subject).

Best,
Paulo

Jennifer Pryor-Summers  escreveu no dia
terça, 16/04/2019 à(s) 19:27:

> Dan
>
> Wikinews may not be doing too well, but (English-language) Wikipedia seems
> to have taken up a news-gathering role not entirely consistent with its
> encyclopediac mission: perhaps that's the reason.  Maybe the WMF should
> sort out the demarcation issues.
>
> JPS
>
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 10:38 AM Dan Garry (Deskana) 
> wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
> > 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]

[Jennifer Pryor-Summers]

Dan

Wikinews may not be doing too well, but (English-language) Wikipedia seems
to have taken up a news-gathering role not entirely consistent with its
encyclopediac mission: perhaps that's the reason.  Maybe the WMF should
sort out the demarcation issues.

JPS

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 10:38 AM Dan Garry (Deskana) 
wrote:

> 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.
>
> 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] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals]

[Dan Garry (Deskana)]

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.

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,