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
> 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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
(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
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.
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
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]
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 d
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
>
---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
> syst
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
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
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
> 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
> vol
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&quo
dia-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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
edia-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]
> >
t; 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
> syste
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
] 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
(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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
49 matches
Mail list logo
