Would it perhaps be helpful to make the peer review gadget spam the author of the article if the review of their article fails (or even a congratulations message if it passes)? Only problem is that it would probably annoy the regurals to get hundress of "congrats your article passed" messages.
-bawolff On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Jon Davis<[email protected]> wrote: > Something else to consider, maybe we should make some more user talk page > templates that can be used to help people along (especially if we can drop > them _before_ they goto our deletion warning messages, like {{abandoned}}. > Example: "Hey, I see you've started a new article, remember to do these 3 > very important things and put it into {{review}} when you're read" -- > Basically any common problem we have, we should have a talk page template > for it and we should make sure EVERYONE uses them. If you want to mark an > article as {{abandoned}}, inform the user. I've seen more than a few cases > where users have come back later and said "Hey, why did you mark this as > abandoned/deleted it. I was done". Let's be fair, our way of doing this is > unique to the ENTIRE WMF community. Additionally, I recently stole off > Commons "User Messages" Gadget (goto Preferences > Gadgets > UI Gadgets -- > to turn it on). Basically it adds a SHIT TON of options in your Toolbox > when on a Usertalk page. This makes it _ultra_ simple to leave talk page > messages (You don't even have to remember what exactly they say, there is > help text). > > I am also considering stealing off with their "Quick Delete" gadget which > would enable us to have 1 click to tag an article (for example) as abandoned > _AND_ notify to user. Might require some fine tuning by our local JS > masters, but it would be useful. > > As for {{copy edit}}. I'm not saying make it required, but it would be nice > as an option. I can review any article I want, because I've got editor, but > I can't copy edit for shit. There are other people who can copy edit > superbly, but don't have Editor yet. Make it easy for everyone to find each > other. I realize this was shot down when the system was being developed, > but it's been around for a while, would others find this helpful? Or am I > the only failure of a writer around here? > > -SGN/Jon > > > On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 04:35, Brian McNeil <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Okay, I won’t dispute that the [[WN:SG]] is long, and something pretty >> difficult to sit down and go through. The old welcome template used to >> effectively tell all new contributors they had to read the entire set of >> policies, and that was why I introduced {{Howdy}} and the associated essay >> [[WN:ARTICLE]]. Despite this, and Tempodivalse’s efforts as our local >> Wal-Mart greeter, virtually nobody seems to read it – dozens of stories >> appear with Camel Case titles, people bypass article creation forms and >> don’t have date templates, and there are a lot of {{copyvio}}s put up. >> >> >> >> That’s a focus on our ‘traditional’ article, and it is what we ideally >> want a lot more of. Problem is, the reality of the world is that *most* >> people couldn’t string something like that together if their life depended >> on it. Combine that with recent media trends to dumb-down and be highly >> partisan (eg Fox News’ “Fair and Balanced” myth), and you have a situation >> where most people wouldn’t know neutrality if it bit them in the ass, you >> end up with a widespread belief that news needs to be sensationalist before >> anyone will take an interest in it. Even some of Wikinews’ most prolific >> contributors are influenced by this sensationalising. >> >> >> >> So, Jon’s suggestion seems to be to diversify somewhat – and I think >> that’s worth pursuing. >> >> >> >> Photoessays? >> >> Yup, it’d be nice to see more photographic work featured on Wikinews, and >> ideally this would be accompanied with a short associated article that puts >> the photographs in context. It isn’t happening, so how can we lower the bar >> and get more photoessays? I’ve no problem with trimming back the writing >> requirement to the equivalent of a single entry in our current ‘shorts’ >> style – as long as the event where the photos were taken is put in context, >> i.e. some attempt to cover the 5W & H. >> >> >> >> The place to recruit people for this sort of work is Commons. The obvious >> pitch to them is getting their photographs showcased, and an article >> collecting them linked to from Google News. I’d be happy to take that up on >> Commons’ equivalent of the Water Cooler and try and engage Commoners in >> working towards [[WN:PHOTOESSAY]] as an equivalent to [[WN:ARTICLE]]. >> >> >> >> Perhaps for this type of article we need a slightly different {{peer >> review}} template? >> >> >> >> >> >> Ultra-shorts >> >> So, we’re talking a single paragraph to answer 5H&W, and some mechanism to >> present these on the main page outside the main Latest news section. >> Assuming we figure out how to do that we really have to consider that some >> of these will go on to become full articles. We don’t want the ultra-short >> bit expanded dramatically, but a complete whole article. In any case, the >> current shorts is a nightmare when it comes time to review it. >> >> >> >> Local >> >> Really local news has been done in the past, just not very well. There is >> a category Local news, and it’s trivial to exclude that from the main page. >> Verifiability is the biggest headache there. >> >> >> >> {{copyedit}} >> >> Nope. This was part of my initial proposal for an article flow, and was >> shot down. From experience of what has happened since FlaggedRevs was >> introduced I would say copyediting should be a part of the review process. >> Now that I’ve adopted the peer review gadget I frequently see myself using >> the comments parameter to tell people to look at the edits I made before >> reviewing and publishing. I think we really have to accept that reviewers >> are going to be required to do a lot of the copyediting. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Brian. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jon Davis >> Sent: 06 September 2009 07:27 >> To: Wikinews mailing list; [email protected] >> Subject: [Wikinews-l] Wikinews is too rigid? Introducing some >> flexibility?New contributors? >> >> >> >> All, >> I've been kicking around some thoughts for a while, and I felt it was time >> to share and see if I can get some feedback on and maybe some traction for >> change. >> >> == Long Version == >> We all want new contributors, after all, there is like 20 of us that are >> really active at any given time. Hell, I could probably give the names of >> everyone that is reasonably active on Wikinews off the top of my head. We >> all know when someone goes missing, because something drops, either article >> output falls a few articles a day or audio wikinews ceases to exist all >> together, or the review queue backups. Wikinews biggest problem is burn out, >> we _all_ have to contribute a significant amount of time or the project dies >> (See also: Holidays). >> >> So how do we get new contributors? >> >> KISS. Keep It Simple, Stupid. Our "defining guide" is [[WN:SG]]. Who >> here can honestly say they've read every single line? I'm sure a few can, >> but I know I haven't. It is 20 printed pages. The only "easier" guide on >> getting started that I know of is [[Wikinews:Writing an article]] and that >> is 6 pages, that is still too length in my book. We should have a goal >> that a new user (who understands Wiki-syntax) can come in, read the basics >> and get started writing in less than X time. What is X time? I'd say 15 >> minutes, tops. >> >> Second part, user interest in the topic. I'm interested in many things, >> but I'm not that much of a news writer that I think I can scratch out 3 >> decent paragraphs on it, which is our minimum. This leads to me to my next >> point... >> >> While I love what goes on with Wikinews, sometimes I get the feeling that >> we're too rigid. As mentioned previously our Style Guide is lengthy, and >> not only is it the guide - it is basically our rules for publishing. Part >> of that is that we must have 3 paragraphs. While I think that is great >> because it forces us to push up the quality of articles... but we set the >> bar very high for new contributors. You can come into Wikipedia and create >> a new article with one sentence and it might have a chance of staying around >> and becoming worth while. Wikinews, it won't, period. I think we might >> want consider alternatives to the "regular article" and what standards we >> should have for those. Hopefully these can lower the barrier to entry, and >> give us some flexibility into helping people get their stories published >> rather than the flat "too short, stale, delete it" mind set. >> >> For example: Shorts, local & photo journalism. All 3 of these types of >> news we accept in some form now, but maybe not as easily as should. For >> example shorts have to be combined into a days worth of shorts (with at >> least 2 or 3 stories). Local news is the same as any other news. Photo >> Journalism? Well I haven't seen too much of it, and that which I've >> personally submitted, I've had to beg and bribe (ok, mostly bribing) to get >> it published without 3 paragraphs of accompanying text. >> >> We could consider adding something like "Shorts: " to the beginning of a >> short story, and allowing it to go as a one paragraph story. We could even >> have a "Shorts" category that would exclude it from being published in the >> "Latest News" section on the Main Page we have now. Maybe it can have it's >> own little section on the front page. Local could follow the same theory, >> allow it to be shorter in order to entice users to come and write a little >> bit about their on goings of their home town. If they write something >> large/long/good enough we'll even remove the "hide from 'latest news' flag" >> (What ever that would be) and that would push it up out of the dark depths. >> That entices people to not only come and start (because it is easier to >> write one paragraph) but it also entices them to write more/better as they >> get more accustomed to our way of doing things because they want their >> article to get more promotion. >> >> Photo Journalism. Basically if the user is submitting a majority of >> pictures (say more than 5-6 pictures of an Event), the requirements for >> writing anything more than clear and concise caption should be tossed out >> the window. How many people go to events and take a bunch of pictures that >> could be turned into an interesting "Photo Essay" (or what ever you want to >> call it) that turn away from Wikinews because they don't want to write >> paragraphs and paragraphs? I know that I personally have opt'd to not >> "cover" something because I didn't think I could manage to write 3 >> paragraphs on what ever it was. Hey, I'm a photog, not a writer. That even >> was on my Accreditation Request, it's not like it was a secret. >> >> Something that is underlying to all of this that I haven't mentioned >> previously: We need to make Wikinews _single writer friendly_ NOW. It has >> long since been established that unless something major is going on, you are >> probably going to be the only one writing an article. If we start to pull >> in people covering local events, this is going to be doubly so. So we need >> to do everything in our power to make the process friendly for one person to >> go through. I honestly don't have any suggestion on what that should be, >> other than to keep that in mind. >> >> Lastly, I'd like to propose the addition of one optional step to our >> publishing process. A {{Copy Edit}} or similarly named template that >> basically states "Hey, I've finished this article, but I'd appreciate it if >> someone would copy edit this article before placing it into review". Again, >> personal experience, I'm not a very good writer, I know my work needs to be >> copy edited. Why not make it easier for the copy editors out there to seek >> out what they should work on. I've got two people who I've managed to drag >> in on occasion to do copy editing because they are good at it. I've only >> done it for my work, or what I happen to see as being egregiously bad. >> >> >> == Short Version == >> * Make short versions of our key "getting started" documents (WN:SG, >> Wikinews:Writing an article, etc) >> * Allow single story Shorts (Won't be published under "Latest News") >> * Allow short local news (Similar to Shorts) >> * Allow Photo Journalism stories w/o text (other than captions) >> * Make WN writing process "Single User" friendly >> * Add optional {{Copy Edit}} step to publishing process. >> >> >> Sorry all that this was so long, but I've been mulling over these issues >> for a while. I'm CC'ing scoop in hopes of getting more people to reply to >> this mail. >> >> >> -- >> Jon >> [[User:ShakataGaNai]] >> http://snowulf.com/ - Blog >> http://snowulf.imagekind.com/ - Pictures >> This has been a test of the emergency sig system. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikinews-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l >> > > > > -- > Jon > [[User:ShakataGaNai]] > http://snowulf.com/ - Blog > http://snowulf.imagekind.com/ - Pictures > This has been a test of the emergency sig system. > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikinews-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l > > _______________________________________________ Wikinews-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
