Newstrust.net

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
15 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Newstrust.net

brian.mcneil-2
I just got off of an hour long Skype chat with Fabrice Floren, founder
of http://newstrust.net. Jimmy suggested to him it might be interesting
if there are ways Wikinews can work with them. I think there are, but to
some extent we need to check we're all within WMF rules, and we might
want to kick a few more people about Amgine's MediaWiki extension for
XML feeds.

NewsTrust is a non-profit, ostensibly a news aggregator, but they
challenge people to review news and become more critical of it. They're
a hell of a lot more clued up about reviewing and being critical of news
than the feeble review widget in MediaWiki.

I was up-front with Fabrice, Wikinewsies will look at their site and
say, "what can we steal?" Well, unless we run into the privacy policy,
we're welcome to steal all their gadgets, and get them reviewing our
stuff.

My thoughts on this at the moment are there is room for collaboration;
feeding Wikinews stories into NewsTrust and putting the NewsTrust
review/rating widget on each Wikinews article. This could be
incorporated into the publish template.

Second, they have pretty good background on the sources they follow and
are crowdsourcing "credibility ratings" for them. Could we pull that
data into the {{source}} template on Wikinews? By this I mean someone
reading one of Wikinews' articles scrolls down to the sources, it says
"The Guardian", gives the WikiTrust rating for the source, and the cited
article.

Fabrice had not had a lot of time to look at Wikinews articles, but will
be sticking a couple up for the NewsTrust community to review. Cirt will
be pleased to know that at a semi-casual read his "Glenn Beck" coverage
was deemed comprehensive and well-researched.

I'm going to sign up on the site and have a real dig round in the
morning. For now, there's the following links that might interest people
like, ooh, I don't know ;-) Bawolff?

http://newstrust.net/tools/buttons
http://newstrust.net/sources/the_guardian
http://newstrust.net/widgets
http://newstrust.net/feeds/todays_feeds

I also have a PDF of a NewsTrust presentation (~6Mb) if you want a copy
let me know a suitably well-endowed email address.




--
Brian McNeil <[hidden email]>|http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Brian_McNeil
Content of this message in no way represents the opinions or official position
of the Wikimedia Foundation or any of its projects.

_______________________________________________
Wikinews-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l

signature.asc (852 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Newstrust.net

bawolff
Interesting stuff. As an initial first step, I added a newstrust
button to the {{Social bookmarks}} template. Its somewhat in the
background right now. We might perhaps consider a bigger, "review this
article" button later if we really want to push this. (Their review a
story button also has the option to add what categories the article
falls in, but I haven't added that part as its not used in their basic
button, and its unclear if its really used (And its somewhat more
complicated to do, as i can't do it directly via template) If we want
that i can do it later.)

For having credibility ratings next to the source, sounds like a cool
idea (at the very least for a gadget, having it global would require
some careful consideration + potential privacy issues would need to be
looked at), but I can't see anyway of getting such information off
their site. The best i could find was a way of getting the last couple
articles that a specific source published, and the ratings for those,
but i did not see any way of getting the overall rating of a source,
or the specific rating of an article.

Feel free to send me said pdf. Can't guarantee i'll read 6 mb of pdf
(unless there's a lot of pictures ;), but i'll flip through it.

What else. I think we should re-model the flagged revisions reader
feedback into some better design, perhaps inspired by newstrust.
(flagged revs reader feedback module in its current form, sucks. a
lot).

cheers,
bawolff



On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Brian McNeil
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> I just got off of an hour long Skype chat with Fabrice Floren, founder
> of http://newstrust.net. Jimmy suggested to him it might be interesting
> if there are ways Wikinews can work with them. I think there are, but to
> some extent we need to check we're all within WMF rules, and we might
> want to kick a few more people about Amgine's MediaWiki extension for
> XML feeds.
>
> NewsTrust is a non-profit, ostensibly a news aggregator, but they
> challenge people to review news and become more critical of it. They're
> a hell of a lot more clued up about reviewing and being critical of news
> than the feeble review widget in MediaWiki.
>
> I was up-front with Fabrice, Wikinewsies will look at their site and
> say, "what can we steal?" Well, unless we run into the privacy policy,
> we're welcome to steal all their gadgets, and get them reviewing our
> stuff.
>
> My thoughts on this at the moment are there is room for collaboration;
> feeding Wikinews stories into NewsTrust and putting the NewsTrust
> review/rating widget on each Wikinews article. This could be
> incorporated into the publish template.
>
> Second, they have pretty good background on the sources they follow and
> are crowdsourcing "credibility ratings" for them. Could we pull that
> data into the {{source}} template on Wikinews? By this I mean someone
> reading one of Wikinews' articles scrolls down to the sources, it says
> "The Guardian", gives the WikiTrust rating for the source, and the cited
> article.
>
> Fabrice had not had a lot of time to look at Wikinews articles, but will
> be sticking a couple up for the NewsTrust community to review. Cirt will
> be pleased to know that at a semi-casual read his "Glenn Beck" coverage
> was deemed comprehensive and well-researched.
>
> I'm going to sign up on the site and have a real dig round in the
> morning. For now, there's the following links that might interest people
> like, ooh, I don't know ;-) Bawolff?
>
> http://newstrust.net/tools/buttons
> http://newstrust.net/sources/the_guardian
> http://newstrust.net/widgets
> http://newstrust.net/feeds/todays_feeds
>
> I also have a PDF of a NewsTrust presentation (~6Mb) if you want a copy
> let me know a suitably well-endowed email address.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Brian McNeil <[hidden email]>|http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Brian_McNeil
> Content of this message in no way represents the opinions or official position
> of the Wikimedia Foundation or any of its projects.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikinews-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
>
>

_______________________________________________
Wikinews-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Newstrust.net

brian.mcneil-2
Okay, I've set up an account on NewsTrust[1], reviewed a couple of
articles they've selected, and tested Bawolff's addition to the social
bookmarks template

[1] http://newstrust.net/members/brian-mcneil
[2] http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Template:Social_bookmarks

On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 23:41 -0400, bawolff wrote:
> Interesting stuff. As an initial first step, I added a newstrust
> button to the {{Social bookmarks}} template. Its somewhat in the
> background right now. We might perhaps consider a bigger, "review this
> article" button later if we really want to push this. (Their review a
> story button also has the option to add what categories the article
> falls in, but I haven't added that part as its not used in their basic
> button, and its unclear if its really used (And its somewhat more
> complicated to do, as i can't do it directly via template) If we want
> that i can do it later.)

If someone else has signed up on NewsTrust I would be interested to see
what they get if they click the review button on the article I submitted
for review (protest against Lockheed Marten). Will this cause duplicate
submissions or match up with my prior submission? I did find getting a
submission in a little tricky; had to fiddle a few forms to get the
article in categories. As disclosure, I put myself as co-author on the
article because of extensive copyedit before I reviewed and published.

> For having credibility ratings next to the source, sounds like a cool
> idea (at the very least for a gadget, having it global would require
> some careful consideration + potential privacy issues would need to be
> looked at), but I can't see anyway of getting such information off
> their site. The best i could find was a way of getting the last couple
> articles that a specific source published, and the ratings for those,
> but i did not see any way of getting the overall rating of a source,
> or the specific rating of an article.

Amusingly, it seems NewsTrust relies a lot on Wikipedia for the basic
description of their sources, well, at least they did for Wikinews. That
*should* be good news as sources are likely to be listed with the same
names. Before we start trying to do that there's a few points to raise.
I've CC'd Cary for input on the big question; privacy policy
repercussions. Here's what we've got to work with [3], and NewsTrust's
in-development policy[4].

[3] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy
[4] http://newstrust.net/about/privacy

Considering you explicitly have to sign up to NewsTrust to identify
yourself this seems much better than your average news site with loads
of embedded adverts.

> What else. I think we should re-model the flagged revisions reader
> feedback into some better design, perhaps inspired by newstrust.
> (flagged revs reader feedback module in its current form, sucks. a
> lot).

You'll get zero argument from me on that; is the review element getting
any flack on the Strategy wiki? It would be far, far better if users
were asked to review in a friendlier form (say a collapsed "Review this
article"). Better yet if that can actually be moved around the article
with a {{flagged review}} template. Within that it would be great if we
can pull up any NewsTrust rating, as well as readers submit a review to
NewsTrust.

My general concern is the idea ending up shot down because we could have
to share readers' IP details with NewsTrust. As it stands, use in
{{social bookmarking}} requires the user actively click on the NewsTrust
logo. As I understand it, quite a few projects have been very happy to
steal that template from us.

I've had encouraging feedback off-list about tying into NewsTrust's
source rating system. Here's how I see us using this:

{{source}}[5] is modified to have an optional "|NT" parameter. Where
present, the URL for the cited source is checked for on NewsTrust, the
story rating is retrieved, and a (likely smaller than NT uses) graphic
of their trust level for the story is displayed somewhere. If NewsTrust
doesn't have the story, the ideal is to fall back to their trust level
for the source that published the story. Here we're going to run into
the usual headaches with wire reports that are everywhere and end up
cited as published by Ya-who?

This is where I need Cary, or some other Foundation person's input. If
trust metrics are retrieved and displayed on-the-fly we either need to
make the reader's browser fetch them, or retrieve them periodically and
store locally. The latter has issues with keeping data current and
reflecting someone's review if they go over to NewsTrust and apply one.

[5] http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Template:Source

What's likely to be most interesting about having a play with NewsTrust
is how the "levels" of their reputation system go. As Fabrice explained
to me, the entry level only asks simple questions on how you rate an
article. As you build your personal reputation as a news reviewer you
are asked for more details. What this led me to conclude is that
whatever segment of their reviewer populace has an interest in writing
might be enticed to try doing so on Wikinews; they'll certainly be the
sort of critical thinkers we could benefit from.

Now, I pointed Fabrice at the writing contest[6]. I would be very
interested in getting the NewsTrust community to review the rules we're
running by (the ever-popular "anyone can edit" including, at the moment,
the competition rules). It may be possible to do some collaboration on
that. NewsTrust could feature our competition a few days before the
start, Wikinews invites readers not in the competition to look at
ratings on NewsTrust and possibly contribute their own.

[6] http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/WN:WWC-2010

NewsTrust, I think, would be an ideal group to bring in on the
post-competition Featured Article section. That is, all competition
entries scanned for FA candidates on Wikinews, and in some way
highlighted for review on NewsTrust. At the moment my penned-in idea
there is to invite some of the WMF Trustees (a few have journo
backgrounds) to get involved in that. The big question is, will offering
just five points for an article that gets promoted be enough of a
game-changer at that stage? Should it be higher - say 20 points?

I didn't ask Fabrice if they could help out with sponsorship for prizes,
so we're still begging for that. Anyone think it would be worth asking
on the Wikipedia rewards board if a few of the people who put cash up
there might chip together to have a netbook for the outright winner?

As far as the competition goes, few things seem needed first. A
{{WWC-2010 entry}} template with associated categories. I think we need
to start having [[Category:Writer <username>]] hidden categories, and a
userpage template to display them. I suspect if collaborating with
NewsTrust we could get them to add a category for comp. entries so
people can track it on their site.





--
Brian McNeil <[hidden email]>|http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Brian_McNeil
Content of this message in no way represents the opinions or official position
of the Wikimedia Foundation or any of its projects.

_______________________________________________
Wikinews-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l

signature.asc (852 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Newstrust.net

Fabrice Florin
Dear Brian,

It was great to speak with you yesterday - I'm glad that we got along so well, and that you are interested in working together!

Thank you so much for moving so swiftly to contact your community about a possible collaboration between NewsTrust and Wikinews.

We will discuss this idea in our editorial meeting on Monday. We really appreciate your commitment to factual reporting from a neutral perspective, and it appears that we have many shared values in common. 

We are also honored that you are willing to consider using NewsTrust as a possible tool for judging the entries of participants in your upcoming writing contest (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/WN:WWC-2010). We will discuss the idea of cross-promoting this contest on both of our sites at the end of January and perhaps again in early or mid-April. A good way to do this might be to use our News Hunt format at that time, if you all find the idea interesting. Read more about our News Hunts below, as well as the attached PDF with more details about NewsTrust.

I am also delighted that you were able to install our NT review buttons so quickly on the Wikimedia article pages. Thanks, bawolff, nicely done! See my response to your comment below.

At your request, we already corrected the misspelling of your name on our source profile page for Wikinews:
http://newstrust.net/sources/wikinews

Note that is is now possible for you to add one of our source widgets on your site, listing stories for review from Wikinews:

You can customize your widget in many different ways on that page (be sure to click on 'More Options') and we have many topic widgets you might consider putting next to articles that would benefit from more related stories on the same topic.

We've also started to review a couple of your featured stories, which we encourage you to review as well:

http://newstrust.net/stories/506880/toolbar?go=review

http://newstrust.net/stories/507108/toolbar?go=review

(if you are a co-author of any of these articles, or have any serious conflicts of interest, please check the appropriate box in the 'About You' section of our review form, as Brian was kind enough to do for one of the articles he co-wrote)

Lastly, I also started a Smart Feed for Wikinews here, using your feedburner RSS feed:
http://newstrust.net/feeds/180/show

This will make it easier for any of us to submit some of your upcoming stories from your feedburner feed, since much of your metada is automatically pulled from your feed. However, I encourage you to focus on posting some of your best stories, so we don't flood our review pipeline with too many stories from Wikinews right away. 

We are in the middle of a News Hunt on Climate Change, which will keep us busy through the weekend, and I have to prepare for a board meeting at the end of the week, so I will not be able to review any more stories from you guys until the following week. Thanks for your understanding. But if you have any good articles about Social Change, we would be happy to have our community review them, as that will be one of our major themes next week.

I would also like to introduce our associate editor Kaizar Campwala, who is our point person for News Hunts and partnerships. Kaizar can be reached at <[hidden email]> and can answer any other questions you might have about using our service.

Look forward to continuing this discussion in coming weeks.

All the best,


Fabrice


P.S.: Do you guys know how we could encourage a Wikipedia writer to write an entry about NewsTrust on their site?

We understand and respect Wikipedia's rules against writing entries about yourself -- or asking your friends to do it -- so we have not made any attempts to have an entry written about us to date. 

But we do think that it would be reasonable for someone to write one, given all that we have contributed to this field over the years (see attached project overview).

Would you be willing to nudge an experienced Wikipedia writer interested in this topic to consider us as a worthy subject for an article?




__________________________________________________________________


ABOUT NEWSTRUST

NewsTrust helps people find good journalism online, so they can make more informed decisions as citizens. 

We're nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to news literacy and civic engagement. Our social news network features a daily feed of quality news and opinions from mainstream and independent sources, based on ratings from our reviewers. Our web review tools enable the public to evaluate accuracy, fairness, context and other core journalistic principles -- and help people become more discriminating news consumers in the process. We also rate our reviewers based on performance, to increase the reliability of our reviews and help them grow their own news literacy. To find out more, check our site:
http://www.newstrust.net/

NewsTrust has attracted a growing community of journalists, educators and citizens, who share a passion for quality news and information, serving over a million visitors last year. Our media partners include The Washington Post, PBS NewsHour, the Huffington Post and Scientific American -- and our educational partners include Stanford University, Stony Brook and the University of Nevada, to name but a few.

NewsTrust's Executive Director is Fabrice Florin, a former journalist and a digital media pioneer at Apple and Macromedia. Our team includes a select group of award-winning journalists, technologists and community organizers -- with advisors such as Dan Gillmor, Craig Newmark, Howard Rheingold and other media innovators from organizations like the Associated Press, Google, the Poynter Institute and Stanford University.

Founded in 2005 and based in Mill Valley, California, NewsTrust is funded through grants and private donations. The MacArthur Foundation is our main funder and has awarded two multi-year grants to support NewsTrust's online credibility service. Other funding sources include Ashoka, Ayrshire Foundation, Mitch Kapor Foundation, Sunlight Foundation and Tides Foundation, as well as Google and private donors such as Craig Newmark (Craigslist) and Doug Carlston (Public Radio International). Though we are nonprofit, we aim to run a sustainable business, and plan to generate revenue from online sponsorships, memberships, licensing and partner services to support this project in coming years.

For more information about NewsTrust, view our About page:
http://newstrust.net/about

__________________________________________________________________

THE NEWSTRUST DIFFERENCE

Our collaborative evaluation system is more effective for evaluating quality information than other social news sites like Digg.

Here are some key differences between our services:
* we rate journalistic quality, not just popularity
* we track ratings for each publication in our source reputation database
* we feature stories from our most trusted sources in our daily listings
* citizens using our tools can assess news quality as well as professionals
* our multiple-rating evaluations are more reliable than single ratings

To discourage gaming, we offer these preventive measures:
* reviewers are identified by their real names
* we rate our reviewers based on the quality of their work
* our reviewers' ratings are weighted based on their own member level
* member levels are based on activity, experience, ratings and transparency
__________________________________________________________________

ABOUT OUR NEWS HUNTS

NewsTrust organizes regular News Hunts for good journalism on important public issues, in partnership with leading news providers and journalism schools. Our partners so far include leading media organizations like the Washington Post, PBS's NewsHourScientific AmericanHuffington Post and the Council on Foreign Relations -- as well as educational organizations like Stanford UniversityNortheasternUniversity of Nevada and Arizona State University

A News Hunt is a bit like a scavenger hunt for quality information. For each News Hunt, we invite our partner communities to join forces with us, and review hundreds of stories in weeklong searches for good journalism on topics like the Economy, the Environment, the Middle East, and Education. Participants typically include news professionals, content experts, concerned citizens, educators and students, all using the NewsTrust review tools for this common quest. At the end of each News Hunt, we collectively recommend the best news coverage on that topic, based on ratings from your community and ours. 

Our News Hunts have helped hundreds of thousands of people become more discriminating news consumers this year -- empowering them to make more informed decisions as citizens. By focusing on factual evidence and constructive dialog, we hope NewsTrust can bring Americans closer together -- and broaden their perspective about journalism and democracy.  

Partnering with NewsTrust can help the public develop a better appreciation for quality news and opinion -- and support the core journalistic and civic values we stand for. 

Here are some of the News Hunts we have organized recently:
Climate Change (Link TV)
Lobbyists (Washington Post's WhoRunsGov)
Psychology (Miller-McCune)
Health Care (Huffington Post's Eyes & Ears)
Afghanistan (WNET's WorldFocus)
Pakistan (Huffington Post and Eyes & Ears)
Obama's First Hundred Days (PolitiFact and U. of Nevada)
Black Experience (PBS, Tavis Smiley and U. of Santa-Clara)
Money (Consumers Union + Stanford
Bush Legacy (Washington Post)
Economy (NewsHourPBS and University of Nevada)
Immigration (New America Media)
Presidential Election (PBS Engage and P.O.V.)
Media and Politics (Poynter Institute and PolitiFact)
John McCain (Huffington Post and OffTheBus)
Internet/Digital Natives (Frontline and Stanford University)
Middle East (CFR.orgGlobal Voices, and LinkTV)
Environment (Scientific American and University of Nevada)

We are discussing more partnerships with major new providers and journalism schools in 2009. We work with our partners to find the best coverage on important issues like Energy, Health Care, Human Rights, or about any topic that they think will interest their community. We also invite them to add our top-rated news widgets on their sites, where they can act as a scoreboard for our joint News Hunts. We have widgets for dozens of hot news topics (e.g.: Barack Obama, Global Warming, War in Iraq), as well as for hundreds of sources and members featured on our site, and they're a great way to strengthen our partnerships:

Our partners typically promote our News Hunts to their communities -- and announce them prominently on their sites, blogs and email newsletters, at the start of each week. Many of them also participate actively as a reviewers, submitters and creators of quality journalism on the News Hunt's chosen topic. NewsTrust manages the projects and provides most of the legwork for these News Hunts. 

You can find more about previous News Hunts on our blog:





On Dec 12, 2009, at 6:54 AM, Brian McNeil wrote:

Okay, I've set up an account on NewsTrust[1], reviewed a couple of
articles they've selected, and tested Bawolff's addition to the social
bookmarks template

[1] http://newstrust.net/members/brian-mcneil
[2] http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Template:Social_bookmarks

On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 23:41 -0400, bawolff wrote:
Interesting stuff. As an initial first step, I added a newstrust
button to the {{Social bookmarks}} template. Its somewhat in the
background right now. We might perhaps consider a bigger, "review this
article" button later if we really want to push this. (Their review a
story button also has the option to add what categories the article
falls in, but I haven't added that part as its not used in their basic
button, and its unclear if its really used (And its somewhat more
complicated to do, as i can't do it directly via template) If we want
that i can do it later.)

If someone else has signed up on NewsTrust I would be interested to see
what they get if they click the review button on the article I submitted
for review (protest against Lockheed Marten). Will this cause duplicate
submissions or match up with my prior submission? I did find getting a
submission in a little tricky; had to fiddle a few forms to get the
article in categories. As disclosure, I put myself as co-author on the
article because of extensive copyedit before I reviewed and published.


Thanks, bawolff, that's wonderful!

Brian, to answer your question above, clicking on our NT review button on a story that has already been submitted will take you directly to our review form.

So if you click on our NT button below this story:
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Indonesian_court_overturns_Garuda_pilot%27s_conviction_over_air_disaster

... you are taken directly to our review form:
 http://newstrust.net/stories/509516/toolbar?go=review


For having credibility ratings next to the source, sounds like a cool
idea (at the very least for a gadget, having it global would require
some careful consideration + potential privacy issues would need to be
looked at), but I can't see anyway of getting such information off
their site. The best i could find was a way of getting the last couple
articles that a specific source published, and the ratings for those,
but i did not see any way of getting the overall rating of a source,
or the specific rating of an article.

Amusingly, it seems NewsTrust relies a lot on Wikipedia for the basic
description of their sources, well, at least they did for Wikinews. That
*should* be good news as sources are likely to be listed with the same
names.

Yeah, we figured we might as well leverage all the good work that's being done at Wikipedia, rather than reinvent the wheel ;o)


Before we start trying to do that there's a few points to raise.
I've CC'd Cary for input on the big question; privacy policy
repercussions. Here's what we've got to work with [3], and NewsTrust's
in-development policy[4].

[3] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy
[4] http://newstrust.net/about/privacy

Considering you explicitly have to sign up to NewsTrust to identify
yourself this seems much better than your average news site with loads
of embedded adverts.

What else. I think we should re-model the flagged revisions reader
feedback into some better design, perhaps inspired by newstrust.
(flagged revs reader feedback module in its current form, sucks. a
lot).

You'll get zero argument from me on that; is the review element getting
any flack on the Strategy wiki? It would be far, far better if users
were asked to review in a friendlier form (say a collapsed "Review this
article"). Better yet if that can actually be moved around the article
with a {{flagged review}} template. Within that it would be great if we
can pull up any NewsTrust rating, as well as readers submit a review to
NewsTrust.

My general concern is the idea ending up shot down because we could have
to share readers' IP details with NewsTrust. As it stands, use in
{{social bookmarking}} requires the user actively click on the NewsTrust
logo. As I understand it, quite a few projects have been very happy to
steal that template from us.

I've had encouraging feedback off-list about tying into NewsTrust's
source rating system. Here's how I see us using this:

{{source}}[5] is modified to have an optional "|NT" parameter. Where
present, the URL for the cited source is checked for on NewsTrust, the
story rating is retrieved, and a (likely smaller than NT uses) graphic
of their trust level for the story is displayed somewhere. If NewsTrust
doesn't have the story, the ideal is to fall back to their trust level
for the source that published the story. Here we're going to run into
the usual headaches with wire reports that are everywhere and end up
cited as published by Ya-who?

This is where I need Cary, or some other Foundation person's input. If
trust metrics are retrieved and displayed on-the-fly we either need to
make the reader's browser fetch them, or retrieve them periodically and
store locally. The latter has issues with keeping data current and
reflecting someone's review if they go over to NewsTrust and apply one.


We would be very happy to support any efforts along these lines, and are delighted that you find them worthwhile.


[5] http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Template:Source

What's likely to be most interesting about having a play with NewsTrust
is how the "levels" of their reputation system go. As Fabrice explained
to me, the entry level only asks simple questions on how you rate an
article. As you build your personal reputation as a news reviewer you
are asked for more details. What this led me to conclude is that
whatever segment of their reviewer populace has an interest in writing
might be enticed to try doing so on Wikinews; they'll certainly be the
sort of critical thinkers we could benefit from.

Now, I pointed Fabrice at the writing contest[6]. I would be very
interested in getting the NewsTrust community to review the rules we're
running by (the ever-popular "anyone can edit" including, at the moment,
the competition rules). It may be possible to do some collaboration on
that. NewsTrust could feature our competition a few days before the
start, Wikinews invites readers not in the competition to look at
ratings on NewsTrust and possibly contribute their own.


We are very happy to support your contest in any way we can, using the current NewsTrust review tools.

But we will let you guys decide how you want to calculate the final scores and award the prizes, as this is a bit outside of our area of expertise. 


[6] http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/WN:WWC-2010

NewsTrust, I think, would be an ideal group to bring in on the
post-competition Featured Article section. That is, all competition
entries scanned for FA candidates on Wikinews, and in some way
highlighted for review on NewsTrust. At the moment my penned-in idea
there is to invite some of the WMF Trustees (a few have journo
backgrounds) to get involved in that. The big question is, will offering
just five points for an article that gets promoted be enough of a
game-changer at that stage? Should it be higher - say 20 points?

I didn't ask Fabrice if they could help out with sponsorship for prizes,
so we're still begging for that. Anyone think it would be worth asking
on the Wikipedia rewards board if a few of the people who put cash up
there might chip together to have a netbook for the outright winner?


Our financial resources are limited, but we could perhaps give away NewsTrust mugs to the winners, if they were selected using our review tools.

The mugs have a list of the core principles of journalism on the back, so they offer more value than just promoting us  ;o)

As far as the competition goes, few things seem needed first. A
{{WWC-2010 entry}} template with associated categories. I think we need
to start having [[Category:Writer <username>]] hidden categories, and a
userpage template to display them. I suspect if collaborating with
NewsTrust we could get them to add a category for comp. entries so
people can track it on their site.





--
Brian McNeil <[hidden email]>|http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Brian_McNeil
Content of this message in no way represents the opinions or official position
of the Wikimedia Foundation or any of its projects.


_______________________________________________
Wikinews-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l

NewsTrustOverview.pdf (285K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Newstrust.net

brian.mcneil-2
Fabrice,

I've whitelisted your address for posing to wikinews-l. The mailing list
archives are here:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l

If I see any other posts from NewsTrust people I'll whitelist their
email addresses too. You'll only get sent copies of other messages if
you subscribe to the mailing list.

On Sat, 2009-12-12 at 14:37 -0800, Fabrice Florin wrote:

> Dear Brian,
>
>
> It was great to speak with you yesterday - I'm glad that we got along
> so well, and that you are interested in working together!
>
>
> Thank you so much for moving so swiftly to contact your community
> about a possible collaboration between NewsTrust and Wikinews.
>
> We will discuss this idea in our editorial meeting on Monday. We
> really appreciate your commitment to factual reporting from a neutral
> perspective, and it appears that we have many shared values in
> common.
>
> We are also honored that you are willing to consider using NewsTrust
> as a possible tool for judging the entries of participants in your
> upcoming writing contest (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/WN:WWC-2010). We
> will discuss the idea of cross-promoting this contest on both of our
> sites at the end of January and perhaps again in early or mid-April. A
> good way to do this might be to use our News Hunt format at that time,
> if you all find the idea interesting. Read more about our News
> Hunts below, as well as the attached PDF with more details about
> NewsTrust.
>
>
> I am also delighted that you were able to install our NT review
> buttons so quickly on the Wikimedia article pages. Thanks, bawolff,
> nicely done! See my response to your comment below.
>
> At your request, we already corrected the misspelling of your name on
> our source profile page for Wikinews:
> http://newstrust.net/sources/wikinews
>
>
> Note that is is now possible for you to add one of our source widgets
> on your site, listing stories for review from Wikinews:
> http://newstrust.net/widgets?url=/sources/wikinews/for_review
>
I'm puzzling over where we could fit that in.

>
> You can customize your widget in many different ways on that page (be
> sure to click on 'More Options') and we have many topic widgets you
> might consider putting next to articles that would benefit from more
> related stories on the same topic.
>
> We've also started to review a couple of your featured stories, which
> we encourage you to review as well:
>
> http://newstrust.net/stories/506880/toolbar?go=review
>
> http://newstrust.net/stories/507108/toolbar?go=review
I noticed a few were up. Iain (User Blood Red Sandman) was quite pleased
with the review he got on the Garuda pilot story. As you probably
understand, we can have issues getting those actually involved (such as
the pilot) to speak to us.

The one I put up and admitted a COI/writing involvement saw me acting as
the reviewing editor, doing quite a lot of copyedit work on it and
bringing it in line with house style.

>
> (if you are a co-author of any of these articles, or have any serious
> conflicts of interest, please check the appropriate box in the 'About
> You' section of our review form, as Brian was kind enough to do for
> one of the articles he co-wrote)
>
> Lastly, I also started a Smart Feed for Wikinews here, using your
> feedburner RSS feed:
> http://newstrust.net/feeds/180/show
>
>
> This will make it easier for any of us to submit some of your upcoming
> stories from your feedburner feed, since much of your metada is
> automatically pulled from your feed. However, I encourage you to focus
> on posting some of your best stories, so we don't flood our review
> pipeline with too many stories from Wikinews right away.
I suspect the metadata on Feedburner is pathetic. We have an extension
for MediaWiki developed to produce RSS feeds based on categories and
(our) review process.

>
> We are in the middle of a News Hunt on Climate Change, which will keep
> us busy through the weekend, and I have to prepare for a board meeting
> at the end of the week, so I will not be able to review any more
> stories from you guys until the following week. Thanks for your
> understanding. But if you have any good articles about Social Change,
> we would be happy to have our community review them, as that will be
> one of our major themes next week.
>
>
> I would also like to introduce our associate editor Kaizar Campwala,
> who is our point person for News Hunts and partnerships. Kaizar can be
> reached at <[hidden email]> and can answer any other questions
> you might have about using our service.
>
> Look forward to continuing this discussion in coming weeks.
>
> All the best,
>
>
>
> Fabrice
>
>
>
>
> P.S.: Do you guys know how we could encourage a Wikipedia writer to
> write an entry about NewsTrust on their site?
Have you independent press reports on NewsTrust? That's the key thing.
There's a few Wikipedians also contribute to Wikinews, they might know
if there is still a "requesting an article" page on Wikipedia (and where
it's hidden).

>
>
> We understand and respect Wikipedia's rules against writing entries
> about yourself -- or asking your friends to do it -- so we have not
> made any attempts to have an entry written about us to date.
>
>
> But we do think that it would be reasonable for someone to write one,
> given all that we have contributed to this field over the years (see
> attached project overview).
It's all down to, unlike Wikinews, Wikipedia having a policy against
original research, and being a tertiary source.

If there is a press release or two for NewsTrust then any board or other
people might get their Wikipedia articles updated to reflect the
position. You can go right ahead and ask for that on an article talk
page as long as you disclose your interest.

Example:

"I'm XXX of NewsTrust (http://newstrust.net), this article on <someone>
does not mention that he is <positionholder> at NewsTrust. This is
verifiable in <link to press releases> and <links to news reports>. Can
this detail be added as a redlink to [[w:NewsTrust.net]], or that
article actually started? --~~~~"
>
>
> Would you be willing to nudge an experienced Wikipedia writer
> interested in this topic to consider us as a worthy subject for an
> article?

I think I just did. I'll point a few other people at the mailing list
archive, it might encourage them.

<snip>
>
> Brian, to answer your question above, clicking on our NT review button
> on a story that has already been submitted will take you directly to
> our review form.

Great!

> > I've had encouraging feedback off-list about tying into NewsTrust's
> > source rating system. Here's how I see us using this:
> >
> > {{source}}[5] is modified to have an optional "|NT" parameter. Where
> > present, the URL for the cited source is checked for on NewsTrust,
> > the
> > story rating is retrieved, and a (likely smaller than NT uses)
> > graphic
> > of their trust level for the story is displayed somewhere. If
> > NewsTrust
> > doesn't have the story, the ideal is to fall back to their trust
> > level
> > for the source that published the story. Here we're going to run
> > into
> > the usual headaches with wire reports that are everywhere and end up
> > cited as published by Ya-who?

> We would be very happy to support any efforts along these lines, and
> are delighted that you find them worthwhile.

> > [5] http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Template:Source

Still waiting to hear if we can pull that information off NewsTrust
without having third party site requests that might violate policy.

> >
> > Now, I pointed Fabrice at the writing contest[6]. I would be very
> > interested in getting the NewsTrust community to review the rules
> > we're
> > running by (the ever-popular "anyone can edit" including, at the
> > moment,
> > the competition rules). It may be possible to do some collaboration
> > on
> > that. NewsTrust could feature our competition a few days before the
> > start, Wikinews invites readers not in the competition to look at
> > ratings on NewsTrust and possibly contribute their own.
> >
> We are very happy to support your contest in any way we can, using the
> current NewsTrust review tools.

> But we will let you guys decide how you want to calculate the final
> scores and award the prizes, as this is a bit outside of our area of
> expertise.

> > NewsTrust, I think, would be an ideal group to bring in on the
> > post-competition Featured Article section. That is, all competition
> > entries scanned for FA candidates on Wikinews, and in some way
> > highlighted for review on NewsTrust. At the moment my penned-in idea
> > there is to invite some of the WMF Trustees (a few have journo
> > backgrounds) to get involved in that. The big question is, will
> > offering
> > just five points for an article that gets promoted be enough of a
> > game-changer at that stage? Should it be higher - say 20 points?
> >
> > I didn't ask Fabrice if they could help out with sponsorship for
> > prizes,
> > so we're still begging for that. Anyone think it would be worth
> > asking
> > on the Wikipedia rewards board if a few of the people who put cash
> > up
> > there might chip together to have a netbook for the outright winner?

> Our financial resources are limited, but we could perhaps give away
> NewsTrust mugs to the winners, if they were selected using our review
> tools.

I don't see any reason why the mugs couldn't be awarded to the top-rated
articles from the competition end-stage after submissions are closed and
we're looking for those to promote to featured article status.

> The mugs have a list of the core principles of journalism on the back,
> so they offer more value than just promoting us  ;o)

I've pointed people at Kipling for that ;-)




--
Brian McNeil <[hidden email]>|http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Brian_McNeil
Content of this message in no way represents the opinions or official position
of the Wikimedia Foundation or any of its projects.

_______________________________________________
Wikinews-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l

signature.asc (852 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Newstrust.net

bawolff
Note, I'm 99% sure that pulling the rating data off NewsTrust using
clientside js would be in violation of the wmf privacy policy (99% as
i have not actually read the privacy policy...). It also represents
somewhat of a security risk (the usual method of doing such things is
to execute foreign javascript that inserts rating data and/or puts
data in a global variable. which is generally something we try to
avoid, as executing arbitrary code on the client that is not under our
direct control = bad thing in my mind). With that being said, that
would probably be ok as a gadget, but not ok as enabled for everyone.

However, if we were to do this, i think a better approach would be to
get someone with a toolserver account to create a tool that acts as
intermediatery. That way, only the toolserver is in the position to
potentially collect user data.

It'd go like this: Client loads page, page asks toolserver what rating
of source is, toolserver asks newstrust (possibly caching results).

I assume that'd take care of privacy issues
--
- Bawolff
Caution: The mass of this product contains the energy equivalent of 85
million tons of TNT per net ounce of weight.



On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Brian McNeil
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Fabrice,
>
> I've whitelisted your address for posing to wikinews-l. The mailing list
> archives are here:
>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
>
> If I see any other posts from NewsTrust people I'll whitelist their
> email addresses too. You'll only get sent copies of other messages if
> you subscribe to the mailing list.
>
> On Sat, 2009-12-12 at 14:37 -0800, Fabrice Florin wrote:
>> Dear Brian,
>>
>>
>> It was great to speak with you yesterday - I'm glad that we got along
>> so well, and that you are interested in working together!
>>
>>
>> Thank you so much for moving so swiftly to contact your community
>> about a possible collaboration between NewsTrust and Wikinews.
>>
>> We will discuss this idea in our editorial meeting on Monday. We
>> really appreciate your commitment to factual reporting from a neutral
>> perspective, and it appears that we have many shared values in
>> common.
>>
>> We are also honored that you are willing to consider using NewsTrust
>> as a possible tool for judging the entries of participants in your
>> upcoming writing contest (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/WN:WWC-2010). We
>> will discuss the idea of cross-promoting this contest on both of our
>> sites at the end of January and perhaps again in early or mid-April. A
>> good way to do this might be to use our News Hunt format at that time,
>> if you all find the idea interesting. Read more about our News
>> Hunts below, as well as the attached PDF with more details about
>> NewsTrust.
>>
>>
>> I am also delighted that you were able to install our NT review
>> buttons so quickly on the Wikimedia article pages. Thanks, bawolff,
>> nicely done! See my response to your comment below.
>>
>> At your request, we already corrected the misspelling of your name on
>> our source profile page for Wikinews:
>> http://newstrust.net/sources/wikinews
>>
>>
>> Note that is is now possible for you to add one of our source widgets
>> on your site, listing stories for review from Wikinews:
>> http://newstrust.net/widgets?url=/sources/wikinews/for_review
>>
> I'm puzzling over where we could fit that in.
>>
>> You can customize your widget in many different ways on that page (be
>> sure to click on 'More Options') and we have many topic widgets you
>> might consider putting next to articles that would benefit from more
>> related stories on the same topic.
>>
>> We've also started to review a couple of your featured stories, which
>> we encourage you to review as well:
>>
>> http://newstrust.net/stories/506880/toolbar?go=review
>>
>> http://newstrust.net/stories/507108/toolbar?go=review
>
> I noticed a few were up. Iain (User Blood Red Sandman) was quite pleased
> with the review he got on the Garuda pilot story. As you probably
> understand, we can have issues getting those actually involved (such as
> the pilot) to speak to us.
>
> The one I put up and admitted a COI/writing involvement saw me acting as
> the reviewing editor, doing quite a lot of copyedit work on it and
> bringing it in line with house style.
>>
>> (if you are a co-author of any of these articles, or have any serious
>> conflicts of interest, please check the appropriate box in the 'About
>> You' section of our review form, as Brian was kind enough to do for
>> one of the articles he co-wrote)
>>
>> Lastly, I also started a Smart Feed for Wikinews here, using your
>> feedburner RSS feed:
>> http://newstrust.net/feeds/180/show
>>
>>
>> This will make it easier for any of us to submit some of your upcoming
>> stories from your feedburner feed, since much of your metada is
>> automatically pulled from your feed. However, I encourage you to focus
>> on posting some of your best stories, so we don't flood our review
>> pipeline with too many stories from Wikinews right away.
>
> I suspect the metadata on Feedburner is pathetic. We have an extension
> for MediaWiki developed to produce RSS feeds based on categories and
> (our) review process.
>>
>> We are in the middle of a News Hunt on Climate Change, which will keep
>> us busy through the weekend, and I have to prepare for a board meeting
>> at the end of the week, so I will not be able to review any more
>> stories from you guys until the following week. Thanks for your
>> understanding. But if you have any good articles about Social Change,
>> we would be happy to have our community review them, as that will be
>> one of our major themes next week.
>>
>>
>> I would also like to introduce our associate editor Kaizar Campwala,
>> who is our point person for News Hunts and partnerships. Kaizar can be
>> reached at <[hidden email]> and can answer any other questions
>> you might have about using our service.
>>
>> Look forward to continuing this discussion in coming weeks.
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>>
>>
>> Fabrice
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> P.S.: Do you guys know how we could encourage a Wikipedia writer to
>> write an entry about NewsTrust on their site?
>
> Have you independent press reports on NewsTrust? That's the key thing.
> There's a few Wikipedians also contribute to Wikinews, they might know
> if there is still a "requesting an article" page on Wikipedia (and where
> it's hidden).
>>
>>
>> We understand and respect Wikipedia's rules against writing entries
>> about yourself -- or asking your friends to do it -- so we have not
>> made any attempts to have an entry written about us to date.
>>
>>
>> But we do think that it would be reasonable for someone to write one,
>> given all that we have contributed to this field over the years (see
>> attached project overview).
>
> It's all down to, unlike Wikinews, Wikipedia having a policy against
> original research, and being a tertiary source.
>
> If there is a press release or two for NewsTrust then any board or other
> people might get their Wikipedia articles updated to reflect the
> position. You can go right ahead and ask for that on an article talk
> page as long as you disclose your interest.
>
> Example:
>
> "I'm XXX of NewsTrust (http://newstrust.net), this article on <someone>
> does not mention that he is <positionholder> at NewsTrust. This is
> verifiable in <link to press releases> and <links to news reports>. Can
> this detail be added as a redlink to [[w:NewsTrust.net]], or that
> article actually started? --~~~~"
>>
>>
>> Would you be willing to nudge an experienced Wikipedia writer
>> interested in this topic to consider us as a worthy subject for an
>> article?
>
> I think I just did. I'll point a few other people at the mailing list
> archive, it might encourage them.
>
> <snip>
>>
>> Brian, to answer your question above, clicking on our NT review button
>> on a story that has already been submitted will take you directly to
>> our review form.
>
> Great!
>
>> > I've had encouraging feedback off-list about tying into NewsTrust's
>> > source rating system. Here's how I see us using this:
>> >
>> > {{source}}[5] is modified to have an optional "|NT" parameter. Where
>> > present, the URL for the cited source is checked for on NewsTrust,
>> > the
>> > story rating is retrieved, and a (likely smaller than NT uses)
>> > graphic
>> > of their trust level for the story is displayed somewhere. If
>> > NewsTrust
>> > doesn't have the story, the ideal is to fall back to their trust
>> > level
>> > for the source that published the story. Here we're going to run
>> > into
>> > the usual headaches with wire reports that are everywhere and end up
>> > cited as published by Ya-who?
>
>> We would be very happy to support any efforts along these lines, and
>> are delighted that you find them worthwhile.
>
>> > [5] http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Template:Source
>
> Still waiting to hear if we can pull that information off NewsTrust
> without having third party site requests that might violate policy.
>> >
>> > Now, I pointed Fabrice at the writing contest[6]. I would be very
>> > interested in getting the NewsTrust community to review the rules
>> > we're
>> > running by (the ever-popular "anyone can edit" including, at the
>> > moment,
>> > the competition rules). It may be possible to do some collaboration
>> > on
>> > that. NewsTrust could feature our competition a few days before the
>> > start, Wikinews invites readers not in the competition to look at
>> > ratings on NewsTrust and possibly contribute their own.
>> >
>> We are very happy to support your contest in any way we can, using the
>> current NewsTrust review tools.
>
>> But we will let you guys decide how you want to calculate the final
>> scores and award the prizes, as this is a bit outside of our area of
>> expertise.
>
>> > NewsTrust, I think, would be an ideal group to bring in on the
>> > post-competition Featured Article section. That is, all competition
>> > entries scanned for FA candidates on Wikinews, and in some way
>> > highlighted for review on NewsTrust. At the moment my penned-in idea
>> > there is to invite some of the WMF Trustees (a few have journo
>> > backgrounds) to get involved in that. The big question is, will
>> > offering
>> > just five points for an article that gets promoted be enough of a
>> > game-changer at that stage? Should it be higher - say 20 points?
>> >
>> > I didn't ask Fabrice if they could help out with sponsorship for
>> > prizes,
>> > so we're still begging for that. Anyone think it would be worth
>> > asking
>> > on the Wikipedia rewards board if a few of the people who put cash
>> > up
>> > there might chip together to have a netbook for the outright winner?
>
>> Our financial resources are limited, but we could perhaps give away
>> NewsTrust mugs to the winners, if they were selected using our review
>> tools.
>
> I don't see any reason why the mugs couldn't be awarded to the top-rated
> articles from the competition end-stage after submissions are closed and
> we're looking for those to promote to featured article status.
>
>> The mugs have a list of the core principles of journalism on the back,
>> so they offer more value than just promoting us  ;o)
>
> I've pointed people at Kipling for that ;-)
>
>
>
>
> --
> Brian McNeil <[hidden email]>|http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Brian_McNeil
> Content of this message in no way represents the opinions or official position
> of the Wikimedia Foundation or any of its projects.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikinews-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
>
>

_______________________________________________
Wikinews-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Newstrust.net

brian.mcneil-2
On Sat, 2009-12-12 at 18:27 -0700, bawolff wrote:

> Note, I'm 99% sure that pulling the rating data off NewsTrust using
> clientside js would be in violation of the wmf privacy policy (99% as
> i have not actually read the privacy policy...). It also represents
> somewhat of a security risk (the usual method of doing such things is
> to execute foreign javascript that inserts rating data and/or puts
> data in a global variable. which is generally something we try to
> avoid, as executing arbitrary code on the client that is not under our
> direct control = bad thing in my mind). With that being said, that
> would probably be ok as a gadget, but not ok as enabled for everyone.
>
> However, if we were to do this, i think a better approach would be to
> get someone with a toolserver account to create a tool that acts as
> intermediatery. That way, only the toolserver is in the position to
> potentially collect user data.
>
> It'd go like this: Client loads page, page asks toolserver what rating
> of source is, toolserver asks newstrust (possibly caching results).
>
> I assume that'd take care of privacy issues
I do worry how much work that would impose on NewsTrust. There would
need to be some sort of API on their end to serve requests up with
needed data.

It would also make having a "mission critical" Toolserver box essential.
I know how flaky the toolserve has historically been. We can't rely on
what's there for stuff appearing in published main namespace content.

In any case, we'd need to be sending the following information to
NewsTrust from the Toolserver:

article URL
source name
if an initial request, or periodic polling

It'd need to return

any rating they have for the article
an indicator there rating is for the article
the number of reviews for the article
any rating they have for the source
the number of reviews for the source

If a periodic polling, NewsTrust could return some sort of "no change"
indicator.

This would be flexible enough that Wikinews could collect the
information on our own articles and stay within the privacy policy and
the WMF techies paranoia about cross-site scripting attacks.

For us using the NewsTrust review widget in the {{social bookmarks}}
template Bawolff, is there any way we can pick out best-guess categories
when someone submits a story? As I said, the "basic" submission from
where we've got the code fails until you complete those details.

--
Brian McNeil <[hidden email]>|http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Brian_McNeil
Content of this message in no way represents the opinions or official position
of the Wikimedia Foundation or any of its projects.

_______________________________________________
Wikinews-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l

signature.asc (852 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Newstrust.net

bawolff
Yes, it can detect the categories (or at least be made to do so. JS
looks at categories on article, maps them to category scheme for news
trust, and dynamically modifies url of button). I'll try to add that
some point in the near future.

Ideally if we did use the toolserver as an intermediary, it'd cache
responses, so not to overload newstrust (and script on wikinews end
would fail gracefully if toolserver has downtime).
--
- Bawolff
Caution: The mass of this product contains the energy equivalent of 85
million tons of TNT per net ounce of weight.



On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Brian McNeil
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sat, 2009-12-12 at 18:27 -0700, bawolff wrote:
>> Note, I'm 99% sure that pulling the rating data off NewsTrust using
>> clientside js would be in violation of the wmf privacy policy (99% as
>> i have not actually read the privacy policy...). It also represents
>> somewhat of a security risk (the usual method of doing such things is
>> to execute foreign javascript that inserts rating data and/or puts
>> data in a global variable. which is generally something we try to
>> avoid, as executing arbitrary code on the client that is not under our
>> direct control = bad thing in my mind). With that being said, that
>> would probably be ok as a gadget, but not ok as enabled for everyone.
>>
>> However, if we were to do this, i think a better approach would be to
>> get someone with a toolserver account to create a tool that acts as
>> intermediatery. That way, only the toolserver is in the position to
>> potentially collect user data.
>>
>> It'd go like this: Client loads page, page asks toolserver what rating
>> of source is, toolserver asks newstrust (possibly caching results).
>>
>> I assume that'd take care of privacy issues
>
> I do worry how much work that would impose on NewsTrust. There would
> need to be some sort of API on their end to serve requests up with
> needed data.
>
> It would also make having a "mission critical" Toolserver box essential.
> I know how flaky the toolserve has historically been. We can't rely on
> what's there for stuff appearing in published main namespace content.
>
> In any case, we'd need to be sending the following information to
> NewsTrust from the Toolserver:
>
> article URL
> source name
> if an initial request, or periodic polling
>
> It'd need to return
>
> any rating they have for the article
> an indicator there rating is for the article
> the number of reviews for the article
> any rating they have for the source
> the number of reviews for the source
>
> If a periodic polling, NewsTrust could return some sort of "no change"
> indicator.
>
> This would be flexible enough that Wikinews could collect the
> information on our own articles and stay within the privacy policy and
> the WMF techies paranoia about cross-site scripting attacks.
>
> For us using the NewsTrust review widget in the {{social bookmarks}}
> template Bawolff, is there any way we can pick out best-guess categories
> when someone submits a story? As I said, the "basic" submission from
> where we've got the code fails until you complete those details.
>
> --
> Brian McNeil <[hidden email]>|http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Brian_McNeil
> Content of this message in no way represents the opinions or official position
> of the Wikimedia Foundation or any of its projects.
>

_______________________________________________
Wikinews-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Newstrust.net

brian.mcneil-2
[Refactored because top-posting is evil.]

> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Brian McNeil wrote:

> On Sat, 2009-12-12 at 18:27 -0700, bawolff wrote:

> >> It'd go like this: Client loads page, page asks toolserver what
> >> rating
> >> of source is, toolserver asks newstrust (possibly caching results).

Reminder: I'm wanting the url parameter and publisher name sent to
NewsTrust. Ideally Wikinews is displaying the sourced-from article's
rating. If they don't have one, or a very small number of reviews, it
falls back to the publisher's more general rating. We do want to pick
out where a normally good publisher spits out a dud.

> >> I assume that'd take care of privacy issues
> >
> > I do worry how much work that would impose on NewsTrust. There would
> > need to be some sort of API on their end to serve requests up with
> > needed data.
> >
> > It would also make having a "mission critical" Toolserver box essential.
> > I know how flaky the toolserve has historically been. We can't rely on
> > what's there for stuff appearing in published main namespace content.
> >
> > In any case, we'd need to be sending the following information to
> > NewsTrust from the Toolserver:
> >
> > article URL
> > source name
> > if an initial request, or periodic polling
> >
> > It'd need to return
> >
> > any rating they have for the article
> > an indicator there rating is for the article
> > the number of reviews for the article
> > any rating they have for the source
> > the number of reviews for the source
> >
> > If a periodic polling, NewsTrust could return some sort of "no change"
> > indicator.
> >
> > This would be flexible enough that Wikinews could collect the
> > information on our own articles and stay within the privacy policy and
> > the WMF techies paranoia about cross-site scripting attacks.

> Ideally if we did use the toolserver as an intermediary, it'd cache
> responses, so not to overload newstrust (and script on wikinews end
> would fail gracefully if toolserver has downtime).

I'm factoring in an "unchanged" response instead of a large blob of XML.
This way we can minimise the load put on NewsTrust and keep the data
current. I don't want too long a delay between someone reviewing an
article on NewsTrust and that being reflected anywhere the data is
displayed on Wikinews. It encourages readers both to look at these
things on NewsTrust *and* to check Wikinews articles more than once.

A last point I'd be really keen to go over with Kul in the office is how
the Foundation itself, as opposed to a semi-independent project effort,
could partner with NewsTrust. Few points on that:

The Wikinews logo is a registered mark. NewsTrust could use it under
fair-use provisions but an actual in-writing agreement would be far, far
better - and more *transparent*.

The Foundation has, as far as I know, done a few select deals with the
Wikipedia logo. If I recall correctly, one of the Spanish ISPs has a
deal to do a portal into Wikipedia content. I think that would involve
private data sharing. Can a similar deal be drawn up with NewsWire? Is
it, perhaps, just as simple as specific clauses in NewsTrust's privacy
policy and terms of use?



--
Brian McNeil <[hidden email]>|http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Brian_McNeil
Content of this message in no way represents the opinions or official position
of the Wikimedia Foundation or any of its projects.
* Problems replying? Forward bounces to [hidden email] to raise with Godaddy Hosting.

_______________________________________________
Wikinews-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l

signature.asc (852 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Newstrust.net

Fabrice Florin
In reply to this post by bawolff
Hi guys,

I have added our web engineer Subbu Sastry to this thread, as he would know whether or not it's feasible for us to give you this data.

We don't yet have a full API, though our widgets function a bit like an API.

One new widget we have been considering is a rating widget which a third-party could put on their site, to show the NT story rating for a particular story on that site. It might also be possible to show the source rating we have for that source, if known. We hadn't planned on doing this right away, but it's in the queue of things we would consider doing, if requested by one of our partners.

Your request seems a bit different, if I understand it correctly: you would want to display the ratings for sources cited by your articles, is that right? if that's the case, it may be sufficient for us to get just the URL. We would then look up that URL in our DB, and if we have it on file, that would allow us to provide the story rating and number of reviews. We may also be able to provide the source rating and number of reviews for the source associated with that story at the same time. Lastly, it may be possible to provide the source rating and reviews for the source typically associated with that domain name, though this is a risky proposition, because often a story featured on a site is not really from that site. So it would be best to ask for source ratings by specifying a source name, but you would need to request the exact name we use for that source, which could be prone to human error.

In any case, we should probably prioritize the tasks you are considering, so we know which is most important to you from an editorial standpoint.

Is it more important for you to have your own articles display a story rating? or to give a rating to the third-party articles cited as sources for your own articles?

If it's the latter, how often would you need this information to be updated? If it's an old story, its story rating is unlikely to change much after a month or two after its release, so maybe you could settle for a one-time rating -- the source rating is more likely to change over time, but not by much. So maybe a once-a-month or less frequent update might be fine.

Either way, we would need to figure out how important all this is to you, and if we can squeeze in some simple technology that addresses most of your needs.

But this is a good conversation to have, and we appreciate your thinking about these creative uses of NewsTrust for your site.

Thanks again,


Fabrice


On Dec 12, 2009, at 6:02 PM, bawolff wrote:

> Yes, it can detect the categories (or at least be made to do so. JS
> looks at categories on article, maps them to category scheme for news
> trust, and dynamically modifies url of button). I'll try to add that
> some point in the near future.
>
> Ideally if we did use the toolserver as an intermediary, it'd cache
> responses, so not to overload newstrust (and script on wikinews end
> would fail gracefully if toolserver has downtime).
> --
> - Bawolff
> Caution: The mass of this product contains the energy equivalent of 85
> million tons of TNT per net ounce of weight.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Brian McNeil
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On Sat, 2009-12-12 at 18:27 -0700, bawolff wrote:
>>> Note, I'm 99% sure that pulling the rating data off NewsTrust using
>>> clientside js would be in violation of the wmf privacy policy (99% as
>>> i have not actually read the privacy policy...). It also represents
>>> somewhat of a security risk (the usual method of doing such things is
>>> to execute foreign javascript that inserts rating data and/or puts
>>> data in a global variable. which is generally something we try to
>>> avoid, as executing arbitrary code on the client that is not under our
>>> direct control = bad thing in my mind). With that being said, that
>>> would probably be ok as a gadget, but not ok as enabled for everyone.
>>>
>>> However, if we were to do this, i think a better approach would be to
>>> get someone with a toolserver account to create a tool that acts as
>>> intermediatery. That way, only the toolserver is in the position to
>>> potentially collect user data.
>>>
>>> It'd go like this: Client loads page, page asks toolserver what rating
>>> of source is, toolserver asks newstrust (possibly caching results).
>>>
>>> I assume that'd take care of privacy issues
>>
>> I do worry how much work that would impose on NewsTrust. There would
>> need to be some sort of API on their end to serve requests up with
>> needed data.
>>
>> It would also make having a "mission critical" Toolserver box essential.
>> I know how flaky the toolserve has historically been. We can't rely on
>> what's there for stuff appearing in published main namespace content.
>>
>> In any case, we'd need to be sending the following information to
>> NewsTrust from the Toolserver:
>>
>> article URL
>> source name
>> if an initial request, or periodic polling
>>
>> It'd need to return
>>
>> any rating they have for the article
>> an indicator there rating is for the article
>> the number of reviews for the article
>> any rating they have for the source
>> the number of reviews for the source
>>
>> If a periodic polling, NewsTrust could return some sort of "no change"
>> indicator.
>>
>> This would be flexible enough that Wikinews could collect the
>> information on our own articles and stay within the privacy policy and
>> the WMF techies paranoia about cross-site scripting attacks.
>>
>> For us using the NewsTrust review widget in the {{social bookmarks}}
>> template Bawolff, is there any way we can pick out best-guess categories
>> when someone submits a story? As I said, the "basic" submission from
>> where we've got the code fails until you complete those details.
>>
>> --
>> Brian McNeil <[hidden email]>|http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Brian_McNeil
>> Content of this message in no way represents the opinions or official position
>> of the Wikimedia Foundation or any of its projects.
>>


_______________________________________________
Wikinews-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Newstrust.net

Brian McNeil-3
[Erik Moeller dropped from CC list; no response to any emails over past
 week on these issues.]

On Sat, 2009-12-12 at 18:39 -0800, Fabrice Florin wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I have added our web engineer Subbu Sastry to this thread, as he would know whether or not it's feasible for us to give you this data.

Hi Subbu!

Wikinews has a few techies who hack things together for the site.
Bawolff specialises in Javascript with unusual exception errors
containing creative spelling mistakes. I'm going to suggest one of his
widgets for NewsTrust (later), I think you and Fabrice will both quite
like it.

We've also Jon (ShakataGaNai) who helps with a number of other coding
things. Some less-noticeable people also help with other bits and
pieces.

Personally I've little experience with developing server-side things
like a web API; but, does 20+ years as a systems analyst help? Mostly
working on Billing Systems and Enterprise Resource Planning, I did do
some XML-spewing designs for that. I'd probably have no problems with
looking at your database structures and identifying the information I
think most useful to expose in an API. Happy to drop Fabrice and some of
the other CC'd people from that discussion. If there's a need for a
non-disclosure agreement to get at such data it won't be the first time
I've signed one.

> We don't yet have a full API, though our widgets function a bit like an API.

> One new widget we have been considering is a rating widget which a third-party could put on their site, to show the NT story rating for a particular story on that site. It might also be possible to show the source rating we have for that source, if known. We hadn't planned on doing this right away, but it's in the queue of things we would consider doing, if requested by one of our partners.

I'd say the advantage of an API is the scripts for your widgets should
be greatly simplified, and you can freely license examples of them.

The drawback is you'll want to do various logs and analyses on API usage
so you can block any particularly abusive sites; just like web spiders
that don't respect robots.txt end up blocked everywhere except SEO
linkbuilder sites.

> Your request seems a bit different, if I understand it correctly: you would want to display the ratings for sources cited by your articles, is that right? if that's the case, it may be sufficient for us to get just the URL. We would then look up that URL in our DB, and if we have it on file, that would allow us to provide the story rating and number of reviews. We may also be able to provide the source rating and number of reviews for the source associated with that story at the same time. Lastly, it may be possible to provide the source rating and reviews for the source typically associated with that domain name, though this is a risky proposition, because often a story featured on a site is not really from that site. So it would be best to ask for source ratings by specifying a source name, but you would need to request the exact name we use for that source, which could be prone to human error.

Yes. At the moment there's a significant percentage of Wikinews articles
are what we call "synthesis" articles. They contain no original
research, but are constructed through using multiple independent sources
which must be listed at the foot of the article.

Within the Wikicode this looks as follows:

*{{source|url=http://news.example.com/articleurl
|title=Name of story, as given by publisher
|author=the article's author(s), if specified by the publisher
|pub=The name of the publisher. This *should* be as listed on Wikipedia
|date=Monthname daynumber, year - as specified by the publisher}}

This was one point another contributor raised off-list; we currently
list all used sources with no regard to their reliability or reputation.
That can see Fox News listed and "supposedly" on a par with the BBC,
Reuters, or PBS. Your own critique of Iain's article on the Garuda
pilot's conviction noted we'd not had contact with some key primary
sources; as independents, with zero financial backing for our reporting
activities, getting that can be challenging. International phone calls
can soon mount up if you're looking for comment from the other side of
the globe. Personally, I've sunk between €500-€1,000 into setting up our
wikinewsie.org domain, mostly used so we're not emailing people with
addresses like "[hidden email]".

> In any case, we should probably prioritize the tasks you are considering, so we know which is most important to you from an editorial standpoint.

I don't want to end up pushing NewsTrust to develop something that would
have limited use outside that of Wikinews. However, I do think that the
elimination of cross-server scripting vulnerabilities would be a big
selling point for a published API.

> Is it more important for you to have your own articles display a story rating? or to give a rating to the third-party articles cited as sources for your own articles?

Both, I think. But, that's the beauty of doing it with an API; anyone
could do either.

> If it's the latter, how often would you need this information to be updated? If it's an old story, its story rating is unlikely to change much after a month or two after its release, so maybe you could settle for a one-time rating -- the source rating is more likely to change over time, but not by much. So maybe a once-a-month or less frequent update might be fine.

Bawolff's input on this suggests the volume of requests to NewsTrust
would naturally tail off as articles age. Thus:

* Someone request a Wikinews article.
* Javascript on Wikinews activates, parses required parameters from the
  source template, and sends them to our back end (the ToolServer).
* If less than 10-15 minutes since NewsTrust last queried, back end
  returns cached data.
* Else the back end submits a new request
* If NewsTrust returns updated data (instead of an "unchanged" response)
  the back end updates its stats and sends that on to the reader via the
  Javascript invoked above

> Either way, we would need to figure out how important all this is to you, and if we can squeeze in some simple technology that addresses most of your needs.

As you've mentioned, and one of the other headaches we have, something
from AP, Reuters, or AFP can end up on dozens - if not hundreds - of
newspaper sites. Wikinews tends to push for people to go back to the
wire site or, say, Google News' hosting of these. We also push for the
wire to be cited as the author (eg Reuters); that *might* help NewsTrust
consolidate the different URLs because the article title is generally
only changed if the site publishing it applies a house style for
capitalisation.

If, perhaps as a more long-term goal for NewsTrust, you were getting
that data you could tie up all the different URLs for a Reuters or AP
story, group under a unique article identifier, and expose that in the
API so, once you've queried with a URL, the API asks for future requests
to use a much shorter identifier.

> But this is a good conversation to have, and we appreciate your thinking about these creative uses of NewsTrust for your site.

I did warn you Wikinewsies will steal anything that isn't nailed down
and watched by armed guards. :-P

Oh, and the widget I said I'd suggest:

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-dictionaryLookupHover.js

Subbu will likely follow this most quickly; it's a freely licensed piece
of Javascript that uses Wiktionary (another WMF project) to do a
dictionary lookup of any work a user double clicks on.

It is multilingual, so if NewsTrust account holders could set a "Mother
tongue" option they wouldn't get definitions in an English default, but
their chosen language. (The gadget looks up "example" in Wiktionary,
tracks down the link to the definition in "Mother tongue", and displays
it in a small pop-up window.)

If you'd like to try it out on Wikinews, sign up for an account, log in,
select your preferences at the top of the page, go to the gadgets tab,
and look for and enable Wiktionary Hover.

Here endeth another shameless plug for Bawolff's Javascript-fu.




--
Brian McNeil <[hidden email]>|http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Brian_McNeil
Content of this message in no way represents the opinions or official position
of the Wikimedia Foundation or any of its projects.


_______________________________________________
Wikinews-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Newstrust.net

Fabrice Florin
In reply to this post by Fabrice Florin
Thanks, Brian!

Sounds like the best thing we could do to serve your needs (and those of many other sites) would be to offer an API for NewsTrust.

We will put this on our to-do list for 2010, and see if we can schedule it early next year.

For now, let's focus on the services we already offer, and build our relationship from there. We have a lot on our plate in the next few weeks, so this will probably not be in a position to start new technology development on this until January.

I really appreciate your excellent recommendations, and will definitely want to involve you in our next steps for the API.

We will also get back to you by the end of next week about a co-promotion of the Wikinews contest at the end of January.

Thanks again, and speak with you soon!


Fabrice


On Dec 12, 2009, at 8:26 PM, Brian McNeil wrote:

> [Erik Moeller dropped from CC list; no response to any emails over past
> week on these issues.]
>
> On Sat, 2009-12-12 at 18:39 -0800, Fabrice Florin wrote:
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> I have added our web engineer Subbu Sastry to this thread, as he would know whether or not it's feasible for us to give you this data.
>
> Hi Subbu!
>
> Wikinews has a few techies who hack things together for the site.
> Bawolff specialises in Javascript with unusual exception errors
> containing creative spelling mistakes. I'm going to suggest one of his
> widgets for NewsTrust (later), I think you and Fabrice will both quite
> like it.
>
> We've also Jon (ShakataGaNai) who helps with a number of other coding
> things. Some less-noticeable people also help with other bits and
> pieces.
>
> Personally I've little experience with developing server-side things
> like a web API; but, does 20+ years as a systems analyst help? Mostly
> working on Billing Systems and Enterprise Resource Planning, I did do
> some XML-spewing designs for that. I'd probably have no problems with
> looking at your database structures and identifying the information I
> think most useful to expose in an API. Happy to drop Fabrice and some of
> the other CC'd people from that discussion. If there's a need for a
> non-disclosure agreement to get at such data it won't be the first time
> I've signed one.
>
>> We don't yet have a full API, though our widgets function a bit like an API.
>
>> One new widget we have been considering is a rating widget which a third-party could put on their site, to show the NT story rating for a particular story on that site. It might also be possible to show the source rating we have for that source, if known. We hadn't planned on doing this right away, but it's in the queue of things we would consider doing, if requested by one of our partners.
>
> I'd say the advantage of an API is the scripts for your widgets should
> be greatly simplified, and you can freely license examples of them.
>
> The drawback is you'll want to do various logs and analyses on API usage
> so you can block any particularly abusive sites; just like web spiders
> that don't respect robots.txt end up blocked everywhere except SEO
> linkbuilder sites.
>
>> Your request seems a bit different, if I understand it correctly: you would want to display the ratings for sources cited by your articles, is that right? if that's the case, it may be sufficient for us to get just the URL. We would then look up that URL in our DB, and if we have it on file, that would allow us to provide the story rating and number of reviews. We may also be able to provide the source rating and number of reviews for the source associated with that story at the same time. Lastly, it may be possible to provide the source rating and reviews for the source typically associated with that domain name, though this is a risky proposition, because often a story featured on a site is not really from that site. So it would be best to ask for source ratings by specifying a source name, but you would need to request the exact name we use for that source, which could be prone to human error.
>
> Yes. At the moment there's a significant percentage of Wikinews articles
> are what we call "synthesis" articles. They contain no original
> research, but are constructed through using multiple independent sources
> which must be listed at the foot of the article.
>
> Within the Wikicode this looks as follows:
>
> *{{source|url=http://news.example.com/articleurl
> |title=Name of story, as given by publisher
> |author=the article's author(s), if specified by the publisher
> |pub=The name of the publisher. This *should* be as listed on Wikipedia
> |date=Monthname daynumber, year - as specified by the publisher}}
>
> This was one point another contributor raised off-list; we currently
> list all used sources with no regard to their reliability or reputation.
> That can see Fox News listed and "supposedly" on a par with the BBC,
> Reuters, or PBS. Your own critique of Iain's article on the Garuda
> pilot's conviction noted we'd not had contact with some key primary
> sources; as independents, with zero financial backing for our reporting
> activities, getting that can be challenging. International phone calls
> can soon mount up if you're looking for comment from the other side of
> the globe. Personally, I've sunk between €500-€1,000 into setting up our
> wikinewsie.org domain, mostly used so we're not emailing people with
> addresses like "[hidden email]".
>
>> In any case, we should probably prioritize the tasks you are considering, so we know which is most important to you from an editorial standpoint.
>
> I don't want to end up pushing NewsTrust to develop something that would
> have limited use outside that of Wikinews. However, I do think that the
> elimination of cross-server scripting vulnerabilities would be a big
> selling point for a published API.
>
>> Is it more important for you to have your own articles display a story rating? or to give a rating to the third-party articles cited as sources for your own articles?
>
> Both, I think. But, that's the beauty of doing it with an API; anyone
> could do either.
>
>> If it's the latter, how often would you need this information to be updated? If it's an old story, its story rating is unlikely to change much after a month or two after its release, so maybe you could settle for a one-time rating -- the source rating is more likely to change over time, but not by much. So maybe a once-a-month or less frequent update might be fine.
>
> Bawolff's input on this suggests the volume of requests to NewsTrust
> would naturally tail off as articles age. Thus:
>
> * Someone request a Wikinews article.
> * Javascript on Wikinews activates, parses required parameters from the
>  source template, and sends them to our back end (the ToolServer).
> * If less than 10-15 minutes since NewsTrust last queried, back end
>  returns cached data.
> * Else the back end submits a new request
> * If NewsTrust returns updated data (instead of an "unchanged" response)
>  the back end updates its stats and sends that on to the reader via the
>  Javascript invoked above
>
>> Either way, we would need to figure out how important all this is to you, and if we can squeeze in some simple technology that addresses most of your needs.
>
> As you've mentioned, and one of the other headaches we have, something
> from AP, Reuters, or AFP can end up on dozens - if not hundreds - of
> newspaper sites. Wikinews tends to push for people to go back to the
> wire site or, say, Google News' hosting of these. We also push for the
> wire to be cited as the author (eg Reuters); that *might* help NewsTrust
> consolidate the different URLs because the article title is generally
> only changed if the site publishing it applies a house style for
> capitalisation.
>
> If, perhaps as a more long-term goal for NewsTrust, you were getting
> that data you could tie up all the different URLs for a Reuters or AP
> story, group under a unique article identifier, and expose that in the
> API so, once you've queried with a URL, the API asks for future requests
> to use a much shorter identifier.
>
>> But this is a good conversation to have, and we appreciate your thinking about these creative uses of NewsTrust for your site.
>
> I did warn you Wikinewsies will steal anything that isn't nailed down
> and watched by armed guards. :-P
>
> Oh, and the widget I said I'd suggest:
>
> http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-dictionaryLookupHover.js
>
> Subbu will likely follow this most quickly; it's a freely licensed piece
> of Javascript that uses Wiktionary (another WMF project) to do a
> dictionary lookup of any work a user double clicks on.
>
> It is multilingual, so if NewsTrust account holders could set a "Mother
> tongue" option they wouldn't get definitions in an English default, but
> their chosen language. (The gadget looks up "example" in Wiktionary,
> tracks down the link to the definition in "Mother tongue", and displays
> it in a small pop-up window.)
>
> If you'd like to try it out on Wikinews, sign up for an account, log in,
> select your preferences at the top of the page, go to the gadgets tab,
> and look for and enable Wiktionary Hover.
>
> Here endeth another shameless plug for Bawolff's Javascript-fu.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Brian McNeil <[hidden email]>|http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Brian_McNeil
> Content of this message in no way represents the opinions or official position
> of the Wikimedia Foundation or any of its projects.
>
>
>
> --
> Brian McNeil <[hidden email]>|http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Brian_McNeil
> Content of this message in no way represents the opinions or official position
> of the Wikimedia Foundation or any of its projects.
> * Problems replying? Forward bounces to [hidden email] to raise with Godaddy Hosting.
>


_______________________________________________
Wikinews-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Newstrust and Wiki News Follow Up

brian.mcneil-2
In reply to this post by Brian McNeil-3
Hi Fabrice,

I forwarded your 'challenge' on to a number of the Wikinews
contributors. As I'm sure you'll understand, being a community-run
project some people are prolific, but don't do heavyweight. Personally,
I'd class a lot of sports or 'trivia' stuff as "filler". Given my own
view of the project as, for a first major goal, aiming to do as well as
the BBC on serious stuff, that irritates me.

What I now think would be the best approach at the end of the Wikinews
writing contest is to see if we can get a few of your regularly
published participants to critique the competition, perhaps praise one
or two stories, and their ideas on how to make a more successful
competition in future. A few years back I was able to personally put up
about €250 in cash prize money - the project also had about a dozen
students at a slack point in their education (mainly Auzzies and Kiwis)
who pushed out a noticeable number of quite lengthy articles.

I have no idea if any of these lapsed contributors are studying
writing-related subjects, but private discussion with several indicates
the experience has matured them. They're unafraid when it comes to
sitting down opposite local political candidates who may be more than
twice their seventeen or eighteen years. They've experienced blunt
feedback on what makes good reading, they've been pointed at Strunk's,
like myself repeatedly chastised for use of passive voice, and really
asked to step up to the plate and say, "I think this is good; what's
wrong with it, and how can I be better next time?"

It was at short notice we were seeking competition sponsorship - with
the hope this would bring in a lot of competitors. It did not go as well
as I would have liked, and several reasonably established contributors
somewhat gamed the system by writing just-qualifying articles in
preference to the in-depth work I hoped to solicit.

I do not see any reason why, next time round, the competition could not
be attractive enough to produce significantly more high-quality in-depth
journalistic work. In fact, I don't see why the project could not be,
er, ... "adopted" by those teaching journalism. I believe I mentioned
the interview with John Beasley-Murray who got his students to write a
featured article on Wikipedia. Why not featured journalism on Wikinews
for students of journalism, or even English students studying that
particular form of writing?

Right now, Wikinews has a review process, stylebook, and most of the
elements any journalism student is going to hit in the real world. I
don't think their lecturers and professors should be telling them to
"study new media"; I think those givers of knowledge should be rolling
up their sleeves, getting into the processes we use on Wikinews,
building a rapport with the community, and using an existing wiki
platform to expose their students' work to a wide audience.

So, to return to the writing competition, I think it has - to some
extent - be written off as a failure; but one, Wikinews can learn from,
and could be done better in the future. Previously Wikinews contributors
have investigated Knight Foundation funding - but not quite made the
bar. There's a need to reach to a wider community who might can focus on
content production in such a way that funding was forthcoming. I'd like
to see that from an educational interest, so please forward my contact
details as you see fit Fabrice. I really think if you'd a couple of
lecturers and handful of post-grads worked through getting trusted by
the Wikinews community they could manage a class of about 50 using
Wikinews to polish their journalistic skills. I'd hope the "published in
Google News and forever archived" would also be an incentivising stick
they could beat their students with.

In the US, if something like that spread to several states, it would
improve Wikinews as a free news source and give those studying the craft
a very early opportunity to start building a reputation.



On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 11:39 -0800, Fabrice Florin wrote:

> Dear Brian,
>
>
> Thanks so much for getting back to me about the Wiki News writing
> contest -- and congrats on your new job!
>
>
> Based on your recommendation, we will hold off on the proposed judging
> of contest entries, but wanted to let you know about a new project we
> are developing this spring, with support from Omidyar Network and the
> MacArthur Foundation.
>
>
> We have an interesting opportunity for collaboration with Wiki News
> coming up next month, when we will be organizing a special Global
> Economy News Hunt. We would love to extend an invitation to some of
> your best writers to create a few good synthesis articles on this
> theme, for review on NewsTrust.
>
>
> The week of April 12th, 2010, NewsTrust will join forces with a select
> group of partners to find good and bad journalism about the global
> economy. During that week, we will look for some of the best and worst
> news coverage on how the economic crisis is affecting people around
> the world. Our communities will review news and opinions on that issue
> from a wide range of international and U.S. news sources. (read more
> below)
>
>
> Do you think this would interest some of your writers? If so, would
> you be willing to forward this message to the appropriate members of
> the Wiki News community?
>
>
> Thanks again for keeping this relation going. There may be more
> opportunities for us to collaborate later in the year.
>
> All the best,
>
>
> Fabrice
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________
>
> Fabrice Florin
> Executive Director, NewsTrust
> +1 (415) 388-6688
> [hidden email]
> http://newstrust.net
> @fabriceflorin
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________
>
> GLOBAL ECONOMY NEWS HUNT PLAN
>
>
> Overview
> The week of April 12, 2010, NewsTrust will join forces with a select
> group of media and educational partners to find good (and bad)
> journalism about the global economy for a week -- with a focus on how
> the recession is affecting people around the world.  During this
> one-week Global Economy News Hunt, we will jointly invite our members
> to post and review stories on that issue from a wide range of
> international and U.S. news sources. As a community, we will look for
> stories on economic issues ranging from unemployment to government
> cutbacks in different parts of the world. The following week, we'll
> feature some of the best and worst coverage we found together, to help
> readers become more discerning about the quality of the international
> news they consume. This project is made possible by generous grants
> from Omidyar Network and the MacArthur Foundation.
>
> Time Line (April 12 - April 18)
> * Monday, April 12 - News Hunt starts
> * Sunday, April 18 - News Hunt ends
> * Wednesday, April 21 - Post News Hunt Results
>
>
>
> Partner Responsibilities
> Here are our proposed tasks and responsibilities for each partner.
>
> Your Organization
> * Announce collaboration on your site (as well as in print or on-air,
> if appropriate)
> * Send special email to members who might be interested in this
> project (or include us in your weekly newsletter)
> * Promote news hunt on your home page and relevant section pages (news
> hunt write up and badge)
> * Link all promotions to special Welcome page for your members
> on NewsTrust (to be created)
> * Add NewsTrust widget on your site, either on a special page or in
> appropriate section (or on blog post announcement)
> * Promote the News Hunt on your social media channels on Facebook and
> Twitter
> * Post News Hunt results on your blog or special page for this
> project
>
> NewsTrust
> * Create special sign up page for your members on NewsTrust site
> (with News Hunt instructions)
> * Promote News Hunt and link to your site on our home
> page, World and Global Economy pages
> * Promote News Hunt and link to your site in NewsTrust daily and
> weekly email newsletters (35k impressions)
> * Promote News Hunt and link to your site in "From the Editors" box on
> NT homepage
> * Promote the News Hunt on your social media channels, from Facebook
> to Twitter
> * Promote the News Hunt on our social media channels on Facebook and
> Twitter
> * Post and review related stories on the Global Economy all week, from
> a variety of sources
> * Feature your best stories and reviewers on our home page, as well as
> in our blog post
> * Post News Hunt results at the end of the collaboration on the
> NewsTrust blog
>
>
> ______________________________________________________
>
> NEWS HUNT INVITATION COPY
>
> This preliminary copy could be used to prepare your email (and/or blog
> post) to your community. More promotional materials will be provided
> in coming weeks.
>
>
> Join the Global Economy News Hunt
>
> How is the recession affecting people around the world? How are the
> international news media covering this topic? To find out, join
> our Global Economy News Hunt this April.
>
>
> The week of April 12, 2010, we will join forces with social news
> site NewsTrust.net to find good (and bad) journalism about the global
> economy. During that week, we will look for the best and worst news
> coverage on how the recession is affecting people around the world --
> and review news and opinions on global economic issues ranging from
> unemployment to government cutbacks.
>
> NewsTrust is a community of citizens and journalists who rate the news
> based on quality, not just popularity — by reviewing articles
> for accuracy, fairness, context and other journalistic qualities.
>
> Joining the News Hunt is easy and fun -- and you can contribute your
> expertise in just minutes. You can simply review stories listed in
> our Global Economy topic page -- or post other interesting articles
> you have come across on this topic. As you review these stories, you
> will learn more about important global issues, and you will become
> more aware about the quality of the news you consume.
>
> To get started, sign up on NewsTrust's special welcome page for
> members of our community. This will let you review stories on
> NewsTrust and get the full benefit of their free service. Join the
> News Hunt - and get more informed!
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 3, 2010, at 10:09 AM, Brian McNeil wrote:
>
> > Hi Fabrice,
> >
> > Sorry to take a while to get back to you; I've just started a new
> > job
> > and, for data-protection reasons, have extremely limited net access
> > at
> > work.
> >
> > I don't think there's been a lot of good in-depth stuff on Wikinews
> > so
> > far during the writing competition. I'm glad to be back in work, but
> > sad
> > I can't devote the time to Wikinews.
> >
> >
> > Brian.
> >
> > On Sun, 2010-02-21 at 17:48 -0800, Fabrice Florin wrote:
> > > Hello Brian,
> > >
> > > I hope you're well. Sorry for being out of touch so long, but
> > > we've been immersed in a big new project which is now approaching
> > > launch.
> > >
> > > I wanted to follow up with you about our discussion of a possible
> > > collaboration surrounding the Wikinews Writing Competition this
> > > spring.
> > >
> > > http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Writing_contest_2010
> > >
> > > As discussed, we would be interested in reviewing some of your
> > > final articles after your competition ends on April 18th, and
> > > perhaps help determine the final winners -- or which articles to
> > > feature.
> > >
> > > Are you still interested in this idea? If so, we'd love to discuss
> > > specific goals for this collaboration, and schedule a News Hunt
> > > the week of April 20th or 27th, if these dates make sense for you.
> > >
> > > Look forward to hearing from you.
> > >
> > >
> > > Fabrice
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > P.S.: Our big project is MyNews, a personalized news service due
> > > to launch in early March. If you'd like a sneak preview, I'd be
> > > happy to put you on the beta list.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Brian McNeil <[hidden email]>
> > Wikinewsie.org
> >
>


--
Brian McNeil <[hidden email]>
Wikinewsie.org

_______________________________________________
Wikinews-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l

signature.asc (852 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Newstrust and Wiki News Follow Up

Peter Coombe
On 17 March 2010 04:06, Brian McNeil <[hidden email]> wrote:

> It was at short notice we were seeking competition sponsorship - with
> the hope this would bring in a lot of competitors. It did not go as well
> as I would have liked, and several reasonably established contributors
> somewhat gamed the system by writing just-qualifying articles in
> preference to the in-depth work I hoped to solicit.
> ...
> So, to return to the writing competition, I think it has - to some
> extent - be written off as a failure...

Brian, I don't think this is a fair assessment either for the compo
entrants or for you organising the competition. One of the most common
complaints about Wikinews seems to be that we simply don't cover
*enough* stories to be a real news source, worth checking regularly.
In-depth pieces are great, but we also need the shorter stories - and
writing them ought to be rewarded too. Besides, some people just find
it easier and more fun to do. Maybe tweaking the points system a
little would make for a more interesting race, but there was no way to
know until we tried it, and now we have a better idea about next time.

As it is, the compo has produced quite a few new articles, and more
importantly new contributors. Personally, I know I'm not doing
brilliantly, but it has encouraged me to add the extra little bit to
my stories. Plus it stopped me bringing in articles from Voice of
America, which I'm sure you're pleased about :-)

Pete / the wub

_______________________________________________
Wikinews-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Newstrust and Wiki News Follow Up

brian.mcneil-2
On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 11:24 +0000, Peter Coombe wrote:

> On 17 March 2010 04:06, Brian McNeil <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > It was at short notice we were seeking competition sponsorship - with
> > the hope this would bring in a lot of competitors. It did not go as well
> > as I would have liked, and several reasonably established contributors
> > somewhat gamed the system by writing just-qualifying articles in
> > preference to the in-depth work I hoped to solicit.
> > ...
> > So, to return to the writing competition, I think it has - to some
> > extent - be written off as a failure...
>
> Brian, I don't think this is a fair assessment either for the compo
> entrants or for you organising the competition. One of the most common
> complaints about Wikinews seems to be that we simply don't cover
> *enough* stories to be a real news source, worth checking regularly.
> In-depth pieces are great, but we also need the shorter stories - and
> writing them ought to be rewarded too. Besides, some people just find
> it easier and more fun to do. Maybe tweaking the points system a
> little would make for a more interesting race, but there was no way to
> know until we tried it, and now we have a better idea about next time.
You're probably right that I'm being unduly hard, but you know I'm
somewhat of a perfectionist.
>
> As it is, the compo has produced quite a few new articles, and more
> importantly new contributors. Personally, I know I'm not doing
> brilliantly, but it has encouraged me to add the extra little bit to
> my stories. Plus it stopped me bringing in articles from Voice of
> America, which I'm sure you're pleased about :-)

I'm certainly happy to see quite a few more people such as yourself
start contributing articles. Yes, a lot are going to be fairly short
pieces - that's always somewhat of an issue with new contributors;
master the three-paragraph form, and then move on to more in-depth
pieces.

I do want to see if I can keep lines of communication open with Fabrice
and others at NewsTrust. There's really very little competition entries
I'd say qualify for the in-depth stuff they're really interested it, but
it is a valuable connection to maintain. I just don't know how we can
involve them in some sort of post-mortem of the competition and, perhaps
for future attempts, round up some Knight Foundation funding for real
citizen-journalism oriented prizes. [I'm thinking Lexis-Nexis
subscriptions, digital voice recorders, and low-mid-range camera kit.]


--
Brian McNeil <[hidden email]>
Wikinewsie.org

_______________________________________________
Wikinews-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l

signature.asc (852 bytes) Download Attachment