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

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
52 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Dan Garry (Deskana)
Splitting off the Wikinews discussion from the branding discussion...

On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 07:52, Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Compared to Wikitribune it is!  But more importantly, if Wikinews is not
> thriving, then why not?  Does it lack resources?  What could or should the
> WMF do to revive it?


In my opinion, nothing. Wikinews was a nice idea, but it didn't work out,
and I don't think the Wikimedia Foundation investing resources into trying
to bring it back to life is really worth it. In fact, I think the Wikimedia
Foundation isn't the right group to try to breathe new life into the
project anyway—we, as a volunteer community, could invest our time in
bringing new content into it. That doesn't happen though. Why is that? For
me, I'm voting with my actions rather than my words—it's because it just
isn't important enough compared to other things. It's okay to think that.

Also, I'd prefer to see the Wikimedia Foundation trying to do fewer things
but do them better rather than taking more on; I think the annual plan
reflects that it is trying to do so.


> Perhaps some of the money spent on rebranding would
> be better spent on the  projects that are not doing so well as the big
> Wikipedias -- or perhaps the WMF should cut its losses and close them down,
> on the principle of reinforcing success instead.
>

I suspect that significantly less money is being spent on this rebranding
effort than people might think. A short engagement with an external
consultant, and some staff time to think about it and publish some pages to
solicit comment, is a relatively small investment compared to what it might
take to bootstrap improvements to breathe life into a mostly dead project.
I don't think it's really helpful to guess about the cost of things... yes,
I broke my own rule right at the start of this paragraph. ;-)

Dan
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Jennifer Pryor-Summers
Dan

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

JPS

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 10:38 AM Dan Garry (Deskana) <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Splitting off the Wikinews discussion from the branding discussion...
>
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 07:52, Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Compared to Wikitribune it is!  But more importantly, if Wikinews is not
> > thriving, then why not?  Does it lack resources?  What could or should
> the
> > WMF do to revive it?
>
>
> In my opinion, nothing. Wikinews was a nice idea, but it didn't work out,
> and I don't think the Wikimedia Foundation investing resources into trying
> to bring it back to life is really worth it. In fact, I think the Wikimedia
> Foundation isn't the right group to try to breathe new life into the
> project anyway—we, as a volunteer community, could invest our time in
> bringing new content into it. That doesn't happen though. Why is that? For
> me, I'm voting with my actions rather than my words—it's because it just
> isn't important enough compared to other things. It's okay to think that.
>
> Also, I'd prefer to see the Wikimedia Foundation trying to do fewer things
> but do them better rather than taking more on; I think the annual plan
> reflects that it is trying to do so.
>
>
> > Perhaps some of the money spent on rebranding would
> > be better spent on the  projects that are not doing so well as the big
> > Wikipedias -- or perhaps the WMF should cut its losses and close them
> down,
> > on the principle of reinforcing success instead.
> >
>
> I suspect that significantly less money is being spent on this rebranding
> effort than people might think. A short engagement with an external
> consultant, and some staff time to think about it and publish some pages to
> solicit comment, is a relatively small investment compared to what it might
> take to bootstrap improvements to breathe life into a mostly dead project.
> I don't think it's really helpful to guess about the cost of things... yes,
> I broke my own rule right at the start of this paragraph. ;-)
>
> Dan
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

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

Best,
Paulo

Jennifer Pryor-Summers <[hidden email]> escreveu no dia
terça, 16/04/2019 à(s) 19:27:

> Dan
>
> Wikinews may not be doing too well, but (English-language) Wikipedia seems
> to have taken up a news-gathering role not entirely consistent with its
> encyclopediac mission: perhaps that's the reason.  Maybe the WMF should
> sort out the demarcation issues.
>
> JPS
>
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 10:38 AM Dan Garry (Deskana) <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Splitting off the Wikinews discussion from the branding discussion...
> >
> > On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 07:52, Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Compared to Wikitribune it is!  But more importantly, if Wikinews is
> not
> > > thriving, then why not?  Does it lack resources?  What could or should
> > the
> > > WMF do to revive it?
> >
> >
> > In my opinion, nothing. Wikinews was a nice idea, but it didn't work out,
> > and I don't think the Wikimedia Foundation investing resources into
> trying
> > to bring it back to life is really worth it. In fact, I think the
> Wikimedia
> > Foundation isn't the right group to try to breathe new life into the
> > project anyway—we, as a volunteer community, could invest our time in
> > bringing new content into it. That doesn't happen though. Why is that?
> For
> > me, I'm voting with my actions rather than my words—it's because it just
> > isn't important enough compared to other things. It's okay to think that.
> >
> > Also, I'd prefer to see the Wikimedia Foundation trying to do fewer
> things
> > but do them better rather than taking more on; I think the annual plan
> > reflects that it is trying to do so.
> >
> >
> > > Perhaps some of the money spent on rebranding would
> > > be better spent on the  projects that are not doing so well as the big
> > > Wikipedias -- or perhaps the WMF should cut its losses and close them
> > down,
> > > on the principle of reinforcing success instead.
> > >
> >
> > I suspect that significantly less money is being spent on this rebranding
> > effort than people might think. A short engagement with an external
> > consultant, and some staff time to think about it and publish some pages
> to
> > solicit comment, is a relatively small investment compared to what it
> might
> > take to bootstrap improvements to breathe life into a mostly dead
> project.
> > I don't think it's really helpful to guess about the cost of things...
> yes,
> > I broke my own rule right at the start of this paragraph. ;-)
> >
> > Dan
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

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

Best
Paulo

Jennifer Pryor-Summers <[hidden email]> escreveu no dia
terça, 16/04/2019 à(s) 19:27:

> Dan
>
> Wikinews may not be doing too well, but (English-language) Wikipedia seems
> to have taken up a news-gathering role not entirely consistent with its
> encyclopediac mission: perhaps that's the reason.  Maybe the WMF should
> sort out the demarcation issues.
>
> JPS
>
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 10:38 AM Dan Garry (Deskana) <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Splitting off the Wikinews discussion from the branding discussion...
> >
> > On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 07:52, Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Compared to Wikitribune it is!  But more importantly, if Wikinews is
> not
> > > thriving, then why not?  Does it lack resources?  What could or should
> > the
> > > WMF do to revive it?
> >
> >
> > In my opinion, nothing. Wikinews was a nice idea, but it didn't work out,
> > and I don't think the Wikimedia Foundation investing resources into
> trying
> > to bring it back to life is really worth it. In fact, I think the
> Wikimedia
> > Foundation isn't the right group to try to breathe new life into the
> > project anyway—we, as a volunteer community, could invest our time in
> > bringing new content into it. That doesn't happen though. Why is that?
> For
> > me, I'm voting with my actions rather than my words—it's because it just
> > isn't important enough compared to other things. It's okay to think that.
> >
> > Also, I'd prefer to see the Wikimedia Foundation trying to do fewer
> things
> > but do them better rather than taking more on; I think the annual plan
> > reflects that it is trying to do so.
> >
> >
> > > Perhaps some of the money spent on rebranding would
> > > be better spent on the  projects that are not doing so well as the big
> > > Wikipedias -- or perhaps the WMF should cut its losses and close them
> > down,
> > > on the principle of reinforcing success instead.
> > >
> >
> > I suspect that significantly less money is being spent on this rebranding
> > effort than people might think. A short engagement with an external
> > consultant, and some staff time to think about it and publish some pages
> to
> > solicit comment, is a relatively small investment compared to what it
> might
> > take to bootstrap improvements to breathe life into a mostly dead
> project.
> > I don't think it's really helpful to guess about the cost of things...
> yes,
> > I broke my own rule right at the start of this paragraph. ;-)
> >
> > Dan
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Andrew Lih
In reply to this post by Jennifer Pryor-Summers
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:27 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
[hidden email]> wrote:

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

Jennifer,

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Andrew
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Jennifer Pryor-Summers
Andrew

It seems to me that you're saying that, on the one hand, the policies that
make Wikipedia work well as an encyclopaedia (NOR, RS, V, NORUSH) are a
poor fit for a news-gathering operation and on the other hand, Wikipedia is
a success as a news-gathering operation.  These seem inconsistent to me.
However, I conclude from what you're saying that the best way forward is to
fold the Wikinews operation into Wikipedia.  Is that right?

JPS

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 8:15 PM Andrew Lih <[hidden email]> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

SJ

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 4:23 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
[hidden email]> wrote:

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



--
Samuel Klein          @metasj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Ziko van Dijk-3
Hello,
Some years ago, some volunteers have proposed a new Wikimedia wiki. It did
not turn out as expected. That‘s okay, the movement should try out thing
from time to time.
But this wiki should not be seen as an eternal obligation to be kept.
Kind regards
Ziko



Samuel Klein <[hidden email]> schrieb am Di. 16. Apr. 2019 um 23:56:

> Jennifer -- as you say, there is a contradiction here in the self-image and
> internal narrative of the projects and movement.  A classic branding issue
> ;)
> * On the one hand, we lack clear, consistent language to talk about topical
> subprojects (what do you call 'the Current Events specialists on the major
> language Wikpiedias'?  some obvious names have already been taken)
> * On the other, for the few Names that we assign to Projects, we
> overspecify what they mean ('Wikinews is original news reporting or
> synthesis, done on a wikinews.org site').
>
> We propagate this confusion of identity to those outside the projects
> trying to understand them; which in turn leads to misunderstanding in the
> world at large, and fewer potential collaborators joining the projects:
>      I was recently at a gathering of international fact-checkers.   They
> all prized Wikipedia as a model for what rapid collective editing can
> accomplish; assumed wikinews and wikitribune were the best efforts to date
> of applying that to current events; and began an enthusiastic discussion
> about how to do it better.  When I pointed out that Wikipedias did exactly
> what they were discussing, for the most popular news, this was startling
> and satisfying to them.  However as there is no central cafe or village
> pump for current events editors, and what portals do exist are impossible
> to find for all but the most persistent, it is not obvious how to engage
> with them...
>
> This is a challenge of naming + identity that really holds us back: ways
> for people to form groups, projects, message streams; and channel,
> advertise, amplify, polish them; use them for flash projects and
> coalescence, for awareness and thanks.  We have tried many small steps in
> this direction but have never made groups or hashtags work as simple,
> functional tools of alignment.
>
> SJ
>
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 4:23 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Andrew
> >
> > It seems to me that you're saying that, on the one hand, the policies
> that
> > make Wikipedia work well as an encyclopaedia (NOR, RS, V, NORUSH) are a
> > poor fit for a news-gathering operation and on the other hand, Wikipedia
> is
> > a success as a news-gathering operation.  These seem inconsistent to me.
> > However, I conclude from what you're saying that the best way forward is
> to
> > fold the Wikinews operation into Wikipedia.  Is that right?
> >
> > JPS
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 8:15 PM Andrew Lih <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:27 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Wikinews may not be doing too well, but (English-language) Wikipedia
> > > seems
> > > > to have taken up a news-gathering role not entirely consistent with
> its
> > > > encyclopediac mission: perhaps that's the reason.  Maybe the WMF
> should
> > > > sort out the demarcation issues.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Jennifer,
> > >
> > > This has been a topic of discussion for more than a decade and the vast
> > > majority of the community has converged on the conclusion that Wikinews
> > > hasn't and won't ever work at any scale given its fundamental
> properties.
> > >
> > > News is often described as "the best obtainable version of the truth
> > given
> > > the constraints of a deadline." News depends on memorializing direct
> > > observation at a point in time. Therefore, the following policies that
> > make
> > > Wikipedia work are a bad fit for original, deadline reporting:
> > >
> > > Wikipedia:NOR - no original research
> > > Wikipedia:RS - requirement for reliable sources
> > > Wikipedia:V - verifiability
> > > Wikipedia:NORUSH - there is no deadline/eventualism
> > >
> > > Most anyone who tries Wikinews first hand will experience this mismatch
> > and
> > > realize it is a poor fit.
> > >
> > > However, rather than lament why Wikinews doesn't work, we should
> > celebrate
> > > the fact that we have found a better mode: entries that evolve minute
> to
> > > minute (oftentimes second to second) to best reflect the world as we
> know
> > > it. Embrace that new, live, constantly updated snapshot of reality –
> the
> > > Wikipedia article.
> > >
> > > If you want to see some of the earlier debates about the origins of
> > > Wikinews, October 2004 is a good place to look:
> > > [1]
> > >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2004-October/thread.html
> > > [2]
> > >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2004-October/061017.html
> > >
> > > -Andrew
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> --
> Samuel Klein          @metasj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Andrew Lih
In reply to this post by Jennifer Pryor-Summers
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 4:23 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Andrew
>
> It seems to me that you're saying that, on the one hand, the policies that
> make Wikipedia work well as an encyclopaedia (NOR, RS, V, NORUSH) are a
> poor fit for a news-gathering operation and on the other hand, Wikipedia is
> a success as a news-gathering operation.  These seem inconsistent to me.


As Wikimedians we are secondary source news summarizers rather than primary
source news gatherers. That’s where the difference lies primarily.

I have been a fan of the times Wikinews did original interviews with
notable folks [1] so this is perhaps a sustainable niche. But as a direct
news wire competitor to AP, Reuters or AFP, no.

[1]
https://en.m.wikinews.org/wiki/Shimon_Peres_discusses_the_future_of_Israel


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


Fold Wikinews altogether so it doesn’t confuse the public. Wikipedia
editors are already doing a stellar job.

Andrew


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

--
-Andrew Lih
Author of The Wikipedia Revolution
US National Archives Citizen Archivist of the Year (2016)
Knight Foundation grant recipient - Wikipedia Space (2015)
Wikimedia DC - Outreach and GLAM
Previously: professor of journalism and communications, American
University, Columbia University, USC
---
Email: [hidden email]
WEB: https://muckrack.com/fuzheado
PROJECT: Wikipedia Space: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WPSPACE
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Asaf Bartov
(posting in my volunteer capacity)

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

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

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

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

   A.

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

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 2:04 AM Andrew Lih <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 4:23 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Andrew
> >
> > It seems to me that you're saying that, on the one hand, the policies
> that
> > make Wikipedia work well as an encyclopaedia (NOR, RS, V, NORUSH) are a
> > poor fit for a news-gathering operation and on the other hand, Wikipedia
> is
> > a success as a news-gathering operation.  These seem inconsistent to me.
>
>
> As Wikimedians we are secondary source news summarizers rather than primary
> source news gatherers. That’s where the difference lies primarily.
>
> I have been a fan of the times Wikinews did original interviews with
> notable folks [1] so this is perhaps a sustainable niche. But as a direct
> news wire competitor to AP, Reuters or AFP, no.
>
> [1]
> https://en.m.wikinews.org/wiki/Shimon_Peres_discusses_the_future_of_Israel
>
>
> > However, I conclude from what you're saying that the best way forward is
> to
> > fold the Wikinews operation into Wikipedia.  Is that right?
>
>
> Fold Wikinews altogether so it doesn’t confuse the public. Wikipedia
> editors are already doing a stellar job.
>
> Andrew
>
>
> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 8:15 PM Andrew Lih <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:27 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Wikinews may not be doing too well, but (English-language) Wikipedia
> > > seems
> > > > to have taken up a news-gathering role not entirely consistent with
> its
> > > > encyclopediac mission: perhaps that's the reason.  Maybe the WMF
> should
> > > > sort out the demarcation issues.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Jennifer,
> > >
> > > This has been a topic of discussion for more than a decade and the vast
> > > majority of the community has converged on the conclusion that Wikinews
> > > hasn't and won't ever work at any scale given its fundamental
> properties.
> > >
> > > News is often described as "the best obtainable version of the truth
> > given
> > > the constraints of a deadline." News depends on memorializing direct
> > > observation at a point in time. Therefore, the following policies that
> > make
> > > Wikipedia work are a bad fit for original, deadline reporting:
> > >
> > > Wikipedia:NOR - no original research
> > > Wikipedia:RS - requirement for reliable sources
> > > Wikipedia:V - verifiability
> > > Wikipedia:NORUSH - there is no deadline/eventualism
> > >
> > > Most anyone who tries Wikinews first hand will experience this mismatch
> > and
> > > realize it is a poor fit.
> > >
> > > However, rather than lament why Wikinews doesn't work, we should
> > celebrate
> > > the fact that we have found a better mode: entries that evolve minute
> to
> > > minute (oftentimes second to second) to best reflect the world as we
> know
> > > it. Embrace that new, live, constantly updated snapshot of reality –
> the
> > > Wikipedia article.
> > >
> > > If you want to see some of the earlier debates about the origins of
> > > Wikinews, October 2004 is a good place to look:
> > > [1]
> > >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2004-October/thread.html
> > > [2]
> > >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2004-October/061017.html
> > >
> > > -Andrew
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> --
> -Andrew Lih
> Author of The Wikipedia Revolution
> US National Archives Citizen Archivist of the Year (2016)
> Knight Foundation grant recipient - Wikipedia Space (2015)
> Wikimedia DC - Outreach and GLAM
> Previously: professor of journalism and communications, American
> University, Columbia University, USC
> ---
> Email: [hidden email]
> WEB: https://muckrack.com/fuzheado
> PROJECT: Wikipedia Space: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WPSPACE
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>



--
Asaf Bartov <[hidden email]>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Peter Southwood
In reply to this post by Ziko van Dijk-3
Abandoning a project and shutting it down sends a message to all volunteers that their work could be similarly abandoned and lost one day. Is that a message we want to broadcast?
Cheers,
Peter

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

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



Samuel Klein <[hidden email]> schrieb am Di. 16. Apr. 2019 um 23:56:

> Jennifer -- as you say, there is a contradiction here in the self-image and
> internal narrative of the projects and movement.  A classic branding issue
> ;)
> * On the one hand, we lack clear, consistent language to talk about topical
> subprojects (what do you call 'the Current Events specialists on the major
> language Wikpiedias'?  some obvious names have already been taken)
> * On the other, for the few Names that we assign to Projects, we
> overspecify what they mean ('Wikinews is original news reporting or
> synthesis, done on a wikinews.org site').
>
> We propagate this confusion of identity to those outside the projects
> trying to understand them; which in turn leads to misunderstanding in the
> world at large, and fewer potential collaborators joining the projects:
>      I was recently at a gathering of international fact-checkers.   They
> all prized Wikipedia as a model for what rapid collective editing can
> accomplish; assumed wikinews and wikitribune were the best efforts to date
> of applying that to current events; and began an enthusiastic discussion
> about how to do it better.  When I pointed out that Wikipedias did exactly
> what they were discussing, for the most popular news, this was startling
> and satisfying to them.  However as there is no central cafe or village
> pump for current events editors, and what portals do exist are impossible
> to find for all but the most persistent, it is not obvious how to engage
> with them...
>
> This is a challenge of naming + identity that really holds us back: ways
> for people to form groups, projects, message streams; and channel,
> advertise, amplify, polish them; use them for flash projects and
> coalescence, for awareness and thanks.  We have tried many small steps in
> this direction but have never made groups or hashtags work as simple,
> functional tools of alignment.
>
> SJ
>
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 4:23 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Andrew
> >
> > It seems to me that you're saying that, on the one hand, the policies
> that
> > make Wikipedia work well as an encyclopaedia (NOR, RS, V, NORUSH) are a
> > poor fit for a news-gathering operation and on the other hand, Wikipedia
> is
> > a success as a news-gathering operation.  These seem inconsistent to me.
> > However, I conclude from what you're saying that the best way forward is
> to
> > fold the Wikinews operation into Wikipedia.  Is that right?
> >
> > JPS
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 8:15 PM Andrew Lih <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:27 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Wikinews may not be doing too well, but (English-language) Wikipedia
> > > seems
> > > > to have taken up a news-gathering role not entirely consistent with
> its
> > > > encyclopediac mission: perhaps that's the reason.  Maybe the WMF
> should
> > > > sort out the demarcation issues.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Jennifer,
> > >
> > > This has been a topic of discussion for more than a decade and the vast
> > > majority of the community has converged on the conclusion that Wikinews
> > > hasn't and won't ever work at any scale given its fundamental
> properties.
> > >
> > > News is often described as "the best obtainable version of the truth
> > given
> > > the constraints of a deadline." News depends on memorializing direct
> > > observation at a point in time. Therefore, the following policies that
> > make
> > > Wikipedia work are a bad fit for original, deadline reporting:
> > >
> > > Wikipedia:NOR - no original research
> > > Wikipedia:RS - requirement for reliable sources
> > > Wikipedia:V - verifiability
> > > Wikipedia:NORUSH - there is no deadline/eventualism
> > >
> > > Most anyone who tries Wikinews first hand will experience this mismatch
> > and
> > > realize it is a poor fit.
> > >
> > > However, rather than lament why Wikinews doesn't work, we should
> > celebrate
> > > the fact that we have found a better mode: entries that evolve minute
> to
> > > minute (oftentimes second to second) to best reflect the world as we
> know
> > > it. Embrace that new, live, constantly updated snapshot of reality –
> the
> > > Wikipedia article.
> > >
> > > If you want to see some of the earlier debates about the origins of
> > > Wikinews, October 2004 is a good place to look:
> > > [1]
> > >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2004-October/thread.html
> > > [2]
> > >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2004-October/061017.html
> > >
> > > -Andrew
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> --
> Samuel Klein          @metasj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

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


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Peter Southwood
In reply to this post by Paulo Santos Perneta
Yeah, Right.
P

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

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

Best
Paulo

Jennifer Pryor-Summers <[hidden email]> escreveu no dia
terça, 16/04/2019 à(s) 19:27:

> Dan
>
> Wikinews may not be doing too well, but (English-language) Wikipedia seems
> to have taken up a news-gathering role not entirely consistent with its
> encyclopediac mission: perhaps that's the reason.  Maybe the WMF should
> sort out the demarcation issues.
>
> JPS
>
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 10:38 AM Dan Garry (Deskana) <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Splitting off the Wikinews discussion from the branding discussion...
> >
> > On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 07:52, Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Compared to Wikitribune it is!  But more importantly, if Wikinews is
> not
> > > thriving, then why not?  Does it lack resources?  What could or should
> > the
> > > WMF do to revive it?
> >
> >
> > In my opinion, nothing. Wikinews was a nice idea, but it didn't work out,
> > and I don't think the Wikimedia Foundation investing resources into
> trying
> > to bring it back to life is really worth it. In fact, I think the
> Wikimedia
> > Foundation isn't the right group to try to breathe new life into the
> > project anyway—we, as a volunteer community, could invest our time in
> > bringing new content into it. That doesn't happen though. Why is that?
> For
> > me, I'm voting with my actions rather than my words—it's because it just
> > isn't important enough compared to other things. It's okay to think that.
> >
> > Also, I'd prefer to see the Wikimedia Foundation trying to do fewer
> things
> > but do them better rather than taking more on; I think the annual plan
> > reflects that it is trying to do so.
> >
> >
> > > Perhaps some of the money spent on rebranding would
> > > be better spent on the  projects that are not doing so well as the big
> > > Wikipedias -- or perhaps the WMF should cut its losses and close them
> > down,
> > > on the principle of reinforcing success instead.
> > >
> >
> > I suspect that significantly less money is being spent on this rebranding
> > effort than people might think. A short engagement with an external
> > consultant, and some staff time to think about it and publish some pages
> to
> > solicit comment, is a relatively small investment compared to what it
> might
> > take to bootstrap improvements to breathe life into a mostly dead
> project.
> > I don't think it's really helpful to guess about the cost of things...
> yes,
> > I broke my own rule right at the start of this paragraph. ;-)
> >
> > Dan
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

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


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

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

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 4:32 PM Peter Southwood <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Abandoning a project and shutting it down sends a message to all
> volunteers that their work could be similarly abandoned and lost one day.
> Is that a message we want to broadcast?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Ziko van Dijk
> Sent: 17 April 2019 00:46
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand
> system for our 2030 goals]
>
> Hello,
> Some years ago, some volunteers have proposed a new Wikimedia wiki. It did
> not turn out as expected. That‘s okay, the movement should try out thing
> from time to time.
> But this wiki should not be seen as an eternal obligation to be kept.
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
>
>
> Samuel Klein <[hidden email]> schrieb am Di. 16. Apr. 2019 um 23:56:
>
> > Jennifer -- as you say, there is a contradiction here in the self-image
> and
> > internal narrative of the projects and movement.  A classic branding
> issue
> > ;)
> > * On the one hand, we lack clear, consistent language to talk about
> topical
> > subprojects (what do you call 'the Current Events specialists on the
> major
> > language Wikpiedias'?  some obvious names have already been taken)
> > * On the other, for the few Names that we assign to Projects, we
> > overspecify what they mean ('Wikinews is original news reporting or
> > synthesis, done on a wikinews.org site').
> >
> > We propagate this confusion of identity to those outside the projects
> > trying to understand them; which in turn leads to misunderstanding in the
> > world at large, and fewer potential collaborators joining the projects:
> >      I was recently at a gathering of international fact-checkers.   They
> > all prized Wikipedia as a model for what rapid collective editing can
> > accomplish; assumed wikinews and wikitribune were the best efforts to
> date
> > of applying that to current events; and began an enthusiastic discussion
> > about how to do it better.  When I pointed out that Wikipedias did
> exactly
> > what they were discussing, for the most popular news, this was startling
> > and satisfying to them.  However as there is no central cafe or village
> > pump for current events editors, and what portals do exist are impossible
> > to find for all but the most persistent, it is not obvious how to engage
> > with them...
> >
> > This is a challenge of naming + identity that really holds us back: ways
> > for people to form groups, projects, message streams; and channel,
> > advertise, amplify, polish them; use them for flash projects and
> > coalescence, for awareness and thanks.  We have tried many small steps in
> > this direction but have never made groups or hashtags work as simple,
> > functional tools of alignment.
> >
> > SJ
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 4:23 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Andrew
> > >
> > > It seems to me that you're saying that, on the one hand, the policies
> > that
> > > make Wikipedia work well as an encyclopaedia (NOR, RS, V, NORUSH) are a
> > > poor fit for a news-gathering operation and on the other hand,
> Wikipedia
> > is
> > > a success as a news-gathering operation.  These seem inconsistent to
> me.
> > > However, I conclude from what you're saying that the best way forward
> is
> > to
> > > fold the Wikinews operation into Wikipedia.  Is that right?
> > >
> > > JPS
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 8:15 PM Andrew Lih <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:27 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Wikinews may not be doing too well, but (English-language)
> Wikipedia
> > > > seems
> > > > > to have taken up a news-gathering role not entirely consistent with
> > its
> > > > > encyclopediac mission: perhaps that's the reason.  Maybe the WMF
> > should
> > > > > sort out the demarcation issues.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jennifer,
> > > >
> > > > This has been a topic of discussion for more than a decade and the
> vast
> > > > majority of the community has converged on the conclusion that
> Wikinews
> > > > hasn't and won't ever work at any scale given its fundamental
> > properties.
> > > >
> > > > News is often described as "the best obtainable version of the truth
> > > given
> > > > the constraints of a deadline." News depends on memorializing direct
> > > > observation at a point in time. Therefore, the following policies
> that
> > > make
> > > > Wikipedia work are a bad fit for original, deadline reporting:
> > > >
> > > > Wikipedia:NOR - no original research
> > > > Wikipedia:RS - requirement for reliable sources
> > > > Wikipedia:V - verifiability
> > > > Wikipedia:NORUSH - there is no deadline/eventualism
> > > >
> > > > Most anyone who tries Wikinews first hand will experience this
> mismatch
> > > and
> > > > realize it is a poor fit.
> > > >
> > > > However, rather than lament why Wikinews doesn't work, we should
> > > celebrate
> > > > the fact that we have found a better mode: entries that evolve minute
> > to
> > > > minute (oftentimes second to second) to best reflect the world as we
> > know
> > > > it. Embrace that new, live, constantly updated snapshot of reality –
> > the
> > > > Wikipedia article.
> > > >
> > > > If you want to see some of the earlier debates about the origins of
> > > > Wikinews, October 2004 is a good place to look:
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2004-October/thread.html
> > > > [2]
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2004-October/061017.html
> > > >
> > > > -Andrew
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Samuel Klein          @metasj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529
> 4266
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

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

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

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

SJ

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 10:41 AM Yaroslav Blanter <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Indeed, I am not a fan of Wikinews and I do not particularly see the
> project as in any way successful. However, if the project is shut down
> against the will of the community (I now mean the Wikinews community, or
> perhaps even specifically the English Wikinews community), I will ask
> myself  whether Wikivoyage (I am active in the Russian Wikivoyage, where we
> have a couple of dozen active users) could also be shut down one day
> against the will of the community, just because we are not successful
> competing with the brands like Lonely Planet, DK, or Michelin, for example.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 4:32 PM Peter Southwood <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Abandoning a project and shutting it down sends a message to all
> > volunteers that their work could be similarly abandoned and lost one day.
> > Is that a message we want to broadcast?
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> > Behalf Of Ziko van Dijk
> > Sent: 17 April 2019 00:46
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand
> > system for our 2030 goals]
> >
> > Hello,
> > Some years ago, some volunteers have proposed a new Wikimedia wiki. It
> did
> > not turn out as expected. That‘s okay, the movement should try out thing
> > from time to time.
> > But this wiki should not be seen as an eternal obligation to be kept.
> > Kind regards
> > Ziko
> >
> >
> >
> > Samuel Klein <[hidden email]> schrieb am Di. 16. Apr. 2019 um 23:56:
> >
> > > Jennifer -- as you say, there is a contradiction here in the self-image
> > and
> > > internal narrative of the projects and movement.  A classic branding
> > issue
> > > ;)
> > > * On the one hand, we lack clear, consistent language to talk about
> > topical
> > > subprojects (what do you call 'the Current Events specialists on the
> > major
> > > language Wikpiedias'?  some obvious names have already been taken)
> > > * On the other, for the few Names that we assign to Projects, we
> > > overspecify what they mean ('Wikinews is original news reporting or
> > > synthesis, done on a wikinews.org site').
> > >
> > > We propagate this confusion of identity to those outside the projects
> > > trying to understand them; which in turn leads to misunderstanding in
> the
> > > world at large, and fewer potential collaborators joining the projects:
> > >      I was recently at a gathering of international fact-checkers.
>  They
> > > all prized Wikipedia as a model for what rapid collective editing can
> > > accomplish; assumed wikinews and wikitribune were the best efforts to
> > date
> > > of applying that to current events; and began an enthusiastic
> discussion
> > > about how to do it better.  When I pointed out that Wikipedias did
> > exactly
> > > what they were discussing, for the most popular news, this was
> startling
> > > and satisfying to them.  However as there is no central cafe or village
> > > pump for current events editors, and what portals do exist are
> impossible
> > > to find for all but the most persistent, it is not obvious how to
> engage
> > > with them...
> > >
> > > This is a challenge of naming + identity that really holds us back:
> ways
> > > for people to form groups, projects, message streams; and channel,
> > > advertise, amplify, polish them; use them for flash projects and
> > > coalescence, for awareness and thanks.  We have tried many small steps
> in
> > > this direction but have never made groups or hashtags work as simple,
> > > functional tools of alignment.
> > >
> > > SJ
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 4:23 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Andrew
> > > >
> > > > It seems to me that you're saying that, on the one hand, the policies
> > > that
> > > > make Wikipedia work well as an encyclopaedia (NOR, RS, V, NORUSH)
> are a
> > > > poor fit for a news-gathering operation and on the other hand,
> > Wikipedia
> > > is
> > > > a success as a news-gathering operation.  These seem inconsistent to
> > me.
> > > > However, I conclude from what you're saying that the best way forward
> > is
> > > to
> > > > fold the Wikinews operation into Wikipedia.  Is that right?
> > > >
> > > > JPS
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 8:15 PM Andrew Lih <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:27 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wikinews may not be doing too well, but (English-language)
> > Wikipedia
> > > > > seems
> > > > > > to have taken up a news-gathering role not entirely consistent
> with
> > > its
> > > > > > encyclopediac mission: perhaps that's the reason.  Maybe the WMF
> > > should
> > > > > > sort out the demarcation issues.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Jennifer,
> > > > >
> > > > > This has been a topic of discussion for more than a decade and the
> > vast
> > > > > majority of the community has converged on the conclusion that
> > Wikinews
> > > > > hasn't and won't ever work at any scale given its fundamental
> > > properties.
> > > > >
> > > > > News is often described as "the best obtainable version of the
> truth
> > > > given
> > > > > the constraints of a deadline." News depends on memorializing
> direct
> > > > > observation at a point in time. Therefore, the following policies
> > that
> > > > make
> > > > > Wikipedia work are a bad fit for original, deadline reporting:
> > > > >
> > > > > Wikipedia:NOR - no original research
> > > > > Wikipedia:RS - requirement for reliable sources
> > > > > Wikipedia:V - verifiability
> > > > > Wikipedia:NORUSH - there is no deadline/eventualism
> > > > >
> > > > > Most anyone who tries Wikinews first hand will experience this
> > mismatch
> > > > and
> > > > > realize it is a poor fit.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, rather than lament why Wikinews doesn't work, we should
> > > > celebrate
> > > > > the fact that we have found a better mode: entries that evolve
> minute
> > > to
> > > > > minute (oftentimes second to second) to best reflect the world as
> we
> > > know
> > > > > it. Embrace that new, live, constantly updated snapshot of reality
> –
> > > the
> > > > > Wikipedia article.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you want to see some of the earlier debates about the origins of
> > > > > Wikinews, October 2004 is a good place to look:
> > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2004-October/thread.html
> > > > > [2]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2004-October/061017.html
> > > > >
> > > > > -Andrew
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Samuel Klein          @metasj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529
> > 4266
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> > ---
> > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> > https://www.avg.com
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>



--
Samuel Klein          @metasj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Andy Mabbett-2
In reply to this post by Peter Southwood
On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 at 15:31, Peter Southwood
<[hidden email]> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Jennifer Pryor-Summers
In reply to this post by Peter Southwood
Peter

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

JPS

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 3:32 PM Peter Southwood <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Abandoning a project and shutting it down sends a message to all
> volunteers that their work could be similarly abandoned and lost one day.
> Is that a message we want to broadcast?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Ziko van Dijk
> Sent: 17 April 2019 00:46
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand
> system for our 2030 goals]
>
> Hello,
> Some years ago, some volunteers have proposed a new Wikimedia wiki. It did
> not turn out as expected. That‘s okay, the movement should try out thing
> from time to time.
> But this wiki should not be seen as an eternal obligation to be kept.
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
>
>
> Samuel Klein <[hidden email]> schrieb am Di. 16. Apr. 2019 um 23:56:
>
> > Jennifer -- as you say, there is a contradiction here in the self-image
> and
> > internal narrative of the projects and movement.  A classic branding
> issue
> > ;)
> > * On the one hand, we lack clear, consistent language to talk about
> topical
> > subprojects (what do you call 'the Current Events specialists on the
> major
> > language Wikpiedias'?  some obvious names have already been taken)
> > * On the other, for the few Names that we assign to Projects, we
> > overspecify what they mean ('Wikinews is original news reporting or
> > synthesis, done on a wikinews.org site').
> >
> > We propagate this confusion of identity to those outside the projects
> > trying to understand them; which in turn leads to misunderstanding in the
> > world at large, and fewer potential collaborators joining the projects:
> >      I was recently at a gathering of international fact-checkers.   They
> > all prized Wikipedia as a model for what rapid collective editing can
> > accomplish; assumed wikinews and wikitribune were the best efforts to
> date
> > of applying that to current events; and began an enthusiastic discussion
> > about how to do it better.  When I pointed out that Wikipedias did
> exactly
> > what they were discussing, for the most popular news, this was startling
> > and satisfying to them.  However as there is no central cafe or village
> > pump for current events editors, and what portals do exist are impossible
> > to find for all but the most persistent, it is not obvious how to engage
> > with them...
> >
> > This is a challenge of naming + identity that really holds us back: ways
> > for people to form groups, projects, message streams; and channel,
> > advertise, amplify, polish them; use them for flash projects and
> > coalescence, for awareness and thanks.  We have tried many small steps in
> > this direction but have never made groups or hashtags work as simple,
> > functional tools of alignment.
> >
> > SJ
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 4:23 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Andrew
> > >
> > > It seems to me that you're saying that, on the one hand, the policies
> > that
> > > make Wikipedia work well as an encyclopaedia (NOR, RS, V, NORUSH) are a
> > > poor fit for a news-gathering operation and on the other hand,
> Wikipedia
> > is
> > > a success as a news-gathering operation.  These seem inconsistent to
> me.
> > > However, I conclude from what you're saying that the best way forward
> is
> > to
> > > fold the Wikinews operation into Wikipedia.  Is that right?
> > >
> > > JPS
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 8:15 PM Andrew Lih <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:27 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Wikinews may not be doing too well, but (English-language)
> Wikipedia
> > > > seems
> > > > > to have taken up a news-gathering role not entirely consistent with
> > its
> > > > > encyclopediac mission: perhaps that's the reason.  Maybe the WMF
> > should
> > > > > sort out the demarcation issues.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jennifer,
> > > >
> > > > This has been a topic of discussion for more than a decade and the
> vast
> > > > majority of the community has converged on the conclusion that
> Wikinews
> > > > hasn't and won't ever work at any scale given its fundamental
> > properties.
> > > >
> > > > News is often described as "the best obtainable version of the truth
> > > given
> > > > the constraints of a deadline." News depends on memorializing direct
> > > > observation at a point in time. Therefore, the following policies
> that
> > > make
> > > > Wikipedia work are a bad fit for original, deadline reporting:
> > > >
> > > > Wikipedia:NOR - no original research
> > > > Wikipedia:RS - requirement for reliable sources
> > > > Wikipedia:V - verifiability
> > > > Wikipedia:NORUSH - there is no deadline/eventualism
> > > >
> > > > Most anyone who tries Wikinews first hand will experience this
> mismatch
> > > and
> > > > realize it is a poor fit.
> > > >
> > > > However, rather than lament why Wikinews doesn't work, we should
> > > celebrate
> > > > the fact that we have found a better mode: entries that evolve minute
> > to
> > > > minute (oftentimes second to second) to best reflect the world as we
> > know
> > > > it. Embrace that new, live, constantly updated snapshot of reality –
> > the
> > > > Wikipedia article.
> > > >
> > > > If you want to see some of the earlier debates about the origins of
> > > > Wikinews, October 2004 is a good place to look:
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2004-October/thread.html
> > > > [2]
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2004-October/061017.html
> > > >
> > > > -Andrew
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Samuel Klein          @metasj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529
> 4266
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Dan Garry (Deskana)
In reply to this post by Yaroslav Blanter
On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 at 15:41, Yaroslav Blanter <[hidden email]> wrote:

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

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

Dan
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Ad Huikeshoven-2
Shutting down Wikinews is not the only strategic option. Wikinews is now
hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation. In the future it could be hosted by
another organization. For example Wikia. Or maybe the current users start a
Wikinews Association or Foundation and will start self hosting. Someone
from the Wikimedia Foundation should weigh in with a marginal cost estimate
of hosting Wikinews. It probably might be not much more than the cost of
the domain registration. For the Wikimedia Foundation the financial cost
saving would be not more than those domain registration fees. Currently
there is no case the existence of Wikinews hurts the reputation of
Wikimedia or Wikipedia in my opinion.

Regards,

Ad Huikeshoven

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 9:17 PM Dan Garry (Deskana) <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 at 15:41, Yaroslav Blanter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Indeed, I am not a fan of Wikinews and I do not particularly see the
> > project as in any way successful. However, if the project is shut down
> > against the will of the community (I now mean the Wikinews community, or
> > perhaps even specifically the English Wikinews community), I will ask
> > myself  whether Wikivoyage (I am active in the Russian Wikivoyage, where
> we
> > have a couple of dozen active users) could also be shut down one day
> > against the will of the community, just because we are not successful
> > competing with the brands like Lonely Planet, DK, or Michelin, for
> example.
> >
>
> I've not seen any proposals involving shutting down projects without
> community involvement, so hopefully you shouldn't need to worry about this.
>
> Dan
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

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

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 9:17 PM Dan Garry (Deskana) <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 at 15:41, Yaroslav Blanter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Indeed, I am not a fan of Wikinews and I do not particularly see the
> > project as in any way successful. However, if the project is shut down
> > against the will of the community (I now mean the Wikinews community, or
> > perhaps even specifically the English Wikinews community), I will ask
> > myself  whether Wikivoyage (I am active in the Russian Wikivoyage, where
> we
> > have a couple of dozen active users) could also be shut down one day
> > against the will of the community, just because we are not successful
> > competing with the brands like Lonely Planet, DK, or Michelin, for
> example.
> >
>
> I've not seen any proposals involving shutting down projects without
> community involvement, so hopefully you shouldn't need to worry about this.
>
> Dan
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Andrew Lih
In reply to this post by metasj
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 12:24 PM Samuel Klein <[hidden email]> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Andrew


---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And so on.



--
-Andrew Lih
Author of The Wikipedia Revolution
US National Archives Citizen Archivist of the Year (2016)
Knight Foundation grant recipient - Wikipedia Space (2015)
Wikimedia DC - Outreach and GLAM
Previously: professor of journalism and communications, American
University, Columbia University, USC
---
Email: [hidden email]
WEB: https://muckrack.com/fuzheado
PROJECT: Wikipedia Space: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WPSPACE
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
123