[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
|

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

Dennis During
It would be nice if more Commons images HAD proper location and context
info. As it is experts are often needed to identify meaningful content and
categories. Those tasks are not the equivalent of minor copyediting, not
that proofreading is a minor matter.

IOW, Commons *needs* more collaborative effort.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [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]

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
Now that the Wikidatafication of Commons allows for "depicts", there is
plenty to do. It will make it easier to find what is on Commons, it will
hugely increase the relevance of Commons beyond the Wikimedia Foundation
and within, it allows people to find illustrations in their own language


On Sat, 27 Apr 2019 at 15:09, Dennis During <[hidden email]> wrote:

> It would be nice if more Commons images HAD proper location and context
> info. As it is experts are often needed to identify meaningful content and
> categories. Those tasks are not the equivalent of minor copyediting, not
> that proofreading is a minor matter.
>
> IOW, Commons *needs* more collaborative effort.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [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]

Peter Southwood
In reply to this post by Jennifer Pryor-Summers
There are many subjects of images that can be objectively assessed, so this comparison is not very accurate. In many cases the metadata provides verifiable information too.
Cheers,
P

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jennifer Pryor-Summers
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2019 1:15 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Supporting Wikinews [was: Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals]

Yaroslav

I think you have identified an important point -- I hestitate to call it a
problem -- about Commons.  We are dependent on the authority of the
uploader of an image, say, to say what it is an image of.  If they say it
is a certain locality, or object, we have to take their word for it (or
not, of course).  That doesn't fit too well with the requirement on other
projects for citation of reliable independent sources.

Jennifer

On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 11:34 AM Yaroslav Blanter <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Ziko,
>
> you could then argue that Commons is also not a collaborative project -
> only one person takes a picture (determines the story, the position, light
> etc), and others can at best perform some editing or add/remove categories.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 11:29 AM Ziko van Dijk <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hello Philippe,
> >
> > Thank you for your points to which I generally can agree. Because this
> > is an important matter to my, allow me to explain what I exactly mean.
> >
> > Of course, there are several tasks or layers where people can (and do)
> > collaborate when working on journalistic content. But there is an
> > aspect where the collaboration cannot be a collaboration of equals
> > (which is necessary for the definition of what a wiki is).
> >
> > Imagine that reporter-editor P. has witnessed a speech of the mayor
> > and reports about it, calling it e.g. "enthusiast".
> > Stay-at-home-editor Z. reads this report and changes the word to
> > "euphoric". P. then protests and changes it back, claiming that he has
> > been there and knows better. So P. and Z. didn't have the same access
> > to the world that has to be described.
> >
> > That would be different in the case that P. and Z. only work on
> > material such as press releases and content from news agencies. I
> > believe that Andrew meant this kind of work when he wrote that we
> > don't need (another) website offering this.
> >
> > Another example for content unsuitable for
> > wiki-collaboration-among-equals is an autobiography. An autobiography
> > by definition is a personal account of what someone has experienced in
> > her life. No other person has the same world access. Other people in a
> > wiki can check the text for inconsistencies, orthography, structure
> > etc. (Great.) But the person of the autobiography has always a veto
> > right - otherwise, it wouldn't be an autobiography.
> >
> > An interesting question is whether fiction is suitable for
> > collaboration (and what kind of collaboration), but that would go to
> > far here.
> >
> > Kind regards
> > Ziko
> >
> > Am Fr., 26. Apr. 2019 um 18:26 Uhr schrieb Philippe Beaudette
> > <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > Respectfully Disagree. They can formulate questions, coordinate and
> fact
> > > check answers... and that’s off the top of my head.
> > >
> > > That said I think wikinews is fundamentally not one is our success
> > stories,
> > > but I don’t agree with what my friend Ziko said there. There are many
> > roles
> > > for community there.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 9:15 AM Ziko van Dijk <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > One of the central problems of Wikinews is that the content is not
> > > > suitable for collaboration.
> > > >
> > > > Content suitable for collaboration is related to a reality to which
> > > > the collaborators equally have access. Think if an encyclopedia based
> > > > on scholarly literature that (potentially) everybody can find in a
> > > > library.
> > > >
> > > > When a journalist has spoken to her 'sources' (relevant people), she
> > > > is the one who had a special access to theses sources. The editors in
> > > > the wiki did not have this access. They can correct typos but do
> > > > little more.
> > > >
> > > > Kind regards
> > > > Ziko
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Am Fr., 26. Apr. 2019 um 00:43 Uhr schrieb Philippe Beaudette
> > > > <[hidden email]>:
> > > > >
> > > > > The very smart Mr. Lih sayeth:
> > > > >
> > > > > I have been a fan of the times Wikinews did original interviews
> with
> > > > > notable folks [1] so this is perhaps a sustainable niche. But as a
> > direct
> > > > > news wire competitor to AP, Reuters or AFP, no.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://en.m.wikinews.org/wiki/Shimon_Peres_discusses_the_future_of_Israel
> > > > >
> > > > > Me too.  In fact, I think this is something that Wikinews has
> always
> > done
> > > > > very well.  It also strikes me as an excellent, and quite
> > functional, use
> > > > > for a Wiki.  A wikivoices or wiki-interviews type project would be
> a
> > fine
> > > > > addition to the ecosystem, imho.  And it is very reasonable to
> think
> > that
> > > > > given its success in this area, Wikinews could very easily pivot to
> > fill
> > > > > that spot.
> > > > >
> > > > > But a news competitor to traditional news outlets?  Nope, that it
> > isn't.
> > > > >
> > > > > Philippe
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 4:05 PM Andrew Lih <[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>
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > 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>
> > >
> > > --
> > > Philippe Beaudette
> > > [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>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>


_______________________________________________
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]

Strainu
In reply to this post by Dan Garry (Deskana)
În mar., 16 apr. 2019 la 12:38, Dan Garry (Deskana) <[hidden email]> a scris:

>
> 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.

I personally believe the law of the hammer [1] had a very significant
contribution to the launch of Wikinews (as well as Wikiversity,
Wikispecies and Wiktionary): "we have a wiki, what else can we use it
for?" Stated differently ("we have a mission and an idea aligned with
that mission, what kind of wiki would we need for that?") the outcome
might have been radically different. Some projects might have never
happened, others might have been years ago where they are now and
again others might have happened later (e.g. a wiki does not seem a
great fit for University courses, but Wikiversity might have happened
anyway as part of the OpenAccess movement. Or not).

It's a bit late to change history, but it's not too late to admit some
of the projects are a failure in the current form and start again - or
just drop them. As somebody else in the conversion put it "we must
have ways to try and fail fast".

Strainu

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_instrument

>
> Also, I'd prefer to see the Wikimedia Foundation trying to do fewer things
> but do them better rather than taking more on; I think the annual plan
> reflects that it is trying to do so.
>
>
> > Perhaps some of the money spent on rebranding would
> > be better spent on the  projects that are not doing so well as the big
> > Wikipedias -- or perhaps the WMF should cut its losses and close them down,
> > on the principle of reinforcing success instead.
> >
>
> I suspect that significantly less money is being spent on this rebranding
> effort than people might think. A short engagement with an external
> consultant, and some staff time to think about it and publish some pages to
> solicit comment, is a relatively small investment compared to what it might
> take to bootstrap improvements to breathe life into a mostly dead project.
> I don't think it's really helpful to guess about the cost of things... yes,
> I broke my own rule right at the start of this paragraph. ;-)
>
> Dan
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [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]

Jennifer Pryor-Summers
Strainu,

Simply leaving the world of news to others is not really an option for the
Foundation.  Recall that its vision is that

> By 2030, Wikimedia will become the essential infrastructure of the
ecosystem of free knowledge, and anyone who shares our vision will be able
to join us.

It can't achieve that by abandoning news.

JPS

On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 6:29 PM Strainu <[hidden email]> wrote:

> În mar., 16 apr. 2019 la 12:38, Dan Garry (Deskana) <[hidden email]> a
> scris:
> >
> > 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.
>
> I personally believe the law of the hammer [1] had a very significant
> contribution to the launch of Wikinews (as well as Wikiversity,
> Wikispecies and Wiktionary): "we have a wiki, what else can we use it
> for?" Stated differently ("we have a mission and an idea aligned with
> that mission, what kind of wiki would we need for that?") the outcome
> might have been radically different. Some projects might have never
> happened, others might have been years ago where they are now and
> again others might have happened later (e.g. a wiki does not seem a
> great fit for University courses, but Wikiversity might have happened
> anyway as part of the OpenAccess movement. Or not).
>
> It's a bit late to change history, but it's not too late to admit some
> of the projects are a failure in the current form and start again - or
> just drop them. As somebody else in the conversion put it "we must
> have ways to try and fail fast".
>
> Strainu
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_instrument
>
> >
> > Also, I'd prefer to see the Wikimedia Foundation trying to do fewer
> things
> > but do them better rather than taking more on; I think the annual plan
> > reflects that it is trying to do so.
> >
> >
> > > Perhaps some of the money spent on rebranding would
> > > be better spent on the  projects that are not doing so well as the big
> > > Wikipedias -- or perhaps the WMF should cut its losses and close them
> down,
> > > on the principle of reinforcing success instead.
> > >
> >
> > I suspect that significantly less money is being spent on this rebranding
> > effort than people might think. A short engagement with an external
> > consultant, and some staff time to think about it and publish some pages
> to
> > solicit comment, is a relatively small investment compared to what it
> might
> > take to bootstrap improvements to breathe life into a mostly dead
> project.
> > I don't think it's really helpful to guess about the cost of things...
> yes,
> > I broke my own rule right at the start of this paragraph. ;-)
> >
> > Dan
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [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]

Philippe Beaudette-4
But it won’t be. Wikipedia does a fine job of documenting a great deal of
news: in an encyclopedic fashion.

On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 11:48 AM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Strainu,
>
> Simply leaving the world of news to others is not really an option for the
> Foundation.  Recall that its vision is that
>
> > By 2030, Wikimedia will become the essential infrastructure of the
> ecosystem of free knowledge, and anyone who shares our vision will be able
> to join us.
>
> It can't achieve that by abandoning news.
>
> JPS
>
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 6:29 PM Strainu <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > În mar., 16 apr. 2019 la 12:38, Dan Garry (Deskana) <[hidden email]>
> a
> > scris:
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > I personally believe the law of the hammer [1] had a very significant
> > contribution to the launch of Wikinews (as well as Wikiversity,
> > Wikispecies and Wiktionary): "we have a wiki, what else can we use it
> > for?" Stated differently ("we have a mission and an idea aligned with
> > that mission, what kind of wiki would we need for that?") the outcome
> > might have been radically different. Some projects might have never
> > happened, others might have been years ago where they are now and
> > again others might have happened later (e.g. a wiki does not seem a
> > great fit for University courses, but Wikiversity might have happened
> > anyway as part of the OpenAccess movement. Or not).
> >
> > It's a bit late to change history, but it's not too late to admit some
> > of the projects are a failure in the current form and start again - or
> > just drop them. As somebody else in the conversion put it "we must
> > have ways to try and fail fast".
> >
> > Strainu
> >
> > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_instrument
> >
> > >
> > > Also, I'd prefer to see the Wikimedia Foundation trying to do fewer
> > things
> > > but do them better rather than taking more on; I think the annual plan
> > > reflects that it is trying to do so.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Perhaps some of the money spent on rebranding would
> > > > be better spent on the  projects that are not doing so well as the
> big
> > > > Wikipedias -- or perhaps the WMF should cut its losses and close them
> > down,
> > > > on the principle of reinforcing success instead.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I suspect that significantly less money is being spent on this
> rebranding
> > > effort than people might think. A short engagement with an external
> > > consultant, and some staff time to think about it and publish some
> pages
> > to
> > > solicit comment, is a relatively small investment compared to what it
> > might
> > > take to bootstrap improvements to breathe life into a mostly dead
> > project.
> > > I don't think it's really helpful to guess about the cost of things...
> > yes,
> > > I broke my own rule right at the start of this paragraph. ;-)
> > >
> > > Dan
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [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>

--
Philippe Beaudette
[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]

David Gerard-2
I seem to recall seeing a thread on this list every few years about
how to revive Wikinews and make it do something useful and
interesting.

In practice, it had a burst of enthusiasm for about six months after
it started and then went pretty much dormant, and has been there ever
since.



- d.

On Sat, 27 Apr 2019 at 23:17, Philippe Beaudette <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> But it won’t be. Wikipedia does a fine job of documenting a great deal of
> news: in an encyclopedic fashion.
>
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 11:48 AM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Strainu,
> >
> > Simply leaving the world of news to others is not really an option for the
> > Foundation.  Recall that its vision is that
> >
> > > By 2030, Wikimedia will become the essential infrastructure of the
> > ecosystem of free knowledge, and anyone who shares our vision will be able
> > to join us.
> >
> > It can't achieve that by abandoning news.
> >
> > JPS
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 6:29 PM Strainu <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > În mar., 16 apr. 2019 la 12:38, Dan Garry (Deskana) <[hidden email]>
> > a
> > > scris:
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > I personally believe the law of the hammer [1] had a very significant
> > > contribution to the launch of Wikinews (as well as Wikiversity,
> > > Wikispecies and Wiktionary): "we have a wiki, what else can we use it
> > > for?" Stated differently ("we have a mission and an idea aligned with
> > > that mission, what kind of wiki would we need for that?") the outcome
> > > might have been radically different. Some projects might have never
> > > happened, others might have been years ago where they are now and
> > > again others might have happened later (e.g. a wiki does not seem a
> > > great fit for University courses, but Wikiversity might have happened
> > > anyway as part of the OpenAccess movement. Or not).
> > >
> > > It's a bit late to change history, but it's not too late to admit some
> > > of the projects are a failure in the current form and start again - or
> > > just drop them. As somebody else in the conversion put it "we must
> > > have ways to try and fail fast".
> > >
> > > Strainu
> > >
> > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_instrument
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Also, I'd prefer to see the Wikimedia Foundation trying to do fewer
> > > things
> > > > but do them better rather than taking more on; I think the annual plan
> > > > reflects that it is trying to do so.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Perhaps some of the money spent on rebranding would
> > > > > be better spent on the  projects that are not doing so well as the
> > big
> > > > > Wikipedias -- or perhaps the WMF should cut its losses and close them
> > > down,
> > > > > on the principle of reinforcing success instead.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I suspect that significantly less money is being spent on this
> > rebranding
> > > > effort than people might think. A short engagement with an external
> > > > consultant, and some staff time to think about it and publish some
> > pages
> > > to
> > > > solicit comment, is a relatively small investment compared to what it
> > > might
> > > > take to bootstrap improvements to breathe life into a mostly dead
> > > project.
> > > > I don't think it's really helpful to guess about the cost of things...
> > > yes,
> > > > I broke my own rule right at the start of this paragraph. ;-)
> > > >
> > > > Dan
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: [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>
>
> --
> Philippe Beaudette
> [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>

_______________________________________________
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]

Strainu
In reply to this post by Jennifer Pryor-Summers
Pe sâmbătă, 27 aprilie 2019, Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
[hidden email]> a scris:

> Strainu,
>
> Simply leaving the world of news to others is not really an option for the
> Foundation.


The foundation doesn't really have a say in this. They might
push really hard for a wiki, but if the community isn't there, it's money
thrown away. They might just as well employ a bunch of journalists to write
articles, it won't make it a successful project.


>
> Recall that its vision is that
>
> > By 2030, Wikimedia will become the essential infrastructure of the
> ecosystem of free knowledge, and anyone who shares our vision will be able
> to join us.


That is the strategic direction of the movement. I see no promise there,
explicit or implicit, that a news wiki should or will exist. It just says
it should be easy for people to join our current projects, whatever they
are.

The WMF mission is even narrower: to empower and engage people around the
world to collect and develop *educational content* under a free license or
in the public domain, and to disseminate it *effectively and globally* (my
emphasis). It is highly debatebable if news beyond what Wikipedia covers
are educational. The mission also suggests that we should pick our battles
in order to be effective (don't forget that the discussion so far has been
mostly about the English wikinews, the status of other language versions is
even worse)


>
> It can't achieve that by abandoning news.


News and wikinews are 2 different things. Wikinews is just a tool. If
another tool works better, why not use that instead?

Strainu


>
> JPS
>
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 6:29 PM Strainu <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > În mar., 16 apr. 2019 la 12:38, Dan Garry (Deskana) <[hidden email]>
> a
> > scris:
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > I personally believe the law of the hammer [1] had a very significant
> > contribution to the launch of Wikinews (as well as Wikiversity,
> > Wikispecies and Wiktionary): "we have a wiki, what else can we use it
> > for?" Stated differently ("we have a mission and an idea aligned with
> > that mission, what kind of wiki would we need for that?") the outcome
> > might have been radically different. Some projects might have never
> > happened, others might have been years ago where they are now and
> > again others might have happened later (e.g. a wiki does not seem a
> > great fit for University courses, but Wikiversity might have happened
> > anyway as part of the OpenAccess movement. Or not).
> >
> > It's a bit late to change history, but it's not too late to admit some
> > of the projects are a failure in the current form and start again - or
> > just drop them. As somebody else in the conversion put it "we must
> > have ways to try and fail fast".
> >
> > Strainu
> >
> > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_instrument
> >
> > >
> > > Also, I'd prefer to see the Wikimedia Foundation trying to do fewer
> > things
> > > but do them better rather than taking more on; I think the annual plan
> > > reflects that it is trying to do so.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Perhaps some of the money spent on rebranding would
> > > > be better spent on the  projects that are not doing so well as the
> big
> > > > Wikipedias -- or perhaps the WMF should cut its losses and close them
> > down,
> > > > on the principle of reinforcing success instead.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I suspect that significantly less money is being spent on this
> rebranding
> > > effort than people might think. A short engagement with an external
> > > consultant, and some staff time to think about it and publish some
> pages
> > to
> > > solicit comment, is a relatively small investment compared to what it
> > might
> > > take to bootstrap improvements to breathe life into a mostly dead
> > project.
> > > I don't think it's really helpful to guess about the cost of things...
> > yes,
> > > I broke my own rule right at the start of this paragraph. ;-)
> > >
> > > Dan
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [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>
_______________________________________________
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]

Benjamin Ikuta

> On Apr 27, 2019, at 4:44 PM, Strainu <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> They might just as well employ a bunch of journalists to write
> articles, it won't make it a successful project.
>

That certainly wouldn't be the worst use of funds...

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [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]

Erik Moeller-3
In reply to this post by Joseph Seddon-4
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 9:32 AM Joseph Seddon <[hidden email]> wrote:
> What are the examples of successful citizen news websites?
>
> What could we learn from them?

My sense is that the most successful ventures that could be described
at least partially in those terms fall into the following categories:

- blogging/analysis
- advocacy
- translation
- newsroom/citizen collaborations

I would mention especially:

- Global Voices ( https://globalvoices.org ) which has done fantastic
work sharing stories from around the world that are under-represented
in commercial media. It includes volunteer blog posts and
translations, and has been around since 2004.

- OpenDemocracy ( https://www.opendemocracy.net/ ) which publishes
many volunteer-contributed stories, typically from a social justice /
human rights perspective. It has been around since 2001.

- ProPublica's "Get Involved" page (
https://www.propublica.org/getinvolved/ ) which routinely engages the
public in the newsroom's investigations.

I think translation is one area where Wikimedia could play a more
active role, with the right partners, especially considering how much
WMF has already invested in open source translation tooling.

Perhaps there are ways for grantmaking to play a larger role, too,
when it comes to supporting current events coverage in Wikipedia and
beyond. I've always loved the grants to volunteers to support photo
equipment, accreditation, etc. Might there be ways to expand such
programs to support travel & equipment costs for individual photo and
video-journalists towards the creation of CC-BY-SA content?

Regarding Wikinews, I have no hope that it will magically succeed one
day, but one observation: When poking at contributor statistics, I
found it interesting that the global contributor numbers, meager as
they are, are almost entirely sustained by Russian Wikinews, which
does appear to have a continuous day-to-day publishing record for some
time now. It would be interesting to know more about what's motivating
those contributors. For non-Russian speakers, see here for the feed of
2019 stories, which is pretty impressive by Wikinews standards:

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=w.wiki%2F3Q7

Perhaps Russian contributors to this list can share some perspective
on what's been happening on the project and whether it's viewed
positively or not within the Russian Wikimedia community.

Warmly,
Erik

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [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]

Фархад Фаткуллин / Farhad Fatkullin
I feel I can give a relatively neutral comment on the part quoted below.
Disclosure: I am a citizen of Russia, residing within the country & speaking Russian, but mainly contributing to Tatar Wikipedia, member of WMRU & WUG TAT.

Global Russian-speaking Wikimedia community has mixed feelings about Russian Wikinews, but we generally seem to appreciate its publications.

1) If I remember correctly, Russian Wikipedia community does not consider Russian Wikinews as a reliable source (unlike AP, Reuters or Washington Post, etc.)

2) Wikimedia Community Languages of Russia is quite appreciative of the Russian Wikinews, as they host Russian Multilingual Wikinews (8 more languages, including Bashkir, Erzya, Lezgin, Sakha, Tatar, etc. - where community is not yet active enough to sustain on-going publishing of new materials to come out of the incubator)

3) Russian Wikinews publishes articles from various categories, including
* aggregation of information from various free license sources
* original reporting by Wkimedian-correspondents throughout Russia
* Wikimedia projects related reporting (we sometimes translate these into English @ CEE or Education Outreach Newsletter under Russia reports)

4) No countries, topics or viewpoints are a no-go in Russian Wikinews, so personally it seems a good balanced mix (unlike many reliable outlets that emphasize specific aspects):
* Armenia, China, France, India, Indonesia, Russia, Ukraine, U.S., Venezuela, etc.,
* Business, Govt, NGO  initiatives, etc.
* Public life, Science, Technology, etc.

5) Editor-in-chief of Russian Wikinews is an ex-member of Wikimedia Russia, no other regular contributors are or used to be members.

6) Wikimedia Russia currently has limited membership for a number of reasons:
* WMRU is a purely volunteer organization.
* Legally we need to have regular in-person meetings that require a quorum (so greater share of members must show up for the decision to be valid).
* Annual membership fee is set @ USD 1.5 per month.
* But we started to broadcast our meetings live (sometimes in recording), which was positively perceived by both Russian Wikipedia & Russian Wikinews communities.

regards,
farhad

-- 
Farhad Fatkullin - Фархад Фаткуллин http://sikzn.ru/ Тел.+79274158066 / skype:frhdkazan / Wikipedia:frhdkazan / Wikidata:Q34036417


28.04.2019, 03:37, "Erik Moeller" <[hidden email]>:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 9:32 AM Joseph Seddon <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Regarding Wikinews, I have no hope that it will magically succeed one
> day, but one observation: When poking at contributor statistics, I
> found it interesting that the global contributor numbers, meager as
> they are, are almost entirely sustained by Russian Wikinews, which
> does appear to have a continuous day-to-day publishing record for some
> time now. It would be interesting to know more about what's motivating
> those contributors. For non-Russian speakers, see here for the feed of
> 2019 stories, which is pretty impressive by Wikinews standards:
>
> https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=w.wiki%2F3Q7
>
> Perhaps Russian contributors to this list can share some perspective
> on what's been happening on the project and whether it's viewed
> positively or not within the Russian Wikimedia community.
>
> Warmly,
> Erik
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [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]

Erik Moeller-3
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 5:54 AM Фархад Фаткуллин / Farhad Fatkullin
<[hidden email]> wrote:

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

Dear Farhad,

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

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

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

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

Warmly,

Erik

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
123