Talk:International Wikinews Writing Contest

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Translations[edit]

Do translations of other language articles count for the contest? -- IlyaHaykinson 02:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very good question. There are good arguments for and against it -- on the one hand, we want to promote translations in general, on the other hand, translating an article can be considerably easier than writing one from scratch. It might therefore give a somewhat unfair advantage to multilingual people.
Pechorin proposed this on IRC: Translations could be a third method to earn jokers. For every 3 translations, you get one joker. How does that sound?--Eloquence 03:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The eternal contest[edit]

The current ruleset makes me nervous. There were two reasons the English contest this spring ended at all.

  1. you had to write every 24 hours, something non-trivial.
  2. the three people still around at the end of around a month agreed to split first place, when it was clear the contest could run on forever.

The current contest provides for jokers -- four a day, cumulative -- a guarantee that it will never end. Even allowing for one a day would guarantee the same. If you want to make it easy for people to stay in the contest, you could instead set a time limit and encourage people to maximize their 'score' by the end of a month, or the end of the quarter.

At any rate, encouraging people to write 5 articles a day will guarantee lots of topic-collisions. How is everyone planning to deal with this?

+sj | Translate the Quarto |+ 12:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that jokers are a "guarantee that it will never end". In order to stay in the contest for a long period of time without writing, you would have to write four times as much as other users for some periods of time. That is not an easy thing to do. Furthermore, if it does last a long time, I think that's not a bad thing if we can keep the excitement going, and have a lot of good prizes to look forward to.
Nevertheless, I've just added the following CYA clause to the "Jokers" section: Please note that in order to make sure that the contest actually ends, the judges may, in a majority decision, modify the rules for the handing out of jokers during the contest. Does this address your concerns?
As for topic-collisions, in cases where people have paid attention to the list of stories in development, we have generally been generous in the last contest. But writers should always make sure that there's no story being worked on before they starta new one.
--Eloquence 15:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do think this contest will last forever. I could certainly do 5 articles a day, by copying and rewording a local paper, say, without much trouble. I expect many others could do the same. Of course, you only need to do 1 a day to stay in the contest. StuRat 19:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Big words - go for it :-). Don't forget to cite your sources, of course, or your articles might not get published.--Eloquence 20:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would have entered the contest, but I think it will go too long, so I decided to be a judge, instead. StuRat 22:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

non-obvious stuff[edit]

I've just translated to Dutch and there are two thing that I thought, weren't defined clearly enough.

  • Original reporting earns you extra jokers, but the article doesn't state how many.
  • While you have an article debt you can work it off. I assume this can be done by writing extra article (one for every article you're in debt)? I also assume the extra article that you have two write per day while in debt does not go towards paying off your debt?

Risk 16:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these two points are now clarified.--Eloquence 23:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That should do the trick. I've updated the Dutch page. Risk 00:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prizes[edit]

I'd like to add a prize or a few prizes to the mix. What kind of prizes would you guys like to have? Any requests? --24.182.60.134 07:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Books or DVDs or something or support or software or hosting or lots of other thing! --Chiacomo 02:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quantity vs Quality[edit]

I'm concerned that this contest will radically reduce the quality level of articles, for these reasons:

  • Contestants will be under pressure to write as many articles as they can as quickly as possible. This will naturally reduce quality.
  • The number of editors available will be greatly reduced, since many former editors will now be contestants or judges and will be too busy writing or judging stories to edit any.
  • The number of stories each day will increase dramatically, perhaps from 5 a day to 100 a day. This much greater number, combined with the fewer editors, means many stories won't receive any cleanup.

While I understand that Wiki wants to increase the quantity, I don't think we should do so at the expense of quality. I would suggest that there should be some effect based on the quality level of the article (as determined by the judges) to counter this tendency. For example, the contestant with the lowest average quality rating could be dropped from the contest each day (this would also keep the contest from lasting forever). I know this is somewhat negative, so other suggestions would be appreciated. StuRat 19:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I designed the rules mostly based on the lessons from the first writing contest on the English Wikinews. If you look at the stories entered there, you will find that the story quality was generally very high. There are several factors which prevent submissions of too low quality; one of them is the fact that anything that isn't published isn't counted for your score. So you have to make at least an effort to meet community standards. Another factor is that users will have their reputation attached to their submissions, and there's a natural competition of quality that arises from this open process.
In the final phase of the last contest, I experimented with scoring; this only led to friction -- if you have simple standards, the risks of conflicts over rules and interpretations are decreased. It also makes it less likely that there might be a sort of language-favoritism, where judges rate the submissions in their own language higher. This also ties in with your second argument -- judges don't really have to do much in the current system, so I don't think the work as judge will distract them too much from writing and editing articles. However, perhaps we should limit the number of judges per language.
As for the prediction of the number of stories per day, I think it is way over the top. With 20 contestants, the ideal number of stories per day being written would be 20, and judging from the last time, this number will shrink quickly enough. Furthermore, I think there's good reason to suspect that more stories attract more readers -- do a search on Technorati for Wikinews and you'll find that many of our stories have received extensive coverage in the blogosphere. So, our number of editors should grow naturally as our output increases. This is of course based on the assumption that readers become editors -- an assumption that has not always born out in practice, due in part to still insufficient usability. However, the basic model should still hold.
My preferred approach for Wikinews is to first drive the number of stories per day up to a stable level, and to then systematically focus on the quality of the main stories of the day, and to increase the amount of original reporting. Quantity is incredibly important for Wikinews' perception in the outside world. Sadly, even if we've written almost 3000 articles in English alone, a single day without stories has an immediate impact on our reputation as a news site. So I think it's key that we continue to strive for critical mass. English has the critical mass to keep going and keep publishing stories without falling into a coma, but it doesn't yet have the critical mass to publish a stable and reasonably high number of stories every day. I hope this contest will help with this, and also spur growth in the other language editions.--Eloquence 20:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
With 24 contestants submitting up to 5 stories each a day to earn maximum jokers, I get a maximum of around 120 stories, plus a few from noncontestants. I hope the number won't be quite that large, as even reading that many, much less editing them, would be impossible for the few remaining editors. StuRat 21:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Five of the 24 contestants don't write articles for the english version of Wikinews. Writing one story a day is hard enough. I don't think many contestants will write five stories each day. I think the number of around 120 stories each day is much to high. --SonicR 13:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Judging Rules ?[edit]

For example, can a single judge make a decision or does any decision require a majority or perhaps even unanimous consent of the judges ? StuRat 20:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think decisions should be made in consensus if at all possible, but if a judge doesn't respond, that can generally be taken as approval. If no consensus can be reached, there's always the option of holding a vote, but I hope that will not be necessary.--Eloquence 20:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, and will you be the "meta-judge", to decide when the different methods of determining a consensus should be used ? StuRat 20:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully that can be decided in consensus ;-). If no decisions can be reached through discussion and there's a consensus about someone else acting as a deal-maker, that's also fine. But let's not worry so much about conflicts until they actually happen. The last contest showed that the problems were often unexpected.--Eloquence 02:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that decisions are to be made by a majority vote. Cllewr 15:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would say "the majority of the judges who participate that day". If some judges are not available on a given day, the rest should decide the issue, IMO. StuRat 16:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but if the decision involves a fairly major change to the contest rules, let's try and ensure we have enough people weighing in on the vote. A consensus of one doesn't really count. Soundstruck 15:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How do we handle collaboration ? For example, if a contestant finds an article in development, adds one word to it, and publishes, does this count as his contribution for the day ? What if a contestant creates a stub for an article with little in it, but someone else fleshes it out and publishes it ? StuRat 06:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From rule two: "Every contestant has to write a minimum of one news article per day of at least 3 paragraphs of their own writing" --Cspurrier 12:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will interpret that to mean "any published article, regardless of the person who started or published the article, will count toward a contestant's contribution if that contestant has contributed 3 or more paragraphs which remain in the published article". Note that this means one article could count for multiple contestants, if they all contribute substantially to it. Also, what constitutes a "paragraph" is rather vague, but I suppose we can debate that on a case-by-case basis. StuRat 13:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I think we should err to inclusion/qualification for contributions. --Chiacomo 14:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I interpreted the rules to say that the contestant must create the article -- this seems to be included in the premise of "writing an article." Cllewr 15:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but interpreting the rule in this fashion is anti-collaborative (and anti-wiki?)... I would urge the widest latitude in qualifying contributions -- if an editor writes 3 good paragraphs (or otherwise qualifies) and substantially improves an article, I think we should "count" it. --Chiacomo 15:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was thinking that requiring the creation of an article is really not like Wikinews since collaboration is highly encouraged. So I believe you're correct. I think perhaps a clarification of the rules is in store? ("Write an article" seems to be too vague by Wikinews' standards. We should inform contestants that contributing three paragraphs to an already existing article will count towards the contest.) We also might consider putting a limit on the number of contestants that can contribute towards one article for contest purposes. If every single contestant added to the same one or two articles, then one purpose of this contest would be defeated: to increase article output! Cllewr 15:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the rules should be clarified, but not that we should limit the number of contributors to an article. For one, how would we decide which contestants to count and which to not count ? I doubt if we will get 25 contestants adding 75 paragraphs to one article each day, anyway. StuRat 16:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that's OK, yes, and that it should count on the day when the majority of the article was written. StuRat 14:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok --Edub 14:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joker Rules[edit]

One of the judges interprets the use of jokers wrongly, in my view. He has removed from the contest all those who have run out of jokers, but I don't think you should be removed from the contest for not having any. I think that if you do not post on a day when you have zero jokers, then you should be removed from the contest. The main page is not exactly clear on this, and I think it should be cleared up.

The judge that has stricken out all the contestants with no jokers must interpret jokers to be similer to "lives" in video games. In the old Mario Brothers, you start out with three lives -- once you lose them all: game over. In other games it is similar: "Ninja Turtles," say, will give you three "turtles" -- once you lose all the turtles: Game Over. Similarly, this judge must think: three "jokers" are given, once all are gone: Out of Contest. But we wiki reporters are not "jokers," right? So why should we be removed when we run out of them?

My way of interpeting the jokers is this: The jokers are like cards, and you start with three of them to "play" on any day that you don't post. Any day you don't post but still have a joker, you play it (or it's played automatically for you), and you're still in the game. If you don't post on a day in which you have no jokers, you lose.

So nobody should be removed from the contest right now, because we've only completed three days. If there is someone that has not posted, they use 1 joker for Sep 1st, 1 joker for Sep 2nd, and 1 joker for Sep 3rd. They have no more jokers, but they are still in the contest. If they don't post today, Sep 4th, they're out.

I think this should be clarified on the main rules page, and all those who have been removed from the contest should be reinstated immediately. - DardanAeneas 18:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. If a participant joined on day one and hasn't contributed any articles, they should be given until the end of the day (September 4th @ 23:59:59 UTC) to submit one. I'll ensure that gets clarified on the main rules page.
It's now September 5th (UTC)... and of all the day-one-contestants that were removed, none submitted an article in under the wire. If they'd like to be given another chance because they didn't fully understand the rules or they thought they were unfairly disqualified... they're welcome to raise a request on this talk page for the judges to review -- we'll gladly consider it! Soundstruck 05:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC) (PS: Nice video game references) ;-)[reply]
Your interpretation is how I intended the rules to work. I left a comment to this effect on StuRat's talk page.--Eloquence (from hotel Internet)
Agreed. My interpretation that "when you reach zero jokers you are out" should have been "when you reach negative one jokers you are out". StuRat 15:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
StuRat: You're a computer programmer? How could you make the old 1-off error?? ;) And phrasing it "negative one jokers" is so Coder-think!
if (jokers == -1) {
bootUser();
};
:) - DardanAeneas 21:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was thinking of it more like a role playing game "You've reached zero hit points, so you're dead !", LOL. StuRat 02:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Judge's Forum[edit]

Sept 1[edit]

Fellow judges, I see we have an entry from a Dutch contestant with no corresponding Dutch judge:

Should we disqualify this contestant's entry, or take some other action like:

  1. Wait until somebody complains.
  2. Wait until the contest ends to decide what to do.
  3. Allow it and use machine translations to verify the story.

StuRat 12:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hope non-judges are allowed to comment :-). I've put a note on the Dutch water cooler asking for help, and I suggest putting off any action for the next few days until we get a response.--Eloquence 13:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a real Dutch community and they don't say anything and don't edit the article I think can be accepted. I repeat, there must be at least one other active editor this period. -Romihaitza 14:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Those two statements seem contradictory, do you want us to accept it or reject it ? I am inclined to agree with Eloquence, but do think we should notify this contestant that they MAY be disqualified if we can't find a Dutch speaking judge. It would also be nice if we could post a request for a Dutch judge on the main page there, for those who don't visit the Watercooler. I did a machine translation of the article, and it looks like the topic is good, but I can't tell if the translation is grammatically garbage due to the machine translation or if it is poorly written (I assume it's the machine translation, though). StuRat 14:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can somebody write to the dutch community, if there are a judge for us? Otherwise the writer must write his text in a language, which we can understand.--Cyper 14:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
@ StuRat: please don't use the translator again. I understand the english messages very good, but your translation was...--Cyper 14:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, will do. (Cyper was referring to my request for help I posted to his talk page, machine translated into German). StuRat 14:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the rules. If there is no judge for a language, nobody from that language can participate. Let's try to get someone from Dutch Wikinews to participate, but until then, this article simply cannot be counted. Cllewr 15:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I added a note on the main contest page that this entry is "under dispute". StuRat 15:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed... If and when we get a Dutch judge, of course this article can be counted. Until then, this editor should understand that unless we do get a judge, they cannot participate, unfortunately. --Chiacomo 15:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really under dispute. We can't accept it, period.  :) Cllewr 15:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I left a message on Azertus' talk page, letting him know that we can't accept an article from him without a Dutch judge. (Hopefully he speaks English; he is registered on English Wikinews.) Cllewr 15:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the message you left, it looks good to me. One nasty trick Wiki pulls, though, is to leave an I/P address, not your user name, when you use ~~~~ on a language site where you don't have an account. I manually fixed it by replacing the I/P with en:User:Cllewr, so he can respond to your talk page. StuRat 16:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Chiacomo. Specifically, if we do get a Dutch judge in the next few days, this article should be retroactively counted, as opposed to using up a joker, IMO. StuRat 16:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have a similar problem with a new Spanish-speaking entrant and no corresponding judge. I will add the same comment after their contribution. It's hard to believe we can't find a Spanish speaking judge, though. Don't hundreds of millions of people speak Spanish ? Aren't at least a few of them here ? StuRat 03:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If someone speaks enough Spanish to make a request for a judge at es.wikinews, please do. If not, I will post a machine translated request and hope they can decipher it. StuRat 05:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sept 2[edit]

Good news, we have a Spanish-speaking judge, welcome es:User:Edub ! StuRat 15:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the welcome Edub 16:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sept 3[edit]

Today a contestant wrote an article dated 31.08.2005 (about a past event). Do we approve this? tsca ✉ 00:11:44, 2005-09-03 (UTC)

My opinion is yes, it should be approved. I've seen a fair share of articles written about an event that occured a few days before. Cllewr 03:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sure tsca, this isn't a problem. We should continue to encourage wikinewsies (and contest participants) to create articles in a timely manner. If the article is written within a few few minutes or hours of it happening, it's breaking news, rock on. Within a couple of days of the event unfolding, It still covers "current/recent" events, and it should still be counted. Soundstruck 06:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, recent events are fine. StuRat 14:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I presume that they're even more okay when they're for regions with very few articles, like my articles for Swaziland and Cape Verde. -- user:zanimum
Yea, In an extreme case, I suppose news from the North Pole might have to be delivered by dog sled and be rather slow at arriving, LOL.

May I request that my articles in Dutch be counted like normal for the time being? If, by the end of the contest we still haven't found a Dutch judge, of course I wouldn't be able to win. I'd just like to avoid having to rewrite some international English story of no interest to me... --80.200.36.172 09:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That was azertus btw'
I have no objection to leaving you in the contest, but don't want to count your articles as normal until and unless we get a Dutch-speaking judge to approve them. So, the number of jokers will go negative, until that time. Do the other judges agree that we should do it this way ? StuRat 14:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikinews is published in (as of my last count) thirteen languages... but we only have judges representing five of those languages? This is a problem we should have addressed earlier.
First and foremost, we shouldn't allow participants to enter "joker debt". Article debt that can be paid off with jokers is fine. Joker debt just complicates things something fierce. Second, we don't want to discourage people from entering the contest, but let's say three weeks pass before a Dutch judge can be appointed. That judge will have to go over 20 to 30 articles written by each person contributing for that language... a sizeable task.
My recommendation is that existing IWWC judges try to verify that participants from other languages are contributing articles of sufficient length and frequency (as quality can't be determined)... but if one or more judges from that language can't be found by a certain date to review the article quality on a continuing basis, we'll have to exclude that participant from the competition. This should be made clear to all participants that this applies to. Soundstruck 18:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The only current entrant without a judge who speaks his language is azertus. I think you are right that the further along we get the less likely it is we will find a judge willing to go thru the backlog. But, if azertus wants to take that risk, I'm fine with it. StuRat 22:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zero jokers question. My interpretation is that those contestants who have made no contributions will reach zero tokens, and be removed from the contest, at the end of today. Does everyone agree ? I do think an exception should be made for azertus, who should be left in the contest even with a negative joker balance until a Dutch-speaking judge is found or we get down to 3 contestants (excluding azertus), a which time the contest will end. Of course, there is also an exception for late entrants. StuRat 14:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, except for the "negative joker" idea (see above). If you've entered the contest in August but haven't contributed for the first three days in September, thereby using up all of your jokers, you've dropped out of the race. Soundstruck 18:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, in that case I will provisionally count his articles, and so note in the joker count, which is basically what he requested. StuRat 22:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Late entry question. Official rules state if you join on September 15, you have an article debt of 14 articles... can we impose a deadline for entering into the contest? The end of the month could be a good cutoff point, it'd be very difficult to ask anyone to work off a debt of thirty articles. Soundstruck 18:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think a deadline of October 1 makes sense, yes.--Eloquence 18:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dorian Gray, who entered the contest late today, has "1 joker left" listed. I'm confused as to why this is -- it seems someone has taken away 2 jokers for the 2 days late he entered the contest. I thought that Dorian would keep 3 jokers as long as the user writes one extra article each day until the article debt is gone. If he does not write an extra article today, a joker will be used up. So, I believe that right now it should say "3 jokers left," and if no extra article is written by the day's end, 2 jokers will be left. Am I correct? --Unsigned by Cllewr on 21:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC) //SS[reply]

I put the "1 joker left", as a way of zeroing out the "article debt", I just subtracted it from the jokers. This would mean we could get negative jokers for people entering later. The alternative is to list "article debt" and "jokers" separately, but that seemed more complex to me. I get the feeling nobody else agrees, so I will go change it now. StuRat 22:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I changed it over, but now this brings up new questions:
  • Does the first article contributed in a day apply to their article debt or to their need to publish an article that day ? That is, do we subtract it from their article debt or add it to their joker count ?
  • I'm assuming we apply jokers to cover article debt at the end of each day (if they haven't written enough articles that day) and that when they hit zero jokers, they are out of the contest. This is really only a penalty for those who have written and had at least one article approved, though, as others can sign back up as a late entrant (under a new name if we don't permit the same name), without any real penalty. They would be in the same situation as if they had remained in the contest, gathering more article debt, all along.
StuRat 22:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Any contestant who has article debt must write an extra article every day until he/she is out of debt. Jokers would be awarded if another article was written after these two.
  • Very good point -- this could make the contest never-ending. I'm not sure quite what to say because a contestant can rejoin under a new name under any circumstances... so how can such a problem be fixed? Other judges: your opinions?
--Cllewr 00:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This might be a justification for closing the contest to new entrants sooner, rather than later. StuRat 03:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Now this very situation has happened, Datrio was dropped out on Sept 9th, and rejoined on Sept 10th. I don't see any pt in booting him, since he can rejoin under a new name if we do. What now, do we let every dropped contestant do the same ? Of course, at this pt, any contestant who drops out and then rejoins does lose credit for their previously approved stories, so there is at least some penalty. StuRat 17:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not terribly concerned. The contest will end when only 3 contestants are participating and are current contestants. If we reach a point where there only 3 contestants who are still contributing and have no article debt (they aren't catching up), then we have our winners. Yes, anyone can drop out and rejoin and if they "catch up", who cares? This is good, no? If JohnDoe decided to join the contest today, he needs only write two article per day for several days (or perhaps 10 articles today if he chooses) and he's current. I don't see a problem with this. --Chiacomo 20:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if you drop all contestants with article debt remaining when we hit 3 contestants left without article debt, that would address the issue of people waiting until we get down to 4 contestants, then joining or rejoining late. Shall we add this to the official rules ? StuRat 08:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sept 5[edit]

Little bit of tidying up, and an small update of the joker rules per this request. Soundstruck 07:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please, see [1]. Ascánder timezone GMT-4: [2] --Edub 13:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Sorry about that, thanks Edub! Soundstruck 14:09, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sept 6[edit]

We finally have a Dutch speaking judge, yea ! StuRat 02:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sept 7[edit]

Unfortunately, our Dutch speaking judge appears to have done very little work and has now stopped completely. Should we go back to giving preliminary approval to Dutch language articles if they appear to be written by the correct person and are the proper length ? StuRat 03:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ug, guess you'll have to trust the level of quality blindsightedly. I'm moderately for it. -- user:zanimum
He said on my user page he wouldn't always be available; he translated his message for you... --Azertus 22:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, in that case, I propose that we wait until we are down to 3 contestants and you. If he is not available by then to judge all your work up to that pt, I think we will have to award the prize to the other 3. If he is available, and remains so, then you may remain in the contest until we have our 3 winners. Do the other judges agree ? StuRat 00:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sept 8[edit]

An issue came up with contestant TUFKAAP. He submitted a substandard article, which I would ask him to go and improve, but others have already fixed all the deficiencies. It doesn't seem fair to him to reject such an article, when he could have fixed it; and it doesn't seem fair to the other contestants to accept such an article. I said I will accept it this time but not next time. What do you guys think ? StuRat 14:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a "hands off until ***date, 24 hours after creation***" template is in order, for the course of this contest? -- user:zanimum
Well, if you keep in mind that this contest is just a way to get more articles out, hopefully of as high quality as possible, then delaying when people can improve them is rather fighting this goal, isn't it ? StuRat 02:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sept 10[edit]

General question: What is our policy on sources which require registration ? I don't like them. I think those that require a paid subscription should be removed immediately, since we are basically just advertising for them. The ones with free registration still annoy me, but I tend to let them slide, so long as a disclaimer is added stating that free registraion is required. Bear in mind that if we remove all sources from an article, then the article itself should also be sent back to development. We've had both types here, and so far I haven't rejected an article for either case. What do you guys think ? StuRat 11:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

mhhh... the contestants Kju ask me, if i can aprove his articles from the last days. I said him no, but I'm not sure.--Cyper 19:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, Cyper. Specifically, they should only get credit for stories which had 3 or more paragraphs, written by them, on the day they signed up, or after. StuRat 21:17, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sept 11[edit]

Note to other English-language judges: I feel I am doing a disproportionate amount of the judging of English-language articles. Ideally, I would like to see all judges render an opinion on all articles in their language. I will not be doing any judging today, so could especially use some help now. Also, please respond to the issues I have raised on previous dates in the Judge's Forum:

StuRat 14:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think, the best way is a message on their User-Talk-Pages--Cyper 17:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I left the same message on the user talk pages of the English-language judges. This is an inefficient way to do things, though, so I would hope all users would read and respond to issues here without me having to resort to such methods. StuRat 08:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Stu, you have been contributing quite a large amount of the judging work. I just can't keep up with the extra work that's been thrown on my plate, and I'm bowing out today. Best of luck to the contestants and judges. Regards, Soundstruck 22:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to see you go, but thanks for letting us know. StuRat 01:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sept 14[edit]

hi,

can I give daPete a joker for this graphic?--Cyper 22:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, the bar chart is original, but the background image of Japan is not. I would say that it should count for an extra joker, since the image of Japan is less important than the bar chart in the forefront. StuRat 23:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's only a chart for the Vote in Japan. I add one joker--Cyper 12:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sept 20[edit]

I see we now have two French judges (Solensean and Alvaro) but neither is reviewing the entries by the French-speaking contestant (Faager). Can someone who knows a little French get them started please ? If nobody else does, I will try to communicate with them, using machine translations. StuRat 17:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of the articles[edit]

I would join in the contest (even though I'd have at least two days to catch up), however almost inevitably the 'more popular' topics are going to be taken (whether by contestants or not). Must articles submitted be of a particular scope or are more local articles allowed? As an example, a more global topic (wider scope) would be Explosions hit waterfront in New Orleans, Louisiana while articles such as Carnival style portest held in Sydney and Broadband users kicked off service for constant questioning are (arguably) more focused on a smaller audience. So would hypothetical articles with 'more significance or impact' eg. Earthquake in Paris (which would summarise the background, and what's going on at the present) be allowed or considered more highly when making up the tally of results then an article about a major road shut down in Brisbane, Australia which would examine the same details (only for a very different incident)? I'm aware the above might be very difficult to make sense of. --Dorian Gray 05:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dorian, thanks for voicing your question. -- There are no extra points awarded based on the significance of the event that the article covers. If your article fits into any one of the Wikinews sections and reaches publication status (meets the wikinews standard of journalism), it will (most likely) count towards your standing. The two articles you cited are relevant to UK and Australian Wikinews readers, and would definitely qualify in the contest. Hope this helps clear things up. Thanks for your interest in Wikinews! Soundstruck 07:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, local news counts. StuRat 14:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving contest[edit]

I'm afraid school has forced me to curtail my activities on Wikinews. I'll may have to limit my activities to translation, copy editing, and creating stub articles for breaking news, and those things mostly on weekends. In short, I won't be able to participate in this contest. I wasn't sure where to post this, which may be an area of ambiguity that should be improved on the contest's page. theshibboleth

Most contestants put withdrawal announcements under their name in the log on the day on which they withdraw. In your case, however, you were removed from the contest on September 4th, since you didn't submit any articles and had exhausted your jokers by then. In that case, this is as good a place as any to list your reasons for withdrawal, since your name no longer appears on the daily log. Thanks for continuing to participate in Wikinews, though, even if you don't have enough time for the contest. StuRat 10:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed way to end contest[edit]

We have actually gained contestants in the last few days due to a late entry and a re-entry. So, I propose the following additions to the rules:

1) Close the contest to new entrants after September 30.

2) As of October 1, require two articles per day (or jokers). Those with article debt would need 3 articles a day (or jokers).

3) As of November 1, require three articles per day (or jokers).

4) As of December 1, require four article per day (or jokers).

And so on...

Please let me know what you think fo this proposal. StuRat 17:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with the first new rule, but I think the rest are not needed. We do not need the contest to ever end. --Cspurrier 18:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I, for one, am not willing to continue to be a judge forever, so do want the contest to end, eventually. It also seems unfair to me to deny all the contestants the prizes forever. StuRat 08:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to close the contest to new entrants so long as they try to catch up -- the contest should end, in my opinion, when there are only 3 current contestants (those who have no article debt). There will reach a point where the article debt may become terribly high, but, if a contestant wants to try to overcome this barrier, why stop them? It will only increase article submission in whatever language wikinews they participate in. --Chiacomo 20:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll step in as a judge for a while, if needed. -- user:zanimum

I'm not sure on the rules for having former contestants become judges. I would think that would be OK, but going the other way could be a conflict of interest, as judges who later intend to enter the contest could reject entries to eliminate "the competition". The immediate need for another English-language judge has been reduced, as several Enlish-language contestants have dropped out recently. But, if we get a whole new batch of late entries, or if current contestants start publishing 5 articles a day, then we might take you up on your offer. StuRat 16:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that the only limitation should be that new contestants cannot join after October 1. StuRat, if you must drop out as a judge, that's fine - I'll be available if absolutely necessary, and I'm sure others can be found as well. I'm not sure "reviewing and approving" every single article is a must; perhaps judges can act simply in case of disputes, and anyone, including contestants, can comment on the entries submitted.--Eloquence 01:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's me, Eloquence, and Cspurier in favor of ending new entries on Oct 1, and Chiacomo opposed. Any other opinions ? StuRat 02:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What is the reason for formalizing an end-date for accepting new entrants? --Chiacomo 02:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean what is the reason to have an end-date for accepting new entrants, it's so we don't have to spend a lot of time judging entries from contestants with a huge article debt, and therefore little chance of winning. If you mean what is the reason to make an end-date for accepting new entrants formalized, by listing it in the rules, instead of just here, it is so potential new contestants will find the new rule and not sign up. StuRat
As Eloquence suggests, I'm not sure we must review and approve each article. Contestants can be self-moderating to some extent, I think. I don't think you'll see many late entries (past October 1), but I really don't see a reason to prohibit people from entering at any time before the end of the contest. --65.4.198.124 01:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly oppose allowing contestants to monitor themselves, as there are already some contestants who are the only ones in their language group, and I would expect more contestants to fall into this category as others drop out. This essentially would leave each contestant to decide how many jokers they deserve, without any checks from either judges or other contestants, who don't speak their language. Also, I believe the rules state judges can "hand out jokers". To me, this implies that contestants can not. StuRat 15:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When is the next edition of this contest beginning?[edit]

Will there be another edition, and when? :D --82.227.246.168 13:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There probably will be one sometime, but not anytime soon. For one, we are definitely going to wait until the current contest ends, which could be quite a while judging from the level of commitment of the current contestants. Also, we seem to have had a problem finding judges willing to do their part in many languages, so should probably wait until we can get several judges from each language. StuRat 16:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hasn't the current contest already ended? I see only three contestants remaining. --82.227.246.168 22:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it has. StuRat 16:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No photo contest?[edit]

There is no photo contest? We also need more photos, e.g. for the main page. --Unforgettableid | Talk to me 09:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True. We did give a 1 joker bonus for pics in this last contest, but that didn't seem to be enough, as there were very few pics submitted. Of course, the best pics are only possible if you are at the event with a camera, but lesser pics, say of a person the reporter interviewed regarding an event, are also possible. StuRat 22:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Winners ceremony[edit]

I suggest that there will be a ceremony for the winners on IRC. Before organizing this, I would like to invite input: Besides "handing out" prizes, what could be done? Should we also use this event to brainstorm about new contests? If I'll get no feedback, I'll post my own ideas to the mailing list soon.--Eloquence 08:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How do we manage to "hand out prizes" ? Many seem to need to be snail-mailed or e-mailed out. StuRat 17:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_Wikinews_Writing_Contest&oldid=239993"