Talk:Wikinews

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives of this page


ZZZzzz[edit]

Hi, what about some update? The list is quite outdated as some smaller projects are growing faster than others... so the bottom part of the list is practically useless. If some bot is used, such work is pretty easy and no difficult edit is to be made. --Aktron 22:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews Albania[edit]

The albanian Wikinews was oppened, can you insert it? Thanks --85.180.195.247 10:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations! I'll see how to do that. - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 20:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

wikinews.org[edit]

Why "this" is not updated?--محک 14:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about the future of German Wikinews[edit]

I would like to draw your attention to the recent discussion on the future of German Wikinews there and on German Wikipedia. No one reads here, if you want to take part in the discussion please address the local communities there in German. Thanks.--Aschmidt (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Locked wikis[edit]

Can locked wikis (like hu, nl, sd, th) be highlighted in the table, for example by strikethrough (<s></s>)? --PICAWN (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to close Wikinews in all languages[edit]

Please see Talk:Proposals_for_closing_projects#Close_Wikinews_completely.2C_all_languages.3F. Note that I did not propose this. πr2 (t • c) 19:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

If this were a serious proposal (though I can't imagine how any intelligent, sane person would take it seriously), this would be clearly an inadequate place to notify people of it. --Pi zero (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Please Re-open Wikinews Thai[edit]

Please Open Wikinews Thai Please I want writing.--Parintar (talk) 08:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

CC BY 3.0 compatibility?[edit]

Hello, I do not know if this is the best place to ask, but I have found all other places (like the Wikinews-l mailing list) rather inactive, so hopefully someone finds it here and possibly shares their point of view or points me to a better place to ask: Wikinews still runs on the CC BY 2.5 license (which dates from June 2005). An institution has started distributing their press releases and other news articles under CC BY 3.0 CZ and there are editors who would like to reuse this content on (Czech) Wikinews. Are they allowed to do this? Please note that there is no ShareAlike clause in that content's license – it is just the version numbers that do not match. Is CC BY 3.0 somehow backwards compatible with Wikinews' CC BY 2.5? Or has Wikinews ever thought of migrating to CC BY 3.0 (or even the news 4.0) to explicitly allow for mixing content that comes in under one of these newer licenses? To clarify, Czech Wikinews permits reuse of external content (unlike possibly other language versions of the project) and the project already now reuses (by means of translation) content from a few sources that comes under CC BY 3.0 – is that legal at all under current circumstances? --Blahma (talk) 09:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Major version numbers (2.x to 3.x, etc.) are usually made when backwards compatibility is broken. So 3.x is not backwards compatible with 2.x. Like most groups, Creative Commons feels their latest version is the best choice, so they would probably suggest leap-frogging 3 and move on to CC 4.
It should be possible for 2.x to migrate to 3.x. This would be a good question to ask the WMF legal team. Such a migration will likely require a community-wide discussion and agreement. - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 10:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion, which aligns more or less with mine. Migrating up to 4.0 would, however, break compatibility when reusing Wikinews content on Wikipedia, so 3.0 might be preferable at the moment. By the way, on the larger scale, I think that compatibility with other non-Wikimedia projects which use 4.0 is one of the reasons why Wikipedia has not yet been migrated to 4.0 – should compatibility remain in both directions, all involved projects would need to do the migration at the same time. Thanks for hinting to ask WMF legal, I will give it a try. I do not know a better place, however, to address the "global Wikinews community" than this one, so it might be difficult to coordinate a migration even if legal says it would be possible. That would definitely not be a task for myself, actually an outsider to Wikinews who just wants to bring in some data, but for someone else who knows the projects better – and I actually wonder why this issue has not already been raised since 2007: whether the global Wikinews community is that small, whether they do not remix that much external content, whether they do not understand the implications… or whether there is some legitimate reason for staying at 2.5. --Blahma (talk) 22:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I discovered some conversation (rather outdated by today's standard, though) at n:Wikinews:Water_cooler/policy/Archive/16#CC-BY_3 and also a proof, however rare, that CC BY 3.0 has already been used also on English Wikipedia – see for instance n:ETA set off car bomb in La Rioja, Spain. There they claim that the source has a copyright policy compatible with our CC-BY 2.5. Specifically "CC-BY-3.0", which I am not sure is correct reasoning – but it shows that there is a demand for mixing CC BY 3.0 sources in Wikinews. Generally, good starting points for discovering such cases is external link search and full text search.

Further research reveals that, in addition to those few English articles, there are verbatimly thousands of articles based on CC BY 3.0 sources on Russian Wikinews and a few from the same source on Ukrainian Wikinews. Spanish Wikinews have a general and even a source-specific template which refer to 3.0 and the wiki seems to claim that it is OK to reuse such content on Wikinews which uses 2.5 as its main license – and more than fifty articles make use of this. Polish Wikinews n:pl:Wikinews:Współpraca z innymi serwisami has a list of suggested free-licensed sources, including several which run on CC BY 3.0. Perhaps most scandalously, about a third of Portuguese Wikinews 12,000(!) articles are based on a CC BY 3.0 source as marked by the n:pt:Predefinição:Agência Brasil template.

There was a detailed discussion of a possible migration from 2.5 to a higher version at n:fr:Wikinews:Salle_café/2013/mars#w:fr:Discussion_mod.C3.A8le:Pour_Wikinews (dating from 2013) and a shorter earlier (from 2010) at n:fr:Wikinews:Salle_café/2010/septembre#Licence_obsol.C3.A8te_.3F (both in French).

Wikimedia Foundation Legal team has acknowledged the reception of my question and has promised to explore the issue. --Blahma (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Possibly copyvio by sysop on Chinese Wikinews[edit]

Well, I'm discussing this sysop: @和平奮鬥救地球:

Per n:zh:Special:Contribs/和平奮鬥救地球, he copied a number of templates from Wikipedia, e.g. n:zh:Template:Mute, without any mentions on license. Does he really know that WN's license is cc by 2.5, not cc by-sa 3.0? And what policy allowed his such actions? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

This is, unfortunately, a fairly common issue across the WMF projects where there are license conflicts. (Much worse on WikiData!) Fortunately, due to license assignment, the victim is the WMF, and the perpetrator is the WMF.
In practice, the appropriate response is to add the correct attribution and license notification to the templates, or a local recreation using different code to accomplish the same effect when working with modules. (Although a gently worded notice to the individual may prevent future issues, it may also precipitate conflict which is much worse than the actual infraction. Avoid conflict first.) - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 12:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Amgine's suggestion is good, was that done? Remember to link Terms of use/zh#7c, which is simple enough. --Nemo 09:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
@Nemo bis: So Wikimedia_Forum#question_on_wikinews_license_compatibility. isn't really hurting CC BY? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

What's "File"?[edit]

What does the "File" count column in the "Wikinews Statistics" table?

It looks interesting, but I can't find a definition. Thx, DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikinews, like several of the projects, has the ability to host files - primarily media files. Some of the languages choose not to use files which cannot be hosted on Commons.Wikimedia, to avoid the high expense of curating media files.
Others, such as en.WN, find it extremely difficult to find permissively licensed images which are specifically relevant to news events. As you may be aware, copyright includes a specific exception for news use when the original copyright holder is not a competing news source (which explains why mainstream media are able to regularly display video feed from foreign language news sources - they claim they are not in competition with that news source.) Media which are specifically relevant to en.WN news articles, but may not be hosted on Commons due to licensing issues if used for non-news purposes, must be hosted on the local project. The WMF Board approved such hosting in spring 2005, requiring each WN language to implement appropriate copyright and fair use policies before local hosting may be enabled.
The column is reporting the number of such files hosted. Similar data is available for projects such as Wikipedias. - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 03:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion moved from project page[edit]

Making Wikinews more attractive for audience and volunteers[edit]

Might it be permissible for a Wikipedian with over 3,300 total edits in Wikimedia projects to editorialize here about the future of humanity and a way that Wikinews might make a major contribution to reducing war and political corruption while also improving economic and political opportunities and the general welfare for the bottom 99 percent of humanity?

  • Progress on every substantive problem I can think of is blocked, because every plausible countermeasure threatens someone with substantive control over the media.

A discussion of how this applies to the War on Terror appears in a Wikiversity article on Winning the War on Terror. That includes a section on "Media and corruption", which includes references to econometric research that found that countries with greater press freedom tend to have less corruption.[1] Another source reported that greater political accountability and lower corruption were more likely where newspaper consumption was higher.[2] Beyond that, a "poor fit between newspaper markets and political districts reduces press coverage of politics. ... Congressmen who are less covered by the local press work less for their constituencies ... . Federal spending is lower in areas where there is less press coverage of the local members of congress."[3]

I believe that something like Wikinews can grow into the premier news source world wide with an audience comparable to that of Google and Wikipedia. If done right, I believe the result could dramatically reduce political corruption and the risks of war while increasing broadly shared economic growth and democracy. Some of the details are summarized in Winning the War on Terror on Wikiversity and my proposed "Birds of a Feather" session on "Building Wikinews into the premier news site worldwide" at this year's Wikimania conference; comments and participation eagerly solicited.

Addressing this need would require some changes from the current software and editorial policies of Wikinews. Most obviously, it would need an interface that would adjust to each user's location, demographics and interests -- with intelligent defaults that the user could control if s/he wished. Research summarized in the "Media and corruption" section of Winning the War on Terror on Wikiversity suggests that we can increase democratic engagement by making the service area for news match political jurisdictions: To the extent that the research summarized there is correct, this should increase voter interest and participation, increase the number of candidates who run for office, and increase the extent to which elected officials work for the public rather than the special interests, whose money was instrumental in getting them elected.

Secondly, this revised Wikinews would need to attract the following:

  • A sufficient combination of volunteers and financial contributions to produce and distribute news that everyone would want to consume.
  • An audience sufficient to justify continued effort and funding.

With this in mind, I will here summarize my own experience with Wikimedia projects: I have over 3,300 edits in Wikimedia projects, including starting three articles and finishing two for Wikinews. This is a publication rate of 67 percent. The reception I got from Wikinews was great training in journalism but terrible for motivating me to write more for Wikinews. This experience suggested to me, correctly or not, that I could reach a wider audience with what I write through Wikipedia and Wikiversity than through Wikinews.

The above table as of 2017-04-28 indicated a total of 222,000 articles published out of a total of 3.47 million submitted, for a publication rate of 6.4 percent. That ratio ranged from 0.62 percent for Sindhi to 62 percent for Serbian; it was 0.77 percent for English. I think the high acceptance rate for articles in Serbian have helped to make it the language with the most articles on Wikinews -- and the low acceptance rate in Sindhi has helped generate the fewest articles of any language. English has the second highest number of articles written with the second worst acceptance rate only because it's the the primary language of the Internet and of international relations today.

In my memory, I got feedback from Wikinews Admins in three general categories:

  1. Required documentation to establish that what I said was accurate.
  2. Questions about whether something was newsworthy.
  3. Journalistic style.

I think Wikinews could attract more volunteer contributors and a wider audience if it opened itself up to bloggers: Anyone could be allowed to post anything written from a neutral point of view if they cited credible sources and provided adequate documentation for any assertions of fact. Admins / editors and others could still ask about whether something was newsworthy and make suggestions on writing style. Articles would be held from publication if they were not written from a neutral point of view or did not cite relevant sources or provide adequate documentation -- but not if Admins / editors felt the article was not newsworth or the writing style was poor: We need volunteers more than we need quality prose.

Articles could be selected to be featured in two ways: (a) Judgment of Admins / Editors. (b) Peer voting recommending individual articles.

This is roughly how the Daily Kos selects articles to feature: Every submission is accepted, and if enough people find it and "recommend" it, it gets featured more widely. Too few articles on the Daily Kos are written from a neutral point of view. That limits their audience and limits the extent that they can be quoted.

If Wikinews accepted bloggers who could write from a neutral point of view citing credible sources and providing adequate documentation, I think it could become the premier news site world wide -- especially if it also included links to virtually all the other news sources for each political and cultural jurisdiction. These other sources could include minutes of meetings of governmental bodies, and newsletters of virtually any organization with relevant political and cultural interests in addition to the primary mainstream news outlets. This could allow Wikinews to attract a wider audience and be cited more widely -- partly because their citations and privately filed "reporter's notes" would make it more credible.

  1. Brunetti, Aymo; Weder, Beatrice (2003), [www.elsevier.com/locate/econbase "A free press is bad news for corruption"] Check |url= scheme (help), Journal of Public Economics (Elsevier) 87: 1801–1824 
  2. Adserà, Alícia; Boix, Carles; Payne, Mark (2000), "Are You Being Served?: Political Accountability and Quality of Government" (PDF), Working Paper (Inter-American Development Bank Research Department) (438), retrieved 2014-08-17  and Adserà, Alícia; Boix, Carles; Payne, Mark (2003), "Are You Being Served? Political Accountability and Quality of Government" (PDF), Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization (Oxford U. Pr.) 19: 445–490, retrieved 2014-08-31 
  3. Snyder, James M.; Strömberg, David (2008), Press Coverage and Political Accountability, NBER Working Paper Series (13878), National Bureau of Economic Research, retrieved 2014-08-17 

Questions[edit]

What needs to happen to get a wider consideration of these suggestions?

In particular:

  1. Might it be feasible to survey Wikinews contributors in different languages to get their feedback on what might encourage them to contribute more and what they think might attract a larger audience to Wikinews?
  2. Are others interested in discussing this at Wikimania 2017? Anyone interested is encouraged to edit the Submissions/Building Wikinews into the premier news site worldwide and add their name to the list of "Interested attendees" at the end.
  3. What other data might be useful to collect and add to the above table? For example, I'd like to see an analysis of why draft articles don't get published along with numbers of draft articles submitted and recently published (e.g., the past 10, 30 or 90 days or the past year).

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

No offense intended, but this commentary or essay did not belong at the top of the Meta project page, so I have moved it here. - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 02:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
No offense taken. I agree the move was appropriate. I should have placed it here to start with, but didn't think of it. DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
In response to the questions above, in order:
  1. It is feasible/possible to survey WN contributors; it is not, however, statistically useful as the pool of contributors is too small (and, likely, the subset of survey respondents would be smaller yet.)
  2. If I were to attend WM2013 (updated the link with the correct interwiki, btw) I would be interested in sitting in on this, but as I avoid religious movements it is unlikely I shall. (But I am looking for excuses to visit Montréal, so maybe I will anyway.)
  3. The data could, although brittlely, be extracted via the api via bot. Or as a one-off it could be done manually. Keep in mind, however, that such is relevant only to the English project; each WN has its own model for publication and the strict review cycle on en.WN is unique. It is not the only model under which the project has operated.
In my opinion the primary obstacle to en.WN growth is the lack of instant gratification. On most of the languages of Wikinews contributors must pass (arbitrary) hurdles before their article will be 'published'. Passing or enforcing these hurdles costs far more (volunteer time, effort, etc.) than unpublishing an article costs. A project with minimal volunteers cannot afford such infrastructures, and of course such infrastructures - especially when under-resourced - cause the painful delays which delay contributor gratification.
It is likely quite difficult to implement a Karma-style (Daily Kos) presentation layer in Mediawiki. However, that would probably be less difficult than the current review templates/modules/js being implemented on en.WN. (Basically an algorithm to account for user ids voting up/down, plus pageviews with time stamp to weight traffic by time, and additional complications can be accreted as they undoubtedly would be.) - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 15:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Articles from Chinese Wikinews copying VOA articles[edit]

I told one editor about Chinese Wikinews copying articles from Voice of America, e.g. zh:n:香港民主党:一国两制走样变形 and zh:n:江苏徐州幼儿园门口发生爆炸致8死65伤 警方判为刑事案件. I said nothing wrong with copying VOA, whose articles are in the public domain. Then I told that person about one bot creating brief stories like zh:n:2017年6月18日香港報紙頭條 and zh:n:2017年6月18日臺灣報紙頭條. I've not received one response from that person. Therefore, I was hoping someone with great Chinese language communication can address this at zh:n:维基新闻:茶馆 (lit. Tearoom; Chinese version of Water cooler). --George Ho (talk) 04:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikinews mass importing from VOA and other sources is a perennial discussion, see Research:Wikinews Content Import Analysis and even Wikinews/Future talk 2. See also The Wikinewsie Group/Local Wikinews policies. This is not a matter for the babylon, either. --Nemo 07:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
@George Ho: I would say that the de facto zhwikinews is most likely foggy, they approved some copy-pasted policies/guidelines (clearly from zhwiki), rejected {{PD-PRC-exempt}} without any reason mentioned, sharing jihadism on Japanese related articles... see also my #Possibly copyvio by sysop on Chinese Wikinews above --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I also reserve rights to propose closing zhwikinews, if this discussion won't resolved easily. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
It's not even clear what needs to be "resolved". (You've not replied to Amgine's suggestion either.) --Nemo 09:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes (and revert)[edit]

There were recently some large and substantive changes to this multi-language project page. In checking several WN projects I did not see any effort made to get input from other members of the project. (I did not see this discussion on nl.WN either.) I am in favour of updating this page, but not arbitrarily by one, and only for that person's interests. - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 13:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm updating this page and archive subpages that are not longer used today. Wikinews has no big community. Consultation takes place in the Wikinews Forum, but there is also no movement. The Dutch Wikinews community has given a new impulse, followed by PT, ES, FR and other wikis, and can be a leading Wikinews for internal project renewal. You have now reset the page to a completely outdated version. In addition, the text is now fully focused on Wikinews English and is not representative of other projects. Livenws (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I have seen no attempt to communicate except post hoc your changes on a page you created and no one else seems to be aware of. As the interwiki links on Wikinews:Redactieruimte show, each project does have a forum; normally I would expect some attempt to alert the various languages via these as well as the mailing list, IRC, and other methods of communication with members of the project which are advertised widely.
At the moment I cannot assess the project renewal you say is occurring because Wikistatistics is down as of June 2017. I do not see, but I hope you may be correct, that nl.WN will help re-inspire and re-invigorate the project. Showing the way with sustained growth and development will bring emulation. If there is anything I can do to help, just let me know!
- Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 15:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
IRC-Wikinews channel is mostly abandoned and especially a channel that is udes by members of EN Wikinews. Mail archives, there are not many people looking at it, however again used by only a few EN Wikinews members. MassMessage seems to me a solution but I have no rights. It's a lot of work to have contact with everyone, if someone is oppossing he/she/x can always discuss after changes. The work on NL.Wikinews is also a lot after 7 years Incubator time. Livenws (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Compared to other projects, the active contributors of Wikinews are much more likely to be in IRC. But, comparatively, the project is small. Saying there are few people to talk to, and so you will not make the effort, does not suggest you wish to collaborate with the rest of the project. I appreciate how much work is involved because I have done it many times, as you can see on the nl.WN and many others.
The en.WN people have taken your input seriously, and are now using #wikinews-en for most of their English-only work in IRC. Of course this means there is less activity in that channel.
As for 'little resistance' and 'no comments', I have heard three complaints which is more response than I have received in a year. This is good! it means people are noticing. I suggest you continue, but that you write on this talk page what you want to change and why before you implement the change. And do one thing at a time. This can avoid or reduce conflict, because people will know why you think something should be different. - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 17:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Can you give some links to the complaints, so I have an idea about the worries of some contributers? Livenws (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
No, I cannot as they sought me out via other communications channels to avoid having links to their concerns. Two mentioned that you seem interested in being able to edit, at whim, anything, including archives. All three seem to feel you are energetic and motivated, but perhaps do not recognize the importance of collaboration. That is, you appear to feel your way is best whether or not others agree with you and are less interested in reaching compromise. My biggest concern is they felt they would rather not address you, and instead addressed me. That is why I am here. - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 19:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Updates[edit]

Suggested updates: If there are any objections, let them hear. Discussion is taking place here. 1st: 2nd method of articles - currently on nl.wikinews... 2nd: Archiving all pages more than 3 years old without contributions 3th: new language interface to make it easier to translate the English page (all other languages are outdated) Livenws (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I will break these out into sub-sections in the interest of avoiding edit conflicts. - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 21:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
One quick note I just noticed: the number of active wikinews project members was stated by the Board in 2004 as being 5, minimum. It is possible the board has changed that since then, but you seem to have changed it for 3. Can you link to a board resolution which makes it 3? - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 22:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
This is not regulated by the Board but by the Language Committee. 3 is enough. You can see that above all requestspage of wiki's waiting for creation. Livenws (talk) 23:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, no, the board delegates authority to the Language Committee, which means they do regulate it. But if the LangCom's practice is three that is good enough for me. - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 01:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Article Stages[edit]

2nd method of articles - currently on nl.wikinews...

  • One thing you may want to know is that keeping a permanent record of articles was and is part of Wikinews's mission. It is a part of of the justification for the project that, while other contemporary sources may disappear, Wikinews's articles will remain as permanent urls to document what was known when. (Incidentally, most of the WN languages discovered that old publicly editable articles became targets for spam edits, which is why they began locking them from casual editing.)

    However, this section seems to me to be unnecessarily long and prescriptive: compare with:
    Articles have a lifecycle in Wikinews projects unlike Wikipedia. Most languages have the following stages for articles:
    • Development and review, until the article is ready for publishing.
    • Publication, when the article is linked prominently.
    • Archive, when the article is maintained as a historic document.
  • It seems to me this is all this section needs to say. - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 22:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
    • The basis of a wiki is that it is freely editable, at all times. Talking about policy is something that happens at local level.

Why should not the second method be clearly defined? The English method should not be described as "the best", that can not. Feel free to describe your favorite method. I just want a list of possibilities here. And there may also be a third method. A fourth, a fifth ... Livenws (talk) 23:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The second method is covered by the text I suggested. There is nothing there which says it must be protected from editing, only that it is a historic document. - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 01:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
My suggestion is showing only the stages of the two possibilities and remove all text from poss. 1 and 2. So we have a neutral text without opinions. Because the opinions are divided. Livenws (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I am afraid I did not quite understand what you intended here. Are you saying there are only two stages on NL, and all published articles continue to be published prominently on the main page? - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 01:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Only new/fresh articles are published on the main page. But, it's allowed to write articles about events in the past (written in present tense), to fill our archive (but that does not happen much). There are indeed only 2 stages on NL Wikinews. You write an article as a concept version, when you're ready, you publish the article and it will be shown on the main page when the correct category for showing on the main is used. If the article does not meet publication conditions, any user can put it back to "concept." There is also no archiving because there can by updates in the next few days of an article, mostly the update is just one or two lines, so a new article is not required. This article is an example of that. Also see bottom with different categorys of all days there was an update. Of course, only the most recent topics remain on the homepage. Livenws (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
So in practice there are three stages - development, newly published, and maintained. An older article which is updated does not become 'new' and visible on the main page again. If you would like to avoid saying this, that is fine - here is another very brief formulation:
  • Articles have a life cycle in Wikinews, unlike Wikipedia. An article goes through a development process before it is considered ready for publication. Publishing links the article from the main page.
- Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 17:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
All good for me! But could you change it, so there aren't more issues about the text. For me, it's all good as long as the page is up to date and presented a general view on all Wikinews-projects Livenws (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Okay, if you are in consensus with that text, I will trim that section down to the simple form. - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 20:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I like the new version. --Nemo 17:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikinews archives[edit]

Archiving all pages more than 3 years old without contributions so it will be like this example

  • For some pages this may work - for example the WORTNET project failed fairly quickly. For others, like Wikinews/Logo, no. Pages which are policies, guidelines, or similar do not go out of effect simply because they are not edited regularly. So I would be opposed to implementing this suggestion. - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 22:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
    • I'm not taling about the logo's etc (that edit was a mistake). Pages like Wortnet, Wikinewsie Group, writing contest etc.

New language interface for Wikinews on Meta[edit]

new language interface to make it easier to translate the English page (all other languages are outdated)

  • I would strongly suggest Wikinews and many of the project subpages be integrated with the Meta:Babylon system to create and maintain current translations of important pages. It is simple, language-neutral, and does not cost too much Wikinewsie volunteer time. - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 22:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
    • I was busy with that, but I can't go further until all this discussions are over. Livenws (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Original reporting[edit]

Dutch Wikinews has also reviews about books / movies, research journalism, travel reports, and opinions. Can these be added underneath 'orginal reporting'?
Proposal text: On some projects it's allowed to write reviews, travel reports and opinions. Please check local policy if this is permitted in your own language edition.

Full proposal: In order to implement our vision of not just a news summary service, but a source of original reporting, there will be at least two types of reports:

  • summaries from external sources
  • reports by Wikinews reporters: first-hand experiences/interviews/research (on some projects it's allowed to write reviews travel reports and opinions. Please check local policy if this is permitted in your own language edition)

This, I would remove: In this context, we also establish one key principle that any Wikinews implementation must follow: to make available to the reader all the knowledge which we ourselves have, that is, to fully cite our sources, with the exception of sources which are anonymized for their protection.

And change into this: Always mention sufficient sources at the bottom of an article. In the case of original journalism, there may be exceptions. Please check local policy for more information.

what do you think? Livenws (talk) 22:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Current Wikinews initiatives[edit]

I would like to remove the links below under the heading of 'current Wikinews initiatives' because of inactivity of years.

Livenws (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

The Wikinewsie Group/Local Wikinews policies[edit]

Is it possible to change the title into Wikinews/Local policies instead of being a subpage of 'The Wikinewsie Group'. Livenws (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)