Re: Re: That boston globe story

He used so little of what you told him because the story had already  
been written: they just needed a human face to kick it off because  
tech stories and concept stories need a personal touch to grab the  
reader...

And you were that human face... sorry...

But hey, the story ran and that's good, right?

phoenix

On 01/07/2005, at 3:53 AM, Brandon Stafford wrote:

> This article was on the front page of the business section on
> Saturday. The print edition included two pictures of me at work, but I
> haven't been able to find them on the web.
>
> Not sure why Joe Little used so little of what I told him. I guess
> that's the way journalism works in the old world.
>
> Brandon, AKA Pingswept (semi-wiki-vacation through August)
>
> On 6/30/05, Clare-Marie White <clare <at> thefriend.org> wrote:
>
>> In full:
>> http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/06/25/ 
>> spreadin_the_n
>> ews_1_volunteer_at_a_time/
>>
>> Clare x

Inputbox extension (search, create) operational

Relevant for wikis on MediaWiki 1.5 only:

I have coded and made operational an extension that can be used to add a 
search box, or a "create an article" box, to any page:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Inputbox_extension

The search functionality is primarily of interest to Wikipedia, where 
those Wikipedias that would like to now have the option to put a 
prominent, Google-like search box on their Main Pages.

The create an article functionality is currently trialed on the English 
Wikinews to make it easier for newcomers to start writing stories. It 
supports preloading the newly created page with the source from another 
page, and also adding a custom tag at the top. These two features are 
independently available:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=FJADOVAFD&preload=Stub&action=edit

loads the text of [[stub]] into the new page with the bogus title.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=FJADOVAFD&editintro=Stub&action=edit

gives you a modified introduction, which is useful when creating custom 
edit pages. The two parameters only work when the page does not exist yet.

Best,

Erik

Future of Wikinews chat

Dear Wikinews community,
dear interested individuals,

I would like to invite you to participate in an open, unmoderated 
discussion about the future of the project, specifically the English 
edition. Members of other editions who want to learn about recent 
changes to the English version, and who want to debate whether these 
changes could be useful for their project, are also invited to join. 
Please sign up for a time that is convenient for you at:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Future_Talk

The purpose of this IRC meeting is to discuss issues such as

* Should the DynamicPageList extension be used?
* Should the inputbox extension be used?
* How should decisions about issues like this be made in the future?
* How local can Wikinews stories be?
* How can we make Wikinews more accessible for newcomers?

Please feel free to add topics of discussion to the agenda.

Note that we should not be trying to make decisions at this meeting - 
those should be openly documented on the wiki - but to reach a basic 
consensus about how to proceed.

Best,

Erik

the features...

Two comments. 
The first is about the recent crisis on wikinews.
The second is a comment about the new features.

For the first point Erik, it seems some people are not happy with the way decision making happens on wikinews.

It seems that this time, the trigger of the conflict is the way a new feature was put into use,
even though there was no clear agreement whithin the community to use it. I'd say, it is fair to complain
about 
software changes, when software changes are not agreed upon. It is good that you propose now a discussion over
whether this new feature should be used or not, but the discussion should occur *before* the feature is
used, or
even better *before* the feature is developped.
I suppose you will answer that it was discussed, it was agreed, that it is the best solution so should be used...
this may be. But you can not at the same time claim this... and ignore the fact regular editors are so mad that
it 
appears to them their *only* options are to suggest another wikinews (fork) or obey you (not so benevolent dictatorship).

How do you suggest to improve this in the future ?

For Kyle, I do not think there was any abuse of Erik in his blocking NGerda. 
I am more dubious of whether the same standards apply to everyone, but this is another story. NGerda
apparently disrespect a rule all
wikinewsies should follow, so it is fair he is given a time out. I trust NGerda has a tough skin 
As for Erik, being under different pseudos or his own name is generally known and I do not think there is any
abuse either on the matter
(there is only one wikinews account). He is Eloquence on wiki, Zirzon on irc and Erik as a real person.
I will add that he is indeed an officer of Wikimedia Foundation, but this has nothing to do
with him being an editor on wikinews and should not mean he should be treated differently than others. He

[Fwd: Re: [Foundation-l] the features...]

Forgot to copy this here, which is really where it belongs.

Erik

From: Erik Moeller <erik_moeller <at> gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] the features...
Date: 2005-07-06 09:48:02 GMT

Anthere:
> For the first point Erik, it seems some people are not 
 > happy with the way decision making happens on wikinews.

I think that there are many different problems that have happened in 
recent days:

1) There has been a very big fight about the use of the DynamicPageList 
extension to automate story display. I was not involved in that. Those 
who opposed it felt that the other side eventually pushed their solution 
through without discussing it.

2) Davodd has some concerns that we're not accepting enough local 
stories. I'm not quite sure where that comes from, but we're discussing it.

3) There's the inputbox extension. It is meant to address one problem 

Re: the features...

On 7/6/05, Anthere <anthere9 <at> yahoo.com> wrote:

> Two comments. 
> The first is about the recent crisis on wikinews.
> The second is a comment about the new features.

I agree with what Erik and Dan have already written on this.

When worrying about new features not being discussed, you might want
to look at the number of new features in MediaWiki 1.5. Those were
generally not discussed, but people welcome them as *optional*
improvements to their wikis. There is nothing in the new "create an
article" box that forces any user to use it. You can still go to
http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=My_new_article&action=edit
and write on a blank page, but for newcomers who want to do things
properly, having the option to use
<http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=Template%3ANew_page&title=My+new+article>
instead is likely to be very helpful.

> However, Wikipedia just as well might propose pre-filled articles, with
> pre-formatted titles, subtitles, see alsos, external links, categories and
> international links. And IT DOES NOT. Why is it felt necessary on wikinews
> when it is not felt necessary on other projects ? 

Why doesn't Wikipedia use it? Perhaps because the feature has only
just been introduced and no one knows about it, not necessarily
because it's a bad idea. And, I have proposed it be used for leaving
test messages on user talk pages
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#User_talk_inputbox>).
 <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=Template%3ATest&editintro=Template%3ATest+intro&create=Create+article&title=User_talk%3ATestingggg>

Re: [Wikinews-l] [Fwd: Re: the features...]

I'm very pleased that the technical solution I suggested and helped
develop with Ilya has been implemented on Wikinews. The fact that it
had been discussed and was in development before you changed the main
page should, however,  be mentioned Erik. Another is that it might not
now be in existence if I had not written a crude implementation this
afternoon and given it to Ilya.

> I put the inputbox on the Main Page to demonstrate it.

When has it been okay to experiment on the main page of a live site
without so much as an explanation to the regular contributors to that
site?

I'm not opposed to the inputbox extension in and of itself; it's a
slick piece of code which answers a need often expressed. I do not
think it is appropriate to use a complex nested template as it is
currently implemented, but that could be resolved by the community.

> Wikipedia has no such dependencies. I follow a link and I start
> writing. If my article is not perfect, that's fine, because it's
> still linked from the right places. People can see it. People will
> eventually fix it for me. In general, there's less things to know,
> and less things that can go wrong.

This was the justification for the use of the manual list in addition
to the automated list, until the additional functionality was coded. I
used nearly the same words, in fact.

The governance issues are not the basic reason for the Open English
proposal (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Start_a_new_edition)

Re: the features...

Amgine:

> When has it been okay to experiment on the main page of a live site
> without so much as an explanation to the regular contributors to that
> site?

To quote Jimbo Wales, when he joined the site in November 2004: "I'm 
drastically changing a lot of pages to illustrate to people that this is 
a wiki." He then proceeded to alter key policy pages without prior 
discussion. The nature of wikis is to be bold, experiment, and see 
whether people agree with you. This is especially true for a site that 
is still in beta. My change to the developing stories box was, compared 
to the DPL changes that preceded it, minor, and hailed as an 
improvement. Even you now acknowledge the usefulness of the extension:

> I'm not opposed to the inputbox extension in and of itself; it's a
> slick piece of code which answers a need often expressed. I do not
> think it is appropriate to use a complex nested template as it is
> currently implemented, but that could be resolved by the community.

Nobody reverted the change, and had anyone done so, I would not have 
reverted back. In fact, you initially debated the change calmly 
(including comments like "<shrug>"), and only got angry over time, to 
the point that you left the project in a huff. I'm sorry if I made you 
angry in the discussion, but I have found that this tends to happen with 
you whenever I do *anything* on the site at all. But I won't go there.

You have removed the accusations against "bureaucrat Eloquence" from 
your proposal. I welcome that you are trying to depersonalize the 
debate. It is my belief, reflected also by various pages on Wikipedia et 

RE: the features...

> > Two comments.
> > The first is about the recent crisis on Wikinews.

The main crisis as I see it in Wikinews is not the new features, but a group
of 2-3 admins who are systematically targeting other individuals for
harassment and expulsion for not towing the party line of what they decide
is acceptable for the WN audience. Very unwiki and very unwelcome to new
members with new ideas for the project.

--
David Speakman
http://www.DavidSpeakman.com
501 Moorpark Way #83
Mountain View CA 94041
Phone: 408-382-1459

Re: Re: the features...

>
> - you make a judgment call as to whether the change is
> controversial, - you are prepared to accept a revert and face
> discussion.

These are two elements which were clearly missing from  your changes,
and the attempts at discussion after.

>> There are currently 5 people supporting the creation of an Open
>> English edition of Wikinews, which is obviously not entirely due
>> to the recent differences regarding the DPL. Like any community
>> at en.wikinews there are different opinions as to what the goals
>> of the project may be, and some members of the community feel it
>> is not going someplace they wish to continue to support.
>
>
> People leave the English Wikipedia all the time. We don't set up an
> "Open English Wikipedia" because of that. I will not enumerate the
> many, many reasons why doing so in the case of Wikinews would be a
> bad idea. My suggestion is this: If you do not want to work with
> the existing Wikinews community, then please do set up your Open
> Newswiki as a separate site. I provide wiki hosting at reasonable
> rates, if you are interested . So does Gabriel Wicke.

I thank you for your offer, but I choose my hosting based on support.

As you have so eloquently argued in the past, Wikinews is not
Wikipedia. What qualifies for inclusion as current events should be
more broad, because the focus is *now*. Like the media sources which