Talk:Wikinews/Open English

Discussion

This all seems way too confusing for me. Why don't we just improve Wikinews? -- NGerda 22:29, 5 Jul 2005 (UTC)

FAQ: #1: scope creep

1. ... Further, they have implemented a system for new articles to be created which is a great improvement in that it allows the use of a template to pre-fill the article with text - but it already developing scope creep including "do this/don't do this" instructions in html comments.

Actually, after a discussion, all such instructions were removed.--Eloquence 02:35, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)

If you want to see the subject of this fuss-over-nothing, click here. Dan100 6 July 2005 07:56 (UTC)

Are You Japanese?

FAQ: #3: decision-making process

1. : Decisions on en.Wikinews are generally made through community consensus, which arises in a range of venues but often through talk pages or on the Water Cooler. However, the decision to switch exclusively to the DPL was made by Bureaucrat Eloquence without consulting the community and in violation of an uneasy compromise which had been reached by the community. The decision to alter the main page and include the inputbox format of article submission was a unilateral decision by Eloquence, one which had no community discussion and which no one else could possibly have done.

After the Wikinews frontpage was switched to DPL in consensus by much of the community (not including my involvement at any level), the frontpage contained two "Developing stories" boxes, one which was manually maintained ("Manual list"), and one which used the DPL to list stories which had been tagged with {{Develop}} ("Automatic list"). The main reason cited for maintaining two boxes was that it was impossible to easily create a new story in a purely DPL-based system, as the story first had to be linked to from somewhere, and the link followed, to create it.

On n:Template talk:Developing stories, Wikinews user Ilya Haykinson suggested that an extension should be created to make it easy to start new articles, and user Dan100 concurred. This, they argued, could make the manual list, which made the frontpage look confusing, unnecessary. I programmed this extension, now known as inputbox extension, and put it into use to demonstrate its usefulness. Nobody reverted this, and many people commented on IRC that it was a very useful addition. Amgine, however, disagreed with this assertion, and stated that it limited users too much.

So, the "unilateral changes" that "bureaucrat Eloquence" has made? Wrote an extension and put it into use, where it was quickly accepted by the vast majority of the community.--Eloquence 02:20, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Let's be blunt here: The changes had widespread support, with only one or maybe two objections. Amgine has sour grapes because we didn't do what he told us to do, and now he's trying to make as much trouble as possible.

The new system has been very well recieved on Wikinews and is proving very successful. Dan100 6 July 2005 07:58 (UTC)

The double listing, manual and automated, was an uneasy compromise reached after several days of discussions, disputes, and arguments. Which you changed without, it appears, ever knowing about. You implemented a new software extension on the main page without explaining what you planned to do, when there was an ongoing controversy about the future of the layout. And that you did with full awareness of the lack of consensus in the community.

However, what you may not realize is this request for an Open English edition of wikinews has very little to do with you personally, but much to do with the growing gulf within the en.wn community. Some in the community feel the development of articles should follow a regimented program to produce high quality news articles. Others in the community feel the openness of the community, the welcomeness and the collaboration, are more important than the literary or design qualities of the finished articles. Both are laudable goals, but at the moment they seem non-compatible.

Rather than completely leave the Wikinews project, this compromise is being proposed: an alternative edition of Wikinews which is focused on being extremely accessible for newcomers. The two english Wikinews could be complimentary, or merely parallel. But enough users have expressed an interest in edition to meet minimal requirements of the language edition and so we have begun the pre-launch processes.

Working with Ilya we have developed a feature for DynamicPageList which gives us some of the functionality which allows all unpublished articles appear in the developing stories template. Adding some of the features of inputbox will allow new users to create a new article, with no templated contents, from the main page. These and additional features aimed at introducing people to Wikinews, and Wikimedia, in a supportive environment comprise a different focus which is bigger than a difference over governance. - Amgine 6 July 2005 07:59 (UTC)

Just for readers: here's the before and after of "How to write an article", around which this debate is centered. Which is easier? Make your own minds up. Dan100 6 July 2005 10:37 (UTC)

Fact

A new project can only be created with consent of the board.

It is "nice" that a stink has been created that includes a lot of FUD going around that even attaches to other projects like Ultimate Wiktionary. From what I have seen, the quality of the debate is such that the person bringing the argument to the Foundation mailinglist found it necessary to publicly apologise because he was ill informed.

If Amgine wants to create a project outside of Wikimedia he obviously can. When he looks a bit better, he must come to the conclusion that fragmenting Wikinews only leads to make both projects less relevant. I do not believe that the board will aprove an "open English" Wikinews project at this time. The quality of the arguments and the personal tone of the arguments is bad enough. Having an open wound as one of our projects is unlikely in the extreme. GerardM 6 July 2005 06:34 (UTC)

A question about process:

This page is designed to facilitate the process of completing and creating the language edition's pre-launch documents. It is not a discussion page for the suitability of the edition (that would be Wikinews/Start a new edition). It is not about other extant editions (presumably that would be n:en:Wikinews:About). It is about what the organizers and supporters of this edition are creating to support the new edition if it were ever to reach a state of being created.

So why does it need to contain arguments against its creation? - Amgine 6 July 2005 08:18 (UTC)

Because so many people are adamantly against the idea. -- 70.34.5.128 9 July 2005 06:19 (UTC)

Uhm, no NGerda. That does not make an inappropriately placed argument any more relevant. It's called pushing a POV, or POVioring. - Amgine 9 July 2005 16:15 (UTC)