Wikinews/Future talk 2/log

Times is EDT

[17:02] <cspurrier> Every thing from now on will be logged in the wiki at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Future_talk_2/log
[17:02] <Munchkinguy> okay, so what would the talk page be used for if there is an editor collap page
[17:02] <-- brion has left this server. ("This computer has gone to sleep")
[17:02] <Munchkinguy> ?
[17:02] <Pechorin> I think the idea is to let talk page become a forum
[17:02] <Pechorin> I'm against it to start with
[17:03] <Pechorin> if we are to have another page, then we probably need something like Article/Forum
[17:03] *** You set the channel topic to "Future talk 2| Logged at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Future_talk_2#Issues |Topic: Creation of "Editor Collab".
[17:03] <Munchkinguy> no, i think the idea is to stop the talk page from becoming a forum
[17:03] --> Agostino has joined this channel. (~50354d6a@rdns.151.240.218.216.fre.communitycolo.net)
[17:03] <RossKoepke> well
[17:03] <cspurrier> Hello Agostino 
[17:03] <Pechorin> "Creation of "Editor Collab." tab due to guests usurping "Talk" for a discussion/debate forum. Would keep relevant editor collaboration seperate, but still encourage more participation."
[17:04] <kyelewis`> i don't know if i see the merits of having another tab
[17:04] <RossKoepke> the basic premise is that we have a problem that must be solved: that the talk pages are becoming irrelevant to wikinews editors
[17:04] <Pechorin> so, editor collaboration page would be a place for what talk was intended
[17:04] <RossKoepke> now, *one* way to solve this is to add another tab
[17:04] <cspurrier> I agree, a policy of being Agostino  to the story might be good, but we have no need for a new tab
[17:04] <Munchkinguy> ...and the other is to rename the talk tab?
[17:04] <RossKoepke> leave the Talk page to the talkers/debaters, and use the new tab for editor collab
[17:05] <cspurrier> yuck I hate it when I have the wrong thing in the clipboard :)
[17:05] <Pechorin> I say we don't do anything about it, but split Talk page into "comments" and "collaboration talk" by simple formatting
[17:05] <Munchkinguy> But then we'd have to do that manually every tim,e
[17:05] <cspurrier> I agree, a policy of being relevant relevant  to the story only being allowed might be good, but we have no need for a new tab
[17:06] <Pechorin> cspurrier, try to type it out without using clipboard :)
[17:06] <RossKoepke> lol
[17:06] <cspurrier> too slow then :)
[17:06] <RossKoepke> yeah these meetings are quite fast paced
[17:07] *** Dat|afk is now known as Datrio.
[17:07] <Datrio> I told you to wait for me!
[17:07] <kyelewis`> heh
[17:07] <Pechorin> Munchkinguy, I know... but the bigger issue, imo, is should we allow generally "hate" comments on talk pages?
[17:07] <Pechorin> Datrio, you didn't miss anything :)
[17:07] <Datrio> oh
[17:07] <Datrio> that's good
[17:07] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: that is a good question
[17:07] <cspurrier> I think it a seperate page is only good for when the story is something like the 7/7 story and is likely to fill up the page
[17:07] <Munchkinguy> what's an example of a "hate" comment
[17:07] <kyelewis`> i've always wondered, do talk pages fit outside the NPOV realm?
[17:07] <Munchkinguy> ?>
[17:07] <Pechorin> for example: http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AExecution_of_two_gay_teens_in_Iran_spurs_controversy&diff=111804&oldid=111448
[17:08] <RossKoepke> *personally* I think almost all the discussion should be allowed, maybe unless it is slanderious/libelous?
[17:08] <Agostino> Good evening(?) everyone
[17:08] <RossKoepke> good evening Agostino
[17:08] <Munchkinguy> well, creating a new tab will not eliminate hate comments like that
[17:08] <Pechorin> kyelewis`, they do... but coming from wikipedia, "wikipedia is not a discussion forum"... I don't think it was ever meant to be used for anything but actual article discussion
[17:09] <Pechorin> I don't think that we should allow stuff like "They will never give up their nukes, and I can't wait to see them bombed to shit then invaded, and the supreme leader and his guarding councel put in front of a firing squad."
[17:09] <Pechorin> because tomorrow it may be "I can't way to see all faggots dead"
[17:09] <Pechorin> s/way/wait/
[17:09] --> Trilobite has joined this channel. (~Trilobite@host86-134-209-115.range86-134.btcentralplus.com)
[17:09] --> JRM has joined this channel. (~JRM@a82-92-119-11.adsl.xs4all.nl)
[17:09] --> humblefool has joined this channel. (~chatzilla@208.42.242.89)
[17:09] <-- alexws has left this server. (Remote closed the connection)
[17:10] <Pechorin> I say that for starters, we devise a policy not to allow generally innapropriate comments anywhere
[17:10] <AutisticPsycho> agreed
[17:10] <Munchkinguy> agreed
[17:10] <AutisticPsycho> ow
[17:10] <Pechorin> inappropriate being anything that spreads hate, violence, etc.
[17:10] <Agostino> generally i agree
[17:10] <kyelewis`> assuming 'generally inappropriate' has a decent meaning, then yes
[17:10] <cspurrier> agreed
[17:10] <Pechorin> of course
[17:10] <Pechorin> stuff like
[17:10] <AutisticPsycho> fuck... that hurt... just bit on the fork in my chicken finger... ow.. my tooth
[17:11] <Pechorin> "I really do think that America should invade Iran for sake of bringing democracy, etc." should be of course allowed... but "let's bomb the hell out of them and kill them all" is very different
[17:11] <Munchkinguy> I thought there was already a policy on this
[17:11] <cspurrier> AutisticPsycho, stuff like that :)
[17:11] <kyelewis`> AutisticPsycho: that would probably be a generally random comment, and probably rather inappropriate for a wikinews talk page ;)
[17:11] <AutisticPsycho> lol
[17:11] <RossKoepke> Alright, I can agree to a "policy not to allow generally innapropriate comments anywhere" *but* the details really need to be worked out. This would be a *monstrous* policy to design and enforce. I want to make sure people realize that.
[17:11] <Pechorin> :)
[17:11] <Pechorin> RossKoepke, of course
[17:12] <Pechorin> but I think we can work it out by using common sense
[17:12] <cspurrier> ready for the next topic?
[17:12] <Pechorin> well
[17:12] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: this policy may be our most controversial policy ever designed
[17:12] <Pechorin> we still didn't decide if it would be good to put another tab
[17:12] <AutisticPsycho> the point is.
[17:13] <RossKoepke> I personally like the idea of putting in another tab
[17:13] <Pechorin> RossKoepke, then again, if we write it correctly, we may not
[17:13] <AutisticPsycho> Talk pages aren't POV
[17:13] <RossKoepke> its easy, and keeps things clean
[17:13] <Pechorin> I say that we put another tab on vote
[17:13] <AutisticPsycho> but theyre not right-wing babble talk either
[17:13] <Pechorin> if it gets concensus, create it, if it doesn't, then just try to split talk page appropriately
[17:13] <RossKoepke> ok
[17:13] <Munchkinguy> theyre not any-wing babble talk
[17:13] <cspurrier> ok sounds good
[17:13] <RossKoepke> any vote will have to be done on the wiki
[17:13] <Agostino> ok Pechorin, this is most sensible
[17:13] <Pechorin> I am ready to move on
[17:13] <RossKoepke> ok
[17:14] <AutisticPsycho> Munchkinguy: then how come im seeing examples using stuff a right-winger would say like kill all the fags
[17:14] <cspurrier> next topic is Template:Proposed_project
[17:14] <kyelewis`> i'm for anything that doesn't go too far against existing wiki structure, so as not to confuse people
[17:14] <AutisticPsycho> ok
[17:14] *** You set the channel topic to "Future talk 2| Logged at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Future_talk_2#Issues |Topic: Template:Proposed_project".
[17:14] --> NGerda-Pissed has joined this channel. (~46221bc9@rdns.151.240.218.216.fre.communitycolo.net)
[17:14] <NGerda-Pissed> man im pissed
[17:14] <kyelewis`> ..
[17:14] <Munchkinguy> Fresh Wikinews ideas?
[17:14] <kyelewis`> rofl
[17:14] <AutisticPsycho> lol
[17:14] <Pechorin> does somebody care to explain that template?
[17:14] <kyelewis`> is that as in drunk?
[17:14] <RossKoepke> NGerda-Pissed: we're trying to have a meeting ;-)
[17:14] <-- humblefool has left this channel. ()
[17:14] <NGerda-Pissed> oh yeah, Future Talk 2
[17:14] <Munchkinguy> it's for new ideas
[17:14] <kyelewis`> umm, yeah, what the
[17:14] <cspurrier> it is kinf of a nonissue anymore
[17:15] <RossKoepke> NGerda-Pissed: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Future_talk_2/log
[17:15] <NGerda-Pissed> they wouldnt let me in to SIGRAPH cuz "Wikinews is not a legitamate publication"
[17:15] <NGerda-Pissed> omg
[17:15] <Munchkinguy> well i think calling the ideas "fresh" is a bit odd
[17:15] <cspurrier> sould proposed projects get tagged with it and how long until it gets to lose the tag
[17:15] <kyelewis`> there's nothing much _on_ that template
[17:15] <Datrio> "Wikinews is not a legitamate publication" <- we have another topic, in that case
[17:15] <NGerda-Pissed> we all need to write letters of distate
[17:15] <kyelewis`> to comment on
[17:15] <NGerda-Pissed> and maybe they'll change their ind
[17:15] <RossKoepke> NGerda-Pissed: that has nothing to do with Template:Proposed Project
[17:15] <NGerda-Pissed> mind
[17:15] <RossKoepke> Munchkinguy: "Fresh Idea" was a non-offensive way to put it
[17:15] <NGerda-Pissed> RK, it's an importait issue
[17:15] <Pechorin> NGerda-Pissed, if we write a petition, then we are for sure not legitimate publication :)
[17:15] <kyelewis`> i don't understand Template: Proposed Project"
[17:16] <NGerda-Pissed> no, i mean we should all send emails
[17:16] <RossKoepke> Munchkinguy: some were offended by "Proposed Project"
[17:16] <Pechorin> I would keep "Proposed Project"
[17:16] <AutisticPsycho> Template: Proposed Project
[17:16] <AutisticPsycho> i like it
[17:16] <Munchkinguy> how about "new" instead of "fresh"
[17:16] <AutisticPsycho> its good
[17:16] <kyelewis`> is it really just a template with three sentences on it"?
[17:16] <Pechorin> "Fresh idea" really sounds ... stupid :)
[17:16] <AutisticPsycho> its tells people
[17:16] <kyelewis`> or am i missing something?
[17:16] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: agreed that "fresh idea" sounsd styupid
[17:16] <AutisticPsycho> its tells people, were going beyond the tradtional wiki format people
[17:16] <Pechorin> plus, there is only so many ways we can write articles
[17:16] <AutisticPsycho> yes
[17:16] <AutisticPsycho> acutlaly
[17:16] <AutisticPsycho> i got a good souding idea
[17:17] <AutisticPsycho> ill bring it up later
[17:17] <kyelewis`> how does it tell people that? i really don't get this page at all
[17:17] <kyelewis`> i'll leave it to people who understand it to discuss it then, i guess
[17:17] <cspurrier> the issue is how long until it should be removed
[17:17] <RossKoepke> The idea of this page was to let people know that many of our projects are *experimental* in nature and not totally orthodox
[17:18] <Pechorin> cspurrier, well... if there is a proposal, and it gets a consensus, then I guess it's safe to remove it, right?
[17:18] <kyelewis`> so the comment is on the actual 3 sentences?
[17:18] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: cspurrier: I think when the tag needs to be removed, that it will be obvious that it needs to be removed
[17:18] <Pechorin> RossKoepke, so leave it all as is?
[17:18] <cspurrier> I agree
[17:18] --> Conny has joined this channel. (~Conradian@p54B139B9.dip.t-dialin.net)
[17:18] <AutisticPsycho> yes leave
[17:18] <AutisticPsycho> keep iy
[17:18] <Pechorin> plus yeah.. it will be a case to case bases :)
[17:19] <RossKoepke> We can deal with probs as they come up. We're used to doing that :)
[17:19] <Pechorin> no way we can generalize about "fresh ideas" :)
[17:19] <cspurrier> ok good :)
[17:19] --> angela2 has joined this channel. (~Angela@pD9534680.dip.t-dialin.net)
[17:19] <Pechorin> RossKoepke, we are especially good at dealing with problems :)
[17:19] <cspurrier> next topic: Shortening {{DR}} lifecycle.
[17:19] <Pechorin> hello angela2
[17:19] <RossKoepke> angela2: hi
[17:19] *** You set the channel topic to "Future talk 2| Logged at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Future_talk_2#Issues |Topic: Shortening {{DR}} lifecycle.".
[17:19] <Pechorin> deletion request?
[17:19] <RossKoepke> angela2: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Future_talk_2/log is relevant
[17:20] <cspurrier> updated by hand so it is a few mins old :)
[17:20] <RossKoepke> cspurrier: err, the topic says it's logged at #Issues....
[17:20] <Pechorin> 3 days for sourced, 7 days for original reporting, what is it now?
[17:20] *** You set the channel topic to "Future talk 2| Logged at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Future_talk_2/log |Topic: Shortening {{DR}} lifecycle.".
[17:20] <AutisticPsycho> whats {{dr}}?
[17:20] <RossKoepke> deletion request
[17:20] <Pechorin> AutisticPsycho, I think it's deletion request
[17:20] <RossKoepke> basically we get articles hung up at {{dr}} for weeks
[17:20] <Munchkinguy> ha
[17:21] <RossKoepke> which is many article lifetimes
[17:21] <cspurrier> some people think it should be shorter and some think it should be longer
[17:21] <RossKoepke> thats like 300 years in human ime
[17:21] <RossKoepke> cuz an article's lifespan is about 3 days
[17:21] <RossKoepke> 5 if you include development
[17:21] <cspurrier> should we forbid renoms of stories in x amount of time?
[17:21] <RossKoepke> 3 after publishing
[17:21] <Pechorin> but, do keep in mind that article's lifetime is infinite, as many people (including myself) use wikinews for records purposes
[17:21] <AutisticPsycho> oh
[17:21] <Pechorin> cspurrier, renames?
[17:21] <RossKoepke> cspurrier: absolutely, except in extreme situations
[17:21] <Pechorin> or renomination?
[17:22] <RossKoepke> cspurrier: Pechs question is mine too.
[17:22] <cspurrier> renomination
[17:22] <RossKoepke> then ignore 'cspurrier: absolutely, except in extreme situations"
[17:22] <Pechorin> well.. a month is reasonable for renomination
[17:22] <Munchkinguy> right now, how many administrators have to vote against an article for it to be deleted?
[17:22] <RossKoepke> I'd say no renomination unless there's been a major change to the article.
[17:22] <cspurrier> 0
[17:22] <RossKoepke> Munchkinguy: its not admint that vote, its everyone
[17:23] <Pechorin> because, if the article survives {{RD}}, it doesn't make much difference anyway
[17:23] <Ryan524> yup
[17:23] <Ryan524> i agree with no renomination unless a major change
[17:23] <RossKoepke> Munchkinguy: and it requires "community consensus"
[17:23] <RossKoepke> Munchkinguy: which means none or *very* few dissenters
[17:23] <Munchkinguy> okay, how about if 1 admin votes against it, it's nixed
[17:23] <Pechorin> ok
[17:23] <RossKoepke> Munchkinguy: is that your proposal? I hate that idea
[17:23] <Pechorin> we will need to rewrite our deletion policy then (and of course, put it on vote or something)
[17:23] <Ryan524> anyone can vote
[17:23] <Ryan524> not just admins
[17:23] <RossKoepke> Munchkinguy: admins should *not* be special
[17:23] <cspurrier> admins votes do not and should not count more then anyone else
[17:24] <Pechorin> Munchkinguy, no.. admins have no more "rights" on wikinews then the rest of editors
[17:24] <Munchkinguy> I'm not an admin
[17:24] <RossKoepke> Munchkinguy: I am :-P and review my comment
[17:24] <Pechorin> I think it's out of question to allow admins a power to veto
[17:24] <RossKoepke> admins are janitors, not rulers
[17:24] <cspurrier> I am also an admin :)
[17:24] <Pechorin> ok.. that's enough about admins
[17:25] <Ryan524> lol
[17:25] <Pechorin> Shortening {{DR}} lifecycle. :)
[17:25] <Ryan524> 3 days seem good to me...
[17:25] <RossKoepke> I would say that a DR request must be finalized within 24 hours
[17:25] <Pechorin> oh yes, cspurrier you are not allowed to publish the log without our consent :)
[17:25] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: that's only WP
[17:25] <Pechorin> RossKoepke, no way
[17:25] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: WN has different rules
[17:25] <cspurrier> or with out being warned
[17:25] <Pechorin> RossKoepke, it's freenode's rule
[17:25] <RossKoepke> (re: logging)
[17:25] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: oh.
[17:26] <Pechorin> I think we all agree to be logged :)
[17:26] <Pechorin> but, I think 24 hours for DR is too short
[17:26] <-- soufron has left this server. ("Leaving")
[17:26] <cspurrier> that is why it is in the title
[17:26] <Munchkinguy> 48 hrs?
[17:26] <Pechorin> I would leave it as is
[17:26] <Munchkinguy> 39 hrs?
[17:26] <Pechorin> 3 days
[17:26] <RossKoepke> after 72 hours an article is dead anyways
[17:26] <Pechorin> RossKoepke, it's not dead
[17:26] <Pechorin> it's in the archives
[17:26] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: its only in archives
[17:26] <NGerda-Pissed> no one cares that Wikinews was rejected from an event because "it wasn't legitamate"?
[17:26] <-- anghalfaway has left this server. (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out))
[17:26] <Pechorin> RossKoepke, yeah, but many people use our archives
[17:26] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: after soemthing goes in archives, around 2 people read it per day
[17:27] <Ryan524> you can have it too short, you have to allow people a chance to vote
[17:27] <Munchkinguy> 30 hrs?
[17:27] <Pechorin> NGerda-Pissed, we will discuss it when we finish all pre-set topics
[17:27] <cspurrier> I do not think it needs to be quicker, just harder to get a story stuck in DR
[17:27] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: and that's on a good day
[17:27] <Ryan524> 48 hours at the absolute minimum, but i prefer 3 days
[17:27] <Pechorin> RossKoepke, but that's still important
[17:27] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: absolutely
[17:27] <-- NGerda-Pissed has left this server. (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
[17:27] <Pechorin> I would go with 3 days too
[17:27] <-- Conny has left this channel. ()
[17:27] <AutisticPsycho> well im busy with something
[17:27] <Munchkinguy> but isn't it already 3 days
[17:28] <AutisticPsycho> but 3 days is good
[17:28] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: but I'm saying that meanwhile 99.99% of our users were negatively affected by the DR tag
[17:28] <Agostino> 48 are the *maximum* for me
[17:28] <cspurrier> so no change there, so how about no renomination unless a major change
[17:28] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: or that 99.99% of our readers read it as a legit article
[17:28] <Pechorin> RossKoepke, well... that's a problem that all stories in "development" have
[17:28] <RossKoepke> because it wasnt deleted
[17:28] <Pechorin> besides
[17:28] <Pechorin> we do need a good speedy deletion policy
[17:28] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: actually stories in dev get low readership too
[17:28] <Munchkinguy> the mean of 72 hrs and 42 hrs is 60 hrs
[17:28] <Pechorin> if an article is total nonsense
[17:28] <RossKoepke> Munchkinguy: *48
[17:29] <Munchkinguy> darn calculator :(
[17:29] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: "Speedy - Factually Incorrect" ??
[17:29] <Pechorin> RossKoepke, well no, not really
[17:29] <cspurrier> or nonsesne
[17:29] <Pechorin> because it may take us some time to establish if it's factually incorrect or not
[17:29] <Ryan524> shouldn't copyvios be removed under speedy deletion? rather than left to be re-writeen first, it can be re-written after its been deleted
[17:29] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: "Speedy - Horrible Article" ?
[17:29] <Pechorin> but Speedy - nonsense looks good
[17:30] <RossKoepke> Ryan524: non-admins can't read the article to rewrite it then...
[17:30] --> soufron has joined this channel. (~soufron@vol75-8-82-233-239-57.fbx.proxad.net)
[17:30] <Munchkinguy> "this article is horrible, and is set for speedy deletion"
[17:30] <cspurrier> Ryan524, I think so or just cleaned to be source only maybe
[17:30] <Ryan524> they can re-write it eern after its been deleted
[17:30] <RossKoepke> Ryan524: you'd have to leave the sources out there then
[17:30] <Pechorin> I mean, if somebody comes in and writes an article saying that Tony Blair died of a heart attack in a hooker's room.. and he is live and well, then we will speedy it under "nonsense" pretense
[17:31] <Munchkinguy> Okay, so if there is an article about purple moose rats from mars attacking the last jubjub tree, how long would it take to be deleted?
[17:31] <Pechorin> Munchkinguy, that should, imho, be speedied as "nonsense"
[17:31] <cspurrier> they idea of copyvio on DR is to prevent something from being copied from a free site (VOA, etc) from being deleted as a copyvio
[17:31] <Ryan524> so delete, and put the copyvio tage with sources, that way the copyvio version is out of hostroy already?
[17:31] <RossKoepke> ok so
[17:31] <RossKoepke> "Decision: Copyvio pages should be speedied and sources should be reposted by the deleter?"
[17:31] <AutisticPsycho> that should be just deleted automatically
[17:32] <-- cimon has left this channel. ("Leaving")
[17:32] <Munchkinguy> and factually incorect stuff?
[17:32] <cspurrier> no need for a copyvio note if it has alread been deleted
[17:32] <Ryan524> an admin could verify its not a fee souce befoe deleting cspurrier
[17:32] <cspurrier> Munchkinguy: already covered as deleteable
[17:32] <RossKoepke> cspurrier: non-admins need to put copyvio tag on
[17:32] <Munchkinguy> but how long will it take?
[17:33] <cspurrier> right, I was refering to Ryan524 "and put the copyvio tage with sources"
[17:33] <cspurrier> Munchkinguy: as soon as an admin finds it
[17:33] <Munchkinguy> ok
[17:33] <RossKoepke> I'm adding our resolutions to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Future_talk_2#Issues
[17:34] <Ryan524> well i said and put the copyvio tag too is so that someone dosen't delete it as being a nonsense with just sources
[17:34] <Ryan524> accidentally
[17:34] <cspurrier> ok, I will try to write a summeary when this is over
[17:34] * soufron is roumaine à bloc
[17:34] <Munchkinguy> ?
[17:34] <cspurrier> ready for the next topic?
[17:34] <RossKoepke> what'd we decide on DR?
[17:34] <Ryan524> yeah
[17:35] <RossKoepke> 48-72 hours and vote on it on the wiki?
[17:35] <RossKoepke> just plain "indecisive" ?
[17:35] <cspurrier> and no renomination unless a major change
[17:35] <-- Kwekubo has left this server. (Connection timed out)
[17:35] <RossKoepke> mk
[17:35] <Ryan524> ok
[17:35] <Pechorin> well, we can't make any decisions here
[17:35] <cspurrier> and maybe deleting copyvios without DR
[17:35] <Pechorin> but only propose it on watercooler
[17:36] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: we aren't
[17:36] <cspurrier> ok next topic WNN :)
[17:36] <Munchkinguy> Can everyone look at the Audio Wikinews page for a second? comments
[17:36] <-- Trilobite has left this channel. ()
[17:36] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: we;re making decisions to vote, lol
[17:36] <Pechorin> :)
[17:36] *** You set the channel topic to "Future talk 2| Logged at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Future_talk_2/log |Topic: WNN".
[17:36] <Pechorin> cspurrier, I think that WNN is an already told story
[17:36] <RossKoepke> yeah
[17:36] <RossKoepke> I think WNN is dead for awhile
[17:36] <cspurrier> I think WNN, is an interesting idea and can be made  to work. for me to support it a few major changes need to be made.
[17:36] <Pechorin> there is nothing we can discuss here without flames
[17:36] <kyelewis`> yes there is
[17:36] <Pechorin> well.. I support WNN without user shows
[17:37] <kyelewis`> we won't flame about it
[17:37] <RossKoepke> I support non-live WNN
[17:37] <Ryan524> so you don't want to let people contribute?
[17:37] <RossKoepke> I support Streaming Audio Wikinews.
[17:37] <RossKoepke> I dont support anything else
[17:37] <Pechorin> Ryan524, we let people contribute thru audio wikinews, that's it
[17:37] <Munchkinguy> Why don't we set up a vote page?
[17:37] <Ryan524> lve shows are beter because they are more tinmley and live shows could be made to work
[17:37] <Pechorin> Munchkinguy, we already have
[17:37] <cspurrier> All shows should be recorded and online a reasonable amount of time before  it is streamed. For most shows a reasonable time will be several hours, for breaking news this may be as few as ten minutes. The idea of this delay is to ensure the quality and npovness of the recording before it is aired
[17:37] <Pechorin> and we overwhelmingly voted against WNN (with user shows)
[17:37] <RossKoepke> but guys, what are we even tlaking about Re: WNN?? What discussion are we having right now?
[17:38] <RossKoepke> cspurrier: wtf?
[17:38] <cspurrier> yuck code pasting in :(
[17:38] <Pechorin> cspurrier, shut up, will you? :)
[17:38] *** ChanServ gives channel operator privileges to Pechorin.
[17:38] <Dan100> oops
[17:38] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: wtf?
[17:38] <Munchkinguy> aaaaaaaaah
[17:38] <Pechorin> should I quet him?
[17:38] <kyelewis`> i doubt he's _able_ to stop
[17:38] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: yes
[17:38] <RossKoepke> Hes not
[17:38] *** Pechorin takes the permission to talk from you.
[17:38] <RossKoepke> he's got a buffer overflow
[17:38] <kyelewis`> him and his clipboard
[17:39] <Pechorin> that didn't work :)
[17:39] <Pechorin> cspurrier, are you done? :)
[17:39] <Ryan524> just kick for now
[17:39] <Munchkinguy> How about live shows, and a recorded newsbrief every hour?
[17:39] <Ryan524> he can come back when it stops
[17:39] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: revoice him
[17:39] --> kim_bruning has joined this channel. (~kim@bruning.xs4all.nl)
[17:39] <RossKoepke> we need chanmod +m for that to work anyways
[17:39] *** Pechorin gives you the permission to talk.
[17:39] <kim_bruning> let's not +m :-)
[17:39] *** Pechorin takes channel operator privileges from Pechorin.
[17:39] <Pechorin> kim_bruning, he had an accident :)
[17:39] <kim_bruning> I see
[17:39] <RossKoepke> lol
[17:39] <cspurrier> yuck did that paste for a lot of lines ?
[17:40] <kim_bruning> I see
[17:40] <RossKoepke> cspurrier: that took about 3 minutes
[17:40] <kim_bruning> +q or +b on cspurrier would have been better
[17:40] <cspurrier> sorry about that
[17:40] <Pechorin> cspurrier, it did :) btw... if something like that happens, and I kick you (anybody), it's just so you can rejoin without continuing the paste :) no hard feelings or anything
[17:40] <Pechorin> anyway.. Munchkinguy it seems that live shows are out of question
[17:40] <cspurrier> trying to paste in what I wrote in OO.org
[17:40] <Pechorin> admins can by no means decide whether something is POV or not
[17:41] <Pechorin> cspurrier, just retell in your own words :)
[17:41] <RossKoepke> What cspurrier meant to say was
[17:41] <RossKoepke> "All shows should be recorded and online a reasonable amount of time before  it is streamed. For most shows a reasonable time will be several hours, for breaking news this may be as few as ten minutes. The idea of this delay is to ensure the quality and npovness of the recording before it is aire"
[17:41] <Munchkinguy> Well, then we'll have <i>lots</i> of recording to do
[17:41] <Munchkinguy> what? no italics?
[17:41] <cspurrier> RossKoepke: yes :)
[17:41] <Pechorin> yes... we should essentially only stream audio wikinews
[17:41] <RossKoepke> Munchkinguy: this isn't the intarweb
[17:41] <Pechorin> if we have breaking news
[17:42] <Pechorin> somebody may record it as soon as the story is written
[17:42] <Pechorin> (and published)
[17:42] <Munchkinguy> exactly!
[17:42] <Pechorin> of course, if there are any tags on the story, then it shouldn't be recorded
[17:42] <RossKoepke> are we going to come to any productive conclusions regarding WNN?
[17:43] <Munchkinguy> I haven't heard anything on the WNN, just the same sound loop
[17:43] <Munchkinguy> no news
[17:43] <Pechorin> RossKoepke, well, it seems that most of us agree that WNN can work, but that user shows have to be sakced
[17:43] <cspurrier> I was going to repropose a mild version of it soon
[17:43] <Pechorin> ok... let WNN sit for some time, until we can work out everything on talk page
[17:43] <RossKoepke> "Decision: WNN (as a streaming version of Audio Wikinews) can work in theory, but needs to be revamped" ??
[17:43] * Pechorin moves for move on
[17:43] <Ryan524> but the steamcould be stopped it ig get too POV
[17:43] <AutisticPsycho> agreed
[17:44] <AutisticPsycho> heh
[17:44] <AutisticPsycho> damn it
[17:44] <AutisticPsycho> i scroll up just as it ends
[17:44] <AutisticPsycho> but yeah
[17:44] <Pechorin> Ryan524, we already discussed that many times
[17:44] <AutisticPsycho> needs work
[17:44] <Munchkinguy> so is WNN streaming anything right now?
[17:44] <Munchkinguy> any news>
[17:45] <RossKoepke> ==portal/neighborhoods==
[17:45] <cspurrier> audio wikinews recordings
[17:45] <Munchkinguy> good; before there was nothing
[17:45] *** You set the channel topic to "Future talk 2| Logged at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Future_talk_2/log |Topic: portal/neighborhoods".
[17:45] * Pechorin notes that WNN does not exist as of yet.. as it's not on our servers and not accepted yet
[17:45] <AutisticPsycho> no, we dont have many shows and hosts/djs/pundits lol whatever you want to call them
[17:45] <Pechorin> ok.. what about portals? :)
[17:45] <Munchkinguy> I like them!
[17:45] <RossKoepke> I dunno
[17:45] <cspurrier> me too :)
[17:45] <Pechorin> I like portals as well
[17:45] <RossKoepke> I like em
[17:46] <AutisticPsycho> Great idea... I think
[17:46] <Pechorin> I think there already is some sort of concensus
[17:46] <RossKoepke> yeah
[17:46] <RossKoepke> ok
[17:46] <AutisticPsycho> But yeah, there good.
[17:46] <Pechorin> to create, e.g. en.wikinews.org/wiki/Europe, etc.
[17:46] <Pechorin> but I have a question for all of you
[17:46] <Pechorin> would it be ok to create a regional portal
[17:46] <cspurrier> I was hopeing we might get some more people to try to explan the idea better :)
[17:46] <Pechorin> namely, Balkans portal
[17:46] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: yes
[17:46] <cspurrier> yes
[17:46] <AutisticPsycho> yes
[17:46] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: any portal can be created as long as the creator is willing to keep it up
[17:47] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: just like cats
[17:47] <Munchkinguy> The Mexico portal is titled "Mexico" but the Canada portal is titled "Category:Canada"
[17:47] <Pechorin> RossKoepke, as you know, I myself mostly constitute Balkan coverage on wikinews, so no worries :)
[17:47] <AutisticPsycho> Balkans is its own little reigon since so many countries have appeared.
[17:47] <Munchkinguy> The Mexico portal is titled "Mexico" but the Canada portal is titled "Category:Canada" can anyone explain this?
[17:47] <Pechorin> Munchkinguy, I think that current idea is to forward Category:Something to Something
[17:47] <AutisticPsycho> uhhh
[17:48] <RossKoepke> I thought we were doing Portal: namespace
[17:48] <Munchkinguy> Category:Canada is redirected from "Canada"
[17:48] <Pechorin> RossKoepke, I think that was sacked, because it would cause more trouble then good
[17:48] <RossKoepke> ok
[17:48] <RossKoepke> ok
[17:48] <Pechorin> Munchkinguy, I think that should be fixed
[17:48] <Munchkinguy> What's a WikiBureau?
[17:48] <-- Agostino has left this server. (Remote closed the connection)
[17:48] <Pechorin> because, search doesn't include Portal: namespace, etc...
[17:49] <RossKoepke> "Decision: vote on whether to use [[Mexico]] or [[Category:Mexico]]" ??
[17:49] <Pechorin> Munchkinguy, beats me... I don't like how it sounds, but I have no idea what it is
[17:49] <Pechorin> RossKoepke, I think decision on that one is let the discussion continue, because it's already flamed
[17:49] <Munchkinguy> anyobody know what it is?
[17:49] <cspurrier> it is a group of people in an area who have commited to covering that area
[17:49] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: so what do I record down as our concludion?
[17:50] <cspurrier> more talk needed :)
[17:50] <RossKoepke> mk
[17:50] <Pechorin> RossKoepke, "let it evolute in the most natural way" :)
[17:50] <Munchkinguy> Wait... are we going for Category:Country or just "Country"?
[17:50] <Pechorin> Munchkinguy, I think we are going for "Country"
[17:50] <Ryan524> i think it sould have its own namespace
[17:50] <RossKoepke> I just put "Indecisive. More talk needed."
[17:51] <Pechorin> Ryan524, Ilya and Dan100 gave some good arguments for not creating a separate namespace
[17:51] <Ryan524> like?
[17:51] <cspurrier> does not show up in search, harder name to remember
[17:52] <Munchkinguy> Noe for the clincher... Category:Mexico and Mexico are different articles, but have the same stuff, except one has pictures and the other doesn't
[17:52] <RossKoepke> cspurrier: our search function is FUBARed anyways
[17:52] <Ryan524> it would show up in search....
[17:52] <Pechorin> http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Water_cooler#Proposal:_Portal:_namespace
[17:52] <RossKoepke> Ryan524: we're just leaving it to more talk on the wiki
[17:52] <Ryan524> unless you are creating the article: Portal: Canada and the developers haven't acttually made it a true namespace
[17:52] <cspurrier> ready for Naming sports articles such as the "UEFA CL" series.
[17:52] <RossKoepke> ==Naming sports articles such as the "UEFA CL" series.==
[17:52] *** You set the channel topic to "Future talk 2| Logged at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Future_talk_2/log |Topic: Naming sports articles such as the "UEFA CL" series.".
[17:53] <RossKoepke> Ok: First, we need the sport down. "Basketball" "Rugby" etc
[17:53] <RossKoepke> Second: There's a huge problem with American Football vs. Rest of World Football
[17:53] <Pechorin> actually, UEFA CL is a pressing issue, as a new article is coming tomorrow :)
[17:53] <Munchkinguy> The thing about Category:Country, is that when this is placed on the bottom of articles, it shows up on the country page
[17:53] <Munchkinguy> i think
[17:54] <RossKoepke> because half the english speaking world thinks football is played on a 100-yard field with touchdowns
[17:54] <Pechorin> as far as football is concerned, provided that most of the planet calls football football (or fussball or whatever), I would keep Football as football, and american football as American football
[17:54] <cspurrier> It should be named by the nation the game is played in or by the teams who are playing 
[17:54] <Pechorin> RossKoepke, half the english native speakers
[17:54] <RossKoepke> mk
[17:54] <Pechorin> cspurrier, how will that work for UEFA CL: stuff, for example?
[17:54] <RossKoepke> so "Football" for europe and "Am. Football" for USA?
[17:55] <cspurrier> no idea :) 
[17:55] <Pechorin> RossKoepke, I would go that way
[17:55] <RossKoepke> ok
[17:55] <cspurrier> RossKoepke: sounds good
[17:55] <Pechorin> the last title I used was
[17:55] <Pechorin> Football CL:
[17:55] <Pechorin> I can use Football Champions League: so and so happened
[17:55] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: thats fine to me...any prob with that?
[17:55] <AutisticPsycho> nope
[17:55] <Pechorin> but I would personally prefer to use Champions League: so and so
[17:55] <AutisticPsycho> so pretty much
[17:55] <AutisticPsycho> it goes
[17:55] <Pechorin> how about the last one?
[17:55] <AutisticPsycho> Sport name: article title?
[17:56] <RossKoepke> AutisticPsycho: yes but UEFA CL is slightly abnormal
[17:56] <Pechorin> so...
[17:56] <Pechorin> the thing is that I guess some people will want to read UEFA CL stories, and not many other football stories
[17:56] <RossKoepke> I'd say "Football CL" or "Football UEFA CL" as a prefix
[17:57] *** angela2 is now known as anghalfaway.
[17:57] <cspurrier> Football CL: sounds good
[17:57] <RossKoepke> *as an alternative* we could ditch the "{{Sport}}" prefix altogether and just use a tiny image of the ball for the sport
[17:57] <Pechorin> ok... Football CL: it is
[17:57] <AutisticPsycho> heh
[17:57] <RossKoepke> so football would show a football, hockey would show hockey puck or sticks, etc
[17:57] <Munchkinguy> still talking about football?
[17:57] <RossKoepke> that's more universal
[17:58] <Pechorin> RossKoepke, is it technically doable?
[17:58] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: yes
[17:58] <RossKoepke> wait
[17:58] <RossKoepke> no
[17:58] <AutisticPsycho> i like the clip art...
[17:58] <AutisticPsycho> but no because
[17:58] <AutisticPsycho> wait
[17:58] <AutisticPsycho> yes
[17:58] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: it is doable but only on the main page/portals
[17:58] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: not for searching...
[17:58] <Pechorin> RossKoepke, I think that's good enough
[17:58] <cspurrier> can it be used with dpls?
[17:59] <RossKoepke> cspurrier: not immediately
[17:59] <RossKoepke> ok I propose this:
[17:59] <Pechorin> yeah, I have concerns about dpls
[17:59] <cspurrier> might be cool if it could work with dpls
[17:59] <RossKoepke> Proposal: we preface with "{{Sport}}", but then reprogram the DPL script to replace the sport with the clipart when rendering a page.
[17:59] --> NGerda has joined this channel. (~46221bc9@rdns.151.240.218.216.fre.communitycolo.net)
[18:00] <Pechorin> RossKoepke, that sounds ok
[18:00] <Munchkinguy> Now that I think of it the Category:Whatevers are pretty good as portals
[18:00] <RossKoepke> ok
[18:00] <AutisticPsycho> yes sounds good
[18:01] <-- NGerda has left this server. (Remote closed the connection)
[18:01] <AutisticPsycho> move on?
[18:01] <AutisticPsycho> Deletion of Proved-Wrong Articles
[18:01] *** You set the channel topic to "Future talk 2| Logged at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Future_talk_2/log |Topic: Deletion of Proved-Wrong Articles".
[18:01] <Pechorin> hmm
[18:01] <Pechorin> what is a "proved-wrong" article?
[18:02] <cspurrier> delete if unpublished ignore otherwise
[18:02] <Ryan524> this seems obvious, beut delete it!
[18:02] <RossKoepke> I put this: ::Decision: Preface all sports articles with "{sport-name}:" — and reprogram DPLs to replace {sport-name} with a tiny image representing the sport when rendering pages like main page.
[18:02] <RossKoepke> ::Aside: European Football/Soccer will be prefaced with "Football". USA soccer will be prefaced with "Soccer" and USA Football will be prefaced with "Am. Football".
[18:02] <AutisticPsycho> We often send articles back to {{develop}} that are POV, factually inaccurate, or insufficiently comprehensive.
[18:02] <AutisticPsycho> http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Water_cooler/policy#Deletion_of_Proved-Wrong_Articles.3F <--- to read up on
[18:02] <RossKoepke> Relevant Link: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Water_cooler/policy#Deletion_of_Proved-Wrong_Articles.3F
[18:03] <RossKoepke> err, AutisticPsycho beat me to it, sorry
[18:03] --> NGerda has joined this channel. (~46221bc9@rdns.151.240.218.216.fre.communitycolo.net)
[18:03] <NGerda> so is Future Talk 2 is over?
[18:03] <RossKoepke> dang it's already been 1 hour
[18:03] <RossKoepke> NGerda: no - it just got quiet cuz we're reading http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Water_cooler/policy#Deletion_of_Proved-Wrong_Articles.3F
[18:04] <Pechorin> well.. if the story was not published, and it's proved wrong... it will likely end up on RD
[18:04] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: then we'd have to delete our london story
[18:04] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: (7/7 story)
[18:04] <Pechorin> RossKoepke, why?
[18:04] <Ryan524> why not speedly delete inaccurate articles, unless someone is going to rewrite it?
[18:04] <cspurrier> if it is published it should be kept
[18:04] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: cuz we said the bombs went off within 5 minutes of eachother and it was incorrect
[18:04] <Pechorin> Ryan524, it can be hard to determine whether an article is innacurate
[18:05] <RossKoepke> *but that's what we knew at the time!!*
[18:05] <Ryan524> but even then wouldn't it be like a copyvio, ,you don't want the inaccurate info in history?
[18:05] <RossKoepke> that's why we need to look at this
[18:05] <AutisticPsycho> -_-
[18:05] <AutisticPsycho> little sisters
[18:05] <Pechorin> RossKoepke, yes, but we used sources
[18:05] <AutisticPsycho> I need a laptop.
[18:05] <Munchkinguy> "We might look better if we delete false stories" really :~
[18:05] <RossKoepke> Ryan524: sometimes we tell the truth...but the truth is false
[18:05] <Munchkinguy> :~)
[18:05] <Pechorin> I really don't know
[18:05] <cspurrier> we might, but our goal is not to look good 
[18:05] <Ryan524> the truth is the truth, it can't be false by definition
[18:05] <RossKoepke> Ryan524: like if we wrote that "A man was murdered in his apartment" when really he committed suicide, and we learend that a week later
[18:05] <Munchkinguy> I'm just quoting the page
[18:06] <cspurrier> I think a case by case process is best
[18:06] <Ryan524> update the article duh
[18:06] <Pechorin> Ryan524, yes, but if I leave a source in serbian, which I often do... it will take some time for somebody else to try to confirm it's accuracy
[18:06] <Pechorin> cspurrier, I second that
[18:06] <RossKoepke> Ryan524: But the dateline would still say "January 1 2005" or whatever!
[18:06] <cspurrier> Ryan524: we do not update old stories
[18:06] <Munchkinguy> I think it's funny that it says we "might look better"
[18:06] <RossKoepke> Hell
[18:07] <Ryan524> heh?
[18:07] <RossKoepke> "54 dead in mussayib gas station attack" said the original article
[18:07] <RossKoepke> but 98 people died within like, 3 days
[18:07] <Munchkinguy> we don't update old stories if they're wrong?
[18:07] <RossKoepke> after a better count and people with critical injuries died
[18:07] <cspurrier> not if it is published
[18:07] <RossKoepke> Because it's a snapshot of what we knew at that day
[18:08] <Munchkinguy> :|
[18:08] <Ryan524> i've seem dombody publish a sotry from the first revision
[18:08] <Pechorin> RossKoepke, yes, but when we published it, that's the info that we head.. and 54 did die... other 44 died as well
[18:08] <RossKoepke> Also: A date can get put on an article way before its published. It's conceivable to imagine a timeline such as this:
[18:08] <RossKoepke>                 + Day 1: Article created, wrong, biased, etc. {{publish}}'ed.
[18:08] <RossKoepke>                 + Day 1: {{delete}} tag added.
[18:08] <RossKoepke>                 + Day 3: Information comes out that proves article wrong.
[18:08] <Pechorin> Ryan524, yeah, but you can put it back into {{develop}}
[18:08] <RossKoepke>                 + Day 2-8: Article is revised, expanded, pictures added etc - ending up in a very nice looking article...except it's still all wrong and was proved wrong days ago.
[18:08] <RossKoepke>                 + Day 16: Someone comes around and reviews the deletion request, and seeing the date as "Day 1", says that at the time of "Day 1" the information was thought to be true - but the information was written after Day 3. So the Date tag is not necessarily when the information was written down.
[18:09] <RossKoepke> Notice Day 3 and Day 2-8
[18:09] <RossKoepke> that's a complicated situation
[18:09] <Ryan524> besides sometimes new information comes out making old information on a published article wrong
[18:09] <cspurrier> so it is time for a new story, with maybe a link to the new on the old one
[18:09] <AutisticPsycho> alright guys
[18:09] <AutisticPsycho> i gotta go
[18:09] <RossKoepke> peace AutisticPsycho
[18:09] <AutisticPsycho> wait
[18:10] *** RossKoepke is now known as RossKoepke-pizza.
[18:10] <AutisticPsycho> hmmm'
[18:10] <AutisticPsycho> how long do you think this will continue
[18:10] <AutisticPsycho> ft2
[18:10] <cspurrier> 30-60mins more
[18:10] <AutisticPsycho> heh
[18:10] <cspurrier> The next topic is also related, Issuing Error-of-Fact Correction Notices
[18:11] <AutisticPsycho> well then hmmm
[18:11] *** You set the channel topic to "Future talk 2| Logged at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Future_talk_2/log |Topic: Issuing Error-of-Fact Correction Notices".
[18:11] <AutisticPsycho> ill stay a few more minutes
[18:11] <cspurrier> should we issue them?
[18:11] <Munchkinguy> yes
[18:11] <cspurrier> I vote no :)
[18:12] <cspurrier> link to the new story maybe but no need to do much more
[18:12] --> Goplat has joined this channel. (goplat@64-142-90-247.dsl.static.sonic.net)
[18:12] <Munchkinguy> okay, what about issuing notices about entire articles that are wrong
[18:12] <Munchkinguy> but for incorrect information on correct articles, no notice
[18:13] <cspurrier> sounds good
[18:13] <AutisticPsycho> ok next issue then?
[18:13] <Pechorin> re
[18:13] <cspurrier> any objections to skipping Timestamps and Spell Checking
[18:13] <AutisticPsycho> nope
[18:13] <Pechorin> no objections
[18:13] <Pechorin> we probably all agree on it
[18:14] <cspurrier> they are both things the devs are working on so nothing we can do about it :)
[18:14] <Munchkinguy> spellchecking is always nice, but apparently it's too difficult for the server
[18:14] <AutisticPsycho> anyways
[18:14] *** You set the channel topic to "Future talk 2| Logged at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Future_talk_2/log |Topic: Wiki ambassadors".
[18:14] <Pechorin> erm.. am I supposed to be serbian wiki ambassador or something? :)
[18:14] <Munchkinguy> What are Wiki ambassadors?
[18:14] <RossKoepke-pizza> wtf are wiki ambassadors?
[18:14] <AutisticPsycho> yes what
[18:14] <AutisticPsycho> is this rl related?
[18:14] <Munchkinguy> can anyone be one?
[18:15] <Pechorin> I think they are people from different editions who do fuck all.. like, represent their own edition on en.wikinews, etc.
[18:15] <Munchkinguy> does anyone know? :()
[18:15] <cspurrier> people to help interact witht he other project and other languages
[18:15] <AutisticPsycho> thought so
[18:15] <AutisticPsycho> need them
[18:15] <AutisticPsycho> i was gonna say
[18:16] <cspurrier> Munchkinguy, sure since we have not started to have them yet :)
[18:16] <AutisticPsycho> im guessing interwiki crap
[18:16] <Munchkinguy> so what's the issue?
[18:16] <AutisticPsycho> we definetaly need them, especially with the fighting of the current events stuff at WP
[18:16] <cspurrier> do we want them
[18:16] <AutisticPsycho> yes
[18:16] <AutisticPsycho> we need them
[18:16] <AutisticPsycho> for sure
[18:16] <Pechorin> I say we don't want them yet
[18:16] <Pechorin> because such formality will only make us slower
[18:17] <Munchkinguy> seems silly to nix something if we barely know what they are
[18:17] <Datrio> wiki ambassadors are needed, if they'll cooperate
[18:17] <Pechorin> if you need something done on sr.wikinews, just let me know.. if you need something done on pl.wikinews, let any polish editor know
[18:17] <Datrio> exchange ideas, talk about current topics, report on their editions
[18:17] <RossKoepke-pizza> wait
[18:17] <-- soufron has left this server. ("Leaving")
[18:17] <RossKoepke-pizza> WP has something like this
[18:17] <RossKoepke-pizza> related to ArbCon, lemme look it up
[18:18] <cspurrier> the idea is more of just a list of people who have said they are willing to work with us on the other projects, not anything required
[18:18] <Datrio> Wikipedia ambassadors really aren't doing the work they ment to do
[18:18] <AutisticPsycho> alright im off
[18:18] <AutisticPsycho> the issues i wanted to were down the list
[18:18] <Datrio> they're kind of like translators, who can get your message to the community in the local language
[18:18] <AutisticPsycho> =\
[18:19] <Datrio> Wikinews ambassadors should do what I said: exchange ideas, talk about current topics, report on their editions
[18:19] <RossKoepke-pizza> Are we tlaking about like, Advocates for projects?
[18:19] <Munchkinguy> Will each language version have embassies?
[18:20] <-- AutisticPsycho has left this server. ("Your ad here.")
[18:20] <cspurrier> RossKoepke-pizza: no! just people who some one can go to about things the relate to issues on an wiki other then Wikinews
[18:20] <RossKoepke-pizza> sorry
[18:20] <cspurrier> Munchkinguy: sure :)
[18:20] <RossKoepke-pizza> so ambassadors are go betweens between wiktionary and wikinews? (and also en.wikinews and jp.wikinews?)
[18:20] <cspurrier> yes, but no one has to use them of course
[18:21] <Datrio> between every Wikinews language edition
[18:21] <Datrio> yeah, they don't - but they still could be useful
[18:21] <RossKoepke-pizza> mk
[18:21] <Munchkinguy> they can tanscend space and time!
[18:21] <RossKoepke-pizza> I support this idea
[18:21] <Datrio> quick example - the Polish - Belarus conflict currently
[18:21] <Datrio> the Polish community has too much information about it
[18:21] <Datrio> and the other language editions have close to none
[18:21] <-- JRM has left this server. ("Leaving...")
[18:21] <Munchkinguy> once again, let's not nix something that isn't completley developed
[18:21] <Datrio> one would report to a Polish ambassador for some information in English, etc.
[18:22] <Datrio> just a quick example, it doesn't have to work like that
[18:22] <Munchkinguy> have we made a desicion?
[18:22] <RossKoepke-pizza> I like this idea
[18:22] <Datrio> but anyway - we could start implementing this idea soon through informing people on Meta and their local village pumps
[18:22] <Datrio> I think that's about it
[18:22] <RossKoepke-pizza> Decision: Develop ambassador project.
[18:22] <-- omeg has left this server. ()
[18:22] <Munchkinguy> good.... next!
[18:22] <cspurrier> How can we promote Wikinews
[18:23] *** You set the channel topic to "Future talk 2| Logged at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Future_talk_2/log |Topic: How can we promote Wikinews".
[18:23] <Munchkinguy> impossible!
[18:23] <Datrio> yes, impossible
[18:23] <Datrio> next?
[18:23] <cspurrier> my ideas were flyers, distributing the print edition :) , a one page flyer style print edition, etc
[18:23] <Datrio> heh
[18:23] <Datrio> you know
[18:23] <Munchkinguy> Seriously, word-of-mouth seems to work best
[18:23] <Datrio> imo we should still concentrate on the internet
[18:23] <Pechorin> I think an easier way to do it is to post on news groups, etc.. but not spam!
[18:24] <cspurrier> I like print a lot :)
[18:24] <Munchkinguy> but posting Print Wikinews on Bulletin boards is a good idea
[18:24] <Datrio> well
[18:24] <Datrio> linking to articles in Wikinews
[18:24] <Datrio> that should be our main kind of promotion atm
[18:24] <RossKoepke-pizza> cspurrier: I like print too
[18:25] <RossKoepke-pizza> I think we should create a IRL campaign
[18:25] <Datrio> then we could move on to distributing the print edition ;)
[18:25] <Datrio> that's also a great idea
[18:25] <Datrio> but it works for en mainly
[18:25] <Munchkinguy> ok, leave no bulletin board unposted!
[18:25] <Pechorin> we need somebody to help us get a prominent space on wikipedia main page
[18:25] <RossKoepke-pizza> Decision: work on developing campaign headquarters?
[18:25] <Munchkinguy> yep
[18:26] <Datrio> hmm... maybe
[18:26] <Datrio> well, staying with what we're doing now would be good too, at least I think so
[18:26] <Munchkinguy> but it should be a voluntary do-as-much-or-as-little-as-you-like project
[18:26] <cspurrier> right :)
[18:27] *** You set the channel topic to "Future talk 2| Logged at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Future_talk_2/log |Topic: Making it easier for others sites use our content".
[18:27] <cspurrier> next topic: Making it easier for others sites use our content
[18:27] <RossKoepke-pizza> met'as down
[18:27] <Datrio> hmm
[18:27] <Pechorin> cspurrier, how easier can it be?
[18:27] <Munchkinguy> how hard can it be? We're in public domain
[18:28] <Datrio> yeah, currently it's really easy for other sites... too easy
[18:28] <Datrio> you know
[18:28] <Munchkinguy> duh duh dumm....
[18:28] <Datrio> I propose to move this topic near the end
[18:28] <cspurrier> legalwise it is easy,  but a nice howto might be nice
[18:28] <Datrio> after we'll discuss the license
[18:28] *** You set the channel topic to "Future talk 2| Logged at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Future_talk_2/log |Topic: Should we use VOA stories?".
[18:28] <cspurrier> ok next topic Should we use VOA stories?
[18:29] <Pechorin> perhaps we should put somewhere prominent something like: FEEL FREE TO STEAL OUR WORK!
[18:29] <Pechorin> what's VOA?
[18:29] <cspurrier> by creating a howto we can point out how nice it would be to give us a nice big link on you site :)
[18:29] <RossKoepke-pizza> Voice Of America?
[18:29] <Pechorin> I say use it
[18:30] <Pechorin> if we se Deutsche Welle, Free Europe, etc. why not VOA?
[18:30] <RossKoepke-pizza> whats VOA and whats the debate?
[18:30] <Pechorin> of course, it is common sense not to use only one source
[18:30] <cspurrier> they are run by the goverment and are pd 
[18:30] <Pechorin> oh, you mean.. verbatim copy/paste?
[18:30] <Munchkinguy> By using VOA we can howto the government link site debate pase
[18:31] <Pechorin> I am against using their wording etc.
[18:31] <cspurrier> the debate is should we copy whole stories and wikify, make nopv andd publish
[18:31] <Pechorin> as long as it's not exactly the same as the original, it should be fine
[18:31] <Pechorin> but we should not encourage simply copy/paste and {{publish}}
[18:31] <cspurrier> very few of there stories would be useable becasue of npov, but some on the less controversial subject might be fine
[18:32] <RossKoepke-pizza> VOA is PD?
[18:32] <cspurrier> yes, text is images are not
[18:32] <RossKoepke-pizza> k
[18:32] <Pechorin> I think we can spot POV of VOA on spot
[18:33] <Pechorin> so... use them, but with caution
[18:33] <Munchkinguy> ie: article not to include: "America is Great"
[18:33] <cspurrier> agreed
[18:34] *** You set the channel topic to "Future talk 2| Logged at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Future_talk_2/log |Topic: Should we request that a feature the lets banned users edit their own talk page while banned be enabled".
[18:34] <cspurrier> next topic: Should we request that a feature the lets banned users edit their own talk page while banned be enabled
[18:34] <Datrio> no
[18:34] <Datrio> next topic
[18:34] <Pechorin> :)
[18:34] <Pechorin> why not?
[18:34] <RossKoepke-pizza> I say yes
[18:34] <RossKoepke-pizza> absllutelyy
[18:35] <cspurrier> they can create a mess on thier talk page, but it makes it so people can defend what they have done once they get baned
[18:35] <RossKoepke-pizza> yeah
[18:35] <Pechorin> the problem I see with it is that a vandal may .. I don't know.. keep posting stuff to his user page, like ascii porn, and linking to it, or whatever
[18:35] <RossKoepke-pizza> and so what if they create a mess?
[18:35] <RossKoepke-pizza> its their talk page
[18:35] * Chia-gone breezes in -- for only a few moments...
[18:35] *** Chia-gone is now known as Chiacomo.
[18:35] <RossKoepke-pizza> we already agreed editorials are allowed in talk pages
[18:35] <RossKoepke-pizza> why not other stuff?
[18:35] <Pechorin> RossKoepke-pizza, we didn't exactly agree on that
[18:35] <Pechorin> we assume it's ok
[18:35] <RossKoepke-pizza> mk
[18:36] * RossKoepke-pizza oops
[18:36] *** RossKoepke-pizza is now known as RossKoepke.
[18:36] <Pechorin> how was your pizza? :)
[18:36] <RossKoepke> all 3 of them were good
[18:36] <Chiacomo> Yeah, let banned editors edit their own talk pages -- we don't encourage them to mail to the list or anything else. Editing talk pages allows them a simple way to communicate.
[18:36] <RossKoepke> I was hungry
[18:36] <Munchkinguy> mmm pizza
[18:36] <Pechorin> ok.. let them edit it
[18:36] <RossKoepke> Decision: Allow?
[18:36] <Pechorin> of course, we will all keep an eye on them
[18:36] <Pechorin> I think the decision is to allow
[18:37] <Chiacomo> A better word, though, is "blocked" -- "banned" seems more permanent to me.. :D
[18:37] <RossKoepke> ==Wikinews on Mobile Devices==
[18:37] <Munchkinguy> sounds cool
[18:37] *** You set the channel topic to "Future talk 2| Logged at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Future_talk_2/log |Topic: Wikinews on mobile devices".
[18:37] <Pechorin> that would be cool
[18:37] <RossKoepke> whats the debate on this:?
[18:37] <Pechorin> all that needs to be done is create a skin, right?
[18:37] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: in theory
[18:38] <RossKoepke> we'd have to get developers to fine tune WikiMedia to make it work I think
[18:38] <cspurrier> Many users I have spoke with have said they are interested in a version of Wikinews for mobile devices
[18:38] <Datrio> that won't be too hard
[18:38] <RossKoepke> s/WikiMedia/MediaWiki
[18:38] <Pechorin> I think a more pressing priority is to have working native RSS feed
[18:38] <cspurrier> A skin for Pocket IE has been created but is not curently installed
[18:38] <Datrio> a special skin, like Pechorin said
[18:38] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: agreed
[18:38] <RossKoepke> native RSS is important
[18:38] <Munchkinguy> yep
[18:38] <cspurrier> I am willing if people are intrested to create a skin for small but powerfull devices, such as the Sharp Zaurus. 
[18:38] <cspurrier> The Zaurus runs Linux and a version of Opera it can support most things a desktop browser can but is limited by screen size.
[18:39] <RossKoepke> Decision: Work on mobile-friendly skin and develop native RSS feed?
[18:39] <cspurrier> also If there is intrest I can create a wap version in Nov.-Dec.
[18:39] <Datrio> maybe I'll try to do something with a mobile-friendly skin
[18:39] <Datrio> overally - yeah, let's do it
[18:39] <Munchkinguy> I'm having a hard time finding the XML file for Wikinews on the internet. I can only download it and then view it.
[18:39] <cspurrier> An avantago channel is also an option we can look into.
[18:39] *** You set the channel topic to "Future talk 2| Logged at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Future_talk_2/log |Topic: The hotline number".
[18:40] <cspurrier> next topic is the the hotline number
[18:40] <RossKoepke> The hotline needs to be accessable to all
[18:40] <cspurrier> anyone can join the mailing list
[18:40] <RossKoepke> as in, if we have one, it's gotta dump the recordings to a public page
[18:40] <Munchkinguy> are there worldwide 1 800 #s ?
[18:40] <RossKoepke> Munchkinguy: no
[18:40] <Munchkinguy> too bad
[18:41] <RossKoepke> cspurrier: if I join the mailing list, I get a copy of every call to the hotline?
[18:41] <cspurrier> is any one opposed to having it?
[18:41] <cspurrier> RossKoepke: yes
[18:41] <RossKoepke> cspurrier: who puts out the emails? is it automatic?
[18:41] <Pechorin> cspurrier, how does it work
[18:41] <RossKoepke> if it's not automatic and if its not open to all, I hate it. Otherwise I love it.
[18:42] <Munchkinguy> Wikipedia already has a mailing list
[18:42] <Pechorin> RossKoepke, I generally agree with you
[18:42] <cspurrier> it attaches the call to the e-mail
[18:42] <cspurrier> 100% automatic
[18:42] <RossKoepke> ok
[18:42] <Chiacomo> We have two mailing lists for wikinews... :D
[18:42] <Pechorin> cspurrier, and then you recieve it in... ogg?
[18:42] <RossKoepke> I *strongly* support it...but we need to make the technology more readily explained and the mailing list publicized
[18:43] <cspurrier> Pechorin: I think so
[18:43] <Pechorin> who is paying for that?
[18:43] <RossKoepke> NGerda's parents
[18:43] <RossKoepke> I think
[18:43] <Ryan524> lol
[18:43] <Pechorin> that's a big problem
[18:44] <cspurrier> no IlyaHaykinson
[18:44] <Pechorin> it's as big of a problem
[18:44] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: why?
[18:44] <Chiacomo> The WNN hotline is NGerda, the Wikinews hotline is Ilya -- though he says if it goes over well, we'll get Wikimedia to fund it.
[18:44] <Ryan524> the WMF should be paying for it
[18:44] <Pechorin> because if one single person is financing it, it kind of ... well... that person has every right to control it
[18:44] <cspurrier> if it gets support the foundation has said it will pay
[18:45] <Pechorin> if that's the case, I guess it's fine
[18:45] <Pechorin> though I personally think it's a waste of money
[18:45] <cspurrier> I sort of do also
[18:45] <RossKoepke> Proposed Decision: Keep, but create a page describing the technological system and explain the mailing list is public. Then distribute links to that page on other relevant pages.
[18:45] <RossKoepke> Proposed Secondary Decision: Work on getting WMF to fund the hotline.
[18:45] <Munchkinguy> goog
[18:45] <Chiacomo> It's useful, even though we're a non-standard news org, to have a telephone number.. :D
[18:45] <Munchkinguy> I meant good
[18:46] <-- Lukas3 has left this server. ("Chatzilla 0.9.68.5 [Firefox 1.0.4/20050511]")
[18:46] <cspurrier> how about an sms and e-mail gateway also?
[18:46] <Natterer> That's rather a lot of developing stories.
[18:46] <Pechorin> only if the stuff is posted somewhere public
[18:46] <cspurrier> the Wikinews site is very hard to use on slow connections
[18:46] <Pechorin> however, I just can't see a situation when somebody will have a good reason to call the hotline
[18:47] <cspurrier> Pechorin: such as posting it to a mailing list?
[18:47] <Pechorin> cspurrier, preferably somewhere on the website, but mailing list is the second best option
[18:47] <cspurrier> not many, but a few maybe 
[18:47] <Munchkinguy> well, upon calling the hotline, they could do some original reporting
[18:48] <Pechorin> why not just write it from home?
[18:48] <Munchkinguy> *shrugs*
[18:48] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: some dont have comps? net might be down?
[18:48] <Pechorin> the fact is that if something is so big, that one of our users needs to call in
[18:49] <cspurrier> because it is cooler to do it by phone :)
[18:49] <Pechorin> we will already know all about it from major news agencies before we have time to type it up and check for factual accuracy
[18:49] * RossKoepke envisions natural disasters or terrorist attacks that knock out communications
[18:49] <Chiacomo> I've got the hotline number in my cell -- though I don't forsee much breaking news in rural tennessee...
[18:49] <Pechorin> cspurrier, exactly... it's very fucking cool... sheesh
[18:49] * RossKoepke also envisions cool stories from the Amazon rainforest where someone only has a sattelite phone
[18:49] <Pechorin> RossKoepke, and that someone will waste money to call wikinews hotline?
[18:50] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: uhh, whats the objection?
[18:50] <-- Get_It has left this server. ()
[18:50] <Pechorin> I mean, let's face it.. if I were in Serbia, and something happened.. I would NEVER spend money on calling wikinews
[18:50] <Pechorin> because it would cost a fortune
[18:50] <RossKoepke> what if you were in the US and couldn't use a comp?
[18:50] <Pechorin> RossKoepke, if the story was big enough
[18:50] <Chiacomo> My cell phone has regular minutes in many parts of the world...
[18:50] <RossKoepke> like ok, I'm going on an 8 day backpacking trip in the middle of nowhere
[18:50] <cspurrier> the idea is to try and get numbers in many countries
[18:50] <Pechorin> somebody else would write about it
[18:51] <Munchkinguy> anything more to say?
[18:51] <Pechorin> cspurrier, but of course, it will work only in well developed countries, where we already have better ways of communication
[18:51] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: whats your objection?
[18:51] <cspurrier> it might help on the scene reporting some, but it is more a nice thing then something we need
[18:51] <Pechorin> my objection: we cannot protect from false reports that way
[18:52] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: we can verify information with other sources via original reporting or other news services
[18:52] <Pechorin> RossKoepke, exactly... so what's the use of hotline?
[18:52] <Munchkinguy> Conclusion: if people want to set up hotlines, they can, at their expense
[18:52] --> Get_It has joined this channel. (~webmaster@getit-00000000002.wikipedia)
[18:52] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: to let us know about something in the first place!?!?
[18:52] <RossKoepke> sorry for exclamation. Disregard all punctuation in above sentence.
[18:53] <Pechorin> RossKoepke, this is XXI century.. we all have radios, TV's, computers, screaming neihgbours....
[18:53] <cspurrier> so we can get a head start on it, so the story is ready the moment we have offical word on it
[18:53] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: not in the middle of nowhere and not if there's a power outage or something
[18:53] <Pechorin> hotline just seems like yet another project that we are doing because it's _cool_
[18:53] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: this hotline costs like $0.23/month
[18:53] <-- Get_It has left this server. (Client Quit)
[18:53] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: it also allows us to do credential verification
[18:53] <Pechorin> RossKoepke, what can happen in a middle of nowhere if only our reporter is present?
[18:54] <cspurrier> cool projects are what keeps people intreseted in the project, so a few of them are a good idea
[18:54] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: a bear attack?
[18:54] <Chiacomo> if a tree falls....
[18:54] <Munchkinguy> Is there a discussion page for this topic?
[18:54] <Pechorin> right, but how do you verify that?
[18:54] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: talk with those involved
[18:54] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: pictures
[18:54] <Pechorin> RossKoepke, but by the time we can verify it
[18:54] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: pictures from a cameraphone?
[18:54] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: conduct over the phone interviews?
[18:54] <Pechorin> RossKoepke, pictures can always be forged
[18:55] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: yeah they can! but that's not our fault!
[18:55] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: I could fool the new york times with forged pictures
[18:55] <Pechorin> it is if we ASK people to do it
[18:55] <RossKoepke> it happened to Dan Rather
[18:55] <Munchkinguy> Is there a discussion page for this topic?
[18:55] <Pechorin> we are not new york times :)
[18:55] <Pechorin> I am just saying: let's not do things cuz they seem cool at the moment
[18:55] *** Pechorin sets the channel topic to "Future talk 2| Logged at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Future_talk_2/log |Topic: The CC-Wiki license".
[18:55] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: what is wrong with spending $0.23/month on a hotline?
[18:56] <Pechorin> we are flaming now :)
[18:56] <RossKoepke> nevermind
[18:56] * Chiacomo reads on #wikipedia: "Main db server just ran out of diskspace..."
[18:56] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: yeah, we are :-\ lets move on
[18:56] <cspurrier> yuck :(
[18:56] <Pechorin> cspurrier, announce the topic :)
[18:56] <RossKoepke> Yeah I can't update the meta
[18:56] <cspurrier> ok, next topic: The CC-Wiki license
[18:56] <cspurrier> from the mailling list http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikinews-l/2005-August/000286.html
[18:57] <Munchkinguy> The Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License looks good
[18:57] <RossKoepke> I dont know
[18:57] <Munchkinguy> why?
[18:57] <RossKoepke> because I'm ignorant
[18:57] <cspurrier> it is ok, but I like pd better
[18:57] <Datrio> okay, I just want you guys to remember one thing - we _need_ to have a license
[18:57] <kim_bruning> I disagree
[18:57] <RossKoepke> I was told that CC wasn't finished yet
[18:57] <Pechorin> I like PD
[18:57] <Natterer> Chiacomo: Cannot be true.  Everyone keeps telling us that there's infinite space for articles.  :-)
[18:57] <RossKoepke> I like PD
[18:57] <kim_bruning> I think we need to use GFDL
[18:57] <Datrio> PD is impossible in some countries
[18:57] <kim_bruning> but specifically
[18:58] <RossKoepke> Datrio: whats wrong with PD?
[18:58] <Natterer> Why do you *need* a licence?
[18:58] <RossKoepke> kim_bruning: I think GPL is too restrictive
[18:58] <kim_bruning> We can get Eben Moglen to write our version
[18:58] <kim_bruning> RossKoepke, lemme finish then! ;-)
[18:58] <Pechorin> Datrio, btw.. I think that sr.wikinews is GNU GFDL due to an error :)
[18:58] <kim_bruning> RossKoepke, Eben Moglen is doing a rewrite
[18:58] <Datrio> Natterer: so people can freely redistribute your articles
[18:58] <Natterer> RossKopek: Don't confuse GPL and GFDL.
[18:58] <RossKoepke> I think any license needs to allow commercial use
[18:58] <kim_bruning> we should use GFDL and see where the problems are
[18:58] <Datrio> okay, guys, hear me on this
[18:58] <Munchkinguy> I like PD too, but if we need a lisence... Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License is good
[18:58] <Natterer> You can do that without a licence.
[18:58] <kim_bruning> then ask Eben Moglen to fix it!
[18:58] --> Get_It has joined this channel. (~webmaster@82.102.37.63)
[18:58] <Pechorin> Datrio, listening
[18:58] <Datrio> releasing material into the Public Domain is close to impossible
[18:58] <Munchkinguy> see: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/
[18:58] <Datrio> every law denies such use
[18:59] <RossKoepke> Datrio: NASA does it?
[18:59] <Natterer> It's not impossible.  It's what Wikinews does every day.
[18:59] <kim_bruning> Datrio, well eh?
[18:59] <kim_bruning> most places have a decent pd
[18:59] <Datrio> that's a government agency, they have explict permission to release their materials into the public domain
[18:59] <kim_bruning> Okay okay
[18:59] <Datrio> we're calling it public domain, because we don't care about copyrights
[18:59] <kim_bruning> right
[18:59] <kim_bruning> Okay
[18:59] <Natterer> You don't need to have *permission*!
[18:59] <kim_bruning> Ok, folks
[18:59] <kim_bruning> here's the thing
[18:59] <Datrio> but it's still copyrighted by us
[18:59] <RossKoepke> Natterer: actually, Datrio might know more than you...
[18:59] <kim_bruning> Right, ok
[18:59] <kim_bruning> Datrio, we can write that we're releasing it to the PD, but ok
[18:59] * RossKoepke hears kim and datrio out.
[19:00] <kim_bruning> Now here's the thing
[19:00] <Datrio> I was talking about this with the Ja editors, and later Jimbo
[19:00] <Pechorin> cc-by is also fine with me
[19:00] <kim_bruning> OKAY
[19:00] <kim_bruning> look
[19:00] <Natterer> Not if what he's saying so far is anything to go by.  You don't need permission to release things into the public domain.
[19:00] <Datrio> okay, kim?
[19:00] <kim_bruning> can I get a word in edgewise?
[19:00] <RossKoepke> kim_bruning: it's IRC, we can all hear you
[19:00] <kim_bruning> Eben Moglen is going to be writing a new GFDL version
[19:00] <Pechorin> Natterer, in many countries, you cannot release things into the public domain
[19:00] <kim_bruning> yes but no one is listening
[19:00] <RossKoepke> kim_bruning: I am
[19:00] <kim_bruning> Now we might want to use GFDL as our licence
[19:00] <kim_bruning> and see where the sore spots are
[19:00] <Natterer> It's a good things that Wikinews is located in Florida, then.
[19:00] <kim_bruning> then we report that to Eben Moglen via jimbo
[19:01] <Natterer> The problem with GFDL is syndicators like Dan100.
[19:01] <Datrio> hmm
[19:01] <Pechorin> kim_bruning, if we use GFDL, nobody will reproduce it is too complicated
[19:01] <kim_bruning> So that he can write GFDL in a way that makes it more suited for wikipedia and wikinews
[19:01] <cspurrier> even with the changes to GFDL I still dislike it a lot, cc is ok, but GFDL does not work well for news
[19:01] <Datrio> kim: two things
[19:01] <kim_bruning> Pechorin, people are already reproducing GFDL content off of wikipedia
[19:01] <RossKoepke> GFDL is *so* darn restrictive
[19:01] <Munchkinguy> once again: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/
[19:01] <Datrio> like Pechorin said, it's too complicated to understand for a normal person
[19:01] <RossKoepke> I like the idea of allowing commercial use a la BSD licenses
[19:01] <kim_bruning> Pechorin, RossKoepke : I agree... FIND those problems!
[19:01] <Datrio> they all reproduce Wikipedia material, but often they don't even know what they're going
[19:02] <kim_bruning> RossKoepke, GFDl allows commercial use
[19:02] <Natterer> It's not complicated.  It simply involves doing things that people don't want to do, like preserving author information.
[19:02] <Datrio> also, one more very important thing
[19:02] <kim_bruning> And GFDL is QUITE readable, thank you
[19:02] <Pechorin> kim_bruning, I know... but we are looking more at small newspapers, etc. to use our content.. not places like about.com or whatever
[19:02] <kim_bruning> Pechorin, Okay fine, but the newspaper can do that
[19:02] <Datrio> CC, in its current state, allows the Wiki to be attributed, not every user
[19:02] <cspurrier> most people that reproduce Wikipedia do it wrong
[19:02] <Datrio> GFDL doesn't
[19:02] <kim_bruning> Pechorin, if they're having trouble, we'd like to FIND OUT WHAT THE PROBLEMS ARE
[19:02] <RossKoepke> kim_bruning: you know that GFDL is really restrictive
[19:02] <kim_bruning> Datrio, Well that's GOOD
[19:02] <Pechorin> kim_bruning, don't yell :)
[19:02] <Datrio> not really
[19:02] <kim_bruning> RossKoepke, yes I know GFDL is really restrictive
[19:03] <Datrio> if you'd like to make a print edition of a GFDL Wikinews version, you'd have to print out 20 extra pages
[19:03] <Munchkinguy> Basically the CC Attribution lisence says you can change it and use it commercially if they want, as long as they attribute the owner of the material
[19:03] <kim_bruning> RossKoepke, that's the point, it stops you from waving your fist too close to my nose!
[19:03] <Datrio> for the license in whole, and the edit histories
[19:03] <kim_bruning> RossKoepke, (to misqote a saying on freedom)
[19:03] <Datrio> on CC, you just put a link (even on a print edition)
[19:03] <Datrio> and that's it
[19:03] <RossKoepke> kim_bruning: as Datrio just said: "if you'd like to make a print edition of a GFDL Wikinews version, you'd have to print out 20 extra pages"
[19:03] <kim_bruning> Okay
[19:03] <kim_bruning> but if we use CC, then wikinews and wikipedia will not be intercompatible
[19:03] <kim_bruning> that's possible a huge problem
[19:03] <kim_bruning> RossKoepke, No that's simply not true
[19:03] <Datrio> well... not really
[19:03] <cspurrier> I do not hink that is a bad
[19:04] <Pechorin> kim_bruning, well, we already cannot use wikipedia content, and we are fine with it for now
[19:04] <Datrio> first of all, I understand that GFDL is a good license, and I won't be sad if it'll be used
[19:04] <RossKoepke> kim_bruning: we use very little WP content...we can't under PD anyways
[19:04] <Natterer> The people at Wikitree went with CC-NC-BY (if memory serves - I'm not starting the browser up to find out.) and it means that they are actually *less* free than Wikipedia.
[19:04] <kim_bruning> Pechorin, why can't we use wikiped... oh becuase we're PD... that sucks
[19:04] <Pechorin> kim_bruning, it really doesn't suck too much
[19:04] <kim_bruning> RossKoepke, I'd like to use wikipedia and commons stuff integratedly
[19:04] <RossKoepke> kim_bruning: we rarely *need* to
[19:04] <cspurrier> the problem with GFDL is it kills the print edition
[19:04] <Datrio> secondly, we shouldn't use Wikipedia material at all... we could quote it, if anything
[19:04] <kim_bruning> RossKoepke, well I dunno
[19:04] <Natterer> On the other hand, it stops the 'Pedians transwiking junk onto our doorstep.  :-)
[19:05] <kim_bruning> *sigh*
[19:05] <Datrio> cspurrier: not only the print edition - think about Audio Wikinews
[19:05] <RossKoepke> lol
[19:05] <Pechorin> kim_bruning, that's true... no newspaper can run our article if we are GFDL
[19:05] <Datrio> "And now, we'll read you the GFDL license. Please tune back in an hour."
[19:05] <Natterer> As I said, the problem with GFDL is syndication.
[19:05] <kim_bruning> Pechorin, WHY?
[19:05] <Pechorin> kim_bruning, because they would need to dedicate sunday edition to the text of GFDL license
[19:05] <Munchkinguy> ha!
[19:05] <kim_bruning> Pechorin, I see
[19:05] <RossKoepke> Proposed Action: Get a small committee together to review different licenses and publish a report detailing the pros and cons and then discuss on the wiki.
[19:05] <kim_bruning> well this is a larger problem as it is already
[19:06] <Datrio> kim_bruning: I won't be surprised if the next version of GFDL will make it easier, just like the CC licenses
[19:06] <kim_bruning> Datrio, yes
[19:06] <Datrio> as in, a simple URI will be okay, instead of the full license
[19:06] <Pechorin> if that would happen, it would be great
[19:06] <kim_bruning> Datrio, what I want to do is put the pressure up on moglen
[19:06] <Natterer> Because it requires full author attribution, the full text of the GFDL, and a machine-readable version of the content.  That pretty much rules out broadcast.
[19:06] <cspurrier> rereading the CC Attribution I decided I like it 
[19:06] <RossKoepke> I think Datrio and kim_bruning would be great to have on that committee, as well as anyone else who is interested
[19:06] <kim_bruning> Datrio, so that he DOES improve the GFDL
[19:06] <kim_bruning> Datrio, I do not like this current licence proliferation
[19:06] <kim_bruning> if there's 100 different Open Licences
[19:06] <kim_bruning> there's 100 commons
[19:06] <Pechorin> cspurrier, can you sum it up? can use for any purpose as long as you state the original author?
[19:06] <kim_bruning> and none can cooperate
[19:06] <kim_bruning> that SUCKS
[19:06] <Datrio> well... I'm speaking for myself here, but I'd first like to see him change it - then I can comment on it
[19:06] <kim_bruning> RossKoepke, No I refuse to work in committee form
[19:07] <kim_bruning> RossKoepke, make a wikipage! :-)
[19:07] <Natterer> What's wrong with WIkinews simply remaining public domain?  No-one has yet explained why we even need a licence in the first place.
[19:07] <kim_bruning> Natterer, good point :-)
[19:07] <Datrio> I mean - it'd be stupid for us to wait another few months, then see the next version of GFDL sucks and won't be changed
[19:07] <cspurrier> the main thing it says is anyone that uses it has to give credit to wikinews
[19:07] <kim_bruning> we can wait until moglen rewrites the GFDL :-)
[19:07] <kim_bruning> Datrio, It'll be changed! :-)
[19:07] <Datrio> Natterer: first of all, people will steal our articles and stop crediting Wikinews (it already happens on pl.wikinews)
[19:07] <kim_bruning> Datrio, wikimedia is the biggest user of GFDL
[19:07] <kim_bruning> :-)
[19:07] <Pechorin> Natterer, well... the problems with public domain is that it's not compatible in all countries, and also... why not take a chance to have a "link back" to us?
[19:07] <Munchkinguy> To those who say that PD is impossible, check this out: Creative Commons also issues PD lisences. see: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/
[19:07] <RossKoepke> Proposed Action: Create a page on the wiki with the purpose of  reviewing different licenses and publish a report detailing the pros and cons and then discuss on the wiki.
[19:07] <RossKoepke> What do you guys think about ^^^
[19:07] <kim_bruning> RossKoepke, go for it
[19:07] <kim_bruning> :-)
[19:08] <Datrio> secondly, it's close to impossible (I'll get back to you on that Munchkinguy) in some countries
[19:08] <cspurrier> and then hold a site wide poll
[19:08] <Natterer> How can they be "stealing" what we are giving to the world for free?
[19:08] <RossKoepke> kim_bruning: the database is currently locked but I will ;-)
[19:08] <kim_bruning> heh
[19:08] <Datrio> Munchkinguy: you'd have to sign a special paper, so that you release your work into the public domain
[19:08] <kim_bruning> dbase locked still?
[19:08] <RossKoepke> AFAIk
[19:08] <kim_bruning> there was this SLIGHT action on wikipedia today
[19:08] <kim_bruning> that might be causing this
[19:08] <cspurrier> :)
[19:08] <RossKoepke> yes DB is locked
[19:08] <cspurrier> ready for the next topic?
[19:09] <Natterer> It's not "close to impossible". That's simply rubbish.  Public domain is what Wikinews does every day.
[19:09] <Pechorin> yes, very much indeed ready
[19:09] <Datrio> wait cspurrier
[19:09] <Datrio> okay, in short, to summerize
[19:09] <Natterer> What action, Kim?
[19:09] <Datrio> we can't decide on one license
[19:09] <cspurrier> right :)
[19:09] <Datrio> we'll move the discussion to the mailing list, it'll be easier to maintain and archive
[19:09] <Pechorin> I second that
[19:09] *** You set the channel topic to "Future talk 2| Logged at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Future_talk_2/log |Topic: Collaborative interviews".
[19:09] <Datrio> don't forget - we're not choosing a license only for en, but for every current and future Wikinews project
[19:10] <Datrio> okay, that's all
[19:10] <RossKoepke> http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:FT2
[19:10] <cspurrier> Next topic Collaborative interviews
[19:10] <Natterer> Erk!
[19:10] <Munchkinguy> Kre!
[19:10] <Munchkinguy> Rek!
[19:10] <Natterer> What action, Kim?
[19:11] <Pechorin> collaborative interviews
[19:11] <Munchkinguy> how do they work?
[19:11] <kim_bruning> Natterer, Ed poor deleting a high volume page
[19:11] <kim_bruning> and then ABCD undeleting it
[19:11] <RossKoepke> wtf are collaborative interviews?
[19:11] <kim_bruning> that was a BAD PLAN
[19:11] <Pechorin> I say one person who has the means of doing an interview, if he/she chooses to, can create in, e.g. their own user space, background information, and let people create a set of questions
[19:11] <Natterer> Was that what filled the disk?
[19:11] <Datrio> I have to go afk for a few minutes, so... just to put my two cents on this topic - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Interviews/The_man_behind_the_robot_-_an_interview_with_Hiroshi_Ishiguro
[19:11] <kim_bruning> Natterer, the disk filled up? EEK!
[19:12] <Pechorin> however, I am against collaborative interviews
[19:12] <Datrio> Eloquence had ideas of collaborative interviews some time ago
[19:12] <RossKoepke> wtf are collaborative interviews?
[19:12] <Datrio> but now that I tried it, almost no one seems to co-operate
[19:12] <-- NGerda has left this server. (Remote closed the connection)
[19:12] --> NGerda has joined this channel. (~46221bc9@216.218.240.151)
[19:12] <kim_bruning> Second the motion of RossKoepke "wtf are collaborative interviews?" ;-)
[19:12] <Natterer> Lots of people make up questions.  1 person asks them.
[19:12] <kim_bruning> AH!
[19:12] <Datrio> what Natterer said
[19:12] <kim_bruning> like slashdot interviews?
[19:12] <RossKoepke> Natterer: whats the prob with that?
[19:12] <NGerda> you guys
[19:12] <Datrio> bingo
[19:12] <RossKoepke> hi NGerda
[19:12] <Natterer> I don't know.
[19:12] <cspurrier> kim_bruning:  yes
[19:12] <Datrio> RossKoepke: it doesn't work
[19:13] <NGerda> RK quit bashing WWR
[19:13] <Natterer> HelloBot brought it up.
[19:13] <RossKoepke> NGerda: what?
[19:13] <NGerda> kim: "Second the motion of RossKoepke "wtf are collaborative interviews?" ;-)"
[19:13] <Munchkinguy> Why shouldn't people collaboratively write quesstions?
[19:13] <NGerda> im saying they should
[19:13] <Datrio> it's not the idea of should, or should not
[19:13] <NGerda> then what is it?
[19:13] <Pechorin> I'm just saying it's impossible :)
[19:13] <Datrio> we already have one interview like that going
[19:13] <Datrio> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Interviews/The_man_behind_the_robot_-_an_interview_with_Hiroshi_Ishiguro
[19:14] <Datrio> but no one submits questions
[19:14] <Natterer> The first question that comes to mind is: Why?
[19:14] <Datrio> absolutely no one
[19:14] <Munchkinguy> Someone's doing the impossible?
[19:14] <Datrio> it only makes it longer, and while conducting interviews - time DOES matter
[19:14] <NGerda> that's cuz no one is suporting it except me
[19:14] <Natterer> Well, putting it on Meta probably doesn't help.  Who reads Meta?  :-)
[19:14] <Datrio> well, it's linked from en.Wikinews ;)
[19:14] <NGerda> im trying to let the community get involved
[19:14] <NGerda> or figure out how to do that
[19:14] <Pechorin> NGerda, this has nothing to do with your stupid WWR
[19:14] <Datrio> besides, I can't put it on en.Wikinews, since this is a multilangual interview
[19:15] <Datrio> oh yeah
[19:15] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: we sorted that out via PM
[19:15] <RossKoepke> Ok so collab. interviews are good but no one participates in them.......
[19:15] <Natterer> What language are you going to speak to the man?
[19:15] <Datrio> NGerda: that won't work for WWR, because it's an interview conducted via email
[19:15] <NGerda> echorin, stop being so frigin close minded
[19:15] <Datrio> Natterer: Japanese
[19:15] <NGerda> Datrio, ok
[19:15] <Natterer> Then it's a monolingual interview.  :-)
[19:15] <NGerda> for that example
[19:15] <RossKoepke> NGerda: Pechorin: Please stay on topic.
[19:15] <Datrio> me, and one native speaker
[19:15] <Datrio> but we have questions in eng ;_
[19:15] <Datrio> ;)
[19:16] <Pechorin> quite honestly, I have no idea who the guy is
[19:16] <NGerda> i say we all need to e more open minded
[19:16] <NGerda> be more
[19:16] <Datrio> Pechorin: that's why I've put a short background
[19:16] <Datrio> but we'll have interview only with such people
[19:16] <Munchkinguy> I've forgotten what we're talking about
[19:16] <Natterer> The problem that you are facing is probably just plain apathy.  No-one has any questions to ask.  Or, like Pech, they've never heard of the man.
[19:16] <RossKoepke> +++ Does anyone have any actionable objections to Collab. Interviews?
[19:16] <Datrio> we won't interview people like George Bush
[19:16] <Pechorin> Datrio, I am saying that I really have no interest in asking him anything
[19:16] <Munchkinguy> why not
[19:17] <cspurrier> so the Decision is good idea but lacks interest?
[19:17] <Pechorin> RossKoepke, one objection is whether pure interviews are valid wikinews content
[19:17] <NGerda> ad if pehorin keeps removing links to the collaborative WWR ages, no one will know to contribute, and it will die
[19:17] <NGerda> but we can make it thrive
[19:17] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: no but they can be used as sources for WN content as Orig. Reporting.
[19:17] <Pechorin> NGerda, excellent!
[19:17] --> Datrio2 has joined this channel. (dariosik@chello084010219018.chello.pl)
[19:17] <NGerda> this i believe is what pechorin's lan is
[19:17] <Munchkinguy> if this exhausting topic continues, I may faint from misery and woe
[19:17] <NGerda> plan
[19:17] <cspurrier> next topic?
[19:18] <Pechorin> RossKoepke, I see... then I am perfectly fine with it.. but like I said, I personally have no much interest
[19:18] <Pechorin> NGerda, it indeed is
[19:18] <RossKoepke> ok
[19:18] <NGerda> RK, WWR should be treated like a written Wikinews article
[19:18] <Natterer> Interviews are original reporting.  They always have been.  Read the original reporting page.  It even tells you how to conduct them.
[19:18] <Datrio2> oh good job, Freenode :p
[19:18] *** anghalfaway is now known as Angela.
[19:18] *** You set the channel topic to "Future talk 2| Logged at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Future_talk_2/log |Topic: New Wikinews design".
[19:18] <Datrio2> okay, in short - we'll try conducting such interviews
[19:18] <Datrio2> that's it ;)
[19:18] <NGerda> we did
[19:18] <cspurrier> Next topic is New Wikinews design
[19:18] <Pechorin> Natterer, I thought so
[19:18] <RossKoepke> +++ Proposed Decision: Make it clear that interviews are not publishable as-is but should be copied to commons, or other source database and used as sources for WN content as Orig. Reporting.
[19:18] <Datrio2> okay, that's it for me
[19:18] <NGerda> RK, no
[19:18] <Datrio2> I'm leaving, night everyone
[19:18] <-- Datrio has left this server. (Read error: 54 (Connection reset by peer))
[19:19] <Natterer> Goodness, no!
[19:19] <RossKoepke> Datrio2: have a very good evening
[19:19] <Natterer> What the heck would Commons want with them?
[19:19] <-- Datrio2 has left this server. (Client Quit)
[19:19] <NGerda> I say they are far game
[19:19] <RossKoepke> Natterer: s/commons/wikiquote?
[19:19] <NGerda> fair game
[19:19] <Natterer> Interviews are perfectly valid Wikinews content.
[19:19] <kim_bruning> agree with Natterer :-)
[19:19] <RossKoepke> Natterer: they're not NPOV...
[19:19] <Munchkinguy> i'm fainting....
[19:19] <NGerda> Interviews are valid riginal content
[19:19] <NGerda> RK, we arent producing them
[19:20] <Pechorin> RossKoepke, they are.. because we are making it clear that it's opinion of a person being asked
[19:20] <NGerda> we arent writing the interview
[19:20] <cspurrier> they should go as notes not as content except in npov portions
[19:20] <Natterer> They're no more POV than reporting of the BBC doing an interview with someone, which Wikinews does all of the time.
[19:20] <Pechorin> however, not every interview is good.. if interviewer is asking bad questions, it may as well be labeled POV
[19:20] <Munchkinguy> New Wikinews Design
[19:20] <cspurrier> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews_design_contest
[19:20] <Natterer> Interviews are *not articles in themselves*, is perhaps what you are trying to say.
[19:20] * RossKoepke feels highly agitated at the idea of using interviews as articles
[19:20] <NGerda> Pechori, which is why you need to keep those question wiki links UP
[19:20] <RossKoepke> Natterer: yeah!
[19:20] <cspurrier> Natterer: agreed
[19:21] <NGerda> RK, correct
[19:21] <RossKoepke> ok
[19:21] <Munchkinguy> I like this one the best: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikinews1.jpg
[19:21] <Natterer> In other words, it's perfectly valid to see a fire, go up to someone and interview them about it, and report that interview on Wikinews.
[19:21] <NGerda> yes
[19:21] <RossKoepke> Proposed Decision: Make it clear that interviews are not publishable as articles in and of themselves but should be copied to wikiquote, or other source database and used as sources for WN content as Orig. Reporting.
[19:21] <Munchkinguy> That doesn't mean the it's very good, it's just the best one
[19:21] <cspurrier> is it time to start a vote on our new skin?
[19:21] <Natterer> NO.  Don't copy them to Wikiquote.
[19:21] <NGerda> RK, we can just use them as OR
[19:21] *** Angela is now known as anghalfaway.
[19:22] <Pechorin> RossKoepke, no.. include them in the article that is not ONLY interview, but explain the relevance of the interview
[19:22] <RossKoepke> dammit someone else come up with the official record
[19:22] <cspurrier> no need to copy them else where just keep them on the talk page
[19:22] <NGerda> P, for once, we agree
[19:22] <Natterer> Do you need any sort of decision at all?  The original reporting page seems relatively clear.
[19:22] <Munchkinguy> can we finish this interview topic?
[19:22] <Pechorin> I think that's fine
[19:22] <RossKoepke> mk
[19:22] <Pechorin> yeah
[19:22] <Pechorin> go to New Wikinews design
[19:22] <NGerda> i dont think we really need one
[19:22] <cspurrier> is it time to hold a vote on our new skin?
[19:23] <NGerda> main page first
[19:23] <cspurrier> Datrio one is my top choice
[19:23] <Pechorin> cspurrier, not yet
[19:23] <Munchkinguy> If anything... the wikinews logo should be a bit bigger
[19:23] <Pechorin> we need to let everybody on the water cooler know that we are still looking for entries
[19:23] <NGerda> we need a more productive main page first
[19:23] <Pechorin> honestly, I don't like any of them too much
[19:23] <Munchkinguy> I like the current main page
[19:23] <NGerda> neither do i
[19:23] <RossKoepke> I dont think any of them are good enough to change to
[19:24] <Pechorin> we are talking about the skin right now
[19:24] <Pechorin> not the layout
[19:24] <NGerda> Munchkin, we need a more selective Latest news section
[19:24] <cspurrier> our own look is imporant
[19:24] <NGerda> we need a more productive
[19:24] <Pechorin> can we please stay on topic?
[19:24] <NGerda> so people dont get upset when you pubish an article about your town
[19:24] <Munchkinguy> ik
[19:24] <Munchkinguy> ok
[19:24] <Munchkinguy> look how ugly this one is: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikinews1.jpg
[19:24] <Pechorin> I think the conclusion is: leave the skin as is, until we get something nicer
[19:25] <RossKoepke> Pechorin: yeah
[19:25] <Munchkinguy> yep
[19:25] <cspurrier> but should we start the process on finding a new skin?
[19:25] <Munchkinguy> we already have
[19:25] <NGerda> i dont think so
[19:25] <Pechorin> cspurrier, we can have the contest open
[19:25] <Pechorin> if something comes up, great
[19:25] <Munchkinguy> see: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews_design_contest
[19:26] <cspurrier> we need to promote it more, that page is almost dead
[19:26] <Pechorin> cspurrier, I know... will you put it on the water cooler?
[19:26] <cspurrier> ok
[19:26] <Pechorin> thanks
[19:26] <NGerda> i think dan removed te link at the top of the page cuz t was "fugly"
[19:27] <Pechorin> moving on?
[19:27] *** You set the channel topic to "Future talk 2| Logged at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Future_talk_2/log |Topic: Wikinews Podcast".
[19:27] <cspurrier> next topic: Wikinews Podcast
[19:27] <Munchkinguy> another cool idea
[19:27] <cspurrier> a goal of the Audio wikinews project
[19:27] <NGerda> you mean Audio Wikiews podcast
[19:27] --> brion has joined this channel. (~brion@62.206.65.6)
[19:27] <NGerda> hi bri!
[19:28] <NGerda> csm that is a technical issue
[19:28] <cspurrier> If no one objects make the topic Audio Wikiews (not WNN :P ) 
[19:28] <brion> zzzzz
[19:28] <Pechorin> agreed
[19:28] *** You set the channel topic to "Future talk 2| Logged at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Future_talk_2/log |Topic: Audio Wikiews".
[19:28] <Pechorin> and we have already discussed this many times :)
[19:29] <Pechorin> so... for sake of not flaming.. move on
[19:29] <NGerda> it's a technical issue
[19:29] <cspurrier> new topic: Audio Wikiews avoiding all talk of WNN :)
[19:29] <Munchkinguy> you just talked a
[19:29] <NGerda> where did we talk recently about WNN?
[19:29] <cspurrier> about an hour ago
[19:29] <RossKoepke> mk does anyone have anything to bring up Re: Audio WIkinews?? If not, can we move on?
[19:29] <cspurrier> I think we should talk about /brief
[19:29] <NGerda> WWR is AWN
[19:30] <Pechorin> WWR is sweet fanny adams on wikinews NGerda
[19:30] <NGerda> huh?
[19:30] <Pechorin> cspurrier, I absolutely agree and support /briefs
[19:30] <RossKoepke> Topic is: AWN not WWR or WNN
[19:30] <Pechorin> however
[19:30] <Munchkinguy> WWNRA
[19:30] <Pechorin> somebody needs to make a page to centralize the work
[19:30] <RossKoepke> Munchkinguy: what?
[19:31] <Munchkinguy> i'm just being crazy
[19:31] <NGerda> Pechorin, you reverted MR M's and my centralized page
[19:31] <cspurrier> if people like the idea of  /brief I will try to make a page explaing it and try to start using it
[19:31] <Pechorin> NGerda, we are talking about /briefs
[19:31] <Pechorin> cspurrier, if you make a page explaining it
[19:32] <Pechorin> I will start adding briefs to all artcles I start
[19:32] <RossKoepke> cspurrier: go ahead and then we'll discuss it if it's controversial
[19:32] <cspurrier> ok
[19:32] <cspurrier> That ends all of the planed topics
[19:32] <RossKoepke> next?
[19:33] <RossKoepke> mk
[19:33] <cspurrier> new writing contest
[19:33] <NGerda> http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&diff=next&oldid=77330
[19:33] <RossKoepke> I had something else, trying to remember it though
[19:33] <Pechorin> anything else anyone wants to bring up, aside from WWR?
[19:33] <NGerda> WWN :)
[19:33] <NGerda> WNN
[19:33] <NGerda> :D
[19:33] <cspurrier> new topic: having a new writing contest
[19:33] *** You set the channel topic to "Future talk 2| Logged at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Future_talk_2/log |Topic: having a new writing contest".
[19:33] <RossKoepke> NGerda: would you like to bring up your experiences at SIGGRAPH?
[19:33] <Pechorin> it's a failed proposal, nothing to talk about it
[19:33] * RossKoepke would like to hear about SIGRAPH....
[19:33] <Munchkinguy> oh
[19:33] <NGerda> yes, thankyou RK
[19:34] <Pechorin> cspurrier, hardly any chance I will participate
[19:34] <Pechorin> but last time it did wonders
[19:34] <cspurrier> Do we want to have a new writing contest, and can we find people to judge
[19:34] <RossKoepke> cspurrier: I'd love to have a new one
[19:34] <cspurrier> our story count is down low so a contest might be what we need to get us back on track
[19:35] <NGerda> i went to siggraph with my camera and notebook, eadquarters says that Wikinews is "not a legitamate news publication" because it's wiki
[19:35] <RossKoepke> would we want to modify the rules from last time?
[19:35] <cspurrier> any one who ca not write in it want to judge
[19:35] <kim_bruning> NGerda, who is headquarters?
[19:35] <cspurrier> RossKoepke, not much
[19:35] <NGerda> SIGGRAPH
[19:35] <Pechorin> ok
[19:35] <kim_bruning> NGerda, Oh that sucks
[19:35] <Pechorin> so lets create a contest
[19:35] <NGerda> yes
[19:35] <kim_bruning> NGerda, we should get jimbo to complain
[19:35] <Pechorin> same rules as before
[19:35] <NGerda> and i had it all planned out
[19:35] <RossKoepke> yes
[19:36] <Munchkinguy> There seems to be a lot ot wiki discrimination "not legitimate", etc
[19:36] <kim_bruning> NGerda, join #wikimedia for a moment?
[19:36] <NGerda> they use a wiki for their site as well ;)
[19:36] <RossKoepke> NGerda: we'll bring that up after the writing contest
[19:36] <NGerda> km, just a sec
[19:36] <NGerda> km, what's a good windows irc client
[19:36] <RossKoepke> NGerda: Xchat! Colloquy! mIRC!
[19:37] <cspurrier> Opera!
[19:37] <RossKoepke> NGerda: join #wikimedia! kim_bruning's advocating for you!
[19:37] <Munchkinguy> Mozilla
[19:37] <NGerda> just a sec
[19:37] <NGerda> installing...
[19:38] <NGerda> what's the server?
[19:38] <Munchkinguy> can we go to the next topic?
[19:38] <kim_bruning> NGerda, irc.freenode.net
[19:38] <cspurrier> any one have any other topics?
[19:38] <NGerda> ok
[19:38] <Pechorin> yeah
[19:38] <Pechorin> hold on
[19:38] *** Pechorin sets the channel topic to "Future talk 2| Logged at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Future_talk_2/log |Topic: fucking COTW".
[19:38] <Pechorin> ok
[19:38] <Pechorin> PLEASE, stop voting if you don't plan to write
[19:39] <cspurrier> I plan to write, but never get time :)
[19:39] <Munchkinguy> COTW?
[19:39] <Munchkinguy> what's that?
[19:39] <NGerda> what's te group?
[19:40] <NGerda> for mIRC
[19:40] <cspurrier> I think it might be good idea if COTW was extended if the place gets no stories 
[19:40] <Pechorin> cspurrier, that too
[19:40] <Pechorin> Country of the Week
[19:41] <Munchkinguy> why does it need discussion?
[19:41] <-- brion has left this server. ("This computer has gone to sleep")
[19:41] <Munchkinguy> I'm not a devoted fan of it, but it's fine with me
[19:42] <cspurrier> because future talks are a place to talk about ideas as well as issues :)
[19:42] <Pechorin> it needs discussion because people keep proposing antarctica for fucks sake :)
[19:43] <RossKoepke> hahaha
[19:43] <RossKoepke> :)
[19:43] <cspurrier> It was a good idea :) , I just had a busy week 
[19:43] <Munchkinguy> that's because the penguins are underreported in the media
[19:43] <RossKoepke> actually
[19:43] <RossKoepke> I had an article partially written and it sort of dissapeared
[19:43] <RossKoepke> on an ecosystem found under a collapsed ice shelf
[19:44] <RossKoepke> which had certain ramifications regarding life on mars
[19:44] <RossKoepke> but then I lost interest after it was deleted or something...
[19:44] <RossKoepke> I just couldn't find it or a record of its deletion
[19:45] <Pechorin> ok
[19:45] <Munchkinguy> g2g
[19:45] <Pechorin> so I hope everybody got my point for COTW :)
[19:45] <-- Munchkinguy has left this server. ("ChatZilla 0.9.61 [Mozilla rv:1.7.10/20050716]")
[19:45] <Pechorin> any other topics?
[19:45] <cspurrier> Future future talks
[19:45] *** You set the channel topic to "Future talk 2| Logged at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Future_talk_2/log |Topic: Future future talks".
[19:46] <cspurrier> I believe these talks are very useful. They help clarify ideas and help build a sense of community. I think a weekly or biweekly scheduled chat would be a good idea.
[19:46] <Pechorin> however
[19:46] <kim_bruning> Someone help NGerda set up mirc for a sec!
[19:47] <Pechorin> we need much less topics then we did today
[19:47] <cspurrier> that can be sloved by having them more offten :)
[19:47] <Pechorin> yeah
[19:47] <Pechorin> though... not too often either
[19:48] <cspurrier> I think weekly or biweekly is best
[19:48] <kim_bruning> Hey
[19:48] <Pechorin> biweekly
[19:48] <kim_bruning> can someone help NGerda set up mirc?
[19:48] <kim_bruning> Hello?
[19:48] <kim_bruning> Kinda important, we're sorting stuff out :-)
[19:48] <NGerda> :|
[19:49] <Pechorin> what's up?
[19:49] <Pechorin> /join #wikimedia
[19:51] *** You set the channel topic to "Future talk 2| Logged at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Future_talk_2/log |Topic: Future  talk is now over".