Wikinews:Water cooler

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Revision as of 01:32, 24 May 2010 by Chaetodipus (talk | contribs) (re-add)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the Water Cooler
Welcome to the water cooler, a place to discuss the technical issues, policies, and operations of Wikinews. This is divided into five sections; please use the table below to find the most appropriate section to post in, or just use the miscellaneous section. The water cooler is not the place to make lasting comments, as discussions are removed regularly to make room for new ones. Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~ or clicking the signature icon in the edit toolbar).

To add to an existing conversation please follow the link, below, to the appropriate section. Each board is a separate page and needs edited directly.

Policy
To discuss existing and proposed policies
(Add new message - Archive)

Technical
To discuss technical issues
(Add new message - Archive)

Proposals
To discuss new ideas and proposals that are not policy related
(Add new message - Archive)

Assistance
To post requests for assistance not covered elsewhere
(Add new message - Archive)

Miscellaneous
Discussions and questions which don't fit elsewhere
(Add new message - Archive)


Open polls

Please vote in open polls! Add {{poll}} to a page to have it listed here.

I want to... Where to go
Get help using Wikinews Help contents
Get collaborative help on an article Newsroom
Comment on a specific article Article's talk page
Use a reference desk (e.g., "Can someone check this fact?") Reference desk
Make wiki software bug reports and feature requests Phabricator
View other Wikimedia projects Wikimedia Meta-wiki
Help to promote Wikinews Spread Wikinews
Report Mirrors and forks Mirrors and forks


Wikinews news

Wikinews News
  • Things needing doing: Articles needing review: 5  Articles under review: 0  Categories to be populated: 13  Protected edit requests: 37  Protection requests: 1  Pages marked for speedy deletion: 310  Unblock requests: 1  Flagged discussions: 12  Accreditation requests: 2  Requests for permissions: 1  Flagged revs requests: 0  FA candidates: 0  Deletion discussions: 2  Bot requests: 0  Edit
Wikinews:To-Do List
See also: WP Signpost – Internal News – Foundation News
+/-

Policy

Page last updated: Saturday 25 at 0836 UTC.      

Refresh Refresh this page  

Archive


2009 
2010 
2011 
2012 
2013 
2014 
2015 
2016 
2017 
2018 
2019 
2020 
2021 
2022 


Policies and guidelines and the Style guide contain or link to most of the current en.Wikinews policies and guidelines, however policy is based on the accepted practices of the day on Wikinews, often these might not be written down. This section of the Water cooler focuses on discussions regarding policy issues.

You may wish to check the archives to see if a subject has been raised previously.

Update of license


This conversation has been marked for the community's attention. Please remove the {{flag}} when the discussion is complete or no longer important.



Some time ago there was a discussion on meta about how to implement the license update to CC BY-SA 4.0 on all wikis. See m:Meta:Babel/Archives/2023-06#Aftermath_of_ToU_updates.

Wikinews use the license CC BY 2.5. So it does not have the SA part and it is an older version.

I would like to ask why Wikinews does not follow WMF and most other wiki projects. Is there a good reason or is it simply because noone thought about updating the license?

Unless there is a good reason I suggest to update the license to follow WMF. --MGA73 (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The goal was that Wikinews would be easy to share. That hasn't really happened, but that's the idea. :/ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that makes sense because CC BY is less restrictive than CC BY-SA. However with the update of the Terms of Use users agree to license their contributions as CC BY-SA 4.0. So I think that at least all new content should be licensed under that license because I do not think that it is possible just to remove the "SA".
If the license do not make it easier to share then I do not think there are any good arguments to keep the less restrictive license for older text. Anyway if someone have allready legally shared the text they can continue to do so even if the license is changed so it should not give any problems to change license for older text too. --MGA73 (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But, "The only exception [to using CC BY-SA 4.0 or GFDL] is if the Project edition or feature requires a different license. In that case, you agree to license any text you contribute under the particular license prescribed by the Project edition or the feature." I'm struggling to see why we would voluntarily take on that load of work...to make it harder for people to reuse our content, as we want them to. Heavy Water (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Beause the mission of the wiki-family is to make knowledge free for everyone and make sure knowledge stays free. Wikipedia uses CC BY-SA 4.0 and that does not seems to be a problem. Wikipedia have grown and is one of the worlds most used websites.
One of the exceptions I know of is wikidata where the data is CC0. Then there is also fair use in some cases but that is not valid for wikimedians to use on own work only for work created by other. I do not know of any other exceptions and reasons.
I wonder if there are any known examples where someone said they would no re-use wikinews if the license was BY-SA instead of BY. Anyone have examples? --MGA73 (talk) 08:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very unlikely, as Wikinews is very obscure. There have been times about 15 years ago when I saw Wikinews reproduced in the wild, but it's not common today, for sure. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To me that sounds like there is no longer any real problem using BY-SA. Another question not yet discussed is why use 2.5 instead of 4.0. --MGA73 (talk) 15:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I don't see any reason for us to use a different license than the other WMF projects and would support a change. I don't feel strongly enough that I would oppose the status quo, tho. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 So how to move forward? Should there be a formal vote? --MGA73 (talk) 11:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I vote yes to a vote. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you User:Koavf. I'm not very familiar with wikinews so I'm not sure how to do this. But I think I have to go to Wikinews:Polls and add a link to Wikinews:Update license poll and then make a suggestion at that page. Is that correct? If you would like to assist you are very welcome to make the proposal. --MGA73 (talk) 12:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think just posting here would be sufficient, because as you can see, that page hasn't been edited in almost 15 years: https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Polls&action=history —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Koavf, Okay I have prepared the poll below. I will add {{poll}} soon but perhaps you could have a look at it first? Is anything missing? --MGA73 (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not from my perspective. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


This is an open poll listed on the Water cooler and Wikinews:Polls. Please remove the {{poll}} flag when the poll closes.

Please discuss your poll ideas with the community before polling, and don't vote on everything as voting is evil.


Wikinews should follow the official license in wmf:Policy:Terms_of_Use (currently cc-by-sa-4.0)

  1. Weak support It makes sense to be consistent and these terms on CC licenses have really improved and clarified them from v. 2.5 to today. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak support I can see the limitations of ShareAlike, but I think greater interoperability with other wiki projects is more important. As said above, the modern Creative Commons licenses are much better than the pretty ancient version we're currently using. Ash Thawley (talk) (calendar) 05:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews should keep the current license (cc-by-2.5)

  1. keep the current license - a few of our articles got translated into other languages, and if we would be the only WN project to make the switch, that would kill the translation process. CC licenses are, as far as I know, forward-compatible (a translation of a 2.5 article could be published under 4.0), but not backwards-compatible (a translation of a 4.0 article could not be published under 2.5). (Sidenote: English is usually a source language on WN, but not the other way around because of en.wn's review process and its requirement to check all sources.) As Justin have said, our work had not been reused much lately, but SA would make that even harder. I would be happy to reconsider to transition from CC.BY 2.5 to CC-BY 4.0, if the vote would be simultaneous on all WN projects. - Xbspiro (talk) 12:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I would advocate for using a separate license for spoken articles. I have raised that issue a while back during a Community Feedback period, but did not attract much attention. - Xbspiro (talk) 12:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [reply]
  1. I said above, "I'm struggling to see why we would voluntarily take on that load of work [of migration]...to make it harder for people to reuse our content, as we want them to." Experienced Wikinewsies have repeatedly, over the years, defended the greater freedom offered by not imposing the SA restriction. Xbspiro makes a good point about translation, too. (I really don't care what license non-Wikinews projects use.) I'd welcome a discussion to study the idea of migration to CC BY 4.0. Heavy Water (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with your suggestion of 'studying the idea of migration.' One of things I'd like to better-understand before casting a vote is what can we glean from existing data, in order to understand the scope of any migration. Based on Xbspiro's point above regarding English as a source language, I've tried looking at Wikidata to see if any useful data can be had there. There may be better/existing ways to look at this data and I'm all ears if anyone can provide exmaples. Otherwise, I've started this page: Michael.C.Wright/TranslationAnalysis. Any and all thoughts are welcome. Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 18:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is obvious that WMF is clueless about Wikinews, they barely have an idea about how Wikipedia functions. Using a more restrictive license, as all SA CC licenses are, makes any usage of Wikinews information more challenging. --Base (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New option: Wikinews should keep the BY but update to newest version (currently cc-by-4-0)

  1. I support an upgrade to 4.0. As I mentioned below using two different licenses for various content; SA for internal tools, scripts, templates, etc and non-SA for article content might be a good compromise that allows us to duplicate Wikipedia tools, scripts, templates, etc. Otherwise, if we are limited to only one, I agree with Heavy Water that the least-restrictive option is the best. We also need to ensure that the other language projects upgrade to a compatible license to allow for translations. The number of English articles that get translated is significant.[1] Previously unsigned comment by Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 20:50, 24 February 2024‎ (UTC)[2][reply]

Comments

  • "And I would advocate for using a separate license for spoken articles."
    Why is this, Xbspiro? And which license? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for asking. The possibility of voice sampling bothers me a lot - CC licenses simply do not forbid that, but I can't name any licenses which would make me happy in this regard. Call me naïve, because a license will not keep bad actors back, but imagine a court proceeding where the sampler could argue that you have allowed your voice to be used for whatever purposes. Please, feel free to tell me, if you think this is not a valid point - even that would be better than no feedback at all. - Xbspiro (talk) 05:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as it is a legal purpose then I think it would be hard to avoid. However the license require that reuser should "indicate if changes were made" so it would be clear that the voice was sampled to say something else. If the license is BY-SA then whatever they use it for should also be license BY-SA (which you think makes reuse harder). --MGA73 (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "if we would be the only WN project to make the switch". (Xbspiro)
I have made notes on some of the other WN projects too about license update. I can make a notice on all projects so all projects follow the latest license. --MGA73 (talk) 12:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All notified. At least those not closed. --MGA73 (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the notification. We can proceed with a simultaneous transition in all languages for the entire project, ensuring consistency and applying the upgraded license uniformly across all language communities. Kitabc12345 (talk) 10:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this a straw poll? The poll system was only used, as far as I know, very early in en.wn's existence. I don't think it is consistent with modern project principles whereby decisions are reached by consensus rather than simple voting — experienced Wikinewsies' votes are given more weight (or others' aren't counted), because they have knowledge of the project and an accumulated reputation. Separately, I'm concerned about the "Yes" section title; I think it may mislead folks who haven't read the discussion above that precipitated this into thinking the Terms of Use require or at all encourage projects to use CC BY-SA 4.0. I'm not seeing either in the Terms of Use. How about "Yes, Wikinews should follow the typical license for Wikimedia projects, as defined by wmf:Policy:Terms_of_Use (currently cc-by-sa-4.0)"? The "No" section title would also read better with "should" before "keep". Heavy Water (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A vote is one way to find out if there is concensus or not. If 8 says yes and 2 says no then there is concensus. It would be a problem if the votes are 6 against 5 but if 6 prefer to change and 5 does not is it still not better to go with what most users prefer?
As for wmf:Policy:Terms_of_Use#7._Licensing_of_Content it says "When you submit text to which you hold the copyright, you agree to license it under: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License ("CC BY-SA 4.0"), ..." How can you read it any other way than CC BY-SA 4.0 is the preferred license?
As for the wording "should" I'm not a native English speaker so I do not see how it makes a difference if the word "should" is included or not. But if it is correct to write "Yes, Wikinews should..." and "No, Wikinews should..." then I do not mind.
As I understand your comment perhaps there should be one more option like "Update to CC BY 4.0" (not sure how that would fit in Yes/No). Do you have a suggestion? --MGA73 (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I asked on wmf:Policy_talk:Terms_of_Use#Does_ToU_require_that_Wikiprojects_update_license? and it was stated that ToU does not force a project to change license. --MGA73 (talk) 09:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, a vote can find out if there's consensus. But, for the example you gave, at en.wn it might vary based on who the users were, even if it was an 8–2 vote.
I figured that was what the ToU meant. Heavy Water (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I learnt about this discussion from the Water Cooler on Chinese Wikinews. The Chinese Wikinews community has discussed on the same matter a few months ago. Xbspiro's concern above is also one of the concern raised in our discussion. The Chinese Wikinews community generally supports to update the licence to CC-BY-SA 4.0 on condition that other Wikinews languages also follow as this enables translation and utilisation of contents from other Wikimedia projects. It seems not making much sense if only one or two Wikinews language editions update the licence while the others remain at CC-BY. --Waihorace (talk) 03:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could somebody explain the benefits of switching 2.5 two 4 except the poor fact, that 4 > 2.5? --A1 (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A1 sadly no. But I can give it a try based on the links in https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/License_Versions#License_Versioning_History under "Explanation of changes from prior version".
3.0 fixed some issues related to TPM / encryption and compability with MIT-licenses etc. Not sure how relevant that is for Wikinews.
But Internationalization seems more relevant as the new version "utilize the language of the international intellectual property treaties, in place of the language of US copyright law". Also there is a better coverage for Moral Rights.
BY-SA is more compatible with other licenses now.
4.0 is said to be even more global.
It should also be better to handle "Rights outside the scope of copyright".
It implement a "Common-sense attribution" that is better suited to reflect accepted practices (for example using a link) and also a "30-day window to correct license violations". It makes it harder for those that uses a tiny mistake to sue someone for copyright violation.
It also claims to have "Increased readability".
If anyone have a better reason you are very welcome to share it. --MGA73 (talk) 10:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I reworded the options as suggested and added a new option. I hope it is more clear now. Those that have allready woted are of courese welcome to move the vote if they prefer another option. --MGA73 (talk) 10:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I support this. Updates are necessary because many new projects are now released in version 4.0. However, with Wikinews still on version 2.5, it becomes difficult to publish content from version 4.0 on the older version, causing some inconvenience to the Chinese wikinews community. Kitabc12345 (talk) 01:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Kitabc12345 As I understand it the Chinese Wikinews will change to 4.0 if English Wikinews does. My guess is that other language versions would also be willing to change too. --MGA73 (talk) 09:59, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically, only English, Russian, French, Japanese, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, Spanish, Chinese, German, Czech, Dutch, Swedish, Arabic, Serbian, Hebrew, and Esperanto are active communities. We have found that many news media outlets, although they publish under a free license, use the newer CC-BY-4.0 version, while our website operates on the older CC-BY-2.5 version. Consequently, we are unable to replicate their textual content under the newer CC-BY-4.0 license on our older CC-BY-2.5 website. Therefore, I am recommended to upgrade our license to the CC-BY-4.0 version. I agree to support the simultaneous upgrade to CC-BY-4.0 for other language versions, including the Chinese community. Insufficient local technical support personnel often lead us to rely on copying various Wiki templates, including countdown templates, from Wikipedia. We currently lack the knowledge and ability to create these templates independently without duplicating content from Wikipedia. Consequently, we are considering upgrading our license to align with other projects. However, this presents a significant dilemma as we frequently come across content that would be more beneficial to reproduce directly. However, Personally, I strongly support the direct upgrade of WikiNews' license to an independent one CC BY 4.0, not SA. This would preserve its distinct identity as a platform for original news content and prevent its assimilation with Wikipedia. Kitabc12345 (talk) 10:18, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems that only we participate in this vote... What should we do to make this project improve the copyright in this 4.0 agreement, because there is a practical need. Kitabc12345 (talk) 01:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there no consensus? Or is the discussion not active?… Kitabc12345 (talk) 13:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So far only 4 users voted above. 3 thinks we should not upgrade to cc-by-sa-4.0. 1 would probably be willing to upgrade to cc-by-4.0 but it is not clear if the 2 others would accept cc-by-4.0. It would make things more clear if Xbspiro and Base would like to comment on the option to upgrade to cc-by-4.0 (but skip the SA).
    Some from other language versions would like to make sure that all language versions use the same version so they would only like to upgrade if it is a joined upgrade. Personally I think an upgrade is a good idea but I'm not really active except for trying to clean up files so I have not put a vote. --MGA73 (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope everyone will be active in the discussion. Kitabc12345 (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, Personally, I strongly support the direct upgrade of WikiNews' license to an independent one CC BY 4.0, not SA. This would preserve its distinct identity as a platform for original news content and prevent its assimilation with Wikipedia.
@Kitabc12345, I would like to hear more about this. What do you mean by 'assimilate?'
Wikipedia already performs a form of news service. Case in point: 2024 Kansas City Parade Shooting. Because of Wikipedia's editing process i.e., no review process, they can be more nimble and reactive than Wikinews. I'm not saying that is better—it's just the reality. In that way, I see Wikipedia already exceeding the abilities of Wikinews in providing timely and relevant news to readers (accuracy and bias notwithstanding). Based on that, I don't see a reason for Wikipedians to want to assimilate Wikinews. They already replace its news-providing function for their readers.
Aside from that, how does Wikinews not implementing a ShareAlike (SA) provision protect it from assimilation by Wikipedia?
Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 17:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose we are Wikinews; if the content of Wikinews were the same as Wikipedia's, would it still retain any unique characteristics? Kitabc12345 (talk) 08:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the Chinese Wikinews community, some new users tend to directly republish articles from Wikipedia, which is inappropriate and leads to a loss of uniqueness for Wikinews. Due to differing copyright licenses, replicating content from Wikipedia on Wikinews is a violation of copyright, and such behavior is immediately prevented. Furthermore, Wikinews is subjected to a review process that typically ensures greater accuracy than Wikipedia. By this, I mean that while Creative Commons Share-Alike (CC-SA) might technically aid Wikinews in copying certain templates from Wikipedia and the like, it's not advisable for Wikinews to repurpose Wikipedia's content. Wikinews is capable of independently developing its own distinctive content over the years, thereby establishing a clear distinction from Wikipedia. If readers cannot obtain information on our Wikinews website that is not written on Wikipedia, then it is almost meaningless and devoid of any news value or relevance to the purpose of the Wikinews project. Kitabc12345 (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is that by incorporating the SA provision, Wikinews would enable content duplication from Wikipedia. And that would eventually lead to Wikinews being assimilated by the larger Wikipedia because it essentially becomes the same content. It's an interesting point and an unintended consequence that warrants concern. There are though a number of key differences between the two platforms that are largely incompatible. For example, WP:AGF vs WN:Never_assume or WP:SYNTH vs WN:SYNTH. I would hope that those subtle and not-so-subtle differences would maintain a unique culture between the two that protects against assimilation.
I also think it is important for Wikinews to be able to generate and maintain the backend of the platform, i.e., the tools, scripts, templates, etc. In its current state, I don't see that en.Wikinews has the resources for that. The ability to adapt, remix, and transform those tools from Wikipedia might help with that problem.
For me, an important question to answer is: Can we utilize one or even two different licenses in a way that allow us to both discourage article content duplication across the various sister platforms while allowing for simple translations and also facilitating sharing of tools, scripts, templates, etc.? That may be an effective compromise and would allow us to move forward with an upgrade.
I posed the same question below (trying to keep track of multiple, similar, discussion threads).
Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 15:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question It has always annoyed me that Wikinews is not on the same license as our bigger sibling, Wikipedia. It has, among other things, had the effect of us having to rewrite simple tools, scripts, code for templates, etc. which have already been created on WP. Whenever I have suggested that is just stupid, I've been told, well, that's just the way it's always been. As I am not a lawyer, my question is, what happens to our archives if we change? Is 4.0 in any way less restrictive than 2.5? If yes, it seems to me that the writers of the past would have their rights infringed. If so, do we run a bot and put a notice of CC-BY-2.5 on all articles published before the date we implement the proposed change? (And keep in mind, there are a number of articles which have already been specifically tagged as PD, probably what we would call CC0-1.0 today. --SVTCobra 21:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any harm in upgrading the agreement. There seems to be no problem between Wikipedia's upgrade from 3.0 to 4.0? All content is automatically upgraded, because we did not switch the copyright license to other restrictions, but only adopted the updated protocol. On the contrary, upgrading to 4.0 for news actually has great benefits because many free projects (other news agency website projects) have adopted the CC B Y4.0 guidelines. We can't copy the content of those free projects, which is quite annoying. Kitabc12345 (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to remember, but was the SA part perhaps the reason Wikinews was different than Wikipedia in the first place? I don't know who set these things up in the way-way-back days. SVTCobra 20:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the comments above it is mostly the SA that some is against. So I think there is a chance for concensus to update to 4.0 without the SA. But it would be nice if those that woted against the update would clarify if they are against both the SA and the 4.0. --MGA73 (talk) 13:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think after upgrading to version 4.0, everyone will have the opportunity to strive for SA space. We can start by handling it this way first. Kitabc12345 (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SVTCobra regarding the ability to copy tools, etc from Wikipedia. Wikinews does not have the resources necessary to correct even nit-noid issues such as template loops.
Question My understanding of the difference between SA and non-SA is that reproduced SA content must carry the SA terms forward. A question I have is; can CC-BY-4.0 content be reproduced with credit but fully protected? In other words, is CC-BY-4.0 a possible dead-end route for free material? If so, I would be more in favor of the SA restriction because it preserves free access to the information.
Lastly, an aside; I'm not saying this is a waste of time. However, I think our energy would be better used in figuring out how to improve the publication and reviewing process. I'm not sure that the version of copyright license currently in use is impacting that to a great extent (though I am open to being convinced otherwise). A lack of timely, relevant content is the antithesis of the project and what I think will be the eventual death of en.wikinews. The copyright version becomes irrelevant when there isn't material being copied.
Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 15:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean fully protected. But it is possible to use CC-BY-4.0 text in another text and have that new text copyrighted so that no one else can use the new text (for example a book). But the original text is still CC-BY-4.0 so it is always possible to go back and use the original text.
I agree that it is relevant to get new articles. Someone wrote earlier that some news sites use CC-BY-4.0 and because Wikinews uses an old version that prevent editors from using text from those news sites. So I would not say its a waste to upgrade to a newer version. --MGA73 (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MGA73 Yes, copyrighted is what I meant by 'fully protected' and you answered my question. Thanks.
Question Regarding the statement 'our work has not been shared much recently,' do we have any stats on that? Wikimedia Stats can show things such as trends in articles read, but that doesn't indicate content copied or shared.
@Heavy Water makes a very good point we shouldn't take on extra work to make it more difficult to share our content. But I don't see that we know that BY-SA has or will hinder sharing (related to my question in this same reply). Do we even have enough committed admins/editors/users to undertake the upgrade project?
@Xbspiro makes another good point that it needs to be an all-or-nothing upgrade for various different Wikinews languges if en.wikinews is generally a 'source language' for others. Do we have any stats or data on how much en.wn content is a source for other languages?
For me, a vote would hinge on the following:
1. Do we have the manpower needed to proceed with the upgrade?
2. Do we have data on shared content?
3. Can and will the other languages follow suit?
As it currently stands, I may have time to volunteer to help with the upgrade, if needed.
Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 15:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coincidentally, today I logged in to find that one of my articles pending review has been translated and published by fr.wikinews. I was pinged regarding the creation of a wikidata item. I checked all of my published articles and found 50% (7 of 14) had wikidata linking to other languages. And that number could be higher if other other editors don't ensure they link to existing wikidata. Maybe wikidata could give us better insight into how much English content is being used among other wikinews platforms. Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 15:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael.C.Wright. I do not think it will take very long to update the relevant places from CC-BY-2.5 to CC-BY-4.0 or CC-BY-SA-4.0 if you know how to do it. Perhaps 1 hour? If other language versions want to change too then of course that will take some time too. --MGA73 (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles from English Wikinews are rarely translated into other languages. In fact, I find it uncommon to see numerous news reports that are sourced from English Wikinews—only a minor portion indeed. I do not agree with the claim that one's own language serves as the origin language. For example, some news reports on English Wikinews come from translations of articles from Russian Wikinews. However, I am in favor of other language editions of Wikinews upgrading to CC BY 4.0, in line with the English Wikinews. Kitabc12345 (talk) 08:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(see picture)
From my understanding, which was derived from the middle right panel of this illustration, content under, e.g., a CC-BY license just can't be copyrighted. Heavy Water (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have someone who knows how to do it? There could be as many as 4,600 articles in en.wikinews[3] that exist as another language. Those licenses will need to align. Do we know how to identify all of those articles, contact someone on that language.wikinews and get the necessary changes made? Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 16:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael.C.Wright According to m:Terms_of_use/Creative_Commons_4.0/Legal_note#Mechanism_for_the_upgrade the way the WMF does it is that existing text stay under the old license and all new text is under the new license. So what should be changed is probably just the text you see on the bottom of each page saying:
All text created after September 25, 2005 available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License, unless otherwise specified. (Should there be the word "is" in "2005 is available"?)
If someone think it would perhaps also be possible to create a page somewhere that users can add their names to agree to relicense old text to the new version.
When editing there is a new text saying "Your work will be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License and will be attributed to "Wikinews"." and that should of course also be updated.
There can be other places that needs to be updated too but I do not think we have to edit or do anything to all the excisting articles. --MGA73 (talk) 08:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on your response here, specifically regarding the upgrade of new content while leaving existing content as-is, I am ready to vote in favor of an upgrade. However, I would like to better understand the ramifications of implementing an SA provision. I have asked two specific questions in two different contexts: 1) Not using SA to protect from assimilation with other projects and 2) Using both SA and non-SA in different aspects of Wikinews content and processes. Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 17:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that such behavior is beneficial for Wikinews. Offering the same information as Wikipedia is pointless; it lacks uniqueness and does not differentiate from Wikipedia. Kitabc12345 (talk) 08:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many free-license news sites do not employ SA (ShareAlike) as their licensing clause. If other media are also required to change to SA to be able to use content from Wikinews, this could strike a blow to the freedom of the press, affecting the dissemination of information and undermining the public good. Kitabc12345 (talk) 08:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question This question is related to User:SVTCobra's above (and I apologize if I'm breaking convention with the threading and {{question}} use. I am happy to reformat this entry to conform with norms).

It has always annoyed me that Wikinews is not on the same license as our bigger sibling, Wikipedia. It has, among other things, had the effect of us having to rewrite simple tools, scripts, code for templates, etc. which have already been created on WP.

Can we license tools, scripts, and code for templates different from article content? After all, the final, rendered product of a template for example, is not the template, but HTML formatting. Therefore a Wikinews article is not sharing any template. Based on this understanding, would it be an effective compromise to protect Wikinews articles with a less-restrictive CC-BY and internal tools, scripts, and templates with CC-BY-SA, in-line with Wikipedia?

Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 17:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with this viewpoint; this solution is very sound. Kitabc12345 (talk) 08:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sum up per march 2024

I have tried to sum up the wiews:

  • 2 users (3 if you include me) think Wikinews should follow the same license as the other Wiki-projects (Justin and Ash Thawley).
  • 5 users think that Wikinews should NOT change to BY-SA but stay with BY (Xbspiro, Heavy Water, Michael.C.Wright, Base and Kitabc12345)
  • 1 user is against the update from 2.5 to 4.0 (Base)
  • 4 users possibly 6 (or 7 if you include me) think Wikinews should (perhaps) upgrade to 4.0 (Michael.C.Wright said yes, Xbspiro and Kitabc12345 said yes if all WN update, Heavy Water said yes to study update, Justin and Ash Thawley said yes to 4.0 but also SA)

So does you agree that the result is "Yes, WN upgrade to CC-BY-4.0 if the the other WN also upgrade"?

If that is the result then next step is to find out if the other WN would also change license. That raises 2 questions:

  1. How do we find out if WN update - is it a vote on meta or is it a post on every WN?
  2. If it is a post on every WN should there be a yes on all WN or is it okay if one or a few smaller WN says no or ignore the post?

--MGA73 (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need someone to conclude on this discussion. Can we agree that the result is WN should upgrade from cc-by-2.5 to cc-by-4.0 but it should be done on all versions of WN?
If yes how is it implemented? Do we need a vote on meta? --MGA73 (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone? --MGA73 (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we should upgrade from 2.5 to 4.0. However, I have no clue how to break the deadlock of inaction. We have a number of things we should be taking action on that we are instead endlessly mulling over.
I'm willing to help however I can. Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 15:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can get behind an upgrade to by-4.0. A.S. Thawley (talk) (calendar) 19:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review and Admin fast track, to reinvigorate English Wikinews

There was discussion about the review process being broken, over at Wikinews:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions. The suggestion was made to split the conversation off elsewhere, and I see no evidence that this was done, so I'm doing it.

When I was a high schooler, I had first period off one year. I would kill time in the library, and so I asked for sysops privileges. I received them, almost instantly. The thinking at the time was that being an admin was no big deal. If you were wrong in your judgements, another sysops could revert you, and if needed, your special status could always be revoked.

I became an early contributor to Wikinews, with my first article dated to November 16, 2004, just eight days after the project's launch. For years, things would be published almost instantly after they were submitted, unless they had substantial issues. But increasingly things I'd submit would get lost in a jumble, and marked stale. This included original reporting, enough so that I substantially left the project.

I feel Wikinews needs to add five admins and five reviewers, minimum, in the hopes that one remains active over the medium term. If the people chosen end up making bad calls, that's the learning process. If they end up making really bad calls, okay, we remove the status. This is a wiki, everything is revertable. But more than likely, the people given these extra responsibilities will be a-okay.

Thoughts? -- Zanimum (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. There's a major personnel shortage here, and it's not going to get better with the current system. Handing out admin and reviewer like the titles are irreversible and made of solid gold isn't going to do anything to improve the mess this place has found itself in. Anyone able to help out should be vetted, sure, but then they should be allowed to help. The situation as-is is entirely unsustainable, as the last few months have proven. A.S. Thawley (talk) (calendar) 09:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging in Asheiou (t · c · b), MathXplore (t · c · b), Habst (t · c · b), Heavy Water (t · c · b), Michael.C.Wright (t · c · b), Bawolff (t · c · b), who all commented on the previous thread. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This wiki has become silly. A bunch of rules with no one left for the rules to be enforced against. Somewhere along the way we've lost the path. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Too few reviewers' has been a complaint for years. 2022,2020 This is the chronic problem I referred to recently.[4]
I propose the following scheme:
  • No immediate approval for elevated privileges
  • A new {{pre-review}} template that has three possible statuses:    In progress (default),    Recommend publish, or    Not ready. The only parameters for this template can be 1, 2, or 3
  • Anyone can perform pre-review by starting a new section in the article's collaboration page titled "Pre-review" followed by {{pre-review}}
    • Articles that have the status    Recommend publish can be more-quickly reviewed by an existing reviewer
    • Reviewers will learn which pre-reviewers leave good notes for them and demonstrate the ability to improve articles prior to publication.
    • Articles that have the status    Not ready will have the {{review}} template changed by the pre-reviewer to {{develop}} for changes to be made (saving reviewers time)
    • Authors are thus incentivized to do more of their own copy editing if their articles contain obvious and easy-to-fix errors that cause them to fail pre-review.
  • Pre-reviewers are required to use the {{tasks}} template as well as clear notes in the collaboration page.
    • Links to policy with explanations indicate a proficient pre-reviewer.
    • Links to previous precedent and examples indicate a proficient pre-reviewer.
    • This also informs new authors/users of our policies.
Existing reviewers and admins can at any time initiate a vote for elevated privileges for a pre-reviewer based on their demonstrated ability to pre-review. The voting process has a defined time-limit, after which only a simple majority out of ≥ 3 admin and/or reviewers is needed to grant elevated privileges.
Any reviewer or admin can at any time initiate a vote of "no confidence" in the scheme itself. That process too has a defined time-limit, after which only a simple majority out of ≥ 3 admin and/or reviewers is needed to end the scheme.
Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 16:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not entirely disagree with everything I'm reading here. The 'pre-review' idea might have a pinch of merit. But:once again, we find ourselves quacking about over things that matter little, while spending minimal time on things that REALLY matter, namely: Getting the news, submitting the news, editing the news and publishing the news. That is what we are supposed to be about at this place. Let's try not to move too speedily on this just yet. We need a period of contemplation on this -- but I like the discussion on-the-whole. So, quite seriously: Who wants to become a Reviewer in the near future?--Bddpaux (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would volunteer to help. There needs to be some sort of plan or system in place to help on-board people and make the process as smooth and effective as possible. A scheme like the one I've proposed could serve dual purposes: assisting current reviewers in evaluating aspiring reviewers and offering aspiring reviewers an opportunity to immerse themselves in the intricacies of the role. In a way saying to new reviewers; if you want it, this is what it takes. Are you still interested? I think the review process is completely different from writing a good article. Though it requires that ability as a foundation.
I guess I'm trying to err on the side of fewer reviewers to prevent too many who just want the title and a new userbox. I also see little value in retreading discussions that have been had for years. A news provider needs to be both nimble and thoughtful, intentional, and deliberate. -- Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 13:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As stated in my review request, I'd be happy to help out. I'm just coming out of my health slump so I should be around more soon. I'm starting on en-wiki with small edits to get my footing again and build up a bit. I'm going to reapproach AILSHA to ask some questions about some of the more recent things she's been doing since Eurovision. A.S. Thawley (talk) (calendar) 16:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would totally support this, however I think there should be some requirements for pre-review, if for nothing other than preventing vandalism, nonsense, and people with absolutely no idea what they are doing. Maybe something like:
1.5 published articles. This would be so that they have at last some idea of what passes a review, and some idea of our policies on how to write articles.
2.Autoconfirmed. To prevent vandalism, and users who don't know anything about Wikinews. In reality most people meeting the first requirement would meet the second.
I think maybe would could have it so that these people could review pending changes as well. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opt in global sysops?

Although this wiki will soon meet the automatic criteria to opt in global sysops, I would like to propose that the English Wikinews becomes a global sysop wiki.

As a steward dealing with anti-abuse I've noticed that this wiki gets a lot of vandalism, spam etc., but has little admin support to deal with it. Out of fifteen administrators on this wiki, only four of them have edited in the last month, and out of those four, only two have taken admin actions this month, and only one in the last week.

Looking in Category:Speedy deletion, there are 320 (!) pages nominated for speedy deletion, and many vandalism/spam pages which have been sitting undeleted for months. With the current situation here, having global sysops being able to help would be a benefit. We have many active global sysops in multiple different time zones who are active and able to quickly act when needed.

Keep in mind that global sysops are only allowed to use their tools for anti-vandalism/anti-spam purposes; other actions are outside of global sysops' scope, and global sysops do not interfere with the content side or other unrelated areas of the project. EPIC (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I often work with EPIC and have found they respond quickly and effectively to cross-wiki abuse. Their help (and other's) for local vandals would be greatly appreciated. Speaking of vandalism, have you see your user page here @EPIC? ツ —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 17:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have actually not, but I'm surprised it's been up for over a month now. Well, you see my point here. EPIC (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 100%! I am SO EXHAUSTED dealing with vandalism... it drags this project down! Silly question, though: Global sysops will know/learn/understand what constitutes vandalism here, right? ...not just someone who is off to a rocky start on what may be a good news article.--Bddpaux (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a reasonable question actually, but yes - it shouldn't be a problem for global sysops to tell what is obvious vandalism and what is just a new user unfamiliar with local practices, especially since this is an English wiki and language barriers aren't as much of an issue here, unlike with other GS wikis. And like mentioned, global sysops should not be using their tools to get around the local procedures for becoming a local administrator, but should be following what is allowed within GS scope. EPIC (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I generally agree that global sysops can be trusted, but please note that not all global sysops have experiences at Wikinews, and not all languages have their own Wikinews edition. I would like to welcome the global sysops, but I also believe that borderline cases should be handled by our local admins/reviewers or a global sysop who has sufficient experience in any version of Wikinews. MathXplore (talk) 01:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 to this one, I have no problems trusting global sysops to clean up vandalism and spam, but like mentioned, other maintenance work outside of that scope, and, like you mentioned, borderline cases, should be left to local administrators. EPIC (talk) 03:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but can you clarify the automatic criteria to opt in the global sysops? Where is the documentation? MathXplore (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I absolutely can; as per m:Global sysops#Scope, if the wiki has fewer than ten admins or fewer than three admins having taken an admin action in the past two months, it will be eligible to become a GS wiki. Of course there can be exceptions to this, such as if the wiki has previously voted to opt out global sysops, in which case an opt-in discussion will be required. This is not the case for enwikinews (it was automatically opted out when the GS wiki set was created), but I opened the discussion here anyway to see the community's opinion. EPIC (talk) 00:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I have read that documentation before, but I didn't notice that it means the automatic criteria to opt in the global sysops. Thank you for the information. MathXplore (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technical

Page last updated: Saturday 25 at 0836 UTC.      

Refresh Refresh this page  

post


2009 
2010 
2011 
2012 
2013 
2014 
2015 
2016 
2017 
2018 
2019 
2020 
2021 
2022 



LiquidThreads deprecation

Hello everyone

As you might already know, the Wikimedia Foundation works on changes to how IP editing is handled: IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation. Temporary accounts for unregistered editors will be a new type of user account. This requires changing how all the features we use to contribute to the wikis' work. This impacts LiquidThreads (LQT), used at your wiki.

LiquidThreads is a talk pages feature that is not developed since 2014. Only 5 wikis use this extension. As a consequence, we take the opportunity of the work on temporary accounts to remove LQT from the wikis.

Discussion tools are the replacement for LQT. They are the default discussion system at all wikis. They allow anyone to start, reply or subscribe to a conversation. They provide a visual experience on wikitext-based conversations, and they offer more features than LiquidThreads.

The goal with this conversation is to respond to your questions regarding the archival of LiquidThreads.

The idea is to proceed in two stages:

  1. discussion pages using LQT are archived as subpages. The pages left blank are replaced by a classic discussion page. In this way, the most active pages will already be ready when we proceed to step 2:
  2. LQT are removed from the wiki. Existing pages (including archived ones) will be converted to a format yet to be defined.

We have a few questions for your community:

  1. Are the reasons given for removing LiquidThreads clear?
  2. Are the two steps outlined above for archiving and uninstalling LiquidThreads clear?
  3. If so, what is a reasonable timeframe for archiving pages for deinstallation? At present, deinstallation is not planned on our side (even if the second quarter of 2024 is mentioned).
  4. In your opinion, what format should pages currently using LQT be converted to when we proceed with the deinstallation of structured discussions?

If you need clarification, please ask! I've subscribed to this section, and I'll try to answer as soon as possible.

Best, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Yes
  2. Yes
  3. I don't know: are there many actual talk pages using this feature here? Poking thru Category:Wikinews:Commentary pages on news events, I don't actually see any pages that are formatted in LiquidThreads style. Okay, now I do: Comments:'Criminal in a police uniform' given eleven years jail for role in English drugs gang.
  4. Why can't they just be standard wikitext? If there are more than [x] kilobytes of Liquid Threads, then move them to "[foo]/Archive 1".
—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Justin.
Regarding point 3, there is no talk page using it now. We can directly proceed on the conversion (which first has to be made).
For point 4, some users can sometimes be creative. We had a suggestion to have contents converted a non-editable page HTML page for example. But the question is mostly on where these contents should be posted; your "[foo]/Archive 1" example is actually the most common one suggested. Trizek (WMF) (talk) 09:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I may be mistaken, but I believe all of the pages in our Opinion (Commentary) tab rely on LQT in part, if not entirely. SVTCobra 11:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SVTCobra: see the link in my comment above. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll amend that to "all pages after LiquidThreads was adopted". SVTCobra 11:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Needless to say, many commentary pages have no content at all and can just be deleted or could be amended to remove {{Commentary/LQT}}{{#useliquidthreads:1}} and then automatically converted to wikitext and deleted. E.g. Comments:England: West Midlands region floods amid heavy rain, high winds. A bot or an AWB run can do this pretty efficiently. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And furthermore, just a cursory glance at the commentaries shows crankery and off-topic noise like Comments:'Expelled' fair use upheld is semi-common. :/ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our review tools automatically create a Commentary page in LiquidThreads style whenever we publish a new article. We may need User:Bawolff to look at this. SVTCobra 11:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Heavens!!

How the heck do I email a User from their User page?! Can't find it in the 'Tools' section on the left!--Bddpaux (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone has the option turned on. Go to Special:EmailUser/foo (e.g. Special:EmailUser/Koavf or Special:EmailUser/Bddpaux). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it! I knew that, but FORGOT I knew it!--Bddpaux (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals

Page last updated: Saturday 25 at 0836 UTC.      

Refresh Refresh this page  

Archive


2009 
2010 
2011 
2012 
2013 
2014 
2015 
2016 
2017 
2018 
2019 
2020 
2021 
2022 




Hi, I wish propose a new logo for Wikinews, more modern, more respecting the graphical charter of WM. Here's the images :

Icon
Logo
Wordmark

. I removed the continents to leave only the meridians and parallels. Regards, Manjiro5 (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the "graphical charter" of Wikimedia is, but I like the current logo better. It's old, but it doesn't look dated to me, and I like having the continents there. Also, I don't know if changing the logo would take consensus from all Wikinews editions (and the WMF might wish to meddle). Heavy Water (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Heavy Water Hi, thank you for your answer ;-) I have already made the proposal here and on wnfr. And I will offer other languages ​​on Wikinews later. I could perhaps make a Meta page for this proposal, so that all Wikinews journalists and readers of all languages ​​can give their opinion, without me having to use a translate tool. Have a nice day. Regards, Manjiro5 (talk) 08:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My two cents: I like your proposed new logo more than the current logo. I would support such a change were it ever to come to a vote. Pecopteris (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pecopteris Hi, thank you very much for your answer ^^ I will potentially create a Meta-wiki page where it will be possible to vote for a brand new logo. Have a good day ;-) Regards, Manjiro5 (talk) 09:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't like the trend of flattening the logo, which many brands seem to do. I like this logo more and I feel this new proposed logo removes the rich character the current logo has and I don't even see why it would be necessary.
2401:4900:1F29:679A:5DF8:3314:62E:A4D0 (talk) 05:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, if you would like to give your opinion on my proposal, please go to the following page: meta:Requests for comment/Change the logo of the Wikinews project Cordially, Manjiro5 (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Manjiro5: It seems that the emerging consensus is that your proposed logo alternative lacks a bit of sophistication, for lack of better wording. The current logo has more colour, more details, and universally recognisable elements in it. Your proposal reminds of what computer program icons looked like 30 years ago when graphics cards only supported 8-bit colours, and I think with modern hardware and software, we can (and should) do better than that. ArticCynda (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance

Page last updated: Saturday 25 at 0836 UTC.      

Refresh Refresh this page  

Archive


2009 
2010 
2011 
2012 
2013 
2014 
2015 
2016 
2017 
2018 
2019 
2020 
2021 
2022 



Sitting in review for long periods of time

I know many reviewers are busy in real life but WikiNews needs help to avoid stale articles. Many good recent stories are ending up stale or abandoned. Thank you for your time. BigKrow (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous

Page last updated: Saturday 25 at 0836 UTC.      

Refresh Refresh this page  

Archive


2009 
2010 
2011 
2012 
2013 
2014 
2015 
2016 
2017 
2018 
2019 
2020 
2021 
2022 


Tech News: 2024-17

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

Changes later this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 23 April. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 24 April. It will be on all wikis from 25 April (calendar). [6][7]

Future changes

  • This is the last warning that by the end of May 2024 the Vector 2022 skin will no longer share site and user scripts/styles with old Vector. For user-scripts that you want to keep using on Vector 2022, copy the contents of Special:MyPage/vector.js to Special:MyPage/vector-2022.js. There are more technical details available. Interface administrators who foresee this leading to lots of technical support questions may wish to send a mass message to your community, as was done on French Wikipedia. [8]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 20:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Dear all,

I am writing to you to let you know the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open now through May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 20:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to leave an opinion

I do not visit Wikinews very often. One of the reasons is that things seem to be broken here a lot. Today I tried to leave an opinion at:

but it looks like the system swallowed my post, sigh..

Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ottawahitech works fine for me.... Hmmm. BigKrow (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BigKrow, Interesting.
btw while you were leaving your opinion on the article above, I discovered another related post at:Wikinews:Water cooler/technical#LiquidThreads deprecation.
Cheers, and I am really out of here for now, Ottawahitech (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-18

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

Screenshot of the visual improvements made on talk pages
Example of a talk page with the new design, in French.

Problems

  • Kartographer maps can use an alternative visual style without labels, by using mapstyle="osm". This wasn't working in previews, creating the wrong impression that it wasn't supported. This has now been fixed. [18]

Changes later this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 30 April. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 1 May. It will be on all wikis from 2 May (calendar). [19][20]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 03:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the Campaign Trail ...

Would there be any interest if I resumed the On the Campaign Trail series as I've done since the 2008 US presidential election? Pizero usually reviewed those and they were quite daunting to review. So what I'm asking is, without Pizero around, is there anyone here who would be willing to take on such a project? Thanks. William S. Saturn (talk) 07:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William S. Saturn: That would be excellent. I can't promise the level of quality in a review that he could, but I'd be happy to take this on. Thanks for your great work over the years. Heavy Water (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-19

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

Screenshot of the visual improvements made on talk pages
Example of a talk page with the new design, in French.
  • The appearance of talk pages changed for all wikis, except for Commons, Wikidata and most Wikipedias (a few have already received this design change). You can read the detail of the changes on Diff. It is possible to opt-out these changes in user preferences ("Show discussion activity"). The deployment will happen at remaining wikis in the coming weeks. [21][22]
  • Interface admins now have greater control over the styling of article components on mobile with the introduction of the SiteAdminHelper. More information on how styles can be disabled can be found at the extension's page. [23]
  • Wikimedia Enterprise has added article body sections in JSON format and a curated short description field to the existing parsed Infobox. This expansion to the API is also available via Wikimedia Cloud Services. [24]

Changes later this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 7 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 8 May. It will be on all wikis from 9 May (calendar). [25][26]
  • When you look at the Special:Log page, the first view is labelled "All public logs", but it only shows some logs. This label will now say "Main public logs". [27]

Future changes

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 16:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-20

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • On Wikisource there is a special page listing pages of works without corresponding scan images. Now you can use the new magic word __EXPECTWITHOUTSCANS__ to exclude certain pages (list of editions or translations of works) from that list. [29]
  • If you use the user-preference "Show preview without reloading the page", then the template-page feature "Preview page with this template" will now also work without reloading the page. [30]
  • Kartographer maps can now specify an alternative text via the alt= attribute. This is identical in usage to the alt= attribute in the image and gallery syntax. An exception for this feature is wikis like Wikivoyage where the miniature maps are interactive. [31]
  • The old Guided Tour for the "New Filters for Edit Review" feature has been removed. It was created in 2017 to show people with older accounts how the interface had changed, and has now been seen by most of the intended people. [32]

Changes later this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 14 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 15 May. It will be on all wikis from 16 May (calendar). [33][34]
  • The Special:Search results page will now use CSS flex attributes, for better accessibility, instead of a table. If you have a gadget or script that adjusts search results, you should update your script to the new HTML structure. [35]

Future changes

  • In the Vector 2022 skin, main pages will be displayed at full width (like special pages). The goal is to keep the number of characters per line large enough. This is related to the coming changes to typography in Vector 2022. Learn more. [36]
  • Two columns of the pagelinks database table (pl_namespace and pl_title) are being dropped soon. Users must use two columns of the new linktarget table instead (lt_namespace and lt_title). In your existing SQL queries:
    1. Replace JOIN pagelinks with JOIN linktarget and pl_ with lt_ in the ON statement
    2. Below that add JOIN pagelinks ON lt_id = pl_target_id

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 23:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sign up for the language community meeting on May 31st, 16:00 UTC

Hello all,

The next language community meeting is scheduled in a few weeks - May 31st at 16:00 UTC. If you're interested, you can sign up on this wiki page.

This is a participant-driven meeting, where we share language-specific updates related to various projects, collectively discuss technical issues related to language wikis, and work together to find possible solutions. For example, in the last meeting, the topics included the machine translation service (MinT) and the languages and models it currently supports, localization efforts from the Kiwix team, and technical challenges with numerical sorting in files used on Bengali Wikisource.

Do you have any ideas for topics to share technical updates related to your project? Any problems that you would like to bring for discussion during the meeting? Do you need interpretation support from English to another language? Please reach out to me at ssethi(__AT__)wikimedia.org and add agenda items to the document here.

We look forward to your participation!


MediaWiki message delivery 21:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-21

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. [39]
  • New changes have been made to the UploadWizard in Wikimedia Commons: the overall layout has been improved, by following new styling and spacing for the form and its fields; the headers and helper text for each of the fields was changed; the Caption field is now a required field, and there is an option for users to copy their caption into the media description. [40][41]

Changes later this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 21 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 22 May. It will be on all wikis from 23 May (calendar). [42][43]
  • The HTML used to render all headings is being changed to improve accessibility. It will change on 22 May in some skins (Timeless, Modern, CologneBlue, Nostalgia, and Monobook). Please test gadgets on your wiki on these skins and report any related problems so that they can be resolved before this change is made in all other skins. The developers are also considering the introduction of a Gadget API for adding buttons to section titles if that would be helpful to tool creators, and would appreciate any input you have on that.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 23:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback invited on Procedure for Sibling Project Lifecycle

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Dear community members,

The Community Affairs Committee (CAC) of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees invites you to give feedback on a draft Procedure for Sibling Project Lifecycle. This draft Procedure outlines proposed steps and requirements for opening and closing Wikimedia Sibling Projects, and aims to ensure any newly approved projects are set up for success. This is separate from the procedures for opening or closing language versions of projects, which is handled by the Language Committee or closing projects policy.

You can find the details on this page, as well as the ways to give your feedback from today until the end of the day on June 23, 2024, anywhere on Earth.

You can also share information about this with the interested project communities you work with or support, and you can also help us translate the procedure into more languages, so people can join the discussions in their own language.

On behalf of the CAC,

RamzyM (WMF) 02:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Water_cooler&oldid=1026901"