text:
Wikinews talk:Original reporting

Historical discussion
I'm a bit confused as to what you really mean by original reporting? From my own point of view, original reporting is a first-hand account of what is really happening. That's what I learned from my many years of experience in the field. To generate news that have original details and facts, any reporter must get to the immediate sources. These can be done by conducting an exclusive interview, ambush interview or simply attending a press conference, wherein some information kits are distributed by the organizers during the conference. From these materials, any reporter can extract new angles or slants that can be turned into a newsworthy materials. If the reporter wants to expound the new angle that he has, he can perhaps, make some researches related to the subject he is writing about. He may have three or four sources, especially if the new slant is turned into a good feature story, where you must put color in it.

Another option to compose an original report is to find corporate reports like annual, quarterly or monthly reports on the company or organization's performance during a certain period. Just to cite an example, I do believe that registered corporations are required to submit periodic reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). From these reports, any reporter may have a chance to get or secure a copy of said reports and may have the option to use the facts and details either by paraphrasing or simply quoting them, as contained in the submitted reports because they are already public documents. The same holds true with any government offices across America that has official websites. Sometimes, they use these websites to post their official reports, including messages from their bosses. Perhaps, it is only fitting that researches on certain topics should be considered in the category of original reporting. To me, a good writer or enterprising reporter, may be able to generate new ideas or angles on topics that are not covered yet in the mainstream media by just doing researches on the library or the Internet. Of course, the author must cite proper sources to make it more reliable in the eyes of the readers. Alsojerat117 3:25P.M., June 12, 2007 (UTC)

What criteria are we going to use for original reporting? Anything that might make the town's rag newspaper, or events of more than local significance? (<-- posted by Kmweber)

 * Thanks for asking. I'm wondering how to apply this policy as well. I'm looking for some constructive examples of original reporting that are within reach of a "citizen journalist".

 * If Wikinews is to qualify as "the press", original reporting has to be in the mix, otherwise isn't Wikinews just a blog or a news aggregator with no real news product of its own?

 * However, I'm somewhat at a loss as to how I could obtain an interview with anyone who has recently done something noteworthy enough for a national or international audience. Why should anyone in such a position give an amatuer reporter the time of day?

 * As for witnessing something extraordinary to provide a firsthand account, the odds of that seem fairly low. I saw an SUV flip over and create a big accident on the interstate the other day, but that's about the most noteworthy thing I've personally witnessed since the big march up in San Francisco around the time the Iraq war started.
 * Because there will over time be heaps and heaps of people using Wikinews the chances of somebody being on the scene of something interesting (even something of major international importance) becomes very high, one day it might even be you! Plus as for the more local/national importance, perhaps you aren't seeing things in the right light? Was a bike courier last year and I'd be seeing things of interest happening all around me all the time. Just most of the time I was too busy working to be reporting! Although many times I did still stop working for long enough to give chase to criminals... ;p Mathmo 19:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Also, NPOV would seem to exclude any original "research", wouldn't it?

 * On a more positive note, I like the "Science news column" idea. Could the "column" concept be extended to reporting about technical breakthroughs demonstrated by local companies, or as seen at a convention? Of course, there is a line in the sand between "big picture" tech reporting versus the easier path of rewriting new product announcements and press releases masquerading as objective news reports. A number of tech news outlets are guilty of sometimes taking the latter path for a variety of reasons.

 * I want to contribute original reporting, but I need some specific examples of original reporting by a citizen journalist that I can try to emulate.

 * — DV 12:11, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Here is an example underway: I have taken two media releases with conflicting points of view, and tried to obtain clarification for the actual situation by emailing a government minister's department. So far they haven't had time to reply, if they never reply, the story may end with 'The minister declined to comment.' or something similar. But I hope this demonstrates that it's easy to generate new material for articles without even leaving your desk. ;)

 * I have started documenting possible policy/guidelines for authors at Original reporting.

 * Regarding scope of articles that should be published here, personally I encourage any article which is likely to get readers or new authors/editors onto the site. The internet is infiniate in scope, why should Wikinews be any different?

 * Don't underrate the popularity of your own home basketball team or whatever it is that interests you. And don't underrate the willingness of others to help you develop an interesting article - we will demand it! But unless you post, we don't know you are interested in writing. Even if you can't see anything greatly interesting about your chosen topic, if you just get started, people will often ask interesting questions that give you ideas.

 * Not many people have ever seen a car flip on the highway! And you can always look up local notice-boards for activities that other people are doing, and cover those. Just go along with a camera and a notebook, and even if you're scared at first to talk to people, you can give an outsider's view, which is what most of us are to most events, so instantly you have resonance with your audience. ;)  Simeon 12:38, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * The other option is to write about thinks you're at the source of. Like posting a press release to the wikipedia. This keeps the barrier to entry low, though it doesn't qualify as NPOV without some reviewing/rewriting. 192.44.76.8

What does Original Reporting require?
I'm a little confused to exactaly what original reporting requires. Must you get an interview for it to be original reporting? There's a lot of news that happens on the web, and I think we could be in a great spot to get in on that. News for Google has released its next big thing, or that Paris's next great video can be found on creative commons. Its still news, and the reporting would be original in that we're not getting it off other people's reports.

The other confusion is if you use websites as reference material. I'm currently working on a story on a rocket launch that will happen at cape canveral this afternoon. As part of the story, I had to look at the builder of the rocket's website and the user of the satellite's website. Neither of these are other news services, so is that original reporting? How about if I get information off a press relase on one of the above mentioned sites? Is reporting on something given in a press release original?

Finally, when this thing goes off, I'm going to watch the webcast and take notes. Its a webcast with an anchor, but I wouldn't call it a news service since it's a commercial (lockheed) webcast. Teeks99 18:13, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * This is my personal interpretation of original reporting, but in my opinion original reporting involves collecting information first-hand about a specific news item, integrating and organizing the information, and writing it up.
 * Using your example of the rocket launch, source material (from the non-news websites) is part of the research for an article. Using a press release (so long as you are not merely paraphrasing it) as a source can also be a part of original reporting. You should also consider reference materials such as books, journals, and other traditional references. Multi-media sources, interviews, and e-mails are all additional resource you may want to consider.
 * There is a convention at Wikinews to consider supporting material in three forms: Sources, which are material which might move/change from the time the article is published (a person's opinion, a website page, etc.), References which are fixed and can be cited precisely (books, published speeches, periodical articles), and Notes which are source documents (e-mails, transcriptions or recordings of interviews, etc). All three may be used to support original reporting. - Amgine 19:01, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I think Original Reporting means incorporating material that you got from some source other than something that was published. A company web site, a press relesae, a book — all are published and should appear in sources. However, if you talk to someone, are an eyewitness to something, read something that is not directly verifiable via the web or a book store or a magazine stand, you're doing original reporting.

 * In your case: watching a webcast could be original reporting if the webcast is not archived and others can't watch it and verify that what you reported was correct. If it's archived, it's probably not original reporting under my definition, at least. I suppose in some cases the lines are fuzzy. -- IlyaHaykinson 19:09, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * One thing that really strikes me me when looking at the wikinews frontpage right now is that almost all the articles are about goverments doing this or that. I think it is really important to always try to get the "human interest" angle on all stories where this is appopriate, and try to focus on how you and I change the world, opposed to what George does. I would recomment reading or listening to some of Robert Zinns stuff, like "Howard Zinn - A People's History of the United States", where he always twist historical moments and turns to focus on the individual (like malcolm x). This really makes the stories hit the reader harder, and explains why this particular piece of news is important. -- Mskogly 21:47, 2 april 2005

Creating original reporting resources
We should begin building both a collection of tutorials and a selection of useful online learning resources and tools.

These need to go somewhere else, not hidden on a discussion page like this. I can't do it right now, but someone please do. - Simeon 05:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I've copied most of them to the project page, at least until a better spot is found. Maurreen 17:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Complete resources
There are actually quite a few sites which address journalism en toto. Here are a selection which Wikinews contributors find useful:
 * Journalism Tools
 * Editor's bookmarks
 * Poynter Institute for Media Studies
 * http://highschooljournalism.org

Interviews
How tos, tips and tricks, tools to sharpen your interviews and make them more effective:
 * Ten Tips for a Better Interview

Copyright Issues
The article says, "Because Wikinews content is public domain (anyone is allowed to copy), you should advise all correspondents that you wish to publish their replies, and can they please agree to publish them in the public domain. Ask in advance, because it's polite, and it's not easy to persuade someone after they spill the beans!". I understand that would apply for written interviews(i.e. email, IM, snail mail), but that is not necessary for verbal ones. I believe that for something to be copyrighted, it must be put into fixed form(i.e. ink, electronic rearrangement, pencil), rather than merely spoken. What do others think? Superm401 17:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. That section of the policy needs to be changed.  Direct quotes from people are not copyright infringements - the government uses quotes in their documents all the time. -- NGerda 17:42, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Authorship / Blasphemy / Idea
Perhaps for original reporting, it would be appropriate to retain the original author's name (and maybe contact information) with the article. The other wikinewsies would then act as editors / commentors / etc., as usual. It would, of course, need to be clear that the named author still agrees to all the normal wiki non-copyrighted stipulations. This would allow several things: 1) something of a glory incentive for reporters who get a scoop, and 2) a contact and name if the original reporting is suspect. News outlets could remove the author's name later if they wanted (it's public domain text after all). ~Alan G., Aug 10. (was not signed)
 * Well, not public domain: actually, creative commons "by", version 2.5. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ 189.12.121.47 16:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that differs a lot from the current situation: now, you can write something among the lines of "Wikinews reporter XYZ interviewed Mr. President about...", which is still a glory incentive. If there are suspicions about an original work, the author is contacted and asked for clarification on the talk page, or else the article is not published.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A byline is subtle though, while "Wikinews reporter Joshua Sherurcij interviewed..." is not. Sherurcij refusing to add Original Reporting until PD Articles are allowed'' 15:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that a byline should be established. This would accomplish two goals: it would make Wikinews make more sense to the outside world; seeing original reporting without a byline is weird, and very much outside the mainstream. And, as stated above, it would be a bit of incentive for people to do original reporting, and to do it well. And we could certainly use the incentive! -Peteforsyth (talk) 05:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Accreditation
Shouldn't this section be changed? Am guessing this was written before accredditation, but seeing I only just created an account here I'll refrain for now from the normal "be bold" that I'd do on wiki. :p

"Since Wikinews has no formal approval process for authors, when contacting sources, you must represent yourself as an independent author/researcher, not as a 'representative' of Wikinews. You may of course inform the source where you are planning to publish, but please ensure they understand in this case that your own views and activities are not representative of anyone else who uses Wikinews, nor does the reputation of Wikinews, or lack of reputation of Wikinews, reflect on yourself. It is an open, public news forum, with transitory quality control, at best." Mathmo 19:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I was just about to ask this myself. --  Zanimum 15:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Standards for OR
Seeing things like "I just watched the press conference on TV" leading to an OR-tag on an article left me wondering if maybe this page should include a "definition" of what constitutes OR on Wikinews. Sherurcij refusing to add Original Reporting until PD Articles are allowed'' 15:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Movie 'The Assassination of Jesse James' leaked on the internet would be a nice example of a misused "Original reporting" tag. Original reporting doesn't mean you're mentioning that you noticed a pirated movie online - it means you phoned Warner Brothers and got a comment from them, you sent the forum an eMail asking them to defend their display of the file - you asked an intellectual property lawyer to comment on the case.  Not "zomg, I wrote an article" Sherurcij 01:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The definition I've been using for original reporting is reporting using original source material. This means media releases, company websites, interviews, and observations -- pretty much anything except for stuff produced by another news agency. An example is this article: Australian government approves Tasmanian pulp mill. We should be discouraging the use of other news agencies as sources. - Borofkin 11:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Who gets sued?
(this is an example, not real) Wikinews published a story about me - saying I admitted to liking to having sex with goats. Who get's sued? if the ip is an unresolvable IP, is the foundation responsible as the publisher? --87.113.4.254 00:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not a lawyer, but I do believe that this general disclaimer is intended to answer your question. --SVTCobra 00:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought that authors were basically responsible for things they write, like anybody is responsible for what they say in public places. The foundation is especially well protected from getting sued (simply because that's were our money is, and we want to keep the servers running). The foundation is not the publisher but merely provides the hardware, and it won a lawsuit in France where it was shown that the foundation is not responsible for the content. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 09:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

OR and sources...
If an article is OR, why the external sources (e.g. news organization) should be added? I don't think so. Although it's witnessed by the 1st person? Brock contact... 14:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Confusing
This is a particularly confusing policy page, emphasis on "talking to sources" section. It took a thorough reading even to get the real gist of it. I believe that this policy needs to be simplified to the point were it is understandable, and not rambling. The Mind's Eye (talk) 03:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Umm, didn't seem that bad to me. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I sympathise: at a second glance it looks like the paragraphs about identifying yourself should be grouped together. Specifically which part of "talking to sources" confused you? --InfantGorilla (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I need some answers
I didnt want to delete that but you people always seem to have some problem with the content in it even after lots of deletion and and trying not to be as biased as possible, but here we are facing real life situation, a real life problem and on wikinews we are just giving an insight to the whole situation and the aftermath of the article which got published in Gulf News and Notes with different headings. What i want is an actual answer, you want sources, i gave the sources and exactly what are we suppose to write here on wikinews? its not only breaking news should get chance for publication, is this not news? is this not related to the people, is news not meant to be heard by the people, in other words the truth. i'm ready to co-operate, but i'm not getting suggestions from you guys, you are pointing the mistake, like biasness but not telling which part is biased, haven't i mentioned the positive points of the college? please let me know because i want to re-write the article but this time i need your help so that it meets your requirements. Please reply me as soon as possible waiting for your earliest reply. Thanks a lot Syedatif (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

 * I read the now deleted article you wrote and I have to say it suffered from several problems. First, it wasn't news, it was a blog post. Second, you quoted people, but we had no way of verifying what they said. Third, your balancing of the article to add positive points about the place didn't removed the very nasty things you had to say about the place, which again we couldn't verify. All told, Wikinews doesn't seem to be place for this article. Have you tried Blogger? If you set up a blog, you can say what you like and get the feedback you requested. Don't let this put you off Wikinews or wikis in general: the majority of people don't get far with their first post to a wiki because of content rules they can't get their material to conform to (in that respect, Wikinews does better than Wikipedia, but both do have standards). Redvers (talk) 07:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * [I replied on the user's talk page, but leaving a note here as he seems to imply he's watching this page]. Also to any admins reading this, for the context see here. Bawolff ☺☻ 07:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Television
If you watch something on the television yourself, live as it happens, does that still count as original reporting? --Rayboy8 (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It can, live television can often be the only source for breaking news. If you are using information that can not be linked to it must be considered OR and have notes posted to go with it. See "Standards for OR" higher up on this page for one of the many past debates on it. --Cspurrier (talk) 20:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Official Wikinews Press Card?
The article talks about leaving "your Wikinews Press Card at home!". Is there an official Wikinews Press Card? If so, where can one obtain this? Sohmc (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, we won't just hand them out like candy. You need to be accredited first and go through a formal accreditation request. And the whole idea of printing ID cards is still in the works. — Mike  moral  ♪♫  15:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * whew!* That's kind of a relief actually. It's good to know there is some sort of accreditation process. Sohmc (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * At the moment I'm working out/trialling a few designs for Accredited Reporter 'business cards'. When the current ARs settle on something they like I'll do a trial print. Should be less than £10 for 50-100. Actual 'secure' cards/passes will cost more for the one. Being able to hand over a card, with credential verification details on the back, is a stopgap. The Wikinews geek squad will be looking at by-phone verification. But, that would be an asterisk-based system to avoid people manning phones. We might get some help from the WMF on that, but I expect we'd have to pay the number rentals. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk • main talk 17:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Broken link in section titled "Reporting basics"
The link to the PBS web site referred to in the article does not work anymore.

Reporting basics Basic Reporting Principles (PDF), from PBS Newshour

Eastavin (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

With that said, thanks for pointing this out! The requested edit is ✅ BRS  (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Reporting on Primary Documentary Source = Original Reporting?
Does a report based on a primary source constitute original reporting? Here are some examples: If the answer to either of these scenarios is "wait for tertiary corroboration by real news outlets" doesn't that mean Wikinews is a news aggregator instead of a news source? Or does it mean WN has determined there is a hierarchy of news outlets and WN sits at the bottom of that hierarchy for credibility and reliability, so much so that it is unable to break news but can only "me too" it? Either is fine, I just want to be clarify the consensus as to the philosophical standards we're employing. LavaBaron (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Notable Person X" issues a press release that is clearly verifiable as originating from "Notable Person X". The content of the release, by its very nature, is newsworthy (i.e. I'm not talking about a patently promotional product launch release, I mean, for instance, Justin Bieber announces he has testicular cancer via a major wire service or his verifiable personal website). Is it incumbent on Wikinews to wait until another news organization first reports on the content of said release, in order to establish two-factor authentication, or does the fact one is reporting based on a primary source establish this report as original reporting (with obvious compositional caveats, such as "according to a statement issued by Justin Bieber, he has testicular cancer" instead of "Justin Bieber has testicular cancer")?
 * I, as a WN contributor, file a FOIA request which causes retrieval of newsworthy documents. Can I report on the content of said documents, or, do I have to provide them to two other news organizations, first wait for them to (maybe) report on them, and then report at WN on other news organizations reporting on my documents (as opposed to reporting on them directly myself)?

 * The difference lies in what the Wikinews reporter contributes to the report. Your second example sounds like OR to me, your first example when lacking a second source doesn't even rise to the level of synthesis.  We don't publish press releases; there's no way to provide neutrality when you're getting all your information from the party who, by the very nature of press releases, is pushing their own view of things.  A good synthesis article does add value because we sort things out and provide a neutral, accurate, and in the best cases especially informative treatment of the story; and those extras that make synthesis worthwhile need multiple mutually independent sources.  Good original reporting, though, also involves going out and getting the information — essentially, legwork.  Data mining, if there's enough involved, can count as OR; for example (pokes around a bit to find it...)
 * It's sometimes hard to know just where to draw the line. When does analysis of a just-released document become OR, and if it isn't OR, how independent do sources need to be to satisfy that requirement for OR?  Coverage of the release of a scientific paper is sometimes difficult because of a lack of timely independent sourcing — though Wikinewsies have sometimes solved that problem by contacting one or more of the scientists involved and producing an interview.  Synthesis based on a scientific paper release does sometimes work out nicely, though, e.g.
 * --Pi zero (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I never suggested WN "publish press releases". Reputable news sources don't "publish press releases" but they do absolutely "source information from press releases". There is a difference between sourcing content to a press release and publishing a press release. In some cases, a person making an official statement is news. The statement itself may not be news, but the fact they have made a statement is news. If Justin Bieber issues an official statement that he has testicular cancer, Justin Bieber making a statement he has testicular cancer is - by point of fact - news (this is different from Justin Bieber having testicular cancer). We only need demonstrate Justin Bieber made the statement, not that he, in fact, has testicular cancer. In this example, there will be no information that a reputable news outlet would report on other than Bieber's statement as they obviously can't enterprise Bieber's medical records or interview his physician. If Gallup Polling announces, via a press release, its latest survey shows Bernie Sanders is 70-points ahead in New York, the fact Gallup Polling - a notable organization - has made this announcement is itself news. To suggest reputable news organizations ignore these types of releases, or only report on them after reviewing the raw data from Gallup themselves, demonstrates an astonishing ignorance of how newsgathering/reporting works.
 * Your second example of scientific journals is also a bit silly. It is pro forma for news outlets to report on the publication of new research that has, itself, been published in a peer-reviewed journal. If a piece of research is published in Journal of the American Medical Association, we can't acknowledge that it has been published or exists until CNN first acknowledges it exists? The article "Of cabbages and things: Dutch researchers study wasp hyperparasitoid" could have simply been sourced to PLOS Biology (if the quotes were eviscerated). It's not necessary to have double-confirmation that PLOS Biology wrote the article in question when anyone can view PLOS Biology and confirm the act (publication) occurred. This is different from reporting on a fire in Detroit where no one can confirm the act (the fire) occurred without viewing it and source double-confirmation would be necessary. Sourcing exists in news reporting to confirm an "act" occurred. A statement or publication are "acts" and can be verified by observation the statement or publication occurred just as much visual observance of a protest would be OR of the "act" of protest. There seems to be a high degree of confusion here regarding very, very basic journalistic M.O.
 * Using these very unlearned and journalistically confused and unexperienced standards appropriate for encylcopedia-building (such as WP), but inappropriate for news gathering, casts WN as a collecting place for news precises. A precis is fine but news sources aren't simply collections of precises. LavaBaron (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * From your response, it appears I misjudged you. Perhaps I'm just too optimistic.  I supposed you wanted to understand better how Wikinews works (and perhaps even why).  Your response suggests you're just bullshitting, though.  I'm not going to waste my time trying to correct misconceptions by someone who's systematically inventing new ones.  --Pi zero (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Using these very unlearned and journalistically confused and unexperienced standards appropriate for encylcopedia-building (such as WP), but inappropriate for news gathering, casts WN as a collecting place for news precises. A precis is fine but news sources aren't simply collections of precises. LavaBaron (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * From your response, it appears I misjudged you. Perhaps I'm just too optimistic.  I supposed you wanted to understand better how Wikinews works (and perhaps even why).  Your response suggests you're just bullshitting, though.  I'm not going to waste my time trying to correct misconceptions by someone who's systematically inventing new ones.  --Pi zero (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Representation and publication
If I want to do original reporting, the policy instructs me to tell a source that I represent myself as independent reporter/researcher, not as part of Wikinews. Then the policy tells me that I can tell a source where such reporting can be published at discretion. If I tell a source that I'm an independent reporter, how am I going to reveal to that person that I'm going to publish one story/interview to Wikinews? --George Ho (talk) 03:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Pinging pi zero. --George Ho (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

 * What is the difficulty? You're an independent reporter, writing an article you hope to publish on Wikinews.  I've seen a slew of variations on the contact.  There are probably a few publicly visible on talk pages here, though admittedly a lot of them are private on the scoop mailing list.  (The only one I was able to lay my hands on quickly is a relatively low-key example.  As I recall, brianmc's first-contact emails tend to mention Wikinews in the first or second sentence; but I don't happen to have an example at my fingertips.)  --Pi zero (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Consent for audio recordings
This page might benefit from informing the reporter that making a recording of someone's voice without their consent may be illegal in addition to against WN policy. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it depends on the country's laws. And might as well qualify for FU in various countries where there is freedom of press. 103.254.128.98 (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

title: Wikinews talk:Original reporting


text:
User:Kmweber

I'm Kurt Weber. I'm the 99th user to sign up at wikinews; additionally, I'm a contributor on wikipedia. Maybe I'll put more here later--direct any specific questions to my talk page.

03:50, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:Kmweber


text:
User:Tomos

meta:User:Tomos

/An_inquiry

I am most active on Japanese Wikipedia.

I value Wikiquette & WikiLove. I am usually more interested in finding some concensus than advocating for my own view. I like to ask questions, suggest solutions, but not to push certain view. I am not very much interested in leading people as a leader, but do not mind at all being a catalyst for a change when time is ripe.

My interests
My interests on this project:
 * Doing some research to improve quality and neutrality of articles.
 * Thinking about how to achieve quality and neutrality.
 * Not so much about writing.
 * Developing relations with other wikimedia projects & others in various ways.

Areas of interest:
 * IT, media, & communication.

Activities (2004)
Writing
 * Lycos Europe ends its anti-spam campaign
 * Near-Earth asteroid 2004 MN4 reaches Torino Scale hazard rating 4

Reviewing
 * Talk:Activists protest against School of the Americas
 * Talk:Ukraine opposition candidate Yushchenko is suffering from a Dioxin intoxication, doctors say
 * Talk:ITMS Canada launched
 * Talk:USL v. BSDi settlement agreement unsealed
 * Talk:Lycos launches screensaver to increase spammers' bills
 * Talk:Time Warner, Sprint close to mobile pact

Editing
 * Science and technology
 * Tsunami Help
 * Categorization of all pages - One day I wanted to fill the "Science and technology" page. I realized that most articles are not categorized, and I did not know what article exist in that category. So I started digging all the articles from various pages. (Now Special:Allpages is functioning, so I am using it. Will be done soon.) I review pages alphabetically, and try to give date, place, and subject categorizes, at least one each. I raise questions in the process, such as potential changes to categories.
 * Gardening - when I find, correct double redirects, give categories to new pages, create "related pages" or "see also" section to refer to Wikinews and Wikipedia's pages on the same topic. I occasionally check copyright violation using google.

Other
I became an administrator recently. Here is my self-description regarding what kind of administrator I would be. Your comments are appreciated regarding if I am keeping the promises.

For those of you who are not familiar with Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, an administrator is a trusted peer. It does not mean I can order something to others or my opinion counts more than others. Administrators are expected to follow community concensus. At least that is my understanding, as well as many others in Wikimedia projects.

For the lack of better place, I appreciate those of you who expressed trust in me when I nominated myself to the administrator. Thank you very much.

title: User:Tomos


text:
Talk:Knight to leave Nike top job

Unbelievable. A business article gets Adbusters mentioned in the third paragraph.

I can't wait for such Wikinews articles as Microsoft Lays Off 400 Mid-Level Managers ("The move is seen as a direct result of Linux being much much better than Winblows") and Wal-Mart Scales Back RFID Investment to $900M from $1B ("The move is a direct result of RFID being an awful privacy violation as seen in Minority Report").

 * Considering the article is about Phil Knight, and the ad campaign is related directly to him, I don't see this as a problem. Lyellin 22:54, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Knight to leave Nike top job


text:
User:Pamri

user page at en:wikipedia

title: User:Pamri


text:
Sudanese parties sign peace pledge

Representatives of both the Sudanese government and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement signed a peace pledge today in the  capital, under the watchful eye of.

According to the BBC, the document concluded with a memorandum saying that "prompt completion of the peace process is essential for all the people of Sudan". The actual peace treaty should, according to the pledge, be signed no later than December 31st 2004. While the pledge focuses mainly on the fights between the rebels in the and the Khartoum-based government in the north, there is also attention for the ongoing crisis in east Sudan  (Darfur).

Several aid agencies have criticized the UN for taking a weak stand against the Sudanese government. The has already signed two resolutions threatening economic sanctions against Sudan if the government does not disarm its troops in Darfur, but, so the BBC reports, the violence is continuing. The civil war in Darfur was sparked in 2003, when insurgents started attacking government buildings. The Arab government in subsequently sent troops to the region, which have been reported to mass-violate human rights of the black Africans living in Darfur.

Related news

 * January 9, 2005: Peace agreement signed in Sudan

title: Sudanese parties sign peace pledge


text:
Wikinews:Major or minor

The page major or minor can be used to decide whether a story should be treated as a major event, either on the Main Page, or on other index pages. You don't need to use this page - you can just add a story as major if you feel that this is self-evident. But if someone else objects, please do not revert, but add an entry to this page. Just make your case below, and people will be able to vote on the different options.

There should be a minimum of 5 votes until you change the status from major to minor or vice versa.

Example: Arafat dies
This can be removed once the page has been operational for a while.

I think this is a major story that deserves to be on the major events section of the Main Page, as well as the Middle East major events section.

Major

 * 1) Eloquence 00:23, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Minor

 * 1) Dogmaster3000

title: Wikinews:Major or minor


text:
Beheaded bodies found as fighting continues in Mosul

U.S. soldiers fighting in Mosul, Iraq discovered up to twelve beheaded bodies in the western part of the city, the New York Times has reported. The bodies are believed to be those of Iraqi soldiers killed for assisting U.S. forces in eliminating local resistance; however, no identification has been made.

The bodies were found after a Jordanian named Abu Musab al-Zarqawi made an Internet posting in which he claimed that two Iraqi National Guard officers had been publicly decapitated in Mosul. A local businessman, Senan Shukri, claims to have witnessed the executions, stating that all onlookers had been warned that if they moved or otherwise disturbed the bodies they, too, would be beheaded.

According to Lt. Col. Erik Kurilla of the 24th Infantry Regiment, high-ranking officials in the Iraqi National Guard have been notified of the claimed beheadings; he states, however, that they have been unable to determine if any of their officers were missing, pointing out that many were on leave and thus difficult to track down in any circumstance.

The bodies have not yet been removed by U.S. troops for fear that they might trigger booby-trapped explosives.


text:
Category:November 19, 2004

it:Categoria:19 novembre 2004

title: Category:November 19, 2004


text:
Brazilian Landless Workers Movement (MST) invades in Bahia

About 250 people from the MST (Movimento dos Sem Terra, in Portuguese) or Brazilian Landless Workers Movement has invaded a 223 hectares farm in the city of Ubaitaba, Bahia. According to Agência Folha, Fernando Rodrigues da Silva, 34 members of the movement says they want to press the Brazilian government institute called Incra (National Institute of Colonization and the Agrarian Reformation) to look after their cause.

Raul Pinto Farias, owner of the farm has said he will demand the expulsion of MST out of his property before the Court of Law.

The MST is a Marxist-Maoist inspired movement of landless peasants in Brazil. According to MST, in 2003 there were about 632 MST camps in Brazil. MST is a large organization with many settlements throughout Brazilian countryside, especially in the Brazilian Northeast. Their main visible tactic is invading lands around the country.

MST says they fight for agrarian reformation and justice in Brazil. Some Brazilians have already protested against MST tatics, saying they are against the law and are violent. Currently, MST funds itself by selling produce grown on its agricultural cooperatives and from donations from international organizations. Also the movement receives funds by selling videos of their invasions.


text:
Talk:Beheaded bodies found as fighting continues in Mosul

See Review guidelines.

Comments
I think it's well-written and accurate of the one source. It could use others. --119 03:37, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)


text:
Spanish tourist fatally shot in Rio de Janeiro

' - Juan Carlos Concero, aged 34, a Spanish tourist, was shot in the head during an assault in Rio de Janeiro today. He was carried to Souza Aguiar Hospital where he was in a coma, breathing with the help of life support machines. Hours later doctors pronounced him braindead.

The Brazilian police offices in charge of the case announced the arrest of three man suspected of shooting Concero.

Source

 * 1) Agência Folha "Espanhol é baleado na zona sul do Rio"


text:
User:Lankiveil

I'm an occasionally active admin here. The news stories I write tend to focus on local events in my home state of Queensland, in Australia. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you like, and I'll get back to you as quickly as I can.

Other Wikis
You can find me at:

 * English Wikipedia

 * Vicipéide as Gaeilge

title: User:Lankiveil


text:
Wikinews talk:Administrators

If you are requesting administrator action, please see Admin action alerts.
 * November 2004 -- May 2006
 * (no conversation in June 2006 - October 2006)
 * August 2006 -- November 2006
 * /Archive 1 - (December 2006 - )

Change to admins page
- I disagree with this change to the page. Let's keep it simple, just the regular list of admins, and the inactive. No need for this "highly active" business, then we'd be constantly changing usernames from three different sections. Cirt (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

 * You're probably right about that. I was just thinking that users who needed admin help might receive quicker answers from users on such a list (since a lot of users on the "active" list aren't very active at all), but then again, that's what WN:AAA is for. Cheers, Tempodivalse [talk]  17:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, WN:AAA is better than pinging individual admins anyways. Cirt (talk) 17:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Active vs. Inactive
= Good move by, for reasons already made in his edit summary. Cirt (talk) 07:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but now they're no longer in alphabetically order. ;) Calebrw (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the list?
Do and, serve the same purpose without extra maintenance? --InfantGorilla (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

title: Wikinews talk:Administrators


text:
Talk:Spanish tourist fatally shot in Rio de Janeiro

It seems ok. --carlosar Nov 20 10:41:25 UTC 2004


text:
Talk:Brazilian Landless Workers Movement (MST) invades in Bahia

"Invade" is a loaded term, and in any case the article doesn't say anything about the methods used by the MST (i.e. "the invasion"). "Occupy" might be a fairer word to use, as the article speaks of MST members being on someone's land as a protest (i.e. "occupation" or "squatting"). (EoinDubsky - 09 Jan 2004)

It´s ok.

Other than this line: "Raul Pinto Farias, owner of the farm has said he will protest at Justice to expell out the MST of his property.", which I'm not sure I understand at all (what's Justice?), it's ready to go. Lyellin 16:24, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * It is my English :). I would apreciate if you help me. I think what I mean is Court. What do you do after your rights have been violated? I hope you can understand me. Feel free to change the text and make it better.

carlosar Nov 20 20:51:27 UTC 2004

"Also they use women and children against police." -Maybe those women and children are just MST. Check sexism involved in reporting that women aren't involved in revolutionary struggle! Plus this repeats the age-old authoritarian view that the "rebels" use women and children to incite state repression.

Additional resources
Looking for current info in english to expand/support this article, and it's mighty thin actually.

 * http://www.army.mil/professionalwriting/volumes/volume3/january_2005/1_05_4.html


text:
19 Burmese political prisoners released; more to come

Nineteen Burmese political prisoners, including pro-democracy leader Min Ko Naing, have been freed by Burma's military junta after it declared their imprisonments invalid, the Associated Press reports.

The releases came after the current regime under Soe Win dissolved the National Intelligence Bureau run by Prime Minister General Khin Nyunt, who was ousted last month. The Burmese state-run television and radio network claimed that the NIB had wrongly charged 3,937 prisoners.

Min Ko Naing had been imprisoned since 1988 after leading pro-democracy protests that were quickly crushed by the ruling regime. In total, three senior members of Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy were released. Aung San Suu Kyi herself has been under house arrest since May 2003 following a violent confrontation between loyalists and her dissidents.

At least one NLD member expressed optimism about the new development. 77-year-old Ohn Maung, an NLD member freed on Friday after being imprisoned since 1998, told Reuters "It was a pleasant surprise for all of us." He added, "I did not have to sign any undertaking and I expect most of the NLD members will also be released like me."

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan released a statement in which he said that he is "encouraged by reports that a number of people detained for political activities are included among [the prisoners released]." He also called for the release of all remaining political opponents and dissidents, either from prison or from house arrest.

According to witnesses outside Yangon's Insein Prison, altogether approximately 200 prisoners--most serving terms for minor criminal offenses--were released Friday.

Although Burma's military regime changed the country's name to Myanmar in 1989--a change recognized by the United Nations--many national governments and a large portion of the Burmese population still use the name "Burma" because they do not recognize the legitimacy of the junta that instituted the change.


text:
Template:Datecategory

Category:

{{#ifexist:News Briefs: {{PAGENAME}}|

News briefs
{{#ifexist:News briefs:{{PAGENAME}} |

News briefs
}} }}

title: Template:Datecategory


text:
Category:November 20, 2004

it:Categoria:20 novembre 2004

title: Category:November 20, 2004


text:
Talk:19 Burmese political prisoners released; more to come

See Review guidelines.

Comments
Add your comments below.

This article poses an important question: what do we use for place-names? Although Myanmar is what the de facto government calls the nation, and is the UN-recognized name as well, it is not recognized by many countries--including my own, which is why I used Burma (and Rangoon instead of Yangon) when I wrote this. Any suggestions on adopting a standard? Kurt Weber 01:30, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia uses Myanmar. Much as I detest the junta being able to rename the country, Myanmar is the international standard at present, and thus I think we should use that as the name. Ambi 07:27, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Point taken; I'll wait eight hours or so and if there are no other concerns or suggestions as to place-name conventions, I'll change it to Myanmar and publish.Kurt Weber 19:15, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


text:
Brazilian economist Celso Furtado dies

The Brazilian Economist Celso Furtado, aged 84, has died today between 11 and 11:30 am, in his apartament in Rio de Janeiro. According to ABr (Government Brazilian news Agency) Celso Furtado was victim of a heart attack.

He will be buried tomorrow at São João Batista cemetery, Rio de Janeiro at 12:00.

title: Brazilian economist Celso Furtado dies


text:
Four NBA players suspended indefinitely for brawl

November 20, 2004

Four National Basketball Association players have been suspended indefinitely for their actions during a brawl at the end of the Friday, November 19th game between the Detroit Pistons and the Indiana Pacers.

Ron Artest, Jermaine O'Neal and Stephen Jackson of the Pacers and Ben Wallace of the Pistons learned of the length of their suspensions on Sunday. Ron Artest has been suspended for the rest of the season, Stephen Jackson for 30 games, Jermaine O'Neal for 25, and Ben Wallace for 6. Pacers guard Anthony Johnson received a 5 game suspension. In addition, Reggie Miller from Indiana, and Detroit Pistons Chauncey Billups, Elden Campbell and Derrick Coleman were each suspended one game for leaving their bench.

The brawl began with 45.9 seconds left in the game, as Ben Wallace shoved Ron Artest after a particularly hard foul by Artest. That was settled quickly, but a fan then threw a cup at Artest as the referees were handling the aftermath of the fight, and Artest went into the stands, and began throwing punches. Jackson then joined in and began to throw punches as well. Due to the brawl the game was called, and ended with 45.9 seconds left. The Pacers were ruled the winner.

Artest has had a history of suspensions before this incident. Last season he was suspended twice, once for leaving the bench during a fight, and once for elbowing Portland player Derek Anderson. He was suspended 5 times during the 2002-2003 season.


text:
US Exchange rate a concern for Europeans

November 21, 2004

European finance ministers at the meeting which opened Saturday, November 20th, are expected to discuss the current exchange rate of the  vs. the dollar. The euro is currently trading high against the dollar, so that it takes around $1.34 (as of December 4, 2004) to buy one euro. This has the effect of making exports from Europe to the USA more expensive, increasing the likelihood that US consumers will buy from a non- country. The exchange rate is set by the currency markets, although it is heavily influenced by the status (ie. the balance of trade between countries).

Some European leaders want the United States to take action to increase the value of its exchange rate. The US though is seen as not wanting to do this, for two reasons:
 * 1) A low dollar relative the euro means that all exports from the US to Europe are cheaper for Europeans to buy, increasing the likelihood that Europeans will buy US items and thus helping the US economy
 * 2) Many actions which governments have done in the past to bolster unnaturally their currency have been fought by the market, and the market won. The most famous example is George Soros' "breaking of the Bank of England"

One side-issue that this discussion might evoke is that of the exchange rate between the dollar and the, which is fixed by China. Studies of this exchange rate using the concept of (ensuring that a dollar traded to Chinese yuan will still buy roughly the same amount in China) show that the Chinese yuan has been around 50% undervalued for the past two years. This makes things from China on average 50% cheaper for a US consumer than they should be. US officials have throughout 2004 repeatedly called for China to end this practice. Normally it would end itself, i.e. even with a fixed exchange rate this process could only go on for so long before the entire Chinese market becomes valued differently. But since the Chinese central bank has been constantly lending money to the United States government (via the purchasing of US treasury bonds), that effect is mitigated.


text:
Brazilian Landless Workers Movement (MST) attacked in Minas Gerais

November 21, 2004

Seven unknown men armed with guns invaded the Terra Prometida camp, in Felisburgo city, Minas Gerais, Brazil, and killed five members of the Brazilian Landless Workers Movement movement (MST). The Terra Prometida camp had been invaded by the MST in May 2002 and there were about 200 MST families living there at the time of the attack.

According to the Brazilian newspaper Agência Folha, police said 13 of the members of the MST movement were injured and five died. Four of them are still hospitalized. Two of them, Joaquim Batista da Silva and his son (a 12-year-old child), are in the Felisburgo Municipal Hospital. The other two, Valdemar Barbosa Lima and José Maroto Lima, are in the Santa Rosária Hospital in Teófilo Otoni city.

According to MST camp leaders the gunfighters set fire to MST tents and started shooting.

The police are investigating the case. The Workers Party (PT) has demanded the gunfighters' arrest and punishment.

The MST is an ideologically diverse movement of agricultural workers in Brazil officially founded in 1984. MST is for the equitable redistribution of Brazilian farmland. According to MST, in 2003 there were about 632 MST camps in Brazil. MST is a large organization with many bases throughout Brazilian cities. Their most visible tactic has been the occupation of mostly privately-held plantations and landholdings, sometimes armed with carving knifes and scythes.

Currently, MST receives help from the Brazilian government and donations from international organizations. The movement also receives funds by selling videos of their invasions.

Overall, a recent report on labor standards in Brazil has shown that conditions for laborers are poor .


text:
Talk:Brazilian Landless Workers Movement (MST) attacked in Minas Gerais

See Review guidelines.

Comments
Add your comments below.

Please check my English. -- carlosar

 * Which hospital is this article referring to? Lyellin 20:27, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Two of them are in the Felisburgo Municipal Hospital. Other two were transfered to Santa Rosária Hospital in Teófilo Otoni city. --carlosar Nov 21 23:40:16 UTC 2004

I have added the hospital information. Better now? Please, take a look. --carlosar Nov 21 23:40:16 UTC 2004


text:
Wikinews:Review process poll

This is a poll on how to deal with the review process. Right now, unreviewed stories can be put on the Main Page alongside reviewed ones (see Article stages). Should we continue this practice, or choose an alternative one? Voting ends January 21, 2005 at 00:01 UTC.

Allow unreviewed stories to be published on the Main Page and index pages

 * 1) wunderer 10:51, 02 Dec 2004 (MET) I strongly advise not to spawn this project's death as soon as as a midwifery service. The worst case scenario - apart from a lack off readers - in my eyes would be extremists' flamewars being realised in an editing and deleting competition.  Even should this worst-case scenario effold: In my eyes this page would still have no less credibility then any major newspaper, epaper or RF-Channel. I believe wikiusers to be intelligent enough to value any information that was either unprocessed by the agenda setting media or suffered from rightwing and leftwing distortion and thus offering - in stark contrast to the conventional media - differing views... I find the idea of an unlimited publishing and discussion system by which individuals might provoke a majority with their views sort of an ideal. The idea of saving us from dialog or conflict ist highly ridiculous - or suspicious, depending on who offers it...
 * 2) Jeeperjake 07:21, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)  Since all "news" is really about credibility anyway, why not allow & encourage all users/viewers to become a part of an article's "Credibility Rating Scheme"?  Even go so far as to allow/encourage the authors to assign credibility ratings to their own work...  For example, a news story that I heard from my wife, who heard it from her mother who heard it from her neighbor who actually witnessed "it" might get an 8 out of 10 credibility rating from me - the author...  Others can opine as well.  I'm far from certain about how the technicalities of this notion could be brought to wiki-reality (I'm new to this) - but news can happen instantly, and credibility much less so - but with time & exposure, it would/could all be available for everyone to see, choose and participate for themselves...  credibility rating with credibility descriptors?
 * 3) Jimbo Wales 01:03, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC) Strongly support this.  The plan to start with a complete a priori "sounds good in theory" review process is quickly proving to be a disaster.  Even the wording of this poll is deeply flawed, because it suggests that we are discussing whether to change the policy of the site.  But the policy of the site at the present time is just: it is a wiki.  The process proposed by Erik has been proposed in a deeply inappropriate way for a wiki, and it must be eliminated as quickly as possible in order for a true policy to emerge which meets the real needs of users of the site.
 * I'd like you to elaborate on this "deeply inappropriate way". All the pages have the Template:Proposed policy above them, and we make it clear pretty much everywhere that people can do whatever they want. What is inappropriate about that? I'm not going to go into any arguments about the review process itself until I've collected some more data about what's happening before and after your changes.--Eloquence
 * 1) Kurt Weber 19:18, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC) Perhaps this can be changed in the future, but for the time being I agree with a comment made by someone else on another talk page--the main page needs to be vibrant and dynamic to attract attention and interest.  The gross volume is simply too small (and the volume of reviewed stories even smaller) at this point to only allow reviewed articles to be put there.  Keep the unreviewed tag, though.
 * How then, do you propose to filter out quasi-stories like World%27s_Most-Spammed_Man? It's inappropriate for a news site, really, and a quick check would have filtered it out.  I think that the risk of stories like this giving a bad name to the site outweighs the nebulous "vibrancy" advantages.  In my opinion, the "unreviewed" tag doesn't go far enough in highlighting the unreliable nature of those stories. Lankiveil 06:07, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I saw the "Bill Gates, Most Spammed Man" story on a number of mainstream, respected news sites, including BBC, CNN, CBS, and Forbes, so I'm not sure why you feel it would be inappropriate for Wikinews? This story served as an anchor piece to highlight the growing volume of spam. Until Wikinews has reporters out covering stories on the beat, these "issue" pieces could provide a hook on which to hang original reporting and analysis. --DV 17:39, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I've updated the story to include more mainstream and international sources, as well as a Washington Post story with some analysis. --DV 17:56, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Rainbird 05:29, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) Any volunteer organization draws participants because they can see their own personal vision into fruition. This is what makes publishing one's writings on wikipedia very desirable for many people.  Naturally, if the content is inappropriate, it can be quickly reverted or deleted by others who come, wishing to use the encyclopedia.  I believe that, psychologically, the obstacle of a several hour review process would put people off who are not otherwise obliged to come here to share their time and skills with Wikinews.  Besides which, I believe we would see that awkward material will be edited or deleted exponentially more quickly by the greater volume of people who frequent the main page. Why do we revert a page which we notice is vandalized? Because we ourselves desire to use the wiki - we have an agenda that day, and we want the pages usable. There's no incentive to get involved in editing, if the articles are on some back burner of the wiki. I believe that a tag which says "unreviewed" is perfectly sufficient to let readers know that this article might contain unreliable information. Of course, eventually the system will have to be revamped, when the volume of articles accelerates to where the pages fill up within minutes with new writings.
 * 2) Tomos 03:30, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC) Listing them is okay as long as articles are clearly marked as unreviewed or under review. (We do that both on the Main page and at the top of the article.) It is no secret that we are individually not like top-notch professional journalists. The early phase of the wiki projects would in general benefit more from calling participants than offering finished products to readers/ re-users. Besides, we can have an alternative main page, if it is important to offer a list of reviewed articles exclusively. I will post some more comments about Jimbo's opinion on the talk page because I am not sure his strong language is warranted.
 * 3) AaronSw 03:45, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC) You can mark them as unreviewed. You can put them in a separate section. You can get rid of them later if need be. But right now we need everything we can get.
 * We don't need everything we can get. We've got plenty of stories at the moment - what we need is organisation and quality. Ambi 03:47, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) For me, the idea of Wiki is that it is filled with most current information, hyperlinked and organised in various categories - like an expanded Current Events section from Wikipedia. It is not always perfect - but it is unique and at least aspiring for worldwide NPOV. If we go with reviewed stories only, we will be trying to duplicate the classic news portals - and this will kill WikiNews as good as anything. --83.30.225.215 15:39, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC) Forgot to sign, sorry - that is me. --Piotrus 15:43, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Current events on wikipedia has proven to work well without a formal review process - so far I've seen no real desasters but attempts to insert POV or otherwise questionable content are quickly reverted by the community. So it can work. The review process here goes for me against the spirit of a wiki: If you see a wrong information in a news why not simply change it? if you see an irrelevant news on the main page why not simply remove it? The review process also asserts a IMO wrong sort of ownership of an article. News should be written in a collaborative way, people adding and improving upon what one person started, not just commenting and reviewing. Even when the review process is not supposed to establish an ownership of an article, it inherently leads people to think in such a way. --Elian 17:05, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) If all articles had editorial oversight prior to their first posting on the outward facing pages, it would probably raise the quality of their first appearance, but an overly conservative review process would also drastically reduce the timeliness of those articles. Unlike an encyclopedia, "news" implies a story about something very recent, and a lengthy review process would be self-defeating. While I could see the merit of a pre-publication review process on Wikipedia (I don't think encyclopedia articles need to be posted as fast as news does), I'm rather surprised there is any serious discussion about setting up a daily, or even a weekly news organization with more pre-publication editorial oversight than Wikipedia has. As a compromise, I wouldn't object if there was a pre-publication stage that restricted itself to checking for profanity, vandalism, or obviously false news stories, but exercised no other editorial control pre-publication, leaving the standard wiki processs to fix up stories in later editions. Newspapers print improved versions of stories in the second and third editions all the time, and cable news routinely revises stories throughout the day for mistakes, updated information, and just plain better wording. No reason this site needs to hold back until a story is "perfect". Timeliness will be important if Wikinews is to succeed. If Wikinews gets a reputation as being slow to post stories about important breaking news events, visitors will decide that they best go elsewhere to get up-to-date news. By the way - this looks like an exciting new project! --DV 14:01, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) 119 19:00, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) I haven´t participated on this project yet, because I wait for the newssection for my foreign language. The review process is just to slow - and wiki means "fast"... MilesTeg 14:03, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Just to note, the review process as it stands hasn't been used since the second day, and nothing at all has been used for the last 3 or 4. Lyellin 17:32, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) I think Wikinews does need to review stories posted on the main and index pages.  I like the idea of Wikinews but have several concerns, the accuracy, timeliness, relevance of the news topic, and unprofessional behavior. Without some sort of review process you run into a credibility problem.  Is the review board planning on checking for accuracy. But then again with a ad hoc review process readers get "late" news.  Is this acceptable?  I also like the idea of tagging stories with "unreviewed" informing the reader that the information contained in the article might not be completely reliable.  My other issue with the review process is what is acceptable "news".  For instance today at Mcdonalds, they brought back the McRib, this is great news for me but for others it might not be acceptable, where do we draw the line between?  Or do we provide a section for bizzarre news, like ananova.The other issue I have is that without some sort of oversight the posting of news can become very unprofessional. For instance if I feel that a certain item is news worthy I post the article and someone else decides that it isn't news worthy and deletes it ... you see where this is going. At least with a review process the deleting of news doesn't become personal.  There are many issues that still need to worked out. Wikinews will come to some sort of common ground that we can mostly agree with.
 * 2) IlyaHaykinson 02:10, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)  I think that the current review process is too slow, and it should not be up to editors and 8 hours to prevent an important news story from apperaing on prominent parts of the site. I am proposing an Alternative Review Process instead of the current model.
 * 3) They should be. With a note that says they're yet unreviewed, probably, but they still should be published. Anything else would be un-wiki-like. -- Schnee 06:23, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) I support this also. Richard 217.184.100.234 13:57, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. It's the only way to have recent top stories.  --Whosyourjudas 03:58, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Once we have a working review system, maybe we can rethink keeping unreviewed articles off the main page. Rhobite 15:15, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. We should not stifle creativity - too many hoops will keep quality writers from joining. We just need to add more admins to keep a watchful eye on vandalism and site hijackers. Davodd | Talk 23:23, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Give people the option of a semi-closed review (ie articles listed on a page or section specifically marked for that purpose) so that those unsure of the quality of some work can get feedback and gain confidence before making the work's availability widely known, but do not force this as a criterion for publishing, since wiki by definition leaves the article open to criticism and alteration by any user from day one.Making a review stage compulsory is both redundant (as I just explained) and useless: since if it's about ensuring quality of news, it fails because it opens the possibilty of denial of service by some mischief maker or dunderhead causing good articles to not be passed through review. If a ratings process is to be added, then add it, but understand that it is only rating system, not a censor for excluding bad content. In wikispace, 'bad' content is merely content that has not yet been refined enough, and in time, it may be improved.A problem with a ratings system in wiki is that the content changes. A public news forum with some kind of user-ratings sytem is a nice idea, but this is not really the place for it imho. Perhaps someone like Kuro5hin.org already has this?Another issue with it is that users may spend their small amount of input in rating articles instead of in fixing them. It's already a natural urge to criticise an article instead of fixing it. I think for people to learn to fix articles best, they need to concentrate as much effort on that one aspect, rather than have confusing options of 'do i rate it, or do i fix it' (yes, people really are confused that easily - if the answer is not clear, they often choose #3 - abandon it).The only way ratings might work to ensure quality is to tie it to an accreditation system, as has been suggested, but it seems difficult to pull off on a wide scale without meeting people in the flesh. With time, perhaps we can identify reliable personnel through some voting system. For now, leave it.One very very quick ratings system would be simply to add 'X number of views, last change Y hours ago' data to each page - perhaps even a quick graph of number of changes vs time. If some page has been seen by 13 million people and remained unchanged, it's likely that it's factual. Simeon 15:14, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) AliceCrypto  (Talk|Contributions): An article should go straight onto the main page templates. By the time it is vetted, it would cease to be news.
 * 10) What would be useful is to have all articles on the front page, along with an icon (or set of icons) that, at a glance, convey the status of the article regarding completeness, neutrality, and other attributes. That way I could tell what to click on if I were looking for a good news article to read, and what to click on if I want to contribute to an article. Samrolken 08:50, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Allow alternative process, but require process review for all "published" articles

 * Allow people to suggest and follow alternative processes, but do not allow stories to be published which have not followed any review process

 * 1) Eloquence 19:13, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Lyellin 19:29, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC) We know that for awhile, the lack of editors will slow down the process of review. That doesn't mean we should throw away the review process- rather, we should make it as time efficent as possible, and get more editors here.
 * 3) Lankiveil 02:27, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) It would be silly not to consider alternative schemes, but there should be SOME form of screening.
 * 4) No screening is a terrible, terrible, terrible, idea. Bye bye quality. Bye bye NPOV. Ambi 03:43, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * nobody talks about no screening at all. The question is how it should be done. --Elian 17:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to have a cursory review for profanity, vandalism, and blatantly false stories, but only for those reasons. A daily cannot have a four to eight hour review period for every story - there aren't enough hours in the day. If anyone wants to hold back reports because of POV issues, it might be prudent to seriously consider scaling back to a weekly or even monthly magazine format, and get rid of any illusions that this is a daily reporting site. I'm happy to participate in either type of organization, but a consensus must be reached quickly, or contributors will be working at odds with one another and start arguing due to the confusion. --DV 09:26, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * To take the other side, I for one am comfortable with the continual news cycles typical of Web sites, and see no need to pick a daily or weekly format more typical of print media. As long as the most important and highest-quality articles get highest placement and the least important or least developed articles get lowest placement, the Main Page editors should feel free to modify the Main Page whenever they feel news events and available articles warrant an update, instead of worrying about daily or weekly deadlines. It would be easy to add a section of links to a "virtual weekly magazine" of articles that have been composed over a longer period of time, but such a list should not preclude others from more frequent reporting. To resolve issues of participants working at odds, perhaps there should be a way to distinguish articles intended to report breaking news from more in-depth articles. I think a good way would be for the article creators to list a deadline for intended publication, and then agree to spawn a separate article with a longer deadline if some writers want more time to develop a longer treatment, so the shorter article can be reviewed and posted faster while the longer article is being developed.
 * 1) BenM 07:28, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) ChrisG 12:23, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC) Goodbye credibility, NPOV, quality. More importantly this isn't what people voted for on meta. It seems people want to run before they can crawl. I'm not just a doomsayer I would support Wikinews if it was a weekly magazine with proper review procedures. I could easily see it being superior to the likes of Newsweek, and up there with the Economist. If that scales then consider more frequent coverage.
 * 3) Guaka 18:59, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) MichelleG 12:28, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) Not having review procedures, at least for Main Page stuff, would be an NPOV disaster.  I think we should be open to different ways of doing things, though.
 * 5) TalkHard 11:28, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) carlosar 12:42, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC) - Only reviewed articles should appear at the Main Page.
 * 7) sydhart 2:49, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC) - perhaps a frontpage section of "breaking news", with headline, one sentence, and lower review standards.
 * 8) Unrevewed articles should not be mixed with reviewed articles on the main page, but I would have no objection to unreviewed articles being listed in a separate section of the main page along with an indication of the status. Important stories should move to increasingly prominent positions on the main page as the stories develop and solidify.
 * 9) Cap'n Refsmmat 21:29, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC) Perhaps there should be a link on the main page saying "View and review new articles" or something of the like. The casual reader is not going to come and edit articles, and they wouldn't press that link; the people who would edit it are the people who are dedicated, and they wouldn't be deterred by having to press a link. Everyone else wants the nice, clean, polished articles on the front page.
 * 10) 24.179.13.190 13:05, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC) - I also feel that only reviewed articles should appear at the Main Page.
 * 11) Antithesis 20:05, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC) - Same here. I will look into the answer to this question on the site later -- I assume it has come up already -- but it does concern me that we keep to the highest possible standard of accuracy and integrity, even if we are volunteers. This project could be very successful if we follow the same ethical rules as professional journalists, particularly with respect to reporting (especially in the case of original stories) only what is *provably* true. What people put into print has a great deal of power, which we must wield with grace, honesty and foresight. Professional journalists have editors. So should we.
 * 12) Agree and Comment: (I shortened the header.) I assume we want to avoid the Indymedia Google fiasco, and institute controls on at the very least RSS syndicated stories. But the wiki itself seems like an odd place for display of news items themselves by the same rules. Certainly vandalism is the main issue, and openness carries with it some soft tolerance of it. Display of news versus editing of news is the issue, perhaps a "static" site that shows all RSS syndicated content would make sense? Then theres the issue of needing solid back-linking to the wiki articles for editing... -Stevertigo 20:33, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) jkrusky 22:09, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) Only reviewed articles should appear on the Main Page. Unreviewed articles should be accessible through a link off of the main page. Would it be taboo to suggest protecting reviewed articles on the Main Page?
 * 14) I do believe that review is necessary. Andrevan 19:58, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Allow only reviewed articles from the main page, but allow non-reviewed articles in a special "hot-off-the-press"-type section
Is the concern more about rumor not being corroborated or for poorly written articles to be better edited? It seems to me that it'd be nice to allow the option for people to be able to describe events as quickly as possible (in either case), but in a section distinct from the main page (or from a special reviewed articles section) where people would especially take it with a grain of salt. Brettz9 03:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comments
My original picture of Wikinews was more like a giant news blog than like a traditional news agency. After all, what does "publish" mean in a wiki context? Some sort of filter might be needed, but articles written from easilly-accessible sources (like other news sites) shouldn't need extensive review, just a check that the sources actually say what we are reporting. Articles seem to be languishing in review for no apparent reason. I think that project should start with as few rules and formal procedures as possible, and create rules only when they are found necessary. That's what has worked for Wikipedia, and I think it can work for Wikinews, too. Isomorphic 17:58, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

--Carlosar 01:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) I think that the elimination of the tags (under review, reviewed, not reviewed) in the article is a good thing. These tags were ugly and not too much value (can we gurantee that an article with the reviewed tag is really a good one?). Also the process is simpler now.

--Carlosar 01:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) Proper review procedures are the big trouble till now in my opinion.

title: Wikinews:Review process poll


text:
Portal talk:Sports

What are we looking for here?
So what exactly are we looking for here? Scores of games? Exceptional news, like players maing waves by talking before games, the brawls, that kinda thing? Do we want to create as comprehensive and complete a list of scores for all sports as possible? or not do any scores at all? Lyellin 20:57, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't know. I think scores for sports would be a bit complex to keep up, as, say, baseball and hockey games go on every day. I'd support either way, but I'll leave the debate open. --wjmoore 18:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Tables
I've created a section called Table Snapshots - it is designed to give the top 4 or 5 (or whatever suits) in the major world leagues. It hopefully will link to a new page which will have full tables of all major leagues. I will be working on the idea over the next few days - feel free to help. CGorman 16:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I added a table for Major League Baseball. Also, if you click on the link, it will take you to an expanded MLB coverage page. That page needs some work, but it is a start. --Timc 15:41, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Does this ever get updated?
I find Wikinews coverage of sports is quite lacking. There is a lot of potential: Wikipedia articles on current sport events get updated very quickly. If all these people could be persuaded to work on Wikinews, that would be nice. Grue 07:02, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree our sports coverage is poor. We only have about 15-20 regular writers many of whom are simply too tired to write more than one article a day. → CGorman (Talk)  14:23, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I try to get in a major NHL or NFL story every day, but like CGorman said, I just don't have time to sit around all day writing news articles. At least articles that I'm writing for free. I think if we could get a few more writers in here covering more than the NFL, NHL and Cricket, we could get some good sports stories in. --wjmoore 18:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Australian Open (tennis)
I'm going to go (well, for a few days), and hopefully take some pictures. Is anyone interested on working on article/s about this? It starts next week. It would be nice if there was a SINGLE tennis story here. :P commons|w:User:pfctdayelise 02:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Due to the overwhelming silence, I won't upload my photos with any urgency, but they will eventually appear in commons:Category:2006 Australian Open. commons:User:pfctdayelise 15:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not definetly Czech flag in the table. It's probably flag of one part of Czechia, but nobody use is and I guess most of people could recognize it.

Bonds?
Am I the only one that's suprised there is no mention of Barry Bonds and his chase for Babe Ruth? Google News has over 1,700 stories NYT SF Chronical ~Anon

Yes. Is he famous somewhere? --Whnook 14:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Famous. Yes, he's rather infamous. I think the reason nobody bothered writing about him is that nobody really likes him. I don't know about everyone else, but I only write about what interests me. --wjmoore 18:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

World Championship
Where is the section on the 2006 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships? The rounds have begun. ~Anon

Please check last edit on the portal
someone who knows sports better then I, and where to look up this stuff, can you do a edit check on the last anon's edit, it looks suspect to me. user:Bawolff

In process
I have started updating tables and such. Any help would be appreciated - I'm going to try to keep this updated as often as my schedule permits but I will not turn down offers of assistance. Theirishpianist 22:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Not News, Entertainment
I'm not sure if anyone will agree with this, but I've always found it strange that sports scores were considered "news" at all. Are sports not simply entertainment? Do they really have equal footing with war developments, political issues, and other current events? As the popular mis-conception seems to differ, perhaps we could put them at least put them off in the corner someplace so they don't clutter up the headlines page. --Jwanders 10:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, they're a form of entertainment, but they're different enough to be seperate from culture imho. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Portal revamp
Since we seem to have acquired a few people who want to cover sports, I think we should encourage them to build this portal up so that it contains a lot more information. I don't think the country/region split works here and it should be a split by sport. Like on the main page for old news collapsed sections could be used to have a lot of detail available on the page with a single click. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I too agree, i was just thinking about this, and then i saw someone was already smart enough to suggest it. I am currently attempting to develope a design which allows all sports to be represented equally on the page.—Dark Squall 22:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Football
Use of the word "Football" without clarification in story titles is confusing. 172.192.221.84 00:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I keep seeing "football" and thinking American Football. Because, you know, it's "soccer" over here in the states.

I live in Canada, but i still call it football. I'm also the one writing most of the "football" articles here. Its pretty simple to tell once you click on the article anyway.—Dark Squall 02:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Football (American) is usually starts with "NFL:". If it's college, it's under "NCAA Football" if it's just plain "Football", you can assume it's Football/Soccer. --wjmoore 02:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Standings in the Template namespace
Why are these standings in Template namespace? Like Template:NBA, Template:NHL, and Template:MLB? I added the MLB one because I assumed that there was some reason they were in Template, but looking back, it seems pretty ridiculous. Zachary talk 07:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Are they there to be linked to? Like in an NHL article, you could put Complete NHL Standings? For use in an article? I didn't even know those existed. --wjmoore 03:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Barclays Premiership space is messed up
Does anyone else see all that HTML and javascript? Louis Waweru  Talk 19:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

dynamic pagelist?
Just a quick note to say that the dynamic page list thing for the links to sports news seems to contain some odd links - currently the top link for 'Europe' sports news seems to be a Stage Win from the Tour du France 2 years ago..... dunno what do to about it, but thought someone might like to know :-) Privatemusings (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding "addfirstcategorydate=true" to the DPLs should have fixed it, but didn't seem to. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

title: Portal talk:Sports


text:
User:לערי ריינהארט

 *  user: · /common.css · /common.js · c: · d: · m: · m:…/global.css · m:…/global.js · w:en: · all subpages T · [/?title=special:ListUsers&limit=1&username= rights] · Notifications · Global account information
 * PAGEID: · [https:/?curid=# links here] · REVISIONID: · [https:/?oldid=# permanent link] (2015-08-22)

The transcription of « [ ] » is « ». FindMe

Pages redirecting here: Gangleri, i18n

English : English language translations – upper case lower case diacritics special characters sort order (extended) numbers unicode.org: "English" "Latin Extended-A" U0100.pdf "Combining Diacritical Marks" U0300.pdf – Unicode fonts browser setup Welcome! b: c: * m: * n: q: s: t: v: w: wikt: ? / de: en: eo: ro: yi: + ++ [ e] / MediaZilla (→) / [ ↺] [ rev-ID : ]

special:Prefixindex/user: T monobook .css .js ** / cvs L M mail * shell-dev's #tech

→  template:DIRMARK     special:Listusers/sysop version all messages Common.css Common.js Monobook.css Monobook.js wikivar

Last update: 11:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC) [ ↺] validator.w3.org

commons:user:

 * #kavehoyz, #wikipedia-balkan
 * #wikimedia, #mediawiki, #wiktionary
 * w:de:Benutzer:
 * w:en:user:
 * w:eo:Vikipediisto:
 * w:is:Notandi:
 * w:mi:user:
 * w:ps:user:
 * w:ro:Utilizator:
 * w:yi:באַניצער:
 * wikt:pl:category:jidysz (indeks) · wikt:pl:Portal:Jidysz
 * meta:user: BiDi workgroup ?

 * test:user:

 * Reinhardt (InterWiki), Munich, Germany

012225 ·לערי ריינהארט·T·m:Th·T·email me· 16:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC) 16:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC) ar:کاربر: de:Benutzer: eo:Vikipediisto: he:משתמש:Gangleri hi:सदस्य: is:Notandi: mi:User: ps:User: ro:Utilizator: yi:באַניצער:

authors: לערי ריינהארט

title: User:לערי ריינהארט


text:
User talk:לערי ריינהארט

m:…/global.css · m:…/global.js · global account information · global user contributions
 * SITENAME: · language: : [#top  ] · [#top  '''] · [#top  ] · [#top  ] · [#top  ] · [#top  ] · [#top  ] · [#top  ] · [#top  ] · [#top  ] · [#top  ] · [#top  ] · [#footer #footer]
 * local curent version: · versions at b: · c: · d: · d2: · m: · mw: · n: · q: · s: · t: · t2: · v: · voy: · w: · wikt: · w:en: · m:special:sitematrix# · template:Wikivar · m:
 * mediawiki:Sidebar [#top  ] · [#top '''] · [#top  ] · [#top  ] · [#top  ] · [#top  ] · [#top  ] · [#top  ] · [#top  ] · [#top  ] · [#top  ] · [#top  ]
 * [#top your] [#top local preferences] · [#mw-prefsection-personal Einstellungen ] · [#mw-prefsection-rendering Preferencias ] · [#mw-prefsection-editing Préférences ] · [#mw-prefsection-rc Preferenze ] · [#mw-prefsection-watchlist Настройки ] · [#mw-prefsection-gadgets 设置 ] · [#mw-prefsection-betafeatures تفضيلات ] · [#mw-prefsection-betafeatures העדפות ] · [#top मेरी वरीयताएँ ] · [#top Preferoj ]
 * user /     :  user:  · [/?title=special:ListUsers&limit=1&username= rights] · all subpages T · /common.css · /common.js · /previous user page · archives archived talks · b: · c: · d: · d2: · m: · mw: · n: · q: · s: · t: · t2: · v: · voy: · w: · wikt: · w:en: · w: · en:
 * [#top local WLH] · [#top local RC] · [#top local logs] · [#top local watchlist] [#top edit] · [#top local ontributions] · local mediawiki:Common.css · local mediawiki:Common.js · local mediawiki:Gadgets-definition · local notifications
 * PAGEID: · [https:/?curid=#top links here] · [https:/?curid=&action=purge# purge ↺] · [https:/?curid=&action=edit&section=0# section=0] · REVISIONID: · [https:/?oldid=# permanent link] · (layout: 2015-09-17…b LTR RTL short)
 * testing and validation links: BiDi issues · gadget issues · /  · /local notes

Welcome to  !

 * 00:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Gangleri (talk) 23:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to !

 * ·לערי ריינהארט·T·m:[//meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/user_talk:%D7%9C%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%99_%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%94%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%98?action=history Th]·T·email me· 09:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

 * w:user talk:Gangleri

my signature
Gangleri | w: [ Th] | T generates:

Gangleri | w: Th | T

 * Gangleri | w: Th | T 18:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Babel templates
The babel templates are userboxes. The base babel template was being used to create a potentially offensive "joke" userbox. Rather than deal with the many issues currently eating up time and goodwill on en.WP I decided to remove all such templates from the Template namespace. I filed an RfAr against myself, but withdrew in favour of another RfAr filed against me. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 16:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

new templates
Please provide documentation on how to use these templates. Frankly, I don't see a need for them. --SVTCobra 16:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Leaving a message to Amgine is not going to work, as the user left quite a while ago. I have changed your userbox. The userboxes in general though arn't used as the current system isn't that encouraging of them. Also, as SVTCobra said, please document throughly templates, or there is good odds they might get deleted. (Even better leave a note on WN:WC about any template you import, as imported template arn't all that well liked). Bawolff ☺☻ 06:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks Bawolff for the message. Give me a two daya time break. Regards
 * ·לערי ריינהארט·T·m:Th·T·email me· 09:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note that creating broken redirects to other templates will be deleted quite quickly. I also highly recommend you discuss importing templates from wikipedia at the water cooler unless they have an obvious important function (for wikinews). Also please be aware that templates from wikipedia are generally not acceptable copyright-wise. Bawolff ☺☻ 08:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I was refering to templates like Listuser not the changing username template. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I jumped the gun a bit there. I'm just a little parnoid after all the fun that m:MP:TSP was. Although I must admit that has got to be on the side of very useless template, I understand why you imported it. Sorry about all that. Bawolff ☺☻ 08:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:לערי ריינהארט


text:
User:BrokenSegue

I am an administrator on the english wikipedia and commons. If you must contact me quickly see me here. I don't plan to edit much here since I dislike this project (nothing personal, just don't think it will work).

Also can find me at...

 * English Wikipedia
 * Commons
 * Wikibooks
 * Simple English
 * Wiktionary
 * Meta

title: User:BrokenSegue


text:
User talk:BrokenSegue

I award you
Bawolff ☺☻ 01:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:BrokenSegue


text:
User:Astronouth7303

... so ... many ... user ... pages ...

 * Wikipedia:User:Astronouth7303
 * FIRSTwiki:User:Astronouth7303
 * MetaWikiPedia:User:Astronouth7303
 * Wikipedia:Simple:User:Astronouth7303
 * FURCwiki:User:Astronouth7303
 * GmailWiki:User:Astronouth7303
 * Astronouth7303

I hope I'm not missing any.

title: User:Astronouth7303


text:
Bulk of Iraqi debt to Paris Club to be forgiven

The nineteen member nations of the Paris Club have agreed to forgive 80 percent of Iraq's debt, reports the Reuters news service. The plan will reduce Iraq's total debt to the member nations to $7.8 billion, from the original $38.9 billion, over a period of four years.

The three-phase plan approved by the creditors calls for an immediate cancellation of 30 percent of Iraq's current debt, which will be followed by another 30 percent in 2005 upon approval of an economic program for the nation by the International Monetary Fund and 20 percent in 2008 after an evaluation of the effectiveness of the program.

Adel Abdul Mahdi, Iraq's Finance Minister, said that the deal was "historic". He also expressed optimism that other creditor nations, including neighbors in the Middle East as well as several Eastern European nations, may follow the West's lead in forgiving Iraqi debt.

However, Bulgaria and Romania have announced that they intend to recoup as much as possible of the debt owed them by Iraq, claiming that the inflow of cash from Iraq is essential to their respective economies. They have, however, indicated their willingness to discuss rescheduling of payments on the debt. Dimitar Tsonev, spokesman for the Bulgarian government, told the Sofia News Agency that the requests from Western leaders to reduce Iraq's debt were not the first such requests he had received. Romania has said it would like to take a flexible approach to the debt repayments, one which is in line with its economic potential.

The plan is the culmination of a trans-Atlantic struggle over the amount of Iraqi debt to be forgiven, the United States pushing for a 90 to 95 percent reduction while France argued for much less.


text:
Category:November 21, 2004

it:Categoria:21 novembre 2004

title: Category:November 21, 2004


text:
Help:Automatic conversion of wikitext

There are three categories of automatic conversion of wikitext:

 * In a preview, the rendering of the result already shows up in the preview itself, but the conversion is not yet shown in the edit box (save and press Edit again to see the result of the conversion in the edit box, and to edit it):
 * ~ produces e.g. Patrick 10:58, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC). This is a piped link to the user page and the UTC time and date, for use on talk pages. An alternative link label (nickname) can be set in the User Data section of the preferences. The feature can even be used to create an additional link to the user talk page, etc. See also en:Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages and Help:Editing.
 * Additionally, there are:
 * giving Patrick
 * giving 08:41, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * subst, see Help:Template
 * see Piped link
 * In a preview, the conversion is not yet shown at all:
 * extra lines of text (not extra text on the same line) after a redirect are automatically deleted
 * In a preview, the conversion is already shown, even in the edit box:
 * in MediaWiki projects which use ISO-8859-1 character encoding (the English, Dutch, Danish, and Swedish Wikipedia), special characters that are not available in the limited character set are automatically converted to their decimal numeric codes on Preview or Save.
 * in the Esperanto Wikipedia, a character like Ŝ is automatically converted into the alternative notation Sx, because in some browsers it may not display in the edit box, even if it displays in the webpage (and Sx, whether resulting from this conversion or just typed, is rendered as Ŝ)

As opposed to rendering matters (what webpage results from given wikitext), these conversions are not demonstrated in looking at existing wikitext and webpages: the wikitext only shows the result, not how it was entered.

It also means that when testing these features, one has to remember or record what one has entered.

title: Help:Automatic conversion of wikitext


text:
Help:Testing

Before commiting to a change, one should test it first.

changes to a page
There is a preview button near the submit button. One should check to make sure that the links are correct and the spelling is correct

spelling
linuxquestions.org appears to have a spell checker in their modified version of mediawiki, one can use Konqueror or Firefox with a spell check extention to check spelling within the browser window.

Testing features of existing software on the test project
An advantage is that is does not interfere with, or clutter, the regular projects; disadvantage is that differences in the software may interfere with the test; e.g., error messages may be shown, or the tested features work differently. Also, the project may be reset, or history may otherwise be lost, so one has to save elsewhere what one wants to keep.

Testing features of existing software on one of the regular projects
This applies anyway for tests that depend on settings which are different per project, such as:
 * interlanguage links (software feature)
 * case-sensitivity of the first character
 * character encoding
 * enabling of embedding images in other projects and images outside Wikimedia
 * MediaWiki:Monobook.css, etc.
 * any test depending on other content, which is not copied onto the test project, or on namespace prefixes, etc.

It can be done:

 * in special pages such as en:Wikipedia:Sandbox
 * on user pages and subpages
 * using Preview - this can not be used to test how a change in a page affects another page, such as when changing a template; when used to test automatic conversion of wikitext it only shows the rendered webpage, not the new wikitext itself, except for automatic conversion of special characters to their decimal numeric codes.

A test involving variable, e.g. a link to an image or another page with a name containing  , can be done on the Talk page, since the value of the variable is the same on that page.

Sysops testing the available links and how things work for ordinary logged-in users, can log in under another name, or in a project for which they are not a sysop.

title: Help:Testing


text:
User:Patrick

w:User:Patrick

rcl help

 category=Help ordermethod=lastedit

title: User:Patrick


text:
Talk:Bulk of Iraqi debt to Paris Club to be forgiven

See Review guidelines.

Comments
Add your comments below.

It should have interwiki links to wikipedia in the article, at the least. Lyellin 18:10, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Added several wikifications. Foeke 18:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Factual and well written I think. --119 19:11, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well-written and relatively factual. I took out the misleading part about BG and RO being heavily indebted. That is simply not true. Ronline 08:10, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * It is true and not at all misleading. Perhaps they don't owe as much as some other nations in absolute terms, but relative to their own economies, their debt is quite large.  If Bill Gates owed someone $200,000 you wouldn't call him "heavily indebted"--because that's nothing for him.  On the other hand, if it was me owing someone $200,000, you're damn right I'd be "heavily indebted".Kurt Weber 16:29, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The article itself is distinctly misleading. It ignores Iraq's non-Paris club debts entirely, which are twice as large. It ignores the reality that the debts had no immediate change to be paid off, and the headline claims that the debt is forgiven, when the remaining Paris Club debt equals one whole year of the new Iraq's GDP. See: Reuters for information about the other debt.
 * Non-Paris club debts are ignored because they're not part of the story. And the title does not claim that the entire debt is forgiven--only the bulk of it, which is distinctly true. Kurt Weber 19:30, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well written. Should be passed. Cap'n Refsmmat 23:03, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews talk:Major or minor

Could you please give a real example? I think I did not understand it. --carlosar

title: Wikinews talk:Major or minor