text:
Wikinews:Water cooler/policy/archives/2009/July

Discussion on new policy which would add reverse chronolgical order the the Style Guide
I believe it's time, after some discussion here that a specific section should be added regarding the previously unofficial practice of ordering sources in a reverse chronological order. Discuss. Calebrw (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I made a comment there. At the time I put this in the archive conventions it was an oversight not synching the style guide to this standard. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Reverse chronological order is followed nearly universally, it should become part of the policy in WN:SG. --SVTCobra 21:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The style guide is, as it says, a style guideline, not a policy. Moreover, things should not become policy just because they happen to be done one way by some people.  That way leads to ossification.  Instruction creep for no good reason is a bad thing.  A policy needs a rationale.  So, too, does an addition to the style guideline.  Indeed, we really need a reason for this even being in the archive conventions in the first place. I suspect that no-one has any actual figures to back up that claim of "universally", moreover.  As such, an argument that "It's always done this way." founders.  I could equally well assert that in many articles sources are presented in forward chronological order by date, or in no order at all.  Many articles only have sources from one day, and so it's impossible to tell what chronological order, if any at all, they were in. Does anyone have an actual rationale for this as a style guideline, or even as an archive convention? Uncle G (talk) 00:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So are you saying it should be random? Since Wikinews articles are collaborative, it seems to me to be useful if contributors add new sources to one end or the other and not in the middle. It makes it easier to review. I support the reverse chronological, as opposed to a chronological order, only because that has been tradition. But I think we need one or the other. --SVTCobra 00:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm saying what I actually wrote, not some straw man. Here it is again: Does anyone have an actual rationale for this as a style guideline, or even as an archive convention?  Notice that your argument here is actually an argument against chronological order, in either direction, and contradicts your position.  I've written several articles recently where I've added new sources to the end as I've expanded the article, resulting in the source order being the order of use.  The discussion that that has stirred up is partly why we're having this discussion in the first place.  Order of use is not necessarily chronological order.  I agree, because that's what I do, that appending new sources to the end of the list is a practice that is, at least, consistent.  But that's a rationale for order of use.  My question was whether there's a rationale for chronological order (i.e. order of dateline) as style guideline or archive convention.  Maintaining chronological order can, and will, involve inserting new sources in the middle of the list.  Uncle G (talk) 06:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * One rationale is that when reviewing an article, you can often deduct from the context of a certain part when it was written (e.g. if it was written a month ago or a day ago, relative to the article date that is). Thus sorting them (reverse) chronologically helps the reviewer in finding out of all parts of the article are covered by the sources. It also helps the reviewer (or archiver) to ensure that no source was added from a later date than the publication date, as the date of the sources shouldn't be newer than the date on which the article was published. I noticed in some older articles that sometimes a source was added e.g. a month after the article was published, because it contained new information on the subject. As we do not change the content (and sources) of articles, this prevents some abuse in that matter.
 * Another option could be to sort them on "interestingness", so readers that want to read more on the subject, can just pick the first source. One could argue that a more recent source is more interesting, but that is of course not always true. However, sorting them on interestingness is not easy to accomplish, I think. Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk) 12:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Election notice: please distribute widely
Ladies and Gentlemen,

As you may be aware, there is concern that the sitenotices regarding submission of candidacy for the Board of Trustees election were not seen anywhere but Meta after the 11th of this month. Because of the potentially massive consequence of this, and to encourage a full and active election, the election committee has determined that:

- Candidacies will be accepted through July 27th at 23:59 (UTC)

- The period for questioning candidates begins immediately. Candidates that are "late to the party" will, no doubt, be scrutinized by the community. The Committee hopes that the community will work to actively ensure that all candidates receive equivalent questioning.

- The dates of election will not change. The election will begin on 28 July and end on 10 August.

Please know that we recognize the radical nature of altering the schedule in the midst of the election and would not do it if we did not absolutely believe that there was a possibility that others may be interested and qualified and may not have known about the key dates.

For the committee, Philippe (talk) 09:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Abolish ArbCom
Arbitration Committee elections are due soon and I propose that the committee should be abolished.

The committee is unneeded, adds to bureaucracy and editors must waste time to organise the elections.

It hasn't been used since 2006 and whilst there was a proposal to suspend Arbitration Committee in 2008, I think it is time to re-open this for discussion.

This community is so small that I believe any dispute could be solved without the need for a overly bureaucratic committee.

Should the community expand, a committee could be reformed. Should a major dispute arise, I trust that this small, closeknit community could sort it out without the ArbCom. Computerjoe 's talk 23:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relatively new so don't know much about any previous conflicts-but I've not seen any and can see no real need for it. Any problems can be dealt with by the community-which is pretty much the ArbCom anyway!     Tris   23:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Three years have went by with absolutely no cases or even hints at cases. We have other policies, and a tight-knit community to enforce them, to make sure nothing ever has to come to "an ArbCom level." It's simply pointless for a community of such small size to have this body. Mike Halterman (talk) 00:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * . Communities this small rarely see disputes significant enough to warrant ArbCom. – Juliancolton  | Talk 00:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It served its purpose — dealing with perpetual MrMiscellanious/Neutralizer drama (we desperately needed a binding authority to put an end to it). We can always bring it back later if we have to. Let the current terms expire without any replacement. harej (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want more of the backstory, here it is. A few years back there was this editor named MrMiscellanious, who was fairly conservative and frequently clashed with Neutralizer, who was into conspiracy theories. It did not help that neither of them were exactly civil in the face of editorial dispute, and Neutralizer was not the only once concerned about MrM's behavior. These conflicts ran nigh on forever, and ultimately, it was decided that there needed to be a binding authority to get this done. The Arbitration Committee was established. The case of MrMiscellanious was finally addressed by ArbCom, and they decided to hold a confirmation vote on his adminship. Pretty much the entire site turned up to vote against his adminship, including myself. He then retired. As for Neutralizer, after he received a 4 hour block, I decided he broke the camel's back and made that block last for six months. People disagreed, so I agreed to a parole system. Of course, he violated the parole and the site agreed to ban him forever. Then he was unbanned after six months for a stupid reason but never returned substantially. harej (talk) 01:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * harej, in your opinion then, as you have gone through what most of us have not, would Wikinews be better served by having a WN:ARBCOM in place before the next "MrMiscellanious/Neutralizer" incident erupts? Given that ArbCom was created during a dispute, there must have been some concerns that candidates had already formed opinions. Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Recognizing that it's very possible that Wikinews will once again have to deal with a drama queen, the Arbitration Committee should be kept in a memberless dormant state until people agree that it's time to bring it back. harej (talk) 01:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Memberless ArbCom is, imho, retarded. Indefinite terms, subject to challenges, would be better than that. --SVTCobra 02:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. How about each of the present members stay as arbitrators for now, and arbitrators who resign do not get replaced until the ArbCom reaches some critically low number. harej (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with having to vote once a year to confirm their status? Otherwise you'll probably get the discussion if they still have the community's support, etc., when they are actually needed. I think we can reconfirm the status of the current members (if they still want to) + vote for a new member. It will take very little time and shows continued support from the community, so there can't be any discussion about the validity of their ArbCom membership. Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk) 11:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Votes take time and indefinite terms result in inactive members being arbitrators. Computerjoe 's talk 12:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh, so many memories. As you have pointed out, practically the entire site voted against MrM maintaining admin status. If there was such strong consensus that he was behaving inappropriately, why was Arbcon needed in the first place? - Borofkin (talk) 00:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

 * abolition of ArbCom. There were very good reasons for setting it up, and it was difficult to form in the midst of recurring POV-warring. I'd say it is extremely unlikely we'll need it again but it would be too much of a headache to set up again if needed. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps in such an occasion, the project's bureaucrats could form an ad hoc committee? Computerjoe 's talk 16:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Might come in useful in future, better to have procedures in place that people know, then to suddenly have to create such a commitee from scratch, with the rightful accusation that rules are being changed and created on the hoof. As to membership how about a dormant but standing membership of all active stewards, a member would have to be trusted, active and supported by the community in order to become a steward and to maintain their stewardship. The committee could remain dormant until a quorum of members (say half) decided that its powers and authority was needed in a particular case.KTo288 (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * per reasoning above (including my previous reply). Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * , per rationale as given by . Cirt (talk) 06:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It appears consensus won't be reached. Perhaps a compromise could be made? Perhaps the ArbCom could be simply made up of all of one class of user, for example crats? Computerjoe 's talk 16:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Because...? Van der Hoorn (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how that would resolve the issues at hand. – Juliancolton  | Talk 22:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It won't. ArbCom in 2006 had a point. Now, in 2009, there is no purpose for it and clearly keeping it or ending it proves divisive. I know I won't involve myself in elections as I had last year, because quite frankly people think such a small community electing half its members to an ArbCom that does nothing is a total laughingstock. And now I agree. Mike Halterman (talk) 08:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

 * if an ArbCom is assembled on an ad-hoc basis it will always be questioned if it was tainted. I say we keep the July 31 date annually to elect members for the open seats and any where the member has had no edits in 90 days (or some other amount of time) --SVTCobra 22:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So that would mean if all ArbCom members would be active for 90 days, we could never vote for other people? What's so bad about re-electing the old ones, too? Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk) 11:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, SVTCobra is saying keep the elections on a specific date, exclude any inactive members from automatic nomination, and proceed with elections. Personally, I think this whole discussion has collectively taken up more time than holding the election. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well let's vote then. :) Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we lack consensus and we should use SVTCobra's suggestion. I will proceed with organising an election tomorrow or on Friday, if we have no objections? Computerjoe 's talk 16:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Style guide issues
I've just come across The BBC News Styleguide. I've read the introduction, and I added it in one of the bottom sections of our style guide as something for further reading. I note the first section is on abbreviations and acronyms - perhaps that could act as input to the "U.K." vs "UK" debate we've had, and possibly other points.

Point to note in that introduction is the BBC aren't often the ones to introduce terms, but their use signals or results in a widespread acceptance. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Water cooler/policy/archives/2009/September

On Flagged Revisions
Brian McNeil and I started a discussion during the ongoing ITN debates that are really related to Wikinews policy, so I wanted to bring the discussion over here.Ohms law (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, "I assume anyone keeping in the loop about this is not as ignorant as the mainstream press as to assume it is 'less open' editing." isn't really a good assumption to make... I'm not particularly comfortable with Flagged Revisions myself, and I'm willing to admit that I've (somewhat irrationally) allowed it's use on Wikinews to prevent me from really jumping in there. As much of a news hound as I am, I really should be a very active editor on Wikinews, as well. I know that Flagged Revisions isn't actually supposed to close off editing, it's just... a psychological barrier, I guess. Anyway, I'm not sure what he meant by the "open up news listing" comment, either. — Ohms law (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

 * If you have a user account, you won't really notice FlaggedRevisions on Wikinews. Editor status isn't automatically granted as is proposed for Wikipedia, but the bar is set very low. As is the bar for having it taken away, but that's only happened once where someone self-published an article instead of waiting for an independent peer review. --Brian McNeil /talk 00:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Yea, I know that's the way it's supposed to be... I'm just trying to explain why the reality is slightly different then the intent, for me . I suspect that my own feelings are similar to others, but I can't back that up with anything concrete. Regardless, we should probably have this conversation on Wikinews' water cooler, or somewhere else on the Wikinews project, since it's really specifically related to the project and not Wikipedia. If you start a conversation there and link to it, I'll be happy to come over and participate in a more in depth discussion about it. — Ohms law (talk) 03:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the exact topic of discussion/original question or what not is, but flagged revisions is used quite differently here than it is (or is proposed to be) used on wikipedia. Unlike wikipedia where articles are works in progress Wikinews articles undergo a life cycle: They are either developing, published, or archived. When an article is developing, which is when it is being actively edited, flagged revisions is not used. Once the are published, flagged revisions are used, but published articles are generally not edited beyond typos and minor changes in most cases anyways. When a flagged article is edited, the response time to have it sighted is generally very fast, with there almost never being a backlog (for re-flagging. reviewing articles sometimes has backlogs). For example, at this precise moment in time there are 0 edits waiting to be flagged. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This came up as a part of the ongoing discussion at w:Template talk:In the news. Anyway, What I was trying to get across is just to capture my feelings as a "new to Wikinews" user. I'm fairly positive that I can (and likely will) adjust, and become an active contributor here (especially if there is to be a closer relationship between the two projects, which is what the above linked to conversation is about). I just know from my own development experiences that capturing the "first impressions" of newer people is fairly important, so I wanted to share mine.
 * That's good to know about the development cycle, here. I didn't know that there was an extra step before being "published". I assume that all of the articles that I've looked at here have already been published, then?
 * Anyway, I'll leave it up to those of you who are active here to do what you will with the information that I've provided here. I'm available, here and (mostly) on Wikipedia, if anyone wants to ask additional questions, of course. If I could be so bold as to offer a suggestion though, it would be to think about not enabling Flagged Revisions until some small amount of time has passed after publishing (24-48 hours would suffice, I would think). That might present a "more open" feel to the site, at least. Ohms law (talk) 07:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Boldly outside-the-box suggestions are a sign of a vigorous community.
 * The purpose of using flagged revisions here is quality control. Publication is the point at which we as a community certify that an article has met our minimal standards; before that, we don't make any promises about it, but after that we need a different way to vet proposed changes.  So the choice of publication as the moment to sight isn't arbitrary, it's the whole reason we use FlaggedRevs, or equivalently (looking at the same thing from the other side) it's the definition of what we mean by "publication".
 * Since you didn't know (we're using you as a sample case, right?) — since you didn't know that flagged revisions were only used during part of the lifecycle, there seems no reason to suppose that you would have known if they were used during a slightly different part of the lifecycle. So the psychological dampening effect that we're talking about would not be any different even if such a delay in flagging were effected.
 * Unregistered users seem to make copyedits to recently published articles often enough. I myself, when I was new here (now using that earlier version of me as a sample case), had never heard of flagged revisions until after I made my first copyedit to a recently published Wikinews article.  When my edit showed up as a "draft", though, what I thought was, "Oh, neat.  That makes sense, for a news outlet."  And then I came back later to check, just to see if my edit had been accepted into the primary version yet; it actually became a draw for me to become a repeat customer, with a gentle thrill to see my contribution being actively accepted by the community (a much more community-oriented experience than making a Wikipedia edit and never getting any feedback from anyone else other than not being reverted; not being reverted could be simply because nobody else actually noticed one's edit).
 * (BTW, to see unpublished articles, check out the Newsroom.) --Pi zero (talk) 11:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

 * One thing to try to correct is the topic of the second bullet point. I'm new (as an editor) to Wikinews, but I'm not at all new to WMF editing. I knew a couple of years ago, the first time my eyes layed site of a story on WIkinews, that Flagged Revisions were being used. To a brand new editor to wiki's in general, your point would likely be relevent, but I doubt that most who come here are actually new to editing wikis, especially since the use of wikis has spread so far and wide outside of WMF projects. Ohms law (talk) 07:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

 * In fact, I'd been contributing to Wikipedia for several years before that. Granted, the order in which I learned things is partly a result of history that's unlikely to repeat itself for younger people who weren't old enough to remember when there wasn't a Web.

 * Two experiential factors that do seem relevant to the psychology of the situation are (1) whether one has a previous negative impression of FlaggedRevs, and (2) whether one knows in advance that Wikinews uses FlaggedRevs. Prior knowledge of FlaggedRevs presumably won't cause difficulty unless one has a negative impression of it.  If one does have a previous negative impression of it, then even if one doesn't know in advance that Wikinews uses FlaggedRevs (though one might guess that it would), the moment one recognizes that it's being used here I suppose one might have an allergic reaction to it.

 * A non-experiential factor is the personality of the person involved. I reacted this way; that doesn't mean everyone, even with the same relevant experiential factors, would react that way.  I tend to engage in communities with careful conscious thought about their social dynamics, which I suspect may only be typical of about three percent of the population at large.  I recall Brian McNeil (who is, for perspective, behind the creation of that excellent Howdy template) remarking here a while back that some people 'click' with Wikinews relatively quickly, while others don't find it as natural.  Perhaps we ought to be asking what personality traits contribute to that.  (Interestingly, the negative reactions to Wikinews that were being discussed there didn't actually have to do directly with FlaggedRevs.)  --Pi zero (talk) 12:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

FlaggedRevs and DPL
If you're from Wikipedia, you won't have seen one of the sneaky extras we have - Dynamic Page Lists. To sum up DPL as shortly as possible: It lists a specified number of articles based on criteria on the categories articles are, or are not, in. This means huge swathes of Wikinews are unmaintained, but the content they display remains fresh as long as new articles are churned out and correctly categorised.

FlaggedRevs, as stated above, is for Quality Control. A key driver of this process was getting Wikinews accepted as a source for Google News.

DPL needed amended to take this into account. Fortunately, I realised this prior to us rigourously enforcing a review process. There are now options in the DPL syntax which allow you to select only reviewed (actually sighted, but that's a technicality) articles, and to make the DPL give an explicit link to the last reviewed/sighted version. If you look at the URLs in the Latest News section on the main page you'll see this.

Prior to this (i.e. for over 5 years) anybody could get a link to something on the main page just by putting it in the right categories. Now they can't I'd say our vandalism has dropped a fair bit.

Once you see and start to figure out how this gels together it just becomes part of the furniture. When you've got editor status Recent Changes highlights details about the state of articles following a listed change. The review option there gives a diff between the last sighted and latest versions. One click, and it's live. It can be a little more complex if there's been a half-dozen or more edits since the article was last sighted, but at the moment we manage to keep on top of that pretty well. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Good info here, thank you (and I appreciate the how to template on my talk page as well. I never received one before now). however, that actually highlights a corollary point that I'm attempting to bring up here. There is something of a learning curve to get over, coming to Wikinews from Wikipedia. I've done some editing on Wikibooks as well, so FlaggedRev's aren't completely foreign to me, but the main point is that it's different here. Part of that may be intentional and/or desirable, I don't really know, but it is there. Again though, thanks for the info. Ohms law (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Although Flagged Revisions is vital to our continued listing on GoogleNews (if FR goes, we're off GN), that's not the only reason it exists.

 * I'd like to highlight the importance of having some editorial control on Wikinews. Yes this is a wiki, but it is also a news site. The very nature of news means that some editorial control must be maintained in order to keep the content fresh and reasonably reliable. In the MSM the position of editor is held by a single person or a small group of people. Because this is a wiki, we've spread that responsibility as widely as possible. Basically anyone with an account can become an editor upon request.

 * But why don't these same issues apply on Wikipedia? Well, largely it is due to the timescales involved in article creation. A Wikipedia article might well take years to develop into a decent, informative article. That's cool. It's an encyclopedia, so it can do that. We're a news site though. News. The very word explicitly states our problem: news has to be new, else it isn't news (it becomes encyclopedic content).

 * This means that our articles have to be spit out in a rapidfire fashion, and that their is no opportunity to revise them later if something goes wrong during article creation (either purposefully or accidentally). So while Wikipedia can leave inaccurate information in articles for years before correcting it, we can't. We have hours to their years. This necessitates a far greater level of editorial control on Wikinews than exists on Wikipedia. (I actually oppose Flagged Revs on Wikipedia. It is unnecessary. That is not the case on Wikinews.) Gopher65talk 15:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

 * As a concept, we could create a Wikipedia->Wikinews "How to" Guide. In other words a page specifically devoted to explaining to experienced Wikipedian's, how Wikinews is different, and how to adapt to our ways.  Really, once you understand that the main page is all that matters on Wikinews, that DPL updates it, Flagged Revisions is an important part of that and our develop/review/publish process - you're golden. -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 02:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Wikibooks has a page Help:Wikibooks for Wikimedians. --Pi zero (talk) 03:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Good to know. We started writing For Wikipedians earlier, I will study more what Wikibooks has to see if there is any concepts we can borrow. -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 04:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

 * This is good idea, should help the transition process from WP to here less confusing. I've expanded the page a bit. Tempodivalse [talk]  12:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"Expire" Accredited Reporters
At this point in time, if you become an Accredited Reporter around here, you are for life. You have to resign, quit or screw up REALLY BAD to have your accreditation yanked. In fact since 2005, I can only find 4 people who have. In conjunction with the WN:WARIC project (that hopefully will come, and based on suggestions in that talk page). I propose that we build in expiration of 2 years into the Accreditation policy. At the end of the 2 years, we can have a simple "re-up" request. We revoke every other type of permission for inactivity, but not Accredited Reporters - which is our most public facing group (theoretically). -- Shakata Ga Nai ^_^ 01:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments

 * I'm currently undecided about this. To one hand, there's a certain logic to it, if someone isn't using their press passes they don't need them so they can be removed. But, what harm do inactive ARs do to the project? I would generally only support the removal of a user's rights if he had broken my trust, and being inactive for a long time doesn't automatically make that person no longer trusted, does it? Also, considering we have 68 ARs currently, that would mean we'd have to have an average of about one request every eleven days - seems like a bit of a distraction. I think I'll take some time to mull this over. Tempodivalse [talk]  02:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll admit, instituting this would be less than fun. But I'll even volunteer to do that initial work load.  For implementing this, we'd take everyone on the inactive list and post a message on their talk page/email asking them if they want to keep it.  If yes, add to vote.  If no or no response, removed.  That should eliminate at least 20 people right off the top.  I think there will be more people that will SERIOUSLY consider if they even want to keep it, how many of us that are AR, have actually used it?  I haven't, even I would have to sit down and think about it.  Also, maybe instead of having exactly 2 year expiration, we group them into batches at the end of every year, or every 6 months.  This would be beneficial for the cost of printing ID's - if we go with a service (which we probably will) - since it costs less to get them in quantity.
 * As for what harm? It's must like inactive Admins or Bots.  AGF, there are no harm.  Reality, they could pop out of the woodwork and cause us a black eye.  As long as their name is on WN:CV they tell anyone and everyone they are "Wikinews Approved" (For lack of a better term), they could do some damage to our reputation real quick (Without EVER touching the Wiki) and we'd not know until someone contacted us, or we end up in the news.  Its not TERRIBLY likely off hand, but it could happen. -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 02:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems to me the core of "accredited" is "trusted by the currently active community." I'm not sure how much the community has evolved from year-to-year, but it seems likely that there could be significant growth or turnover over a 2-year period. So, to preserve the meaning of "accredited," I think it's important to have some sort of "re-accredit" process on a schedule somewhere roughly around 2 years. -Peteforsyth (talk) 02:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In this case I thought accreditation meant 'is a real person, writes for Wikinews, someone is willing to vouch for them'. That's quite different from something like 'a majority of the currently active community feels positively about them'.  Having an expiry in ID cards is something else; there is wide variance across physical cards, some of which for major groups or organizations don't in fact list an expiry (within those, some of them do have chips or sth else inside which allow for their recognition in readers to change or expire over time) sj (talk) 01:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How can someone vouch for someone if they don't even know who they are. There is significant turn over in the wikinews community, I wouldn't be suprised if there is some people on this list who no one active even knows who they are. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * — If we go with a real, official Wikinews ID card for accredited reporters, I'd like an expiry date built into them, with a new card having to be reissued every 2 years (or whatever time period we choose). I don't want to get into a situation where we have thousands of indefinite-expiry cards floating around with nothing but a name on them. Gopher65talk 02:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree'd. I guess I should have made that clearer, but that is one of the major reasons why I want to make this change.  If we can push ahead with the cards, we want to have this expiration system in place BEFORE the cards get issued, not after. -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 02:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Having an expiry on physical cards is different again - you could implement that without this poll, and this poll doesn't speak to that directly. sj (talk)

 * I agree people should be notified, but I really think there should be a realistic expectation that the credentials might be used - there are several who have been delisted from scoop due to full mailboxes. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Question for Dragon: are you saying all existing accredited users should be notified? Or everyone with an account? Don't necessarily object to either one, but what practical step are you suggesting should be taken? Send a mass email, or...? -Peteforsyth (talk) 07:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * All inactive accredited reports should be contacted or at least an effort made to do so. I can understand that they have been deleted from scoop and such. However, that doesn't mean that they should not be notified. If the option is enabled, the users can be e-mailed right here from Wikinews, by clicking e-mail user on the side bar. If not enabled, then their talk pages or personal e-mails if available. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 15:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be easier to email them from the accredited list? Cirt (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. My point, put more bluntly, is that I do not think anyone should retain accreditation unless they've got a publicly accessible email address - either at the accredited list, or via mail-this-user. If it fails, or a message goes unanswered, they should lose accreditation. This is a privilege, being contactable seems a fundamental duty to retain this privilege. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Cirt (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ← I started this, I'll email people. -- Shakata Ga Nai ^_^ 21:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Emailed all the Inactives that had email on file via Special:EmailUser. -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 00:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. How long are we going to wait for a response? Tempodivalse [talk]  00:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Couple days, tops. Really at this point in time ALL of them would have to get together and oppose to stop this.  Everyone else is in favor.  I am, of course, open to putting a hold on it should someone say something smart about why we shouldn't. -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 00:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * Per nom + we have 68 AR's right now. More than we have admins, and not even all our admins are active. -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 01:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Since Wikinews seems from time to time on the edge of losing critical mass, this strikes me as an opportunity to reclaim attention from once passionate contributors. If you don't have a specific reason to do so, I wouldn't revoke this public recognition of their former interest just for the sake of it. sj (talk) 01:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * , but I'd like to add a requirement of sending a courtesy notification prior to revoking. Also, I think there might be some other automatic triggers that should be considered…what if somebody gets a job as a reporter or editor for another publication? Or get a job for a business that they've been covering regularly on Wikinews? etc. Probably fodder for a separate proposal, but it came to mind. -Peteforsyth (talk) 01:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I fully agree with notifying them. We gotta tell them anyways that they are being voted upon.  As for other auto triggers, I dunno really, I mean it makes sense in concept, but I can't think of anything that is _so_ COI that they should get 'voked.  Many people at Wikinews have used it to help them get jobs in Journalism (Like Mike_H), but the stuff he does for his Magazine is nothing like whats done on WN. -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 01:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I was no more suggesting "auto-revoke" than you were in your proposal -- just that certain things should maybe trigger an automatic review/discussion. But let's not get into all that here...we can discuss in another forum and take our time :) -Peteforsyth (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * — I don't like "for life" systems. Especially when our credibility is at stake. A bi-yearly renewal process (which will just be a formality for active reporters) is a good way to proceed in my opinion. I'm open to alternative suggestions if someone has a problem with this one, but the community needs *some* form of control over who can claim to represent Wikinews. Gopher65talk 01:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Though not currently an active contributor here, I am more concerned about the fact that currently too few people claim to represent Wikinews; not that the wrong people do. Having people try to spoof a credibility system would itself be a sign of general interest. sj (talk) 01:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As above    Tris   07:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Was originally hesitant, but the above comments convinced me this is a good idea. Tempodivalse [talk]  17:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Abstain - Polls are evil. Has this been discussed before creating a poll? Wouldn't it be better to have the discussion first, and only if consensus cannot be reached decide to drag out a poll? I see no consideration of other options or ideas because the question has been framed narrowly. For example, why are we talking about auto re-application requests? we could simply have auto-rollover unless someone protests, and then any inactive accounts would nearly automatically generate a protest. -  Amgine | t 18:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * no physical card with built in 'credible ID' features should be issued without an expiry date. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm ambivalent about this. News IDs in particular are regularly issued without expiry (I had one for a time).  However, I think this particular poll/proposal addresses a different point. sj (talk) 01:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If some of these reporters return, seeking accreditation, the fact that they previously held such trust should weigh in on their renewal and they should list the fact in their application. Overall, I support a 'reset' so that future accreditation/ID cards can be issued with an expiration date. It is potentially devastating if someone is running around in the 'real world' presenting themselves as a Wikinews accredited reporter without actually reporting at Wikinews. Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (although i tend to agree with Amgine on the general evil nature of polls, however this has been discussed before, albeit not very well and a while ago). Accreditation essentially says "We [the wikinews community] know who this person is, and can vouch that they won't be idiots, thus please allow them to have reporter access to your event". If they havn't contributed recently, I do not feel we can still vouch for them, since people change over time, and if they're really old, no one here might even know who they are. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * - A sensible idea. Cirt (talk) 00:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * --Pi zero (talk) 00:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. – Juliancolton  | Talk 03:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * but all users who are inactive should first be notified and have a reasonable amount of time to respond to the notification. Technically all of them should also be allowed to vote on this or at least be made aware of such a vote. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 04:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * - As a holder of said credentials I am happy to forgo mine. I do not represent myself in anyway as Wikinews and have not done so for some time.  I carry freelance credentials from several agencies that I freelance for and none of them are for life.  All expire as they should here.  If I end up writing again for this outlet, I will be happy to reapply.  Excellent poll and well founded. Thank you for reaching out for me. -- Drew / Talk 01:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Mild . Accreditation essentially says "We [the wikinews community] know who this person is, and can vouch that they won't be idiots, thus please allow them to have reporter access to your event". For me the important part of a credential is that someone who keeps an eye on the accredited list has verified personal information about the reporter, and they the concept of wikinews; a task which, once copmleted, is done.  As long as they have contributed well in the past, [the project] can still vouch for them.  Older contributors should be regularly contacted to help maintain a diverse group of reporters and editors; of course they are welcome to give up their credentials as Drew has above. An alternative:
 * There should be yearly credential review. Credentials should persist unless there is a specific concern.
 * Until there is in fact a problem with at least one accredited reporter (which can happen even with active editors) credentials should not be made more of a Big Deal than they are now; that stunts community growth.
 * I am neutral about the idea of having an expiry date on physically issued cards, which is a separate issue. Those could expire and be remailed every two years...
 * I was under the impression that this process *was* a yearly (well, bi-yearly) credential review, with auto-renewal unless a problem emerged (ie, the person has lost interest in Wikinews, or they've done something bad to lose the trust of the community, or the person can't be contacted because they've dropped off the face of the planet). So I think this proposal is in fact very similar to what you are suggesting. Gopher65talk 03:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)at
 * Saying that revoking credentials would stunt community growth, seems very much to be pushing it imho. Bawolff ☺☻ 12:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Computerjoe 's talk 08:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup of accredited reporters and Wikinewsie
Okay, from the above vote we're pretty clear that all those deemed inactive when it started lose accreditation. It now has to be put into place, or operation. If any of the old (soon to be ex-) accredited reporters come back they can go through the accreditation process again.

WN:CV is the most obvious thing to clean up, and removing and templates or other assertion of accreditation from appropriate user pages. After that it's really sorting out http://www.wikinewsie.org and the email addresses on it. Email is not a problem, just time-consuming as accounts are controlled through a slow secure web interface. The actual website and its content is a little more problematic. It is on shared hosting so there are restrictions on the number of people that can access it, and what can be done (no shell access). The list of accredited users on the front page is really awful to maintain. It is generated from a MySQL database and the only way to update it is via a klunky web interface. The whole thing needs integrated into a standardised look and feel where that is possible. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

What Wikinewsie has just now

 * Simple table and code to list accredited users on the front page
 * The Editors' blog, not frequently updated (fails auto-update ATM), has nonstandard skin (thanks Symode), generally a bit of a mess
 * Access to web mail (accredited users only), unfortunately no customisation of the look of this allowed
 * A private wiki - for accredited users and administrators (With a Public: namespace anyone can view)
 * A private calendaring/appointment tool (again, Godaddy provided tool - not really able to customise)
 * Another instance of WordPress, not yet in use or configured

What it should have

 * A more professional front page, without listing the accredited reporters directly there
 * A consistency of appearance whether in a blog, the main site, or the wiki pages
 * The ability to easily update details of who is and is not accredited

Discussion of where to take Wikinewsie

 * 1) If you are responding to someone's statement, please reply to it inline
 * 2) If you wish to state your own position, please append it to this sub-section and use the user template at the top to make it stand out

 * Wikinewsie has not had a lot of thought or effort put into it and could do with a lot of improvement. I have a strong suspicion that one of the biggest issues about a consistent look and feel would be the existence of a wiki on the site. That is, once you've decided on the wiki skin (say, Vector), you're designing the rest of the site round it.
 * Being a given that we have a wiki, can this be used to maintain the data about accredited reporters? If that is on a Public: namespace page, can the page content be embedded in a 'normal' page on the website without the wiki interface?
 * I think a better approach would be to have the bio's link directly to pages on the public namespace. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In doing that, say Public:Accredited Reporters and individual pages for people, how much of the standard Mediawiki stuff that goes with the skin can be suppressed? You don't want links to upload content unless you're logged in, and you don't want a main page link to go to the wiki's main page. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Depends how adequetl we want to supress it. If using css  is fine, we can supress pretty much whatever we want. Conceivably we could somehow make it so that the wiki could be accessed from different directories (aka you go to wikinewsie.org/wiki/blah for normal wiki and wikinewsie.org/public/blah maps to wikinewsie.org/wiki/public:blah, but with different css). Bawolff ☺☻ 12:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Would it not be better to have them link to bios on here, so the majority of stuff is over here?    Tris   14:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The site has it's own "derivative" of the Wikinews logo. Would we continue with that, or redesign?
 * As there are 'spare' MySQL databases, should we be restricted to just 'The Editors' blog' or possibly also add an 'Opinions' blog?
 * As there are 'spare' MySQL databases, should we be restricted to just 'The Editors' blog' or possibly also add an 'Opinions' blog?

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