Definitely not an "on pass" notification. That would be annoying. For an "on-fail" notification, it would have to be both the person who started the article and the person who added the review. I wouldn't bother notifying IPs. If they're serious, they've already created an account.
gopher65 -------------------------------------------------- From: "Brian McNeil" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 07, 2009 8:41 AM To: <[email protected]>; "'Wikinews mailing list'" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Wikinews-l] Wikinews is too rigid? Introducingsomeflexibility?New contributors? > I'd say, not on a pass - unless it does more in-depth checking to see if a > user has a smallish number of contributions. > > For a fail, do you notify the person who added the {{review}} template, or > the person who initially created the article, or both when they're > different? Do you notify IPs? > > > Brian. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of bawolff > Sent: 07 September 2009 15:36 > To: Wikinews mailing list > Subject: Re: [Wikinews-l] Wikinews is too rigid? Introducing > someflexibility?New contributors? > > Would it perhaps be helpful to make the peer review gadget spam the > author of the article if the review of their article fails (or even a > congratulations message if it passes)? Only problem is that it would > probably annoy the regurals to get hundress of "congrats your article > passed" messages. > > -bawolff > > > > On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Jon Davis<[email protected]> wrote: >> Something else to consider, maybe we should make some more user talk >> page >> templates that can be used to help people along (especially if we can >> drop >> them _before_ they goto our deletion warning messages, like >> {{abandoned}}. >> Example: "Hey, I see you've started a new article, remember to do these 3 >> very important things and put it into {{review}} when you're read" -- >> Basically any common problem we have, we should have a talk page template >> for it and we should make sure EVERYONE uses them. If you want to mark >> an >> article as {{abandoned}}, inform the user. I've seen more than a few > cases >> where users have come back later and said "Hey, why did you mark this as >> abandoned/deleted it. I was done". Let's be fair, our way of doing this > is >> unique to the ENTIRE WMF community. Additionally, I recently stole off >> Commons "User Messages" Gadget (goto Preferences > Gadgets > UI >> Gadgets -- >> to turn it on). Basically it adds a SHIT TON of options in your Toolbox >> when on a Usertalk page. This makes it _ultra_ simple to leave talk page >> messages (You don't even have to remember what exactly they say, there is >> help text). >> >> I am also considering stealing off with their "Quick Delete" gadget which >> would enable us to have 1 click to tag an article (for example) as > abandoned >> _AND_ notify to user. Might require some fine tuning by our local JS >> masters, but it would be useful. >> >> As for {{copy edit}}. I'm not saying make it required, but it would be > nice >> as an option. I can review any article I want, because I've got editor, > but >> I can't copy edit for shit. There are other people who can copy edit >> superbly, but don't have Editor yet. Make it easy for everyone to find > each >> other. I realize this was shot down when the system was being developed, >> but it's been around for a while, would others find this helpful? Or am I >> the only failure of a writer around here? >> >> -SGN/Jon >> >> >> On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 04:35, Brian McNeil <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Okay, I won't dispute that the [[WN:SG]] is long, and something pretty >>> difficult to sit down and go through. The old welcome template used to >>> effectively tell all new contributors they had to read the entire set of >>> policies, and that was why I introduced {{Howdy}} and the associated > essay >>> [[WN:ARTICLE]]. Despite this, and Tempodivalse's efforts as our local >>> Wal-Mart greeter, virtually nobody seems to read it - dozens of stories >>> appear with Camel Case titles, people bypass article creation forms and >>> don't have date templates, and there are a lot of {{copyvio}}s put up. >>> >>> >>> >>> That's a focus on our 'traditional' article, and it is what we ideally >>> want a lot more of. Problem is, the reality of the world is that *most* >>> people couldn't string something like that together if their life > depended >>> on it. Combine that with recent media trends to dumb-down and be highly >>> partisan (eg Fox News' "Fair and Balanced" myth), and you have a > situation >>> where most people wouldn't know neutrality if it bit them in the ass, >>> you >>> end up with a widespread belief that news needs to be sensationalist > before >>> anyone will take an interest in it. Even some of Wikinews' most prolific >>> contributors are influenced by this sensationalising. >>> >>> >>> >>> So, Jon's suggestion seems to be to diversify somewhat - and I think >>> that's worth pursuing. >>> >>> >>> >>> Photoessays? >>> >>> Yup, it'd be nice to see more photographic work featured on Wikinews, >>> and >>> ideally this would be accompanied with a short associated article that > puts >>> the photographs in context. It isn't happening, so how can we lower the > bar >>> and get more photoessays? I've no problem with trimming back the writing >>> requirement to the equivalent of a single entry in our current 'shorts' >>> style - as long as the event where the photos were taken is put in > context, >>> i.e. some attempt to cover the 5W & H. >>> >>> >>> >>> The place to recruit people for this sort of work is Commons. The >>> obvious >>> pitch to them is getting their photographs showcased, and an article >>> collecting them linked to from Google News. I'd be happy to take that up > on >>> Commons' equivalent of the Water Cooler and try and engage Commoners in >>> working towards [[WN:PHOTOESSAY]] as an equivalent to [[WN:ARTICLE]]. >>> >>> >>> >>> Perhaps for this type of article we need a slightly different {{peer >>> review}} template? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Ultra-shorts >>> >>> So, we're talking a single paragraph to answer 5H&W, and some mechanism > to >>> present these on the main page outside the main Latest news section. >>> Assuming we figure out how to do that we really have to consider that > some >>> of these will go on to become full articles. We don't want the > ultra-short >>> bit expanded dramatically, but a complete whole article. In any case, >>> the >>> current shorts is a nightmare when it comes time to review it. >>> >>> >>> >>> Local >>> >>> Really local news has been done in the past, just not very well. There >>> is >>> a category Local news, and it's trivial to exclude that from the main > page. >>> Verifiability is the biggest headache there. >>> >>> >>> >>> {{copyedit}} >>> >>> Nope. This was part of my initial proposal for an article flow, and was >>> shot down. From experience of what has happened since FlaggedRevs was >>> introduced I would say copyediting should be a part of the review > process. >>> Now that I've adopted the peer review gadget I frequently see myself > using >>> the comments parameter to tell people to look at the edits I made before >>> reviewing and publishing. I think we really have to accept that >>> reviewers >>> are going to be required to do a lot of the copyediting. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Brian. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] >>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jon Davis >>> Sent: 06 September 2009 07:27 >>> To: Wikinews mailing list; [email protected] >>> Subject: [Wikinews-l] Wikinews is too rigid? Introducing some >>> flexibility?New contributors? >>> >>> >>> >>> All, >>> I've been kicking around some thoughts for a while, and I felt it was > time >>> to share and see if I can get some feedback on and maybe some traction > for >>> change. >>> >>> == Long Version == >>> We all want new contributors, after all, there is like 20 of us that are >>> really active at any given time. Hell, I could probably give the names > of >>> everyone that is reasonably active on Wikinews off the top of my head. > We >>> all know when someone goes missing, because something drops, either > article >>> output falls a few articles a day or audio wikinews ceases to exist all >>> together, or the review queue backups. Wikinews biggest problem is burn > out, >>> we _all_ have to contribute a significant amount of time or the project > dies >>> (See also: Holidays). >>> >>> So how do we get new contributors? >>> >>> KISS. Keep It Simple, Stupid. Our "defining guide" is [[WN:SG]]. Who >>> here can honestly say they've read every single line? I'm sure a few > can, >>> but I know I haven't. It is 20 printed pages. The only "easier" guide > on >>> getting started that I know of is [[Wikinews:Writing an article]] and > that >>> is 6 pages, that is still too length in my book. We should have a goal >>> that a new user (who understands Wiki-syntax) can come in, read the > basics >>> and get started writing in less than X time. What is X time? I'd say 15 >>> minutes, tops. >>> >>> Second part, user interest in the topic. I'm interested in many things, >>> but I'm not that much of a news writer that I think I can scratch out 3 >>> decent paragraphs on it, which is our minimum. This leads to me to my > next >>> point... >>> >>> While I love what goes on with Wikinews, sometimes I get the feeling >>> that >>> we're too rigid. As mentioned previously our Style Guide is lengthy, >>> and >>> not only is it the guide - it is basically our rules for publishing. > Part >>> of that is that we must have 3 paragraphs. While I think that is great >>> because it forces us to push up the quality of articles... but we set >>> the >>> bar very high for new contributors. You can come into Wikipedia and > create >>> a new article with one sentence and it might have a chance of staying > around >>> and becoming worth while. Wikinews, it won't, period. I think we might >>> want consider alternatives to the "regular article" and what standards >>> we >>> should have for those. Hopefully these can lower the barrier to entry, > and >>> give us some flexibility into helping people get their stories published >>> rather than the flat "too short, stale, delete it" mind set. >>> >>> For example: Shorts, local & photo journalism. All 3 of these types of >>> news we accept in some form now, but maybe not as easily as should. For >>> example shorts have to be combined into a days worth of shorts (with at >>> least 2 or 3 stories). Local news is the same as any other news. Photo >>> Journalism? Well I haven't seen too much of it, and that which I've >>> personally submitted, I've had to beg and bribe (ok, mostly bribing) to > get >>> it published without 3 paragraphs of accompanying text. >>> >>> We could consider adding something like "Shorts: " to the beginning of a >>> short story, and allowing it to go as a one paragraph story. We could > even >>> have a "Shorts" category that would exclude it from being published in > the >>> "Latest News" section on the Main Page we have now. Maybe it can have > it's >>> own little section on the front page. Local could follow the same > theory, >>> allow it to be shorter in order to entice users to come and write a > little >>> bit about their on goings of their home town. If they write something >>> large/long/good enough we'll even remove the "hide from 'latest news' > flag" >>> (What ever that would be) and that would push it up out of the dark > depths. >>> That entices people to not only come and start (because it is easier to >>> write one paragraph) but it also entices them to write more/better as > they >>> get more accustomed to our way of doing things because they want their >>> article to get more promotion. >>> >>> Photo Journalism. Basically if the user is submitting a majority of >>> pictures (say more than 5-6 pictures of an Event), the requirements for >>> writing anything more than clear and concise caption should be tossed >>> out >>> the window. How many people go to events and take a bunch of pictures > that >>> could be turned into an interesting "Photo Essay" (or what ever you want > to >>> call it) that turn away from Wikinews because they don't want to write >>> paragraphs and paragraphs? I know that I personally have opt'd to not >>> "cover" something because I didn't think I could manage to write 3 >>> paragraphs on what ever it was. Hey, I'm a photog, not a writer. That > even >>> was on my Accreditation Request, it's not like it was a secret. >>> >>> Something that is underlying to all of this that I haven't mentioned >>> previously: We need to make Wikinews _single writer friendly_ NOW. It > has >>> long since been established that unless something major is going on, you > are >>> probably going to be the only one writing an article. If we start to > pull >>> in people covering local events, this is going to be doubly so. So we > need >>> to do everything in our power to make the process friendly for one >>> person > to >>> go through. I honestly don't have any suggestion on what that should >>> be, >>> other than to keep that in mind. >>> >>> Lastly, I'd like to propose the addition of one optional step to our >>> publishing process. A {{Copy Edit}} or similarly named template that >>> basically states "Hey, I've finished this article, but I'd appreciate it > if >>> someone would copy edit this article before placing it into review". > Again, >>> personal experience, I'm not a very good writer, I know my work needs to > be >>> copy edited. Why not make it easier for the copy editors out there to > seek >>> out what they should work on. I've got two people who I've managed to > drag >>> in on occasion to do copy editing because they are good at it. I've >>> only >>> done it for my work, or what I happen to see as being egregiously bad. >>> >>> >>> == Short Version == >>> * Make short versions of our key "getting started" documents (WN:SG, >>> Wikinews:Writing an article, etc) >>> * Allow single story Shorts (Won't be published under "Latest News") >>> * Allow short local news (Similar to Shorts) >>> * Allow Photo Journalism stories w/o text (other than captions) >>> * Make WN writing process "Single User" friendly >>> * Add optional {{Copy Edit}} step to publishing process. >>> >>> >>> Sorry all that this was so long, but I've been mulling over these issues >>> for a while. I'm CC'ing scoop in hopes of getting more people to reply > to >>> this mail. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Jon >>> [[User:ShakataGaNai]] >>> http://snowulf.com/ - Blog >>> http://snowulf.imagekind.com/ - Pictures >>> This has been a test of the emergency sig system. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikinews-l mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Jon >> [[User:ShakataGaNai]] >> http://snowulf.com/ - Blog >> http://snowulf.imagekind.com/ - Pictures >> This has been a test of the emergency sig system. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikinews-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikinews-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikinews-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l > _______________________________________________ Wikinews-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
