Cnesorshop
|
View:
New views
17 Messages
—
Rating Filter:
Alert me
|
 |
Cnesorshop
by Wikinewsie: Anonymous101
::
Rate this Message:
Quote from previous email on mailing list: "...the need for a non-public space for Wikinews to develop stories..."
Isn't this going completely against the idea of a wiki? Should we really stop people from seeing the development process for the majority of our users. To me this just seems like a way to allow us to censor articles without anyone noticing. I am concerned that Wikimedia is going to start censoring all our articles. This sort of thing, along with Wikinews:WMF Reports is what is going to stop us being unbiased. Thanks, Anon101 _______________________________________________ Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@... https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l |
|
|
Re: Cnesorshop
by bawolff
::
Rate this Message:
To me "...the need for a non-public space for Wikinews to develop stories..." == embargo wiki, which was proposed and voted on etc (with concencuss to create), and than not created. (see wc)
-bawolff
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Wikinewsie: Anonymous101 <wikinewsie.anonymous101@...> wrote: Quote from previous email on mailing list: "...the need for a non-public space for Wikinews to develop stories..." _______________________________________________ Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@... https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l |
|
|
Re: Cnesorshop
by Wikinewsie: Anonymous101
::
Rate this Message:
They are the same and that is why I strongly opposed that wiki.
My comment four months ago: "I am against a private OR Wiki for the following reasons
Thanks, Anon101 On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 11:50 PM, bawolff <bawolff%2Bwn@...> wrote: To me "...the need for a non-public space for Wikinews to develop stories..." == embargo wiki, which was proposed and voted on etc (with concencuss to create), and than not created. (see wc) -- Jonathan Winterfield - Journalist - Wikinews editor - Wikinews Administrator _______________________________________________ Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@... https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l |
|
|
Re: Cnesorshop
by Paul Williams-13
::
Rate this Message:
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Wikinewsie: Anonymous101 <wikinewsie.anonymous101@...> wrote:
They are the same and that is why I strongly opposed that wiki. The problem is that often we can be under an embargo or "media blackout" until a certain date - especially with sensitive stories. This seriously hampers our ability to develop these stories on-wiki with as much collaboration as possible. ~ Paul W _______________________________________________ Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@... https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l |
|
|
Re: Cnesorshop
by divol
::
Rate this Message:
Le 19 mai 08 à 17:40, Paul Williams a écrit : > embargo or "media blackout" are very bad. I do not know who create this mechanism and why journalists'ld follow this rule. I know "embargo" exists as i fall upon one time or two (i am not a professional journalist) and very surprised each time. Franckly, i don't understand how "freedom of press" and embargo could exist both. For exemple, in France, when there's a vote, no one should know the results before the end of the ballote, but journalists (and politics, friends and famillies) know, why ?, because "embargo"? (not good english i am sorry) For me, Wikinews 'ld find his/her way outside this strange way to do press and news : embargo or "media blackout" we already have "Flags", it's enought no border for knowledge, please. no social or profesional border for Knowledge, please jacques divol (i hope i am not off topic) _______________________________________________ Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@... https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l |
|
|
Re: Cnesorshop
by Ilya Haykinson
::
Rate this Message:
An embargo is actually simply a way for an organization with something
newsworthy to ensure that multiple news organizations are able to cover the news. There are a lot of news publications now, and lots of places that have something newsworthy. It's not possible for everyone to organize press conferences where all the reporters show up at once and write down the story as they hear it. So, instead, the embargo is just a practical method to allow a slightly slower release of news, without too much unfairness to different press organizations. For example, a company may be about to release a new product. They want to contact about 30 news organizations to let them know about the product, show the product to them, etc. So the company rep gets on a plane, and flies to meet the different journalists over a course of a week or two. They show them the product, talk about it, etc, under the condition that the journalist doesn't publish anything until a certain date -- the same date as everybody else. The journalist is free to not follow the embargo. Indeed, sometimes the news is so important that the journalist decides to break the embargo. However, remember -- they only got to learn the news early because the company shared it with them. If they didn't agree to the embargo in the first place, they would have found out about the product _after_ everyone else who was under the embargo already published their articles. Indeed, if a journalist breaks embargo, they sometimes get "blacklisted" by the company whose product it was -- next time, they won't be on the list of journalists the company talks to beforehand. Sometimes this is worth the risk for the journalist, but for most routine situations it's really not. The embargo system isn't perfect. In the case of political events of high importance, embargo is simply unfair: a press conference makes more sense, so everybody learns about it at once. However, in the normal course of events, it solves the problem of having to inform many journalists at once, and letting them have a day or more to do their research and get their balanced articles going, without the fear that they'll be scooped by someone else. -ilya On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 9:02 AM, divol <jacques.divol@...> wrote: > > Le 19 mai 08 à 17:40, Paul Williams a écrit : > >> embargo or "media blackout" > > > are very bad. > > I do not know who create this mechanism and why journalists'ld follow > this rule. > > I know "embargo" exists as i fall upon one time or two (i am not a > professional journalist) and very surprised each time. > > > Franckly, i don't understand how "freedom of press" and embargo could > exist both. > > > For exemple, in France, when there's a vote, no one should know the > results before the end of the ballote, but journalists (and politics, > friends and famillies) know, why ?, because "embargo"? (not good > english i am sorry) > > For me, Wikinews 'ld find his/her way outside this strange way to do > press and news : embargo or "media blackout" > > we already have "Flags", it's enought > > no border for knowledge, please. > no social or profesional border for Knowledge, please > > jacques divol > (i hope i am not off topic) > _______________________________________________ > Wikinews-l mailing list > Wikinews-l@... > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l > _______________________________________________ Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@... https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l |
|
|
Re: Cnesorshop
by Sue Gardner-2
::
Rate this Message:
Ilya Haykinson wrote:
> An embargo is actually simply a way for an organization with something > newsworthy to ensure that multiple news organizations are able to > cover the news. There are a lot of news publications now, and lots of > places that have something newsworthy. It's not possible for everyone > to organize press conferences where all the reporters show up at once > and write down the story as they hear it. > > So, instead, the embargo is just a practical method to allow a > slightly slower release of news, without too much unfairness to > different press organizations. > > For example, a company may be about to release a new product. They > want to contact about 30 news organizations to let them know about the > product, show the product to them, etc. So the company rep gets on a > plane, and flies to meet the different journalists over a course of a > week or two. They show them the product, talk about it, etc, under > the condition that the journalist doesn't publish anything until a > certain date -- the same date as everybody else. > > The journalist is free to not follow the embargo. Indeed, sometimes > the news is so important that the journalist decides to break the > embargo. However, remember -- they only got to learn the news early > because the company shared it with them. If they didn't agree to the > embargo in the first place, they would have found out about the > product _after_ everyone else who was under the embargo already > published their articles. Indeed, if a journalist breaks embargo, > they sometimes get "blacklisted" by the company whose product it was > -- next time, they won't be on the list of journalists the company > talks to beforehand. Sometimes this is worth the risk for the > journalist, but for most routine situations it's really not. > > The embargo system isn't perfect. In the case of political events of > high importance, embargo is simply unfair: a press conference makes > more sense, so everybody learns about it at once. However, in the > normal course of events, it solves the problem of having to inform > many journalists at once, and letting them have a day or more to do > their research and get their balanced articles going, without the fear > that they'll be scooped by someone else. > > -ilya > Yes, that's all correct. The purpose of an embargo is generally to allow journalists to absorb material that's been released to them, without having to rush to publish. The embargo process is oft-misused (used when it's not necessary, or not very helpful), but that's what its intent is supposed to be. It's good in situations in which what's being announced is particularly complex, such that journalists should/would need time to absorb it. For example, in Canada the federal government's budget is always embargoed: the embargo is enforced via a lock-up of the participating journalists. But what Anon101 was originally posting about, I think, was Mike's notion that Wikinews should have a non-public discussion space in which to develop stories. Which I think could be a good idea, for reasons that I outlined in a note to Brian, which he published (with my permission) in the thread [Wikinews-l] FW: Wikinews reporting on WMF and projects. That was part of a pretty long note about guiding principles for news organizations covering themselves, based on my experience at the CBC. I feel like I've said my piece -in that note- already - I would love to know what the people on this list think. Thanks, Sue > On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 9:02 AM, divol <jacques.divol@...> wrote: > >> Le 19 mai 08 à 17:40, Paul Williams a écrit : >> >> >>> embargo or "media blackout" >>> >> are very bad. >> >> I do not know who create this mechanism and why journalists'ld follow >> this rule. >> >> I know "embargo" exists as i fall upon one time or two (i am not a >> professional journalist) and very surprised each time. >> >> >> Franckly, i don't understand how "freedom of press" and embargo could >> exist both. >> >> >> For exemple, in France, when there's a vote, no one should know the >> results before the end of the ballote, but journalists (and politics, >> friends and famillies) know, why ?, because "embargo"? (not good >> english i am sorry) >> >> For me, Wikinews 'ld find his/her way outside this strange way to do >> press and news : embargo or "media blackout" >> >> we already have "Flags", it's enought >> >> no border for knowledge, please. >> no social or profesional border for Knowledge, please >> >> jacques divol >> (i hope i am not off topic) >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikinews-l mailing list >> Wikinews-l@... >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikinews-l mailing list > Wikinews-l@... > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l > -- Sue Gardner Executive Director Wikimedia Foundation Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate _______________________________________________ Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@... https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l |
|
|
Re: Cnesorshop
by Wikinewsie: Anonymous101
::
Rate this Message:
Sure embargo's can be useful, but I think creating a private wiki will result in many problems including:
1. A two tier system where some editors can access the private wiki
2. No transparency If you have to agree not to publish a quote, leave the space blank and create the article in Wikinews:Story Preparation. That way Wikinews will have the transparency that Wikimedia was founded on
From the Wikimedia values : "All the legal freedom to modify or distribute educational content is useless if users cannot get access to it."
And people cannot access it if it is in this private wiki.
Thanks,
Anon101
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 9:08 PM, Sue Gardner <sgardner@...> wrote:
_______________________________________________ Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@... https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l |
|
|
Re: Cnesorshop
by Wikinewsie: Anonymous101
::
Rate this Message:
Paul, To get as much collaboration as possible we edit on wiki (real wiki not private wiki). Thats what Wikinews:Story Preparation is for. If it is so important that we don;t make this info available (which I doubt) than we might have t wrk of wiki, but as that has happened no times (to my knowledge). I don't think we should ignore the values of the WMF to do so.
Thanks, The problem is that often we can be under an embargo or "media blackout" until a certain date - especially with sensitive stories. This seriously hampers our ability to develop these stories on-wiki with as much collaboration as possible. -- _______________________________________________ Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@... https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l |
|
|
Re: Cnesorshop
by Jason Safoutin-2
::
Rate this Message:
Wikinewsie: Anonymous101 wrote: > Sure embargo's can be useful, but I think creating a private wiki will > result in many problems including: > > 1. A two tier system where some editors can access the private wiki > 2. No transparency > > If you have to agree not to publish a quote, leave the space blank and > create the article in Wikinews:Story Preparation. That way Wikinews > will have the transparency that Wikimedia was founded on > > From the Wikimedia values : > > "All the legal freedom to modify or distribute educational content is > useless if users cannot get access to it." > > And people cannot access it if it is in this private wiki. > > Thanks, > > Anon101 > > opinion would be great...I think in RE to your concerns: 1) Would be accessed by accredited reporters only. The Wiki would and should be used only for stories that are OR and that HAVE to be embargoed. 2) Transpanrency can be fixed. There can be admins there and crats and such like on WN. Its not a replacement Wiki just something to do our OR work, without someone stealing it or what not. Preparation does't work because people can still see the articles in recent changes. If something can be done to remove those articles from popping in RC then that would be good, though I doubt its possible. Wikinews is a news agency...and we have to be the only news agency that reveals our material before its even ready to be published. I for one would love somewhere to post my OR work and get it formatted and such without worrying if someone from FOX News (no pun intended because they really did steal stuff from us in the past...we have proof!! :-}) steals our material. Jason Safoutin (DragonFire1024) _______________________________________________ Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@... https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l |
|
|
Re: Cnesorshop
by Wikinewsie: Anonymous101
::
Rate this Message:
I want someone to steal our reports (as long as they give Wikinews credit), that is how we promote Wikinews. And do you really think Fox News have people monitoring RC? If you have to stop people reading your article before its published, prepare on a word processor. the WMF shouldn't support restrictions like this. In addition, if we had this wiki, I don; thtink stories like http://www.neoseeker.com/news/8044-wikimedia-foundation-board-censoring-wikinews/ would be revealed.
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 9:37 PM, Jason Safoutin <jason.safoutin@...> wrote:
-- _______________________________________________ Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@... https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l |
|
|
Re: Cnesorshop
by Jason Safoutin-2
::
Rate this Message:
That's the thing, FOX News DIDN'T give us credit. And when you go look
back on the recent coverage such as the LDS copyright notice, you will see that agencies picked that up themselves. How else would they have gotten the stories if we are not sending out press releases? They watch us. Though it may not look like it in contributions, the people that read us are in the hundreds of thousands maybe more...I don't know. But of those people about 2% or less actually contribute to the site. If you can imagine the Chris Benoit story we broke, or London Bombings, or LDS and Scientology and such...I would want people to take our stories...if they provide credit. But in my experience, they don't. Jason Wikinewsie: Anonymous101 wrote: > I want someone to steal our reports (as long as they give Wikinews > credit), that is how we promote Wikinews. And do you really think Fox > News have people monitoring RC? If you have to stop people reading > your article before its published, prepare on a word processor. the > WMF shouldn't support restrictions like this. In addition, if we had > this wiki, I don; thtink stories > like http://www.neoseeker.com/news/8044-wikimedia-foundation-board-censoring-wikinews/ > would be revealed. > > On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 9:37 PM, Jason Safoutin > <jason.safoutin@... <mailto:jason.safoutin@...>> > wrote: > > > > Wikinewsie: Anonymous101 wrote: > > Sure embargo's can be useful, but I think creating a private > wiki will > > result in many problems including: > > > > 1. A two tier system where some editors can access the private wiki > > 2. No transparency > > > > If you have to agree not to publish a quote, leave the space > blank and > > create the article in Wikinews:Story Preparation. That way Wikinews > > will have the transparency that Wikimedia was founded on > > > > From the Wikimedia values : > > > > "All the legal freedom to modify or distribute educational > content is > > useless if users cannot get access to it." > > > > And people cannot access it if it is in this private wiki. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Anon101 > > > > > Well let me clarify something...if this were to happen, which in my > opinion would be great...I think in RE to your concerns: 1) Would be > accessed by accredited reporters only. The Wiki would and should > be used > only for stories that are OR and that HAVE to be embargoed. 2) > Transpanrency can be fixed. There can be admins there and crats > and such > like on WN. Its not a replacement Wiki just something to do our OR > work, > without someone stealing it or what not. > > Preparation does't work because people can still see the articles in > recent changes. If something can be done to remove those articles from > popping in RC then that would be good, though I doubt its possible. > Wikinews is a news agency...and we have to be the only news agency > that > reveals our material before its even ready to be published. I for one > would love somewhere to post my OR work and get it formatted and such > without worrying if someone from FOX News (no pun intended because > they > really did steal stuff from us in the past...we have proof!! :-}) > steals > our material. > > Jason Safoutin (DragonFire1024) > > _______________________________________________ > Wikinews-l mailing list > Wikinews-l@... <mailto:Wikinews-l@...> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Wikinews-l mailing list > Wikinews-l@... > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l > _______________________________________________ Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@... https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l |
|
|
Re: Cnesorshop
by Ilya Haykinson
::
Rate this Message:
How about the following:
1. We create an en-embargo.wikinews.org or something similar 2. The wiki is only accessible by users with WMF accounts In an environment where every reader is also potentially a writer and is also potentially an editor, we can easily say that someone who explicitly requested access to the embargo wiki (i.e. logged in) will be able to participate in editing the story. This accomplishes the following goals: - Removes the editing process from the main wiki before the embargo lifts, ensuring that there aren't casual readers observing the article being created - Allows access to anyone who expresses an interest in it, and has bothered creating an account on WMF (i.e. has decided to be pseudonymous at the very least). Obviously, this is not a true embargo where the news organization knows exactly who has access to the info, but it's closer than not having any process. Alternative proposals: 1. Allow access to accredited journalists only 2. Allow access to accredited journalists, and all admins 3. Allow access to people who apply and justify need for access (i.e. separate process to apply, much like accreditation) 4. Allow access to people who verify their real names and agree to a certain set of rules (i.e. a very strict accreditation-like process) I would still prefer giving access to all, but certainly we can explore these other options as well. Thoughts? -ilya On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Jason Safoutin <jason.safoutin@...> wrote: > That's the thing, FOX News DIDN'T give us credit. And when you go look > back on the recent coverage such as the LDS copyright notice, you will > see that agencies picked that up themselves. How else would they have > gotten the stories if we are not sending out press releases? They watch > us. Though it may not look like it in contributions, the people that > read us are in the hundreds of thousands maybe more...I don't know. But > of those people about 2% or less actually contribute to the site. If you > can imagine the Chris Benoit story we broke, or London Bombings, or LDS > and Scientology and such...I would want people to take our stories...if > they provide credit. But in my experience, they don't. > > Jason > > Wikinewsie: Anonymous101 wrote: >> I want someone to steal our reports (as long as they give Wikinews >> credit), that is how we promote Wikinews. And do you really think Fox >> News have people monitoring RC? If you have to stop people reading >> your article before its published, prepare on a word processor. the >> WMF shouldn't support restrictions like this. In addition, if we had >> this wiki, I don; thtink stories >> like http://www.neoseeker.com/news/8044-wikimedia-foundation-board-censoring-wikinews/ >> would be revealed. >> >> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 9:37 PM, Jason Safoutin >> <jason.safoutin@... <mailto:jason.safoutin@...>> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Wikinewsie: Anonymous101 wrote: >> > Sure embargo's can be useful, but I think creating a private >> wiki will >> > result in many problems including: >> > >> > 1. A two tier system where some editors can access the private wiki >> > 2. No transparency >> > >> > If you have to agree not to publish a quote, leave the space >> blank and >> > create the article in Wikinews:Story Preparation. That way Wikinews >> > will have the transparency that Wikimedia was founded on >> > >> > From the Wikimedia values : >> > >> > "All the legal freedom to modify or distribute educational >> content is >> > useless if users cannot get access to it." >> > >> > And people cannot access it if it is in this private wiki. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > Anon101 >> > >> > >> Well let me clarify something...if this were to happen, which in my >> opinion would be great...I think in RE to your concerns: 1) Would be >> accessed by accredited reporters only. The Wiki would and should >> be used >> only for stories that are OR and that HAVE to be embargoed. 2) >> Transpanrency can be fixed. There can be admins there and crats >> and such >> like on WN. Its not a replacement Wiki just something to do our OR >> work, >> without someone stealing it or what not. >> >> Preparation does't work because people can still see the articles in >> recent changes. If something can be done to remove those articles from >> popping in RC then that would be good, though I doubt its possible. >> Wikinews is a news agency...and we have to be the only news agency >> that >> reveals our material before its even ready to be published. I for one >> would love somewhere to post my OR work and get it formatted and such >> without worrying if someone from FOX News (no pun intended because >> they >> really did steal stuff from us in the past...we have proof!! :-}) >> steals >> our material. >> >> Jason Safoutin (DragonFire1024) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikinews-l mailing list >> Wikinews-l@... <mailto:Wikinews-l@...> >> |
