Jump to content

Wikinews:Water cooler/miscellaneous/archives/2010/February

Add links
From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
This is an archive of past discussions from Wikinews:Water cooler/miscellaneous/archives/2010. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current page.


Image

The first view, one of the aircraft just before the bomb exploded. There is no extra light in this one since I wanted to contrast the bright cabin lights with the next image in the series

I have made a request to have a detailed computer-generated image drawn up to go with my ongoing Lockerbie investigation, when it finally arrives. The guy I have asked is very talented; I've seen people here comment they only realised it wasn't a real plane when they read the caption that went with the image. It's a difficult and complicated job, so don't hold your breath, but I hope to be able to really demonstrate the violence with which these lives were taken. Everyone knows about the burning wreckage hitting buildings but few folk realise that the 259 on board were mostly not killed instantly, and that the breakup sequence itself was rather horrific. See here. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 00:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unfortunatly, I don't think so. Not that I have seen, anyway. I will, of course, call upon the crash report to call public attention to exactly how the aircraft broke apart and I hope that the image will help people to be able to picture it in their heads. I have some idea how to make people not just look at it but see things they never thought about there. Also, I should point out that this is something other news media seem not to have. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 00:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The second view. The impulse disrupts the cabin and pressurised air is lost. Debris is ingested into the engine, resulting in flames. Things get ugly in the next frame.
Wow. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great, i want more. :-b Tempodivalse [talk] 03:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image three. The aircraft lurches violently and noses down hard. The nose begins to peel round; three seconds after the explosion it strikes and removes an engine and then breaks away itself. It will land largely intact to form the most well-known photograph through the years. Here it has reached the tail as debris fills the sky. Yes, that is a person you can see flying past.
  • Heads-up: I was asked about having people in the image, or if that was too offensive. Per all my arguments in the recent censorship debate, I've opted for people. No gore, but still not pleasant. Be ready for some upset when this comes out. Also, we don't have a bright explosion; Anyeverybody and I have been researching and have come to the conclusion Semtex is pretty much instantaneous and then gone - no fire bursting out the side. Instead, however, we will bring image two forward a bit to show the nearest engine flaming as debris enters instead of the moment of detonation. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Detail of the nose section that went on to become so iconic after it had landed. That thing tumbling out is the baggage container that held the bomb, complete with serial number.
  • If I'm going to animate these as a GIF then I'll need as accurate an interval between images as possible. I've done GIFs before a long time ago and only recall fixed intervals between all frames; this means I might need to repeat an image as a "filler" frame if frame1-frame2 is 1 second and fraim2-frame3 is 2 seconds, and so on. Does anyone know what a Free, Commons and widely-browser supported file format would be to use in preference to GIF? --Brian McNeil / talk 03:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Theora is really the only other option. apng is not widely enough supported as of yet. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A compound view. Upper half is the wing, now devoid of the rear fuselage, making its final approach. Lower half depicts the landing that followed. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There really isn't much hope of animating these together in that fashion. The first three frames are quite close together, but then there are long gaps between frames 3 & 4 and 4 & 5. From explosion to impact was around forty seconds; we end seventeen seconds before the wing section impacts. However, I know Anyeverybody made it by roughly animating the whole sequence then finishing a selection of frames to a higher standard, so you could always seek more frames. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania 2010 - Gdansk

It is, to put it bluntly, time to get our shit together on this.

Who is within reasonable travelling distance, and has a credible record of contributions?

What would be a good topic for a speech/presentation on Wikinews, at Wikimania?

How can we cooperate with other language editions - such as Polish Wikinews (which will have attendees)?

Who could, realistically, make full use of press credentials for Wikimania?

I did it in 2008, and got a scholarship to do so. I am less-sure of being able to wangle a scholarship again, or of actually being able to get the time off work. If I can get there, I will do so, but I want a substantial Wikinews presence; not just Craig Spurrier who's probably less than a dozen edits in the last year.

So, what are we going to do about "invading Poland"? --Brian McNeil / talk 19:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unfortunately, south-west England is a bit far from Poland to justify; if only Oxford had won! Would be more than happy to help sort out presentations etc., will think of some topics now. Agree with Brian that we want to get at least one proper person there.    Tris   20:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check flights from a reasonably convenient airport. If you qualify for a scholarship you can expect about £300 in funding; the accommodation will be cheap as hell (and commensurately basic). That's *without* mentioning that the beer in Poland will be much, much better than I got in Alexandria. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I can get ahold of a scholarship this may be a possibility; assuming my long-running Lockerbie investigation was completed that might be something a presentation could be hung off: Wikinews at the centre of real, hard journalism. The key word is may. I'm quite capable of getting information in for WN coverage, but should point out much of what's going on will be technical and much would likely sail over my head. I also have the advantage of having visited Gdansk previously, and spent several weeks in Poland. I know how to order a beer in the local language.
The key issue for me is transport. I'd be going from Scotland; Edinburgh is close. That's a long way for Wikimania. Previously we flew from Glasgow with Wizz (think Easyjet with pink planes) - I don't much fancy trying to get there for the cheap Polish airline, so it'd have to be Edinburgh.
Collaboration might be hard. I speak some very poor conversational German (plus some less polite expressions); this will get me by with Poles, but is no use for meaningful discussion with people who aren't good with English. While I suspect 'most anyone seriously interested in Wikimania will be English fluent, it may still be a stumbling block generally trying to get the various editions to communicate with each other.
Topic-wise, one interesting thing might be to look at how well FlaggedRevs has served WN, to the point that, along with setting some high standards of ourselves, we have turned into a reliable, reputable source. Try and get other wikis thinking on that with the semi-subliminal message of 'look what WN has achieved'. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Edit after Brian caused a conflict: I can confirm that the accomodation costs nothing in Poland - I already know where I'd stay if I went - and the beer is equally cheap and very good. Pick local beers; that also gains you street-cred with the locals, and they're pretty damn nice. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From attending Alexandria, the Wikimedians in attendance will all have a mid-to-high school level of English as minimum. That's not something to worry about.Outwith the conference you may have a few difficulties, just make sure you're clued on any local legal risks (this can be trivial things like risking arrest for jaywalking).

For presentations I've three possible topics that could be done, I believe, quite well.

  1. Original Reporting
    Earliest OR
    Interviews
    Investigative journalism
    Ultra-local reporting
  2. The 2010 writing contest
    Likely over-ambitious setup
    More widely promoted than prior competitions
    Hit record number of articles on first day
  3. Flagged Revisions, for Google News and credibility
    Google's editorial requirements
    Listed as a news source, not a blog
    The technical wizardry to simplify reviewing
    Integrated RSS, Facebook, and twitter publication
    The future - Google News Site Map
    General points on English Wikinews being a technical testing ground

Has anyone else any good suggestions, or feedback on the above? At the moment the contest one is up-in-the air. Original Reporting would tie in brilliantly with BloodRedSandman's efforts on Lockerbie. Flagged Revisions has, on the whole, improved quality of output at some expense to quantity. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will probably be at Gdansk. I have no plans to present on anything this year, though I will be glad to assist with a presentation or general coverage of Wikimania. As Brian notes, I am largely inactive (though I made quite a few more then a dozen edits last year :)) I graduate from my MA program in May, so I expect to become active again after that. --Cspurrier (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CSpurrier: congrats on your MA. Brianmc: where is this integrated RSS you speak of? Some of the google news stuff might be interesting, especially if French gets into google news before wikimania considering all the stuff at wikipedia with flagged protection (is that what they're calling it now?), flagged revisions might be a general topic of interest. Bawolff ☺☻ 15:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews v. Wikipedia

See Seward, Zachary. "Why Wikipedia beats Wikinews as a collaborative journalism project" — Nieman Journalism Lab, 9 Feb. 20010. Actually a bit interesting. --Mikemoral♪♫ 04:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting, food for thought.    Tris   08:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia, again

See another attempt at getting appropriate template changes through. I've left a note for Jimmy Wales on his Facebook page; he's indicated off-wiki he's generally in favour of these changes but would not impose them on Wikipedia.

Hopefully, he'll give an affirmative comment and help move this closer to actually happening. --Brian McNeil / talk 03:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh, I doubt anything will happen (but I'm a pessimist :-b). Last time, IIRC, the proposal (and all similar proposals to highlight the w:WP:NOTNEWS policy and direct people to Wikinews) went down in flames. Jimbo's opinion doesn't seem to carry a lot of weight anymore at WP, I've noticed. Still worth a shot though ... *crosses fingers* Tempodivalse [talk] 03:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may be thinking of when I first tried, and got Wikinewsies who're admins "in the other place" to implement the changes. They went a bit nuts when it got slapped on Ted Kennedy's article. I took the Wikinews logo out all the template proposals and really tried to make it discreet; if that's not enough, I don't know. Tactical nukes maybe? --Brian McNeil / talk 04:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented on the WP water cooler, for what it's worth, with a few suggestions; otherwise, I think this should be implemented and I'm surprised it hasn't gotten shot down ... yet. Does Jimbo have anything to say on this? Tempodivalse [talk] 14:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well jimbo's opinion is influential, in the end it is the Wikipedia community's project. If their community wants it (or at least doesn't disagree with it) it'll happen, if they don't like the idea, it won't happen. There's nothing we can really do beyond making the suggestion. Its not our decision. Bawolff ☺☻ 15:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would note that one of the nay-sayers In The Other Place has taken it upon themselves to highlight this particular discussion and use such as a justification to imply that votes from those active on Wikinews, or Wikimedians with a wider interest in Foundation projects, be discounted due to their policy on canvassing.
As a consequence of this I would stress to any Wikinewsies contemplating adding their voice to the discussion on Wikipedia, have some edit history on Wikipedia and give considered and thought-out reasons should you choose to support this proposal.
Wikinews was set up to be a complementary project to Wikipedia and the seemingly selfish nature of some of the oppose votes concerns me. It is quite unlikely that what is generally referred to as Wikipedia's position in the list of most popular websites would in any way be jeopardised by the proposed changes to templates. The reality is that the ranking, as given by ComScore, is based on all Wikimedia Foundation websites – not just Wikipedia. To move from fifth to fourth place in ranking is far more achievable through increasing the visibility and readership of sisterprojects – not by considering Wikipedia the only Internet resource anyone will ever need.
As an example of where the difference between the projects sees Wikinews as a considerably more informative resource than Wikipedia I would point to my own not-inconsiderable contributions mentioning former, and fugitive, Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. This is where Wikinews has the potential to excel; in the face of more conventional news organisations such as the New York Times and Washington Post locking their archives away behind paywalls, a Freely licensed news resource that archives all published articles becomes a more valuable and useful resource. This is in stark contrast to constant revision on Wikipedia where historical details may, in ten or more years, only be locatable via WikiArcheology into edit histories that may by that time be many thousands of revisions long. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Licenses

Reading a recent change Brian made on the Wikinews for Wikipedians; what is the difference between our license and Wikipedia's license? What is it that makes transfer only allowed one way?    Tris   15:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ours is CC-BY, theirs is CC-BY-SA. That means that their content has to be licensed as CC-BY-SA, while ours can be re-licensed however you like as long as you attribute us. Therefore, they can use our content but we can't use theirs (unless we add some kind of message saying that the content is CC-BY-SA and link to the relevant Wikipedia page). Δενδοδγε τ\c 16:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, I can see why we wouldn't want to change, even if it was useful. Shame. Thanks Dendodge.    Tris   16:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See meta:Wikinews/License for some background on the choice. At the time we choose the license, wikipedia use using the GFDL, which was more restrictive and "inapropriate" in many people's (or at least my) mind for wikinews. Bawolff ☺☻ 18:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So the only difference is that people who use our news can relicense it under whatever license they want? What would the objections be to switching to the pedia's way?    Tris   18:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We're more Free. Our mission is to be provide Free content. The fact that someone else screwed it up for their project should be of no consequence to our efforts to reach our own decision. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That really depends on your definition of Free. We're Free in a BSD-type-of-freedom. Wikipedia is free in a GPL-type-of-freedom. There are large debates over which is more free. I think cc-by-sa is totally apropriate for a project like wikipedia with long lived content that gets changed with time. I think for our content where we want to be a "Free associated press" type thing, cc-by is more apropriate. 18:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Call for proposals for Wikimedia UK initiatives

Hi all. The Wikimedia UK board has been putting together a budget for the next year (You can see this, and help with its development, here) and we have some money left over. We are looking for proposals for projects/iniatives with budget requirements in the range of £100-£3000 (GBP). These projects can be either online or offline, but they should be primarily focused on the UK and they must further the objects of Wikimedia UK (broadly, to collate/develop/spread freely licensed material).

The deadline for proposals is the end of this month (i.e. 0:00 UTC on 1 March 2010). You can find more details of the requirements, and how to submit proposals, on our blog. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Thomas on BBC Radio 4

This should be available globally.

I think it would be extremely good if as many Wikinewsies as possible listened in the next week while it is still available. That's just for the section on self regulation and Mark's comments on the UK's Press Complaints Commission. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fundraiser

Guess what? Everyone's fave subject is on the agenda again. A small discussion has begun at Wikipedia, which should really be taken elsewhere as being of cross-project interest. For now, please go to w:Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Discussion of fundraising emails. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh great. The fundraiser is *still* being flogged several months after it was officially ended. :-b I didn't donate, so I haven't received anything, but isn't very good from the looks of it. Rand's remark wasn't really convincing either ... Tempodivalse [talk] 23:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I worked it out with yoogi.com so that we can get daily syndicated puzzles for the print edition. If you see File:22February2010.pdf, the you'll notice a sudoku puzzle on it. --Mikemoral♪♫ 00:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...I'm not that keen on the idea to be honest. We're not trying to copy newspapers and it definitely should not be the first thing on the whole PE.    Tris   16:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for restarting the print edition. I know how much work it can be to maintain it, so its great to have someone new doing it. While I like the idea of including puzzles, I am not very happy with the terms these are under. The Print Edition should be free content (or at-least as free as Wikinews with fairuse), deals like this for nonfree content create messy problems for the distribution of the print edition. I also would rather it not be on the front page, since the print edition is designed to showcase our work, this is giving up a valuable space that could be better used to show off Wikinews. --Cspurrier (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I trying to work things out for now until I can find a decent sudoku software. I have a crossword software (not freely licensed, but lets me license it freely as I wish, and again until I find a GPL-licensed one). I have already decide to stick puzzle in the back of the Print Ed., after the articles and before the Picture of the Day. I scrapped Wikipedia's featured article and current event. --Mikemoral♪♫ 23:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

┌──────┘
And out of curiosity, does anyone know of freely licensed Sudoku software of a source to obtain Sudoku/Crossword puzzles freely. --Mikemoral♪♫ 05:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://freshmeat.net/search?q=sudoku&submit=Search there is several there. It should be noted, I am told that computer-generated cross words are of inferior quality to hand crafted one[1] . (but computer generated is better then no crossword). Great work with the print edition btw. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see this. I can't really try it until I get to my own computer. It seems to fit my purposes well. Thanks, Mikemoral♪♫ 20:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mike, that looks interesting. Right now I'm battling with how to make a live USB stick booting Ubuntu. Shouldn't, once I crack that, be a problem to have a how-to on doing it yourself and adding this tool. I'll add Microsoft Coffee to the how-to as well – if someone points me at a genuine and non-trojaned version ;-) --Brian McNeil / talk 21:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, WRT to Tris' comment up a ways, I don't see what's wrong with trying to mimic newspapers in a few areas, as long as we keep strictly to our policies. We already do the same with quizzes; why not extend it to other puzzles? I like them; imho they make a nice/interesting addition to the print edition. I'm actually thinking perhaps we should make an online puzzle version (updated weekly?) for people to print out or something. IIRC, a couple years back we actually did make some puzzles, especially mini-crosswords, but that never really got off the ground ... Tempodivalse [talk] 22:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're referring to Wikinews:Crossword poll Crosswords/. We stopped doing crosswords as the main contributor doing them left. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, CGorman retired a few years back ... should we perhaps consider reinstating crosswords or something similar? Tempodivalse [talk] 23:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was more referring to user:Dysprosia. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────┘
My crossword program, EclipseCrossword, allows export in the Windows meta file and EPS formats and Java and JavaScript. WMF is annoying file type to work with tho. I an always upload my crosswords to Commons or locally. I need to check to see if I'm allowed to remove the mini logo on the generated puzzles. Now I need to work with the PythonSudoku for a bit untill I feel comfortable enough to add them to the print ed. --Mikemoral♪♫ 23:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WMF and EPF are both supposed to be very easy to convert to svg. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WMF seems to hate me a lot. :p. I will probably upload png or svg depending on which is easiest. --Mikemoral♪♫ 00:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are on sale as printed books for 50 dollars in Amazon.com with no prior warning

This is the kind of worst case scenario for wikipedia, where people are deprived from their hard earned money with false advertising.

Wikipedia articles are on sale as printed books for 50 dollars in Amazon.com with no warning in amazon yet as printed in 4th page of the "book" after you buy it
We require a huge task force that can put a warning to thousands of similar titles in Amazon.com as customer review so that people might be warned about this issue. Read Publishing House for details.
Not sure right place to post, but feel free to move or duplicate the thread elsewhere. Kasaalan (talk) 04:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the right place. I don't even understand what you are talking about to direct you to the right place. Whats the issue. People are allowed to sell printed wikipedia articles ($50 seems a bit high though, but if they can sell it for that, thats their right). Bawolff ☺☻ 04:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquakes

I was looking at Category:Weather and I noticed earthquake articles. Earthquakes aren't weather but rather a geological occurrence caused by tectonic plate or whatever the technical definition is. Since most of the articles are archived I was wondering if a admin would be willing to remove the cat and if necessary replace it with Category:Earthquakes. --Mikemoral♪♫ 23:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't be arsed ;). Seriously, I'll take a look at it. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done That was a lot of work for only a few articles. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, --Mikemoral♪♫ 17:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Water_cooler/miscellaneous/archives/2010/February&oldid=985681"