Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:In the news 2.0

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JNSQ (talk | contribs) at 21:31, 5 May 2008 (Undid revision 210421901 by JNSQ (talk) rv self). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Proposal

The main page is an ever-changing portal that shows off Wikipedia's best content. Everyday it features a different article, picture, historical fact or interesting fact. However, one section, the In The News" section, does not change at the same rate as the other sections. In fact, it barely changes at all. For example, the same picture of Uruguayan president-elect Fernando Lugo has been on the main page continuously since April 20. Stale news items like this do not show off the best that Wikipedia has to offer, and do not to service to our most widely-visited page.

Wikipedia is of course an encyclopedia, not a news service. This is an important thing to remember when discussing ITN. However, today's news is tomorrow's history, and Wikipedia, unlike a print encyclopedia, can change to reflect current events. When something newsworthy happens, editors flock to Wikipedia to update pages accordingly. We should encourage this as much as possible, and make it easier for editors old and new to link to current-event articles. The current ITN does not do this well enough, and we must reform it along the following lines:

  • Diversity — ITN should feature news items from an array of different subjects. This will help us attract a wide variety of readers and editors
  • Timeliness — ITN should constantly change to reflect the latest happenings. We should amend ongoing news stories to reflect the latest developments.
  • Openness — ITN should be more accepting of suggestions. We should follow Wikipedia's own notability guidelines instead of own set of criteria. We should broaden the current ITN criteria to increase both volume and diversity.
  • Volume — ITN should feature a much larger number of news items. This will keep the top left corner of the main page from getting too "stale", especially compared to the other sections.

"In The News" has the potential to be one of Wikipedia's greatest innovations. As a new media encyclopedia, we have the opportunity to create a definitive reference work that states definitive as the world changes.

Lovelac7 23:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think following WP:N is appropriate, as many things that are extremely news-worthy are totally unfit for Wikipedia articles. But in general, this has been needed for a long time. I've always thought of In the News as the most boring and least useful of the mainpage features. I wouldn't mind cutting it altogether. VanTucky 00:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly support this proposal. With no particularly large amount of offense meant to those who have worked to maintain it - who deserve some level of opprobrium for the high-handed and strange way they have administered their fiefdom, but have otherwise done well by Wikipedia - ITN has been a joke for a while now. It operates under its own obscure logic, wherein minor events that have a discrete identity (such as a US sports team having an undefeated season) take precedence over more notable events that are part of a larger story (such as a US presidential primary). Among other strange policies, this results in a news page where only a small percentage of actual news events are eligible for coverage - often boutique stories or ones which have become outdated - and ongoing stories are given coverage only after they wrap up. There are a few exceptions - the breathless coverage of every twist in the Zimbabwean political process, as opposed to the principled non-coverage of any twist in the US political process - but on the whole ITN has become wholly perverse and seems to oppose the coverage of news rather than to provide it. I am aware that Wikipedia is not a news service, but this feature of the main page should be removed or improved. As is, it is more than a little embarrassing. François Metro (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since ITN, as with the rest of the main page, is primarily intended for our readers, concentrating on the benefits to editors is unlikely to go far IMHO Nil Einne (talk) 06:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was thinking the same thing. I am thinks of going up for RfA and this is one place where admins are needed. Zginder 2008-05-04T12:39Z (UTC)


An item or two from Wikinews?

I like this proposal. One thing that might improve it, and have enormous potential for helping another important project gain needed contributors, would be to include an item or two from Wikinews along with Wikipedia-related article news.--ragesoss (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion

When you say "We should amend ongoing news stories..." the story shouldn't go up if the article that goes with this is not significantly updated. Otherwise, I generally agree with the suggested ITN 2.0. However, posting US primary news for every single state and territory might also be called stale news. Question: Are you suggesting something similar to the daily tidbits onPortal:Current events? SpencerT♦C 01:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, Spencer. The daily tidbits on Portal:Current events are similar to what I'm proposing, both in scope and volume. As for ongoing stories, the U.S. primary results provide a good example of what I'm thinking. For example, last Super Tuesday, there were primaries in 24 states and one territory. Though I'm all for increasing the volume of stories, this would be too much. However, we could have one blurb that lists the winners (in this case, Obama and McCain.) Lovelac7 23:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ticker?

Considering the proposal calls for increased diversity and increased volume of news stories, but it is unlikely that ITN would be given more screen real-estate on the front page, would it be possible to create an unobtrusive news ticker?

Not the constantly side-scrolling distracting kind - as popularised by CNN - but perhaps a vertical list that smoothly rolled upwards one news item every 10 seconds or so. Perhaps this kind of live animation is not supported on media-wiki, in which case ITN could display a different set of articles each time the main page was refreshed. Witty Lama 03:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a nice and original idea but I confess I think it won't work. Moving text by design draws attention to content, and there's no reason why ITN is any more important than Today's FA. I suspect a significant contingent of the community would categorically reject anything which moves on their page (besides perhaps a featured animation). The way that they are normally used also implies that every time the ticker moves there might be something new on it. I think this amount of currency is unattainable and unwanted. At the moment things move on about once a day. I see "increased volume" as meaning a higher turnover of stories (cf the Lugo image). BigBlueFish (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea

Sounds good. Certainly an improvement to the current one anyway. If I ever get the mop I'll be more than happy to help out(hint, hint)...... Dendodge.TalkHelp 19:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See below. SpencerT♦C 19:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Allow me to also suggest an idea also for ITN 2.0, given here. Important quote of this link: "The reason why I bring this to your attention is not for you to take a side or otherwise ask for your blessing on a policy matter, but to ask your advice on how how a community of editors can go about implementing change when the means for enacting that change are reserved to another class of users? --User:Madcoverboy" This was about non-sysops, but major contributors to ITN editing the template to add updates and fix errors as soon as possible. SpencerT♦C 19:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a newspaper

There is only a limited amount of news that we should bother with, and that's when an article discusses news events. Having a newspaper on the front page violates what Wikipedia is all about. Go to Wikinews for your news. Corvus cornixtalk 21:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Including Wikinews articles in future incarnations of ITN would be a very good idea. First, it would help attract editors to our sister project. Second, it would attract editors to our own current events articles; and finally, it would keep us from "reinventing the wheel", leaving Wikipedia editors more time to work on the encyclopedia. Lovelac7 23:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's own notability guidelines?

So, you're proposing that any news story with two or more reliable sources (and an update to the relevant article) should feature? That'll be every moderate book, album, film and game release. Every celebrity marriage. Anything and everything a major politician says... J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're right. That part was badly thought out, and I struck it out of my proposal. However, I do still think that we should broaden the current ITN criteria. Lovelac7 23:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's certainly an argument for that, but as it's pretty subjective as it is anyway, what do you propose? A hard-and-fast rule, or just telling everyone to lighten up a little? Change the wording on the policy page? We need methods, not targets. J Milburn (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • At the moment, every event on ITN has resulted in the creation or major overhaul of an article on Wikipedia, or at least a section. This is what keeps the section relevant to the encyclopedia. How much further could it really be expanded in this way? A good way to think about it would be to look at what's in the news today. On the front page of Wikinews right now:
        • Cyclone Nargis: already on ITN
        • Microsoft drops bid for Yahoo: covered in Portal:Current events
        • Clinical signs a 'reliable measure' of HIV treatment progress: I can't find this finding in Wikipedia at all
        • NHL game: not covered in Wikipedia
        • San Diego pipe bomb: not covered in Wikipedia
        • Fußball-Bundesliga match: not covered in Wikipedia
        • Brazilian plane disappearance: not covered in Wikipedia
        • The Lord Our Righteousness Church: not covered in Wikipedia
      • Also on the BBC worldwide front page:
      • You can begin to see the problem... BigBlueFish (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but Wikipedia isn't a news service. Imagine if those things had happened 20 years ago- there is almost no chance any would be covered, with the exception of the cyclone (we cover them very well) and the Fritzl matter, which I can see being well documented outside of the press (books will be written). Those regarding specific schools and churches may find themselves on the article on the school/church, if it is notable outside of the event, and the Microsoft thing may have a quick mention in Yahoo. If all of these were mentioned in depth on Wikipedia, it would turn into one big news service and suffer from stupidly painful recentism. ITN isn't intended to highlight what is genuinely in the news, it is to highlight points of great international significance that will become part of history. J Milburn (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news_2.0&oldid=210422108"