Talk:WikiTribune

And Wikinews?

I'm surprised that Wikinews is not mentioned anywhere? Leighblackall (talk) 07:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• I have put a link into the see also section. Andrew D. (talk) 08:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Given the apparent similarities - and common heritage - I'm surprised that Wikinews is relegated to 'See also' and not mentioned in the main text. And what is the difference between the two? Is it just effectively a re-launch with a different funding model? JezGrove (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• As the article's header mentions, the project differs from Wikinews in that it's totally unrelated to Wikimedia, although it is does share a co-founder with Wikipedia. In addition to the funding model difference you mention, WikiTRIBUNE also differs from Wikinews in that it will require all user-submited edits be approved by editors before going live, making it closer to the Citizendium model than the Wikimedia/Wikinews model. volt4ire (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, not only can ordinary users not "publish" new articles on Wikinews without approval from a "reviewer" (as the user right is called), but changes to existing articles also require approval by a reviewer before they take effect - see Wikinews:Reviewing. Bencherlite^Talk 16:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Sandbox version url?

Exciting news. According to the announcement video, this project has already finished creating a novel collaboration engine. And according to the wiki article, that software can already be tried out, but only by professional journalists. Here's my beef: I find it unwise to not direct the attention and willingness to help that such an announcement can bring into a place where people can immediately play, take action and engage. The people have helped wikipedia get big, so why should we be excluded at this stage? I hope that a sandbox of that engine is made publicly available very very soon. Bonomont (talk) 07:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• The talk page guidelines indicate this should not be a place for discussion of the article topic, but only discussion of how to improve the article. This comment does not contain any discussion regarding how to improve the article. Suggest deletion of comment. --Kojones (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Language seems promotional

Phrases such as "never by selling advertising space" sounds like it is attempting to positively promote the site, rather than inform the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whahuh82 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I saw the discussion on Mr. Wales talk page and came to see the article, and find that I agree. I've cleaned up a few spots such as the one mentioned and the languages parameter of the infobox being misused as advertising. TheValeyard (talk) 04:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• I have restored the language parameter to the infobox and clarified their policy further, adding another source. Andrew D. (talk) 07:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• And I have removed it. wikitribune.com, in its current form, is published in one language, English. An infobox provides facts, not claims, not promises. TheValeyard (talk) 04:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Italian page keeps getting deleted

The Italian WikiTribune page keeps getting deleted and the related discussion was locked. The administrator I contacted is not open to reconsider. Please can anyone intercede to recreate it and keep it open? --ED302 (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

See also section

It is being very funny (or quite strange) that you are deleting my editaion which is fact-based, verified, true... on the page dedicated to the project which want to be fact-based, verified, true. Congratulations. (I only add info + link about Czech non-profit, independent website with no advertisement HlidaciPes.org, which is very similar to named websites from Germany or Netherlands). Robert 78.102.120.197 (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

wikipedia censorship at its best DerElektriker (talk) 05:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• The sites which are listed have all been mentioned in sources, comparing them in some way with this new one. The Czech site doesn't even have an article in this English wikipedia. We should continue to be selective, as we're not trying to make an exhaustive list here. In due course, entries from the See also should move into the body as the analysis and comparisons are developed as text. Andrew D. (talk) 07:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I removed the entry because it wasn't an English Wikipedia article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• I've updated the sub-section's title to "Other comparable news sites" and ensured that each entry has a source which contrasts or compares it in some way with Wikitribune. Andrew D. (talk) 08:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

How is "Impossible" involed?

On the project page https://www.impossible.com is linked "made by impossible". Could we explain how Impossible is involved in the project?--rugk (talk) 09:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Impossible seems to have pivoted from its original vision into providing technical services and so they are presumably doing the initial software engineering work for this. Their article needs updating to reflect their current status. Andrew D. (talk) 10:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

List policies

How is this project going to implement neutrality, snipe language, weightage...etc. What would be the criteria will the news be purely from known and verified ideologies or people can quote whatever journalists write...etc. Provide the current policies build for wikitribune. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.101.142.235 (talk) 12:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

There are no sources for that yet, so we cannot say anything about it. TFD (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Does WikiTRIBUNE qualify as WP:RS?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On its masthead, WikiTRIBUNE self-identifies as WikiTRIBUNE^PILOT

On its subscriptions page, founder Jimmy Wales writes, "We are launching … We are a tiny operation today with big ambitions for the future. Your support will help us to improve the technology and hire more journalists."

At the Help & FAQs page, the introduction begins, "Since we launched the pilot site…."

Clearly, WikiTRIBUNE remains a tiny pilot site still in launch phase, with an admitted deficit in technology and journalists.

My question therefore is: Does WikiTRIBUNE qualify as a WP:RELIABLE source?

WP:QUESTIONABLE cautions us, "Beware of sources that sound reliable but do not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires."

In my opinion, given its startup nature, limited resources, and unproven track record, WikiTRIBUNE should not be cited by editors within Wikipedia articles. We could proactively avoid disputed references by expressing a consensus to that effect here, or wherever else editors feel is appropriate. KalHolmann (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:RSN may be a better place to ask this question. Aquegg (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unusual financial report

Around mid-2017 there was a collection of funds to support WikiTribune -- €385,000 from the Google DNI, another $50,000 from a company called ESV, plus the undocumented sums of small donations made by over 10,000 small supporters, plus who knows how much matched by Craig Newmark's pledge of $100,000. If we try to look to see how that money was allocated, we find a 08 January 2019 filing of an unaudited report "FOR THE PERIOD ENDED 30 APRIL 2018" at WikiTribune seems to show net liability of £110,527, with no obvious sign of the (cash positive) grant money from Google, or the pledge from ESV, or any of the donations received from the thousands of small donors, or the matching pledge from Newmark. Can someone explain why this financial report doesn't seem to match what we were told by the media that was being collected by WikiTribune? Did the money just disappear? - 170.55.36.237 (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Defunct?

WikiTribune Social, also known as WT Social, has been described by one news article as a "reboot" of WikiTribune. Should this article be modified to state that this website is no longer functioning as originally planned? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

As I have a rather obvious COI, you should take my comments accordingly. :) The company is the same company, and continues as usual. The total redesign of the website and community participation concept to be more in line with the original vision than the Wordpress site ever quite managed to achieve suggested to us that a new name might be best, hence WikiTribune.social or - in the more common short form that we use - wt.social.

I suspect that the independent notability of the company versus the website is not sufficient to warrant 2 articles. This isn't exactly a Google/Alphabet situation. :)

My only other comment about this article (and the other one) is that the omission of Orit Kopel as co-founder when many individual journalists are named as part of the project is problematic. There are a great many reliable sources to support her mention.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: One other small comment. There is an (unsourced) line "Nonetheless, Wales has never disclosed how much money was raised, nor how much has been kept as profit" which strikes me as a bit POV. We file public accounts like every UK business, which can be seen here: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10713170/filing-history . As you can see as of our most recent public financial report, the business has a net liability of £446,891, all of which is a loan from me. That is to say, far from there being profit that has been "kept", there has been a significant loss which I have funded myself. While it isn't clear to me that this level of detail about the finances of what is a very small business warrants inclusion in the article (I leave others to judge that), if it is to be included, it should be accurate and not a snarky suggestion that I've "kept" money.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)