Wikipedia talk:How to edit a real time update

For a November 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/How to edit a real time update.

Removal of flames

To all readers: please review the edit history of this page and consider restoring the removal of flames and precis I made in [1] and [2] Mr. Jones 21:51, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is not official policy

Please note that this is in no way official Wikipedia policy and should not be taken as such. violet/riga (t) 07:44, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ugh, this violates almost every guideline at Wikipedia:How to create policy. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:42, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's a proposal - opened for comment, that's the right thing to do. I think the general idea that ITN tends to be somewhat US-centric is valid. I think this proposal could be modified into a set of suggestions for rebalancing that - a list of places to look and things to consider. As a set of rules it's too prescriptive for my taste, but developed into suggestions it could be useful -- sannse (talk) 12:42, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In the three days between the original post and your reply the article has been changed quite a bit, including the articles name. violet/riga (t) 17:54, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A lie. The guidelines have remained exactly the same, but the other sections were added and the Template changed into a Wikipedia page. This can easily be confirmed by looking at older versions of the VP News section or other pages. -- Simonides 20:43, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Do I have to spell everything out for you? I never said the entire article contents had changed, just that the article had. That referred to the structure and the fact that it is now a vote which, previously, it was not. This was, after all, a thread about the guidelines and that was to what I was talking about. violet/riga (t) 20:51, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What silly contortionism - are you as stupid as you assume your readers to be? "The article has been changed quite a bit - I meant the article had changed, not the contents - I meant the structure - I mean it was not a vote - (and what does "that was to what I was talking about" mean anyway?)" ... to avoid getting your panties in a knot you should 1) clarify the facts to yourself; 2) not transplant Talk pages from different contexts (your comments belonged to the Template), to spite the creator of the article; 3) not pretend that the context hasn't changed, then decry loudly that the context has changed when your complaints are shown to be hollow. -- Simonides 21:04, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Poor thing, you're very confused, aren't you? I never contradicted myself at any point but you seem to have been unable to understand simple English. Please learn how to interpret the written word correctly. violet/riga (t) 21:34, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Before you pity anyone and commence a monograph on the interpretation of simple English, I suggest you find out whether "that was to what I was talking about" makes sense in any language. -- Simonides 21:44, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

While a slight butchering of the English language, I admit, I think it's quite easy to understand. Not for you, it would seem. Look, this is senseless – you're being stupidly petty and taking things the wrong way. You don't even know my view of the policy suggestion because you're blanking things out due to your disregard for my opinion. Please stop being so defensive – I disagree with you and have expressed some of my opinions. The only chance you have of getting this policy through is to change some parts of it. If you bothered to listen to any suggestions I have then perhaps you'd get somewhere – communication is the best way to resolve disagreements, not petty arguments. violet/riga (t) 21:54, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You've done much more than disagree with me, you've gone out of your way to disrupt my efforts at finding a public for a genuine complaint - If I'm "stupidly petty", you're off the chart. As for making the general idea of this policy go through, I am going to find a way to do it - I see it has already had an effect on the news editors of the past two weeks. If you wish to help, you're welcome to make suggestions here, as I've requested other no-voters to do; but being obstructive is hardly the same as awaiting or requesting discussion (which you never tried to initiate) and you should not confuse the two. -- Simonides 22:08, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've not disrupted the suggustion or been obstructive - please show me any example where I have. What I have done is stopped you enforcing the policy without proper discussion. I've not made any suggestions because I've been too busy arguing stupidities with you. violet/riga (t) 22:33, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I can come up with several examples of your disruption, and you know what they are. Nevertheless, if you have any actual suggestions to make, please do make them below. -- Simonides 22:55, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I can't think of any examples. As for suggestions the main one is to shrink the whole policy down a huge amount and turn it into a guideline. I too hate the Americocentric aspects of Wikipedia and want to stop it, but to write such a strict guideline is going to cause edit wars, decrease the interest in updating it and generally suffer from instruction creep. A polite notice on the ITN page is sufficient, imo. violet/riga (t) 23:27, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have more than one intention - I don't want just want to make the Current Events and ITN pages less Americentric but also 1) more global (ie I don't want Americentric items to be replaced simply by UK or Eurocentric items); 2) more encyclopaedic, ie pertaining to issues that might be little known among the public but important, ex. science or art news or political issues in little-known countries - this helps to attract attention to the weaker areas of Wikipedia and improve them; 3) less tabloidish, which they are on occasion. The lengthy guidelines are meant to help people out of the usual rut, rather than make them balk, though of course they could be shortened; if the first two points are taken care of then everything else should follow, ie the lack of interesting/ diverse/ etc material. -- Simonides 23:50, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Most of the people that edit the current events and ITN pages get their information from American or European news sources. Those sources themselves are totally biased and finding information about goings-on around the world are hard to find. What is important to people in, for example, the UK is the hunting ban not the thousands of people dieing in wars around the world. It's sad, but that's the case. Yes I'm all for getting people more aware of the crap that goes on outside of our media-led world but it's difficult to do that when our sources are based on those very same media. My favoured course of action is to see a news team (perhaps a wikiproject or a linkup with the new Wikinews project) be put in charge of ITN at the very least. Indeed, with Wikinews being globally updated this could solve all the problems. violet/riga (t) 23:57, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Strangely framed discussion

I'm just entering into this discussion, and trying to get a handle on the topic... (which, knowing my luck, has probably moved to a different nexus.)

If I understand the proposal (which is unlikely) this is an attempt to broaden the base of articles to include a larger percentage of non-U.S. and non-Western items for In the news. There are multiple problems with this proposal, the primary one being the availability of news sources in English on non-U.S. and non-Western regions and topics.

But assuming the availability, the suggestion seems to be focused on current events which are considered newsworthy from certain under-reported in western media regions, specifically Africa but Asia, South America, and so on are implied.

This is a bias toward current events coverage. A wider ITN base including (for example) scientific journal press releases is far more appropriate for an encyclopedia, imo. Since the current ITN policy requires an article which is updated with the ITN item, journal press releases would also substantively improve Wikipedia articles instead of merely bringing an ongoing event article current for the moment.

Wikipedia is not a news source, whether of U.S. domestic events or those of non-western countries. - Amgine 06:31, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, it is not, but a sufficient number of people (excluding myself) find current news relevant enough to merit its own space, so that's a separate concern. As for availability, there are in fact extremely broad and in-depth news sources in English for "non US", "non Western" regions and topics - this is precisely the kind of insulation I am trying to break people out of, by "prescribing" (as others have put it) sites where even a superficial degree of such news can easily be found.

I mostly see reactionary comments, and no attempt at remedy - ex. someone says news should be relevant to the English speaking world, and I point out that the English speaking world is actually larger outside the usual nexus of "Western" countries (ie England & northern North America); they reply most editors are British or American - I point out that it doesn't justify making a POV/biased encyclopedia; they complain there are not enough sites with non-Americentric news, so I list the sites; they reply that the sites are not easy to access, so I provide them with links; they then object that Anglo/Americentric news is more relevant to the world, and where one would ideally throw up one's hands in disgust, I try to explain that it's a media bias forced on them, which doesn't have to exist on an encyclopedia; they then say there are not enough "strong" articles on non-Euro/Americentric topics, so Wikipedia looks weak - I explain that Wikipedia's objective is to grow and become an authoritative encyclopedia, and previous experiments prove that linking to weak areas strengthens the same and draws in new users/ more information, eventually helping Wikipedia ... and so it goes on, with endless justifications for maintaining bias and (sometimes vicious) objections to the mildest of alternate suggestions, when all that time and effort could easily have been spent making simple remedies.

Do browse through some of the links to previous discussions provided. Also ask more questions if you still think you don't understand the proposal, though it seems rather transparent to me. Restricting oneself to the discussion of how broad the news items can be (not whether they should be on Wikipedia at all), I find no genuine reason to obviate their diversification, though I do see a lot of attempts at disguising the lethargy and apathy several editors have; of course, if you can come up with a good reason (among the several that you say exist), please elaborate. -- Simonides 01:37, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Adopt a country

I presume somewhere there is a list of all countries. Perhaps we could "adopt" countries (at random?) and their surrounding regions and seek out stories and information about them. Making commitments to cover a country and listing the results would improve the wikipedia and be something to be measured by. Mr. Jones 21:10, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Janus Code

Just put "Nophilos" (No philosophy) or Nephilim as the time code, and have autocomplete update in real time.

Brendan Lloyd 219.90.231.18 (talk) 10:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)