Open main menu

Wikipedia talk:In the news

  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:ITN)


Upcoming ITN/R suggestions (Apr-Jun)Edit

This post attempts to highlight potential nominations that could be considered and where else to continue looking for news items. The recurring items list is a good place to start. Below is a provisional list of upcoming ITN/R events over the next few months. Note that some events may be announced earlier or later than scheduled, like the result of an election or the culmination of a sport season/tournament. Feel free to update these articles in advance and nominate them on the candidates page when they occur.

Other resources

For those who don't take their daily dose of news from an encyclopedia, breaking news stories can also be found via news aggregators (e.g. Google News, Yahoo! News) or your preferred news outlet. Some news outlets employ paywalls after a few free articles, others are funded by advertisements - which tend not to like ad blockers, and a fair few are still free to access. Below is a small selection:

Unlike the prose in the article, the reference doesn't necessarily need to be in English. Non-English news sources include, but are not limited to: Le Monde, Der Spiegel and El País. Which ironically are Western European examples (hi systemic bias). Any reliable African, Asian or South American non-English source that confirms an event took place can also be used.

Happy hunting. Fuebaey (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

"Policy about notability of mass shootings" discussion at Village PumpEdit

By now most people on ITN probably already know about this, but just in case, there is currently a discussion at the Village Pump regarding the establishment of a policy regarding the notability of mass shootings on WP:ITN. I'd presume those most familiar with ITN's workings would want to participate or weigh in.--WaltCip (talk) 12:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

A limited consensusEdit

I visited this site thinking that I might try to add more stories on science, but what I found is a bit discouraging. The criteria for significance include the number of unique articles, types of news sources, length and depth of coverage; and there is an extended discussion of prominence, warning the reader not to "assess whether a story is "prominent" or not based on where you see it reported on major news websites". That paints an intimidating picture of significance.

In practice, however, most of the stories are pretty obscure. Looking through the archives for the previous four months, I see that 56% to 78% of the articles are about people who just died. A typical example is Philomena Lynott, notable for being the mother of Phil Lynott; her death was reported in Raidió Teilifís Éireann. Meanwhile, 0-2 articles per month are on science. A current proposal for a story about the Dragonfly mission, covered in depth by just about every major news source (and the only story on the main pages of both Science and Nature), is opposed by the regular voters because the $1 billion dollar award could be rescinded in the future.

The bottom line in the guideline is that consensus trumps all other considerations. To the ten people who are doing almost all the voting on this site: kudos for putting in a lot of work, but have you perhaps strayed from the purpose of this site? RockMagnetist(talk) 17:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Consensus is how 99% of Wikipedia operates. Why should ITN be different? 331dot (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Also, what is obscure to one person is top level news to another. 331dot (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I am entirely in favor of consensus, but consensus on Wikipedia is not simply the result of a vote. As the policy states, it is a way of assuring that Wikipedia's goals are achieved. In most discussions, that means the five pillars. Here, it is presumably the criteria: updated content, significance and article quality. The statement "what is obscure to one person is top level news to another" is not in the spirit of the top part of Signficance, which emphasizes broad, in-depth coverage by major media sources. RockMagnetist(talk) 19:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
The consensus against the nomination (so far) is not a close call; you are the only one expressing support for it. 331dot (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm using it as an example to make a general point. That's why I'm saying these things here and not at the nomination. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Gatekeeping is serious stuff. Sports, dead white guys and disasters outside of the US are easily accepted by the gatekeepers. Everything else needs 2:1 vote consensus. Delaying unwanted news stories is also preferable, as it's inevitable Sca will comment "Stale" at some point after 6,000 words of discussion. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Or some dick will bring up The Boat Race time after time after time. Yes, it's true, life actually is a rollercoaster, so you really have to ride it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I was hoping that I would stimulate serious discussion, not personal attacks. RockMagnetist(talk) 21:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
What is it that you hope to achieve? 331dot (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
First, an acknowledgement from the regulars that In the news shouldn't be dominated by bios of dead people. If that level of introspection is achieved, we could have a discussion about how the process could be improved. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
It’s not dominated by bios of dead people. They have their own couple of lines at the bottom, with almost automatic posting if the article is in good shape. Stephen 22:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
^^^ Which was determined by an RFC (as noted in the RD ITNC template). --Masem (t) 22:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Do you mean Template:ITN candidate? I'm not seeing any mention of an RFC there. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD. seriously? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
RD was created precisely to avoid ITN as a whole filling up with bios of dead people. 331dot (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I see - it's not in the docs but the output of the template. O.k., I withdraw my criticism about the RD candidates. Thank you for your patience. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to the wonderful world of ITN, where everyone knows something is broken, but nobody can get consensus on how to fix it! Banedon (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@RockMagnetist: I would love to see more science stories here, and try to work on them where I can and post them where I see consensus to do so. Access to the sources is a problem, as is understanding exactly what the significant increment is, particularly when accessible news sources (eg BBC, Guardian) are often inaccurate/misleading. Commenting yourself on proposed items would be one way of helping. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Commenting may be one way to get used to this site and what people consider suitable. It's very different from DYK, which is very straightforward. I have 22 successful DYK noms in a row. RockMagnetist(talk) 03:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
DYK is entirely different, as it is based on the quid pro quo system that tends to encourage minimal checks and positive reviews by a single editor. In my experience it's quite difficult to get a DYK rejected, and that probably goes 10-fold in the current climate. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Wow, that's cynical - not the way I operate. RockMagnetist(talk) 04:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not particularly cynical, just realistic. I participated in DYK for years before QPQ was introduced (as I recall, it was the major reason I accepted a nomination to stand for adminship) and genuinely do not feel it has made the section work better. I'm aware that's an opinion the current DYK regulars do not share, which is why I participate there rarely now except when dragged there by main-page errors. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Regardless, my point is that the guidelines are clear and I know how to write an article so there is no doubt that any reviewer, however strict, would pass it. Here, as the guidelines themselves point out, "It is highly subject whether an event is considered significant enough," so I have no idea in advance whether a given nomination will be accepted. RockMagnetist(talk) 04:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
ITN motivates the creation and improvement of articles irrespective of them being accepted or not. The potential of rejection shouldn't stop you or anyone from nominating something, as the work still benefits the project as a whole. 331dot (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I do think that ITN could be a motivator for some, but it's not working for me. I'm going to go back to editing articles based on my own interests. However, I'm not giving up entirely - if an article I'm working on becomes newsworthy, I will consider nominating it. RockMagnetist(talk) 04:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Long-term impact?Edit

I was mistaken about the the dead people, but the way of choosing stories still troubles me. A lot of the arguments have to do with the perceived importance of a story. For example, in the Istanbul Election discussion, there are lots of statements that it's a local election and some "wait and see" arguments about its significance. But one of the stated purposes of this site is To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news. That would certainly have been true of this article:

  • It was covered by newspapers all over the world.
  • A 72,000 byte article sprang up almost overnight and has already had over 50,000 views. Another purpose of this page is To showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events.
  • Views of Ekrem İmamoğlu (the winner of the election) went from about 1500 to as many as 27,000 views per day.
  • Even the views of Istanbul doubled.

Cleary, readers were searching for this information, but they got no help from In the news.

A similar wait-and-see attitude was seen in the Dragonfly discussion. Despite this, views of Dragonfly (spacecraft) jumped from 163 to 5,289 in two days, while those of Titan (moon) went from 2085 to 12,449.

In view of the above, how exactly are these arguments about importance serving the purposes of this page? RockMagnetist(talk) 00:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, people don't agree on what the purpose of this page is in the first place, so ... Banedon (talk) 02:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
You seem to be suggesting that ITN be a news ticker instead of a means to highlight articles about topical subjects, and in order to do that there needs to be community discussion.. I might suggest that you peruse the archives as this sort of discussion occasionally comes up when someone is dissatisfied with the community not accepting their nomination. That probably sound bad to read, but I don't mean it that way. 331dot (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
That's a surprising read of what I'm saying. Contrary to your impression, I think that highlighting of articles is the most important goal, but when judging what is newsworthy the community should defer more to the media. After all, this is "In the news" and they are the sources. And voters should justify their comments with references to the purpose and criteria for this page. I did consider perusing the archives, but there are an awful lot of pages and I can't think of a good search criterion. RockMagnetist(talk) 03:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Example, Example. I'll just go ahead and say that although you think highlighting of articles is the most important goal, a sizable fraction of ITN editors thinks ITN is for highlighting good articles, per WP:NOTNEWS and all that, and quality takes precedence over significance. Like I said, everyone knows ITN is broken, but nobody can get consensus on how to fix it, because there's no consensus on what ITN is about anyway. Banedon (talk) 06:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@Banedon: Thanks for the links. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Actually Banendon, the entire time I've been following ITN (several years now) there has been consensus that the point of ITN is to "to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest". There are a small number of people who believe that quality should not be a significant criterion, but there has never been anything approaching a consensus for that view, which is why the requirements for posting remain the same, i.e.(1) being in the news, (2) being an encyclopaedic topic, (3) having an update of sufficient quality - all judged by consensus. There has also never been a consensus that ITN is broken - there are quite a few people who have expressed that view, but given that pretty much none of them have been able to agree on why they think it is broken (other than having a different opinion about whether a specific story was or was not posted), let alone how to fix it, the lack of consensus for the viewpoint is unsurprising. Thryduulf (talk) 08:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
What Thryduulf says. I'll only add that people usually only express their dissatisfaction with the process when their nomination (or one they care for) fails to achieve consensus for posting. But normally when one's nomination gains consensus quickly, there's almost 100% certainty that they'll not come here and question the process. I believe that's a strong indicator that what we have now works well. It's not perfect... of course, but then nowhere is perfect in the whole Wikipedia. – Ammarpad (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: are you sure? Do you have a link to a discussion which established that consensus? I've certainly seen a lot of threads started by different people who disapproved of the current system, except they've all stopped participating in ITN (and who can blame them). Also Ammarpad, I'm pretty sure a lot of people are dissatisfied even when it's not their nominations that are being rejected, e.g. RockMagnetist, which started this discussion before having nominated anything. Banedon (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not aware off the top of my head which formally established this consensus (The Rambling Man might, he's been around here longer than me), but going back as far as I can find the purpose of ITN has been to showcase quality encyclopaedia articles and there has never been a consensus to change that, despite multiple proposals. There have been multiple proposals to define "quality" more objectively (in multiple ways) and they have all failed to come up with any alternative that is workable across the board - a quality article about an expected event that has been building for years (e.g. US Presidential elections) is very different to a quality article about an earthquake yesterday in Japan is very different to a quality article about an earthquake yesterday in rural Indonesia is very different to a quality article about an air crash on landing in New York is very different to a quality article about an air crash en-route over the south Atlantic is very different to a quality article about a failed coup attempt in Ethiopia is very different to a quality article about the unexpected death of a former Egyptian president, etc.
There have also been many proposals about doing away with the significance criterion, but none have come up with an alternative way of distinguishing the final of the World Cup from the results of every professional sports match in every country, the results of every US collegiate sports match, the latest political scandal in every country, the latest notable criminal allegations, trial openings, trial updates, convictions/acquittals and sentencing in every country, the latest scientific papers in every field, the latest release of every computer game, games console, car, lorry, train, civil and military aeroplane, motorbike, boat, book, song, etc, etc. It's particularly notable that for all your criticism of how ITN currently works you haven't yet proposed a workable alternative.
When people come here complaining about an excess of X type of story or the lack of Y type of story, the usual answer is to nominate more of the type of story they want to see - how is it our responsibility if they choose not to do that? Thryduulf (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: Don't say I didn't try proposing alternatives. I did. Here is an example, and there are several more that I haven't bothered to search up. The irony is that there were people proposing alternatives in the opposite direction (where I prefer deleting the quality criterion, they prefer deleting the significance criterion), they didn't get consensus either (see the examples above). Like I said - everyone knows ITN is broken, but nobody can get consensus on how to fix it. I predict that this thread will be similar. I will be very surprised if something changes. Banedon (talk) 00:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
@Banedon: no, "everybody" does not know that "ITN is broken" because there are plenty of people, myself included, who know that it is not broken but that removing any one of the three criteria would break it. It's also worth noting that I didn't say you had not proposed alternatives, I stated you hadn't proposed workable alternatives - there is a big difference between the two. Thryduulf (talk) 00:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: okay, if you want to put it that way, then I'll say there are more people who think ITN is broken than there are who think ITN isn't broken. Also, I will also say that all the alternatives proposed are workable. Removing the significance criterion has already been done for RDs for example, and that has worked hasn't it? The reason it hasn't happened is because it cannot get consensus, same as every other change. Banedon (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Removing the significance criterion for RDs, but because RDs are qualitatively different to every other type of nomination - the existence of an article demonstrates significance. The reason why removing the significance criterion for all nominations is unworkable has been dealt with in detail (nearly?) every time it's been suggested, and I gave a brief reprise just above (I neglected to mention that it would also duplicate Wikinews and WikiTribune, making it pointless). Removing the quality criterion is unworkable because it is only a matter of time before we are showcasing gross BLP violations to millions of readers (DYK is bad enough at times, let alone something that's more prominent). As for your numbers argument, nearly (but not entirely) everyone you're counting as "knowing" that ITN is broken actually just believes that it is broken because a nomination (usually but not always one they nominated or are otherwise attached to in some way) was or was not posted when they think it should (not) have been, but rarely do they even attempt to articulate how and why they think it is wrong. Even among those who, like yourself, are serial complainers there is no consensus about how ITN is apparently broken or what needs to change to fix it (let alone how to fix it) beyond usually some vague "I think ITN should post more stories" or "I think ITN should post more of (specific type of story)" or, occasionally, "I think ITN should be posting fewer stories". And even among these people there is not consensus that the purpose of ITN should change. Thryduulf (talk) 01:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: what is your definition of "unworkable"? Because I'm operating with the definition "unworkable = cannot be done". Under this definition we can certainly remove the quality/significance criterion, therefore they're not unworkable. For that matter here's another solution: remove ITN entirely. We can certainly do that too, we just don't want to do it (or do we?). Also, the very fact that there is no consensus about how ITN is broken is the reason there is no chance of change in ITN. If you live in the UK as your profile says you have, you should understand that very well: Brexit is similar. Everyone knows that's broken, too, but nobody can agree on what's broken about it. PS, your sweeping statements about how people don't attempt to articulate what the think is wrong or how to fix it is incorrect. Example. Banedon (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Unworkable = cannot work in practical terms, for the reasons repeatedly explained (and repeatedly hand-waveed away at best). There is nothing about Brexit that isn't broken and there is an obvious and easy fix: cancel it. I don't want to discus British politics any further though as it's so very far off topic that it's abundantly clear continuing the discussion would be pointless. Thryduulf (talk) 02:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
If your definition of "unworkable" is "cannot work in practical terms" then we're more or less done, because as I've repeatedly explained, the solutions presented are workable, we just don't want to implement them. If you consider them unworkable that's because of your subjective opinion, and I think it's pointless trying to change that, because you've clearly already made up your mind. Banedon (talk) 02:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: I have seen "barbarians at the gates" arguments many times, and never been convinced by them. How many trivial stories are likely to meet all of the three criteria - updated content with a substantial quantity of directly relevant material, in-depth coverage by a broad range of high-quality media sources, and a high-quality article? And if a story meets those criteria, who are you to say that it's not suitable? It's like the difference between notable and important. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
There is enough media coverage of every (mis)step that President Trump does - and editors that follow that - to make articles that hit all three points , every single day for the most part. But we definitely do not want a Trump story every day on ITN. It's where understanding "not a new ticker" comes in. We have to be more aware of stories that have a more significant impact and are not just the daily news. --Masem (t) 18:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
As for whether this system is working - since I started this discussion, DYK has posted about 8 new stories per day, while In the news looks the same (except perhaps for some turnover in the RD column). RockMagnetist(talk) 18:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
So what's your suggestion to get more items through ITN, i.e. make it more like a news ticker? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Items don't get posted without consensus. So in answer to your question, all of us. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
And in reply to the ad hominem claim that only people whose nominations are rejected are unhappy - the Dragonfly nomination was not mine. My problem is not with it being rejected, but how it was rejected. A reasonable argument could be made that it does not meet the updated content criterion, but no one said that. Instead, there were a lot of irrelevant considerations. I have already proposed my alternative - just apply the criteria, and only the criteria, rigorously. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, it's not ad hominem @RockMagnetist; and I didn't say those who have their nominations rejected are "unhappy"; although ironically, that would have been more accurate description than what I said. Yes, Dragonfly's nomination was not yours, but I will urge you to re-read my comment to see why even though it was not yours we ended up here, I have explained that, no need to repeat. Another ironic (and well, interesting) thing about your comment here is how your words perspicuously convey the extent of your "unhappiness" about how it [Dragonfly's nomination] was rejected, further corroborating what I said. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
But the criteria have to be applied by humans (at this time) and if humans don't all agree that all three criteria are met then it won't get consensus to be posted. When WMF get the machine learning algorithms up and running to replace the thousands of pathetic human editors, all the items can be selected algorithmically without need to inconvenience a human. But for the time being we're stuck with dumb old humans judging it for themselves. *shrugs*. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
O.k., now you're getting dramatic. Consider how deletion debates go. Quite a variety of arguments are used, but there is a chain of reasoning on various pages about the likelihood of a subject being notable. If there is disagreement, an admin must make a decision based on the quality of the arguments (which basically translates to whether they are linked to that chain of justification). That's how dumb old humans can make a good judgement. I don't see that happening here. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Then the blame lies squarely with the assessing admins who should know what the criteria are, and apply them, rather than the rules all the hysterical "it's broken, it's borked!!" silliness. Anyway, I think mostly you'll find there are two arguments keeping articles off the main page in ITN: (1) it's not updated well enough (or the article in general is too shabby) and (2) the item is really not newsworthy (in the opinion of the voting public). The first is usually quite easy and objective to assess. The second is impossible, as you can see if you look back over the last few mass shootings in the US, where the consensus on newsworthiness is usually split down the middle. Deletion reviews are one thing, but what appears on the main page of Wikipedia is another - we should be applying much stricter quality control there, and I, for one, am glad that we're not a news ticker. Other sites are available: Wikinews, Wikitribune etc. My mini rule of thumb to determine newsworthiness is "would I expect to see this covered in a global 'review of the year's news'?" and if the answer's no, then I don't think it belongs on the main page of this encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
There is something to be said for the annual review criterion, at least as a way of assessing post facto how well the system works. It would be interesting to see how well the choices have lived up to it in past years - both in terms of what is included (which is mainly a matter of what has been approved) and what is not (which is mainly a matter of what stories are submitted). RockMagnetist(talk) 18:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Well you can help yourself to our own annual review, see 2018 and go through ITN. I think you'll find we posted more at ITN than is listed at the year article. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I just realized that, in my previous answer, I was ignoring my own advice - to keep in mind the purpose of this page. Which of the purposes is served by an emphasis on importance in the long term? This page is ephemeral - once a news item is removed, it can only be found in the archives of the nominations. RockMagnetist(talk) 21:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────────────── @The Rambling Man: The raw numbers back you up on that:

2018 Article ITN Difference
January 5 20 15
February 7 17 10
March 15 27 12
April 14 25 11
May 14 28 14
June 11 18 7
July 12 28 16
August 11 20 9
September 5 21 16
October 16 31 15
November 7 19 12
December 11 11 0
TOTAL 128 265 137

The numbers for ITN are approximate - I looked only at the title in the table of contents and counted only those that are marked as "posted", excluding those marked as being recent deaths entries. This means items posted to RD but not labelled as such anywhere in the section heading are included, any stories posted without a note being made in the section header are not counted. I was also doing all the counting by hand so I might have made a mistake here or there, but overall the figures should be accurate to within ±2-3. For the 2019 article I counted only the "Events" section, so death blurbs will be part of, but not the whole, reason for the discrepancy (it's very rare for there to be more than 2 death blurbs in a month, and there can be consecutive months with 0). For ITN the count is of posted nominations, for the 2018 article it is of bullet points. Thryduulf (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Thryduulf thank you, that's very timely and insightful. I hope RockMagnetist understands this. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, thank you Thryduulf. It is interesting, but I hope The Rambling Man understands my point that it may not be relevant after all. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I think you're now into "arguing the toss" territory so feel free to carry on with your personal endeavour, but I don't think there's any purpose in responding to you any further now you have the facts of the matter. Bye. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The thing I find frustrating about this conversation is that I keep referring back to the purpose of In the news and the criteria for choosing stories, but the people responding talk about anything but. If the real purpose of the page is something else - like selecting the most important stories of the year - then the guidelines should be changed. It's confusing for newbies like me if you say one thing and do another. RockMagnetist(talk) 02:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Nobody knows what the purpose of ITN is, so yeah, it's a frustrating "discussion". Banedon (talk) 02:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Summary of how the process works: [person] decides that [topic] is worth featuring on ITN. (S)he finds an article on it and nominates it. Now people decide if it's 1) significant and 2) if the article quality is sufficient. If the answer is yes to both then it's posted, otherwise it isn't. That's it. Banedon (talk) 03:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
And the significance criterion is "highly subjective", and I guess it's going to stay that way. Once, Jimbo Wales visited a page I edit because of a news story, but I suspect if I'd submitted that story here they would have said "incremental" and rejected it. RockMagnetist(talk) 03:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, significance is subjective. Quality is subjective too actually, and there've been articles that were posted then pulled because of disputes over whether or not the quality is sufficient. C'est la ITN. Banedon (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
@Banendon: The link which you described as "Nobody knows what the purpose of ITN is" actually shows exactly the opposite - a very clear statement about what the purpose of ITN is. You disagree(d) with that purpose, which is fine, but that doesn't make your description anything other than intentionally misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: I was using "nobody knows" metaphorically to mean "there is no consensus". Banedon (talk) 12:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Other than "nobody knows what the purpose is" and "there is no consensus that this should be the purpose" are completely different things, neither are true. Most people who wish to change ITN some way don't have anything to say about the purpose, and most who do agree with the purpose but feel it isn't fulfilling it for some reason. Thryduulf (talk) 12:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Maybe you don't, but I consider the position that "ITN as it currently is has no purpose" a legitimate one on the question "what is ITN's purpose". Banedon (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
No it is not legitimate. You may legitimately have a belief that it is not currently serving its purpose and/or that this purpose is not useful (although I disagree with this belief and it is contrary to consensus), but it very clearly does have a purpose. Thryduulf (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Thryduulf In that discussion, I do see a lot of support for the current purposes. And they may be useful. But I think that they are only getting lip service. The prevailing arguments about significance are attempts to judge the long-term importance of stories with a crystal ball; they seem to be conflating the quality of the article with importance of the story. I have been saying this repeatedly in various ways, but I feel like I'm talking to a wall. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
@RockMagnetist: I understand what you are saying: The purpose is good (on the whole at least), a quality criterion is a Good Thing and (by and large) that's working well, a significance criterion is probably/possibly good but (in your opinion) the way it is being applied currently isn't right and this means the purpose isn't being achieved. My point to Benedon is that your argument is very different to theirs and so is not evidence that there is a consensus for their position (their argument is that ITN is broken because there is a quality requirement for stories to be posted, and as the current purpose of ITN means a quality requirement that purpose is fundamentally incorrect and so should be treated as if it doesn't exist. Sometimes they apply this logic to the significance criterion, sometimes they don't). I disagree with you (RockMagnetist) that the significance criterion is fundamentally broken - it's not perfect but imo we get it right far more often than we get it wrong. Thryduulf (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, thank you for at least acknowledging the question. I don't think I'm likely to get a better response than that, so I'll rest my case. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

To sum up, if anyone here who believes ITN to be purposeless, or misdirected or misguided, instead of just repeatedly claiming it, perhaps make concrete proposals and get a consensus in support of it. It's very easy to state that one finds something personally wrong here, it's another thing to actually do something about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Factors in assessing significance or relevance include: magnitude of death and/or destruction, number of people affected, extent of political or cultural import, timeliness, rarity or unusualness, extent of media coverage, and to some slight extent human interest. Each nomination (except for RDs and ITN/R items) must be evaluated individually according to some combination of these criteria, and the technical quality of the target article must meet prevailing standards. Differences of opinion are endemic to the process, but no amount of debate (the present discussion comprises 5,600 words) will significantly change these factors. They are in the nature of news. – Sca (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Fundamentally, here are the problems with ITNC
  1. It's dominated by a small number of users
    1. What's posted and what isn't reflects what those users like
  2. People who aren't among the small number of users who comment religiously have a habit of being shouted down by the people who do
  3. It undervalues newsworthiness and timeliness

pbp 23:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Well I can see where this has come from. You voted "Support" on a BLP (yes, people who have just died are still BLPs) which was grossly undersourced and frankly a BLP violation. When you were told this, you then accused another editor of "shouting you down". They weren't "shouting you down", they were telling you why that RD wasn't going to get posted in its current state. Frankly, if you think that posting an RD that has multiple completely unsourced paragraphs to the Main Page is a good idea, you probably shouldn't be commenting at ITN/C. You actually said this (and I'm still amazed by it) - my rationale is, "I believe this is notable enough to be on the main page, regardless of the quality of the article". No. We post nothing to the Main Page in that state, whether it is ITN, DYK or anything else. Black Kite (talk) 23:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:CEN is now open!Edit

To all interested parties: Now that it has a proper shortcut, the current events noticeboard has now officially opened for discussion!

WP:CEN came about as an idea I explored through a request for comment that closed last March. Recent research has re-opened the debate on Wikipedia's role in a changing faster-paced internet. Questions of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:Recentism are still floating around. That being said, there are still plenty of articles to write and hopefully this noticeboard can positively contribute to that critical process.

Thank you for your participation in the RFC, and I hope to see you at WP:CEN soon! –MJLTalk 19:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

This isn't really "In the News"Edit

If this was really a page about what's in the news, it should principally be concerned about timeliness and newsworthiness. pbp 15:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, it should principally be concerned about quality. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 17:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Jesus louisus, is it imperative that you shout down everything I say? pbp 17:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
No, but this is Wikipedia and it means the community are entitled to their say, and that includes you and me. And I see no good reason to bring Jesus into this. Cheers now. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 17:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
We just had a long discussion about this above, unfortunately. Banedon (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Return to the project page "In the news".