Wikipedia talk:In the news 2.0

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.

Lovelac 7 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've struck the part about WP:N. See below. Lovelac 7 23:06, 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. Z gin der 2008-05-04T12:39Z (UTC)

Comment: I think that this proposal misunderstands the problem. Nobody disputes that more churn would be good; the issue is always over particular items - is a fire on a major Californian highway to Mexico "international" and is the passage of the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement really that notable? Since the number of editors who update and suggest articles is always less than the number of editors who are willing to argue that an item is not ITN-worthy, and the number of admins who will remove an ITN item after seeing it on the Main Page is more than the handful of admins who have tried to specialize in ITN, ITN tends to become a very negative place, where editors who suggest candidates feel that their efforts are unappreciated and admins get yelled at both for putting up marginal items and not putting up enough items. IMO, the issue is structural/procedural because it tends to revolve around issues of "notability" and "international-ness", which are inherently subjective, under a time deadline, without a chance to mull over the issue when tempers have calmed. This is in sharp contrast to the other templates on the Main Page: FA and DYK both have well-defined processes, while SA deals with a rather small number of possible items each day and can always say "We can't fit your favorite anniversary in, but we'll do so next year." And frankly, people get less excited about an anniversary of a battle in the Middle Ages than an ongoing battle in Iraq.

The template would be better served by moving it to "Updated articles", implementing the barest amount of rules ("Must have three or more complete sentences describing a recent development" and "No more than one country/industry-specific item at a time"), and state that items cannot be removed on any other grounds. Give it a two week trial run and see how it turns out, though rewording is welcome. It can't be any worse than what ITN is now. Who really cares if a Pokemon-related article appears in the template, if it's one of ten that day and is rotated out in a couple of hours? - Banyan Tree 11:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

I definitely think it would be a good idea to get Wikinews involved. Please see my comments below for specifics. Lovelac 7 23:27, 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? Spencer^T♦^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]
- I completely support something like Portal:Current events. Elfalem (talk) 11:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree. The current ITN doesn't move often enough, and its not unheard of to come on to the Wikipedia Main Page and find the same news picture that was on there a week ago. I know Wikipedia isn't a news service, but if we're going to include a brief news section, we might as well make it worthwhile. - • The Giant Puffin • 18:47, 5 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]

But in either case, it is attainable. Up to not too long ago, Wikinews had a scrolling marquee on its front page. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 10:09, 21 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.Talk^Help 19:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Spencer^T♦^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. Spencer^T♦^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 cornix_talk 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. Lovelac 7 23:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a great boon to Wikinews to see the lead stories featured under ITN. Wikinews seems to update more frequently than ITN and our main lead always has a picture. This would give editors on Wikipedia who are not admins an avenue to get material on the front page of two projects; if they decide to try their hand at writing news. Yes, you are most welcome at Wikinews. We have some characters among the editors, but if you've some enthusiasm...

ITN makes Wikinews and Wikipedia compete; this is a sub-optimal solution to the problem of distributing information that is the Foundation mission. The goal should be to make use of the popularity of the Wikipedia front page to bring people to other projects, not just Wikinews but perhaps others. For Wikinews tighten up the lead summary off the project's front page to fit ITN and link to the WN full story; then for Wikiquote cite their quote of the day with a "who" link to the entry where the quoted person is revealed.

At the moment there's an "afterthought" link to Wikinews inside the ITN section, I'd love to see more than that. Linking to a Wikinews article will - in most cases - just put the associated Wikipedia article one more click away (Wikinews will link/cite). Then people are directed to a more "now" version of events. --Brian McNeil /^talk 22:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews Importer Bot automatically imports from Wikinews so we just need to make it the ITN template and Wikipedia will get constantly updated news. Anonymous101 (talk) 08:22, 26 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:
    - Somali riots: not covered in Wikipedia
    - Fritzl incest case: not in ITN or Current events. Probably should be.
    - Checkpoint attack kills 10 Iraqis: not covered in Wikipedia
    - Kosovo organ sale accusations: Covered at The Hunt: Me and the War Criminals; not covered in ITN or Current events
    - Babies in freezer in Wenden (Sauerland): Not covered in Wikipedia
    - School bombing in Shegeg Karo, Darfur: Not covered in Wikipedia
    - Obama attacks Clinton over Iran: No way either portal could report anything NPOV except that the Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008 are ongoing
    - Oil prices: Not covered in Wikipedia
  - 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]

Indeed; what I'm saying is that this means that having the same picture in the ITN box for a whole week isn't as bad as it seems because the kind of news suitable for ITN simply doesn't happen that often. Any efforts to loosen the criteria for content on ITN are hampered by the fact that we're not supposed to have an article about most of these things. We also need to be wary of encouraging people to report on news in articles in a way that gives undue weight to current events rather than taking a historical, encyclopedic approach. BigBlueFish (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point of ITN

There have been many, many previous attempts to change ITN. None has gained wide enough interest to be implemented. One that has been mentioned several times is Monotonehell's "Read more about...".

The point of ITN is not to be a news service. BigBlueFish's list shows that many current events that make the front page of news services don't even have a page on Wikipedia, so there is no way they could end up on ITN. In fact, several editors feel that the name "In the news" is inappropriate. I believe that ITN should be used to give readers an opportunity to do some background reading about current events. We should be listing items for which Wikipedia can do more than a newspaper. For example, the recent discovery of oil paintings in Afghanistan had links that allowed readers to know more about the history of oil painting and the Buddhas of Bamyan. Listing the results of the Zimbabwean presidential election gives the readers an opportunity to learn more about Mugabe and Tsvangirai. On the other hand, the article on Elisabeth Fritzl provides exactly the same information as any newspaper article, so I didn't see any point in putting it up on ITN.

I am a regular contributor at ITN and I certainly agree that the criteria need to be changed. We need to list articles that are related to current events and are likely to interest Wikipedia visitors. The current discussion on the death criteria reflects that idea. After Arthur Clarke passed away, many visitors wanted to read his biography, so his death should have been listed on ITN. At the end of the day, what decides whether an item goes up on ITN should not be "is this making the headlines of newspapers?" but "does Wikipedia have a good article about this?". That way, ITN can join the rest of the Main Page in giving examples of Wikipedia's best work. Pruneau^talk 15:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this viewpoint. The ITN section should showcase fine articles that are about events in the news (with the emphasis on the articles). It should not seek to showcase headlines simply due to their prominence in the media. There is no need for us to re-post headlines from dedicated news sources onto the main page. The ITN section only offers a summary of what can be found on news services' front pages (more often what was there a week ago), but if one already reads the news, the ITN really has no purpose in its current form. Dwr12 (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else...

...perhaps the links to Wikinews, Recent Deaths, and Portal:Current events might be a bit more prominent. (In fact, I was about to suggest that links be added, until I thought to check if they were already there and perhaps I simply hadn't noticed them.) :-) Apologies that I don't have a specific layout to suggest. OscarTheCat3 (talk) 23:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fewer sports-related news items

I think we should have fewer sports-related news items in ITN. A few reasons: Sports-related news items are only of interest to the fans of a particular sport, who normally seek out such news, rather than waiting for Main Page to tell it to them. Sporting events are normally commercial events with little in-the-world significance. Finally, sports tend to be geographically restricted: there is little commonality between European sports and North American sports (e.g. baseball popular in NA and Japan but nowhere else; Soccer and Rugby popular in Europe/South Africa/Australasia but not in NA; Cricket popular in the UK, SA, India, &c., but not in NA and most of Europe). I think all sports-related events should be excluded from Main Page ITN, unless a world record is broken, or unless it is a purposefully international sporting event (such as the Olympics). --Oldak Quill 16:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A modest proposal

How to keep ITN fresh? I used to contribute a lot to ITN as an admin, and to other Main Page sections as well. The reason why the other sections get updated and ITN doesn't, is because they are actually mandated to be updated on a daily basis. I suggest that we mandate that at least two new items be added to ITN every day. Not all of these items will fully meet our current criteria, but we should endeavor to pick the two best items that we can. This will probably mean a loosening in standards for "importance" and the extent of articles being revised recently, but we will still be featuring all of the items we would otherwise, and more.

A simple rule should be this: You have no right to complain if you don't have a better suggestion. The "Support" and "Oppose" threads for particular items are not particularly helpful (unless there's actually a factual error in the nom), and I think we might consider discouraging them. Instead, one should develop and nominate a better item. The competition will be healthy.

To speed the flow of new items, I would also suggest that the daily 'Current events' boxes (such as Portal:Current events/2008 May 8) be transcluded at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates, and that nominators write their blurb directly in the daily 'Current events' box. Then, then can write "Nom Putin item" or whatever below the box.--Pharos (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure requiring two items be added per day would be the best idea, because on a slow news week, media gravitates toward stories that aren't as good...and the two items per day might push away any important news point, such as the election for President of the US being edged out by say this blurb that appeared in current events yesterday: "The genome of the platypus is decoded." Spencer^T♦^C 22:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly wouldn't have to put, say, a minor war of words between politicians on ITN just because it's on a newspaper's front page that day. Even on a "slow" news day or week, there are always developments of encyclopedic interest in the back pages; I actually do think we would benefit from a few more platypus stories. That said, just because we add two items per day, doesn't mean we can't keep extra-important items up for longer periods; if there's a extra-important item that might be bumped off, we can always choose to bump off the less important items instead — and anyway major developments (like Cyclone Nargis) will surely see many updates over several months, and I see nothing wrong in that.--Pharos (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for clarifying. Spencer^T♦^C 00:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question 1: Do you envision bolding and such in the Current Events window? I tried that a few times and was promptly reverted by editors who considered it non-standard formatting.

Question 2: How do you enforce the time limit? Do you need one of those color-shifting boxes like DYK?

That said, this is the closest I've seen on this page to an proposal that addresses the lack of structure at ITN. Considering that Pharos has probably forgotten more about ITN than most users know, I'm willing to support and will even try watching ITN/C again if the proposal is implemented to help make it a success. - Banyan Tree 01:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support bolding in Current Events, which would be quite appropriate as it's in Portal namespace. It's not 100% necessary, but it would be quite helpful to keep things in synch.

For the time limit, we could just have something like {{Did you know/Next update}}, and an available admin would do the updating at UTC midnight or so. The only "enforcement" would be the duty of admins to update at this time.

I have indeed perhaps "forgotten" a bit since my previous heavy involvement with ITN, and the distance has I hope given me some new perspective. Thanks for your vote of confidence, BanyanTree.--Pharos (talk) 03:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I have no problems with the process as described thus far. Though other opinions would be helpful, unless you and I can be considered a consensus to change a Main Page template.

As a side note, I've just added three items to ITN - two of which have been the subject of extended debate on the exact desired wording, which would seem to be a lesser priority that getting an accurately worded item posted. This is sort of the aggressive updating I think your proposal foresees, as far as I can tell, though currently without any structure to prevent items from being removed by any admin who insists on a positive consensus to include, rather than the lack of a consensus to exclude. - Banyan Tree 12:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support the changes. —Nightstallion 16:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please check a mockup of a candidates page under this proposal at User:BanyanTree/Sandbox. Thanks, Banyan Tree 00:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Much support. This would improve things quite a bit. Hobartimus (talk) 00:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Because there are days when nothing of great enough significance either happens or is picked up by wikipedia.Geni 11:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think certain minimum standards are envisioned (for me, three sentences of context is enough). If an update is overdue, the first article that is suggested gets in. This ensures template turnover, while providing cover for the updating admin, since currently the fact that anyone can object to any item on the grounds of the "notability" or "international interest" means that it is much easier to stall or revert an update than initiate an update. (And people wonder why ITN stagnates...) "Significance" is not a criteria for any of the other templates on the Main Page and that fact that is has become incorporated into ITN has resulted in the widely noted problems. - Banyan Tree 12:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have failed to show the need for template turnover.Geni 14:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many events of encyclopedic significance occur every day, as even a casual perusal of Portal:Current events or BBC News will prove. The capacity is there. And there is no reason we should only have stories from a newspaper's front page, when many encyclopedically relevant stories are found in the back pages. We have seen constant complaints for years about the staleness of ITN; this proposal is meant as a way to address this staleness directly, without prejudicing any particular categories of events to be favored.--Pharos (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change in ITN/c format

Pasted from Template talk:In the news#Change in ITN/c format to centralize discussion.

While I appreciate BanyanTree's efforts to improve ITN, I do not think it is appropriate to implent the chane suggest at WP:ITN 2.0 without seeking consensus here. While I will not revert it, it would be a good idea for the initiator of the new format to remove it. Random 89 08:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: That would be you Pharos. While it seems that Banyan's suggestion was well received on the project page about ITN reform, it is still proper protocol to bring it up here... Random 89 08:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let us try it out! We've gotten some good support at the WP:ITN 2.0 page, and that proposal has been linked to from here for several days.--Pharos (talk) 08:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Forked discussions are evil, and there is far more traffic here than on that suggestion page. I think you should remove it until there is consensus all around, Pharos. -- Grant .Alpaugh 17:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not a huge fan (yet) of Banyan's format, perhaps we should, as he suggests, try it for a few days. Maybe we can set a date that we will switch over to the new format for 3 days as a trial run. I suggest Thursday, Friday, Saturday, (22nd, 23rd, 24th) to give people a time to comment here. Random 89 19:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I became aware of the implementation after the fact but, given the long history of infinite discussions and failed attempts to reform ITN, Pharos' boldness is probably the only way that anything would actually be implemented. I would echo the recommendation to continue with the tryout, though three days seems a bit short. (ITN has often gone without any updates at all for three days in a row.) The one caution I would have is that, the way I've been envisioning it, the "timer" only works if there must be consensus to remove an item, assuming the related emboldened link has an article with a minimum update, rather than a consensus to include. This will hopefully foster an "easy out - easy in" attitude once users realize that, since items aren't going to stay up for a week, not every inclusion has to be textbook perfect for meeting every criterion by a wide margin. - Banyan Tree 23:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that we should view ITN as we view Did You Know and the like, because those sections are trivial in nature. ITN highlights things like wars, famines, natural disasters, elections, and a bunch of other kinds of things in addition to sporting championships and all the rest of it. To say that "any item will do in order to fulfil a time limit for changes" is the wrong approach to ITN by a million miles. As much as I like turnover, sometimes there just isn't anything ITNable for a few days, and sometimes we get a huge rush of things. Again, ITN is not the same in subject matter as the other main page sections, so the selection criteria should not be the same as well. -- Grant .Alpaugh 23:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) I did not say "any item will do in order to fulfil a time limit for changes". I know it's fun setting up straw men and knocking them down, but do try to control yourself.

2) Not only did you not comment on Pharos' proposal but you, as far as I can tell, never objected to the creation of Wikipedia:In the news 2.0, which was advertised both here and other major locations in the community. Your protest about "forked discussions" above is nonsense, as Wikipedia:In the news 2.0 is clearly the appropriate venue for the reform discussion. Saying that consensus must be sought in two different forums and only consensus in the forum that you choose counts as "consensus" is a blatant type of forum shopping.

3) As I also believe that discussion forking is evil, I am somewhat leery of creating a new policy thread here, which seems to be for editors who ignored Pharos' reminder in the section directly above this one, when there is already an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:In the news 2.0#A modest proposal. I have copied this discussion to Wikipedia talk:In the news 2.0#Change in ITN/c format, which is a subsection of Pharos' proposal. - Banyan Tree 00:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{reindent)ITN has garnered a reputation as the "serious" Main Page template that avoids the trivia found in TFA and DYK, and occasionally SA and POTD. For the two years or so that I was active on the template, I subscribed to this point and vigorously opposed minor diplomatic incidents, local disasters, the sentencing of Michael Jackson and reporting the results of Eurovision. I have since changed my mind. Reasons include:

There is no reason for ITN to be "special". The other templates reward editors for their work with inclusion based on procedural criteria, rather than subjective criteria. ITN, as often as not, challenges the value of an editor's work.
These subjective criteria, codified in writing, are subject to increasingly stringent interpretations. (I drafted the original deaths criteria and know what I'm talking about here.)
The combination of a lack of procedure with the subjective criteria makes it very easy to remove/oppose items for specious reasoning, e.g. "The fighting in Colombia isn't on the front page of my local paper." Back when ITN/C acted basically as a noticeboard - with editors posting articles they had updated and admins noting whether or not it had been included or not, this was less obvious. Ever since full discussions over every item have become a norm, it is clear that consensus is required for inclusion, rather than exclusion.
As each item stays up longer, each item becomes more important and thus subject to higher and higher standards, creating a negative spiral.
The net result of all this has been that ITN stagnates, not because there is nothing going on in the world, as evidenced by the continuing updates to Portal:Current events of "serious" news, but because the template has limited the range of article it will accept and then raised the criteria for articles within that range, while maintaining that the lack of process to which updating admins can appeal to maintain turnover is in the good interests of the project.

Pharos' proposal is a procedural solution to a procedural problem, namely the lack of procedure. It integrates ITN/C into Portal:Current events so work is not duplicated and ITN folk can easily see the options directly from the portal feed. It mandates turnover, so editors don't have to obsess over every entry. I'm not entirely convinced that it will require becoming less "serious" given the large number of topics on any given day in Portal:Current events, but I would be OK with items like Michael Jackson's sentencing or Pavarotti's death if it is. There are clearly some procedural issues that need to defined as we go along, but the problem - chronic stagnation - is well defined and Pharos' proposal deserves a shot. The only way we'll see how it works, and what the spinoff effects of possible increased candidate submissions are, is if we give it a try. - Banyan Tree 00:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, I am not outright opposed to the suggested new format. That being said, I think it is incorrect to assume that this is a purely procedural problem. The key point you make, as I touched on below is the 4th one: the negative spiral of decreasing inclusion. That, I believe cannot be resolved procedurally without mandated updates, which we all seem to oppose, as ITN should not just be updated for the sake of doing so. Random 89 03:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a chicken or the egg problem. Most efforts to reform ITN focus on relaxing the stringent standards, which would then result in more turnover. In my experience, attempts to tell people to lighten up a bit fail because it only takes one editor to start throwing opposes around. This provokes everyone else to return to not giving the benefit of the doubt, which is totally fatal for a "consensus to include" set-up that has turnover as a priority.

So let's work it from the other direction - rather than repeatedly pleading with people to chill out so more items get through, let's put a big red template on the page telling admins that they need to check the candidates and, if there is a candidate meeting minimum requirements, pick the best of the lot.

At any one time there are three or more candidates under discussion. My most recent involvement in ITN was when I recently posted three items, two of which had been under discussion for days, and nobody protested at all. Similarly, updates to major news story that reset items to the top of the template would count as 'updates' as far as the template is concerned. The timer signifies that discussion is not infinite, just like the queue for DYK items and the discussion period at FAC. If the discussion on an item appears to be stalemated, and there's no other candidate that has more support, it goes up, just like "no consensus"="keep" in deletion discussions. Nobody has suggested putting up items against consensus. If the timer turns red and there's no appropriate candidate, it stays red until someone suggests an appropriate candidate. ITN procedure is significantly outside the norms of the community, and it would benefit from being more closely aligned. - Banyan Tree 04:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. I know of a few people who throw around votes just for the sake of it, and some people take them too seriously (cough Lemmey cough). I'm still not sure if putting a big alarm-coloured timer on the page, as if it is about to blow up, will solve anything, but its probably worth a try. I'll say again maybe we should try it for a few days starting on Thursday, or maybe even a whole week. Random 89 06:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to directly challenge here Grant's notion that "[T]here just isn't ITNable news every day". Please, anyone, name a date this year, and I will be able to give you at least one appropriate item. Note also, that a daily update wouldn't just have to rely on that day's events, but could also highlight an event from a couple of days ago.--Pharos (talk) 02:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now proposed a one-week trial run at Template talk:In the news#Change in ITN/c format. Please comment there on the trial run proposal.--Pharos (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check this discussion

Talk:Main Page#News lack updating... Again. J.C. (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The root of the problem

I think we have all agreed that one of (perhaps the) most major problems with ITN is that it becomes stale, lending undue prominence to certain headlines. It is this emphasis that leads many people to not want too much [sports/US primaries/space news/platypus genomes] on ITN, as they know it will stick around for a while. We now have a self-re-enforcing cycle: we won't include minor news items because they will be on ITN for too long, bu to speed the rotation we need more mew items. In my mind there are a few things we can do to stave off the worst of the problems, without undergoing too much structural change.

Make the primary standard for inclusion the article update, with the other guidelines being secondary. This would (hopefully) move the "burden of proof" from the supporters to the opposers. This is also a good idea as article updates are the only objective standard we really have.
Make set lists of included events in advance. While not all news article fall into this category, things such as sports, elections, space flights, and a few others could have standardized coverage. This would formalize a process that is right now mainly based on precedent. As an example, see WP:ITNSPORTS.
Rename In The News. I know this has been debated to no end, but its is not really a news service. I would suggest Article in the Headlines or Articles in the News. I believe this is the source of some confusion.
Include more deaths, eg. Arthur C Clarke. I know this contradicts what i said in my first point, but it is somewhat of an exception as it is interesting to readers, and we usually already have well-developed articles for anyone of ITN-worthy stature who dies. It would also help increase turnover.

With these standards, I could see the current ITN being re-invigorated, and perhaps nullifying the necessity of some of the more drastic suggestions on this page. Random 89 22:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought. Most of it anyway, minus the renaming. No, I won't take the "I did it first" away from you. But of course I like it. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 02:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elimination

Why not eliminate the ITN section? Is it really that important? I think that if wikipedia is not a news service, there's no reason for keeping a section that we know is useless. I think the best thing that we could do is erase the section, and this way, more relevant things like DYK and OTD would occupy the space left by ITN. I personally think that ITN's purpose is to waste space. If we can't keep news updated, why bother in having a worthless section? I want ITN to be eliminated. Is it so difficult to understand? --J.C. (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really that important? Yes. It's our main distinguishing point from other encyclopedias—not only the ability to self-correct, but to add articles immediately as events happen. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 10:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, our main distinguishing point from other encyclopedias is our unique combination of width and depth: there's no other general encyclopedia covering such a width of topics in such a thorough manner. Often being extremely up to date isn't at the core of what makes the Wikipedia interesting, it's just a nice little bonus. Gestumblindi (talk) 10:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ITN section is highly valued by our readers. For a good analysis, see User:Ragesoss's Wikipedia traffic for content linked on the Main Page.--Pharos (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to quote from that above link: "The most interesting thing about these numbers, to me, is how disproportionally heavy the aggregate traffic is for In the news than for other sectors. Much of the time the main articles for the newest news entries--represented by a single line each on the Main Page--have similar hit counts to the Featured Article--which has a whole box in better screen real estate." Spencer^T♦^C 23:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had considered trying to delete ITN, but I had my reservations. After looking at Pharos and Spencer's arguments, I now agree that ITN is valuable enough to stay, though I still think it needs improvement. Lovelac 7 04:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Design issue: correlation between photo and first item

When I look at the current "In the news" box, I naturally first read the first item and look at the photo which is usually placed in the top right corner - getting confused because often the photo has nothing to do with the text item it seems to accompany. E.g. today, the first item says "At least 22 people are killed as a wave of anti-foreign violence spreads across South Africa." and the image shown alongside is the President of the Dominican Republic Leonel Fernández - with whom only the third item is dealing ("Leonel Fernández (pictured) of the Dominican Liberation Party is re-elected President of the Dominican Republic"). I keep getting irritated by this even though I'm a long-time Wikipedia user and contributor; I think something should be done design-wise to make this clearer. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this was suggested somewhere, allow me to look... Spencer^T♦^C 23:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find the discussion. :( I remember it was discussing a picture of Hugo Chavez, though. Spencer^T♦^C 23:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know this has come up before and has been met with some sort of technical restrictions, and personally it doesn't really bug me, but I know that the french wikipedia moves the pic with the blurb to which it is attached. Random 89 03:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Working link to the French Wikipedia's main page: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accueil . They seem to have the same problem (box "Actualités et événements" - a text about Leonel Fernández is accompanied by an image pertaining to the Sichuan earthquake). A possible solution would be to always only show images fitting the first item (and simply no image if there's nothing available for the first item). Gestumblindi (talk) 10:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, in the German Wikipedia, they seem to move the image indeed further down with the corresponding topic; the current main page at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauptseite has an image alongside the second item and not at the top in "In den Nachrichten". Gestumblindi (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was once a brief attempt at bolding the phrase (Pictured). It helped make things clearer, but it only lasted a day or so because people thought it was distracting. (And I think some admins reacted against a change being made without proper debate.) APL (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, the problem is when you change the alignment you potentially screw up the template for other pages such as alternatives to the main page, user space use of the template, etc. The proposed solution to this is a fork of the template which may work but IMHO, it's kind of unfair to change the template after the fact, and not bother to check existing significant pages to see whether it works with them and whether you can fix it if you can't. Obviously not every single page that uses the template but IMHO editors should at least go through key stuff like main page alternatives, the candidates page, current events etc to work out which template to use and try and improve the forked template if it doesn't work but could use a different alignment. Obviously checking any change against all defauly skins is a given. I.E. The job shouldn't be half done and will need some work before being implemented Nil Einne (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trial

Just to ensure someone sees it, I opposed the trial as currently planned on Template:ITN Nil Einne (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does everyone think the trial is going so far? Spencer^T♦^C 21:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I guess I should have continued here, rather than starting a new section at Template talk:In the news. Please offer your feedback there. - Banyan Tree 00:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the "correlation between photo and first item" issue mentioned in the paragraph above should be fixed somehow. Today we read "A suicide car bomb explodes outside the Danish embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, killing at least five." and see a picture of a Jamaican sprinter alongside... Gestumblindi (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extending the trial

A proposal has been made to extend the current trial run, Please comment at Template talk:In the news#shall we extend the trial?. Thank you.--Pharos (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews use

Wikinews manages to have four lead articles on its front page. Some may not change for 2-3 days, but they change regularly. Not to mention that only as a worst-case would something like a map be up for one of these... and yes, they all have pictures. Every single one of them will have a bundle of links back to Wikipedia to the articles on the people and places involved.

With SUL implemented it is about time people stopped thinking of themselves as just "Wikipedians", or "Wikinewsies". Wikipedia has made it, and that success should be used to build sister projects up in terms of readers and contributors. There should be moves to drive traffic to sister projects, and that could even include having the Wikiquote QOTD shown on Wikipedia. --Brian McNeil /^talk 18:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Just a (wikinews) link at the end of the hook...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 07:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"There should be moves to drive traffic to sister projects"
Please explain how this would help the readers. ( As opposed to simply helping the sister protects themselves. ) --APL (talk) 04:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would help the readers by showing them what else they can get from the Wikimedia Foundation. It doesn't really help them so much to have 'today's featured article' IMO, but there'd be a riot if we took that off Main Page, whith me at the head ;-). Whereas if they realised they can get things like Wikinews, Wikiquote, Wiktionary and so forth they wouldn't go looking for the info on Wikipedia, where they get disatisfactory answers, and those that want to help out won't post info that is outside the project scope, as they often do. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, but I disagree. There is a difference between presenting interesting encyclopedia-related content and interesting other content.

I feel as though efforts to push non-encyclopedia conent are simplely advertising. And I feel that any time something is added to the main page you detract from the usability of what is already there. It's important to fight the normal human tendency to start with something good and keep adding to it until it is no longer good. Example : [1].

I am not a huge contributer to wikipedia. So maybe I should keep my mouth shut. But as a frequent user/reader I always cringe when additions to the mainpage are considered without at least matching efforts to simplify. It's even worse when the additions are off-topic, or advertising. APL (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]