Talk:Australia to deport asylum seekers to Tsunami Zone
Wikinews is still very new, and we haven't yet ironed out all the crinkles. In order to help us figure out our process here, I would like for people to discuss:
- Why was it thought that a copy-paste of a Press Release sent to a mailing list by someone hoping for media coverage might be a copyright violation? The press release is the primary source, and was clearly labelled for what it was.
- Why is copying en-masse a press release a copyright violation? Under U.S. law even a press release is covered under copyright unless specifically released under POV. As source material it should be linked to, rather than copied into the body of an article. - Amgine 05:15, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Under Australian Law (where the material was posted by the original source, and where I published it from) there is a specific exemption for Fair dealing in reporting the news, which would, in my non-lawyer opinion, cover it -- never mind whether material published to a mailing list is under protection or not, or whether Press Releases are covered or not (neither of which I know right now).
- I agree it would be better if linked, but was unable to find a suitable link. I sincerely believe the use would be acceptable to the author, since it's a Press Release, it's purpose is to be used in developing news articles, and that is what we are collaboritively doing here. Hard to use it without all of us being able to see it. I think it would be different if this was not a collaborative news reporting forum.
- I think US law has similar protections for news reporting. This is something we need to get sorted out, and properly, because it will make a big difference to how usefully we can report the news.Simeon 06:05, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Thinking about this a little more, I think it would be useful if a Press Release Clearing House facility could be set up, as part of wikinews or seperate from it. People with press releases that they want to send out would either email or upload them to a given address, under the understanding that the press release would be globally published on the internet for use by news reporters, under any suitable license they mention, or a default public domain license. I've mentioned this before, and I think it warrants further discussion.
- At first the site would be unknown to most, but it would still be useful in streamlining the process for cases like this. Some wikinews user would simply email the original source of the press release asking them if they could upload/email the article to the clearing house. This makes it a one-step process for the wikinews user, and a one-step process for the press release originator. And once they know about the facility, it is likely that future releases would be sent there without need for solicitation by us. :) Simeon 06:25, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Why add a source which has nothing to do with the facts present in the story? The Bakhtiyari's were not deliberately deported to the Tsunami-affected region, but happened to be caught there apparently, while in transit. The story linked does not even mention this, referring only to Pakistan and Afghanistan, which are not tsunami affected. If you want to take the story in some direction using that source, please make some change to the story, as it is not clear how that source can be used.
- Hmm woops! Just found out the family was deported after the Tsunami. Will work on this aspect of the story, and perhaps replace the source with one which focuses on this aspect. Simeon 04:38, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
|Removed the Bakhtiyari stuff from the page/story - it is a seperate issue. If people want this covered, in a seperate story, here are some useful leads (I'm not vouching for their accuracy Simeon 05:32, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)):|
|OK, found an interesting angle for the Bakhtiyari info, may be of use if and when more information is available and the story grows. The Bakhtiyari-specific info is a way down on this page. Simeon 00:59, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Why remove the byline of Canberra, Australia, which is where the source who made the comments quoted in the intro is (the only content so far), and where the Government concerned is? The byline also presented the date at which the question arose, and continues to be relevent even if facts change, unless the story is deleted.
- OK, I thought Canberra was where the source was based, perhaps not. I will byline the story as AUSTRALIA. The date was preserved. Simeon 04:48, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The byline policy is still under discussion; it is generally considered normal journalism practice to use a byline including city name only when the reporter is present at that site. However, there is no policy preventing you from using Canberra; it may be a better choice to simply use the date. - Amgine 05:15, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I vote that the byline should reflect where the event being reported occurred, since we assume always that the story is being written by multiple, disparate sources, or we wouldn't be here! ;) The byline is very useful to readers to know what the story is about. Eventually we may need to include it in titles, since we are likely to run out of unique namespace otherwise. But in this case, I have changed it to Australia, since I think I may have been wrong about the RAC guy being Canberra based. Simeon 06:05, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The story is incomplete, and the categories listed covered a very broad range of possible topics. Usually it is better to apply categories to a complete (or nearly) story, avoiding flooding the categories with only marginally related stories. - Amgine 05:15, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Why move to Copy Edit Needed, which is labelled as being stories that are basically ready but need tidy-up? This story still needs to present a Government response, or at least to back up the facts presented by the single source, in my opinion.
- I personally did not move to copy edit. Don't know who did at the moment - Wikinews:Article workspace is under considerable flux right now. - Amgine 05:15, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(by the way, it was me that originally submitted the story stub) Simeon 04:26, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sent to the Minister's office
I am writing an article about potential deportation of Sri Lankan and other nationals to areas affected by the recent tsunami disaster.
I wonder if you can tell me
1) were Sri Lanakan asylum seekers given orders to leave the country on Christmas Eve. Were these the first notice that they had of this planned deportation?
2) are they now able to apply for visa extensions using the hotline advertised on your site http://www.dimia.gov.au/media_releases/media05/d05001.htm
3) do asylum seekers from Aceh in Indonesia, or any other locations primarily or secondarily affected by the tsunami, also face deportation (unless their visas are extended in response)
4) are the visas going to be automatically extended, or do the people affected need to apply for extension? why?
5) how long will the visas be extended in the first instance?
6) are subsequent extensions planned if needed? what assurance do the people affected have of this? I note that DIMIA is notorious for using 'dirty tricks' to speed deportation of reluctant travelers (whether this is true or not, it is widely believed)
7) what other conditions apply to these visa extensions?
Thanks in advance for your time,
submitted through http://www.minister.immi.gov.au/contact/index.htm#email
Acknowledgement of receipt received from http://www.minister.immi.gov.au/cgi-bin/formmail.cgi
Contact with the Minister
Thank you for your comments.
They were received today, Mon Jan 10 2005 at 16:22:46, in the office of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.
If you have included a postal address, efforts will be made to respond to your email.
(I did include my postal address in the form, so a reply should be ensuing.) Simeon 05:32, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- OK no response, clearly either it is the wrong contact point for a quick response, or they are stalling. Will seek direct contact with a departmental rep. Simeon 01:11, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Have emailed to a press officer kevin.donnellan at immi.gov.au Simeon 03:32, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Response from DIMA public affairs received and reproduced below by Simeon 09:09, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC):
- Sri Lankans are subject to the same visa and departure requirements
as any other nationality.
- Any person who usually lives in an area that has been directly
affected by the tsunamis and may wish to temporarily extend their stay in Australia should contact DIMIA on 1300 735 683.
- These requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
- DIMIA client service staff in Australia have been directed to give
positive consideration to applications from people usually resident in tsunami-affected areas who wish to temporarily extend their stay in Australia. DIMIA staff outside Australia are giving priority to visa applications from persons directly affected by the tsunami.