User:Darkfrog24/Editorial

This is a draft for a possible official Wikinews essay. It is discussed on the collaboration page, where the principal author welcomes comment on its contents, but it has not yet been proposed for promotion to any official status. In its current form, it is primarily a way of organizing the Wikinewsie's own thoughts and experiences.

This is a draft for a possible official Wikinews essay. It is discussed on the collaboration page, where the principal author welcomes comment on its contents, but it has not yet been proposed for promotion to any official status. In its current form, it is primarily a way of organizing the Wikinewsie's own thoughts and experiences.

This is an essay by one or more individuals on using and contributing to Wikinews. It contains their advice or opinions, not necessarily those of the Wikinews community. Community essays can be found here; links to official policies can be found in the Wikinews introduction.

This is an user essay, suggested by its author(s). It's not a community essay, nor a policy or guideline.

In many ways, Wikinewsies should copy the practices of professional journalists, but some of these practices are not suitable for an amateur project. One key example is the expression of editorial opinions and conclusions in Wikinews' own voice. Writers for the BBC or New York Times do so often, but Wikinewsies should not.

For example, say 95 Democrats and 5 Republicans voted yes on a bill. Say the New York Times reporter describes this as, "The bill passed primarily along party lines" and the BBC reporter as "members of both parties supported the bill." Both these summaries are perfectly true, but they have very different connotations.

Wikinews should express this solely as "95 Democrats and 5 Republicans voted yes on the bill" with no value judgements.

This is because the New York Times and BBC reporters sign their names to their work and Wikinewsies are both collaborative and anonymous. The thing that lends weight to an editorial opinion or conclusion is the reputation, credentials, history and expertise of the writer penning it and the fact that the writer is publicly taking responsibility for it. Even Wikinewsies who do have real-world journalistic expertise cannot prove it here on Wikinews.

This does not mean editorial conclusions do not belong in Wikinews articles at all. Because Wikinewsies have no confirmable credentials, they may, like an epiphyte, offer someone else's:

"Long-time political correspondent John Smith, writing in the New York Times, described the vote as 'mostly along party lines,'" if sourced, is perfectly acceptable for a Wikinews article. While we can quote other journalists directly, as long as you have to offer someone else's opinion instead of your own, it is best to find a specific expert in the subject at hand, as in, "University of California political science professor Janet Jones told Al Jazeera that both parties supported the bill."

Verifiability and preferring sources to our and our colleagues' opinions are the core concepts of Project Wiki. This is one way we use that here on Wikinews.