Wikinews:Water cooler/policy
Policies and guidelines and the Style guide contain or link to most of the current en.Wikinews policies and guidelines, however policy is based on the accepted practices of the day on Wikinews, often these might not be written down. This section of the Water cooler focuses on discussions regarding policy issues.
You may wish to check the archives to see if a subject has been raised previously.
Contents |
[edit] Accreditation and Google News listings
This thread is, effectively, a placeholder to invite discussion from other language versions of Wikinews. At-present only the English-language version of Wikinews has a listing on Google News, and the majority of accredited reporters are from this language version of the project.
I am actively seeking to expand both. To achieve such I am canvassing input from other language versions of the project. Please make every effort to keep the discussion positive regarding requirements for GNews listing, and the advantages that come with being accredited. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ad accreditations: For the Czech projects, association Wikimedia Czech Republic offers help with aquiring accreditations. We do not know whether there are any problems with that, as there was not any interest after WMCZ offered this (although there was some before...).
- Ad Google News: Yes, that was a thing that we were looking after, but did not find any good clue how to obtain the "Google News" status. However as we are a small project, we probably cannot run the official process of reviewing... Okino (talk) 12:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
-
- Okino, thank you for the prompt response. The primary point for listing in GNews is review of submissions by an uninvolved editor.
- If you have an editor who is not involved in the creation of an article carry out fact-checking work and employ flagged revisions to pass/fail review, then it is relatively easy to get listed in Google News. If you need any help whatsoever with that, please do not hesitate to contact me directly. My 'gut' feeling is that non-English versions of Wikinews have far more to gain from such listings in terms of exposure.
- I'd also be keen to know more about your accreditation process, and any constraints on that. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well, with a community of about three to four people, the news would be often listened many days after being published. Anyway thanks for Your hint. Okino (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
As a Turkish Wikinews user, I think that it is still too early for the project to have an accrediation policy or some kind of review policy. Only the two sysops, including me are permanently active. The community is actually not independent from Turkish Wikipedia, they are Wikipedians sometimes writing a Wikinews article. Although there has recently been some improvements, we have not yet achieved a permanent activity. Thus, the project can be considered as a "seasonal" project, it usually becomes active when a user regularly contributes to it, which attracts other users. Under these conditions, a review policy might cause further problems. One of them is that, until the time it is reviewed, a breaking news article might become outdated. So, currently, users are actually encouraged to publish articles without review, and if there is any problem, it is fixed within a few days.
For accreditations, as a person living in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, I do not know much about the process in Turkey, where most Turkish speakers reside. For the TRNC, I can easily say that no one is going to take you serious with just a Wikinews accreditation. To be taken seriously, a press card is needed, which is quite impossible for Wikinews users to get, as it requires a signed contract and a social security document. Additionally, there is no Wikimedia chapter in Turkey, which might make the process in Turkey harder.
Turkish Wikinews users have applied to Google News twice before, and this seems the reason why it was rejected each time. So this means that for a long period of time, we are still not going to have a Google News listing. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm from Italian-language Wikinews. I lazily borrow almost each word of Seksen iki yüz kırk beş about the editing situation of the project. However, there is a project (named Wiki@Home) of the Italian Wikimedia chapter, which publishes interviews on Wikinews, maybe it could be of your interest — they could have some accreditation policy or practice. -- Codicorumus « msg 18:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Breaking news?
[If this has been covered previously, my apologies].......in regard to "breaking news" here, I've just had this topic on my mind lately, as I think (in my opinion, at least) that this project should not be too wrapped up in sythesis articles, but should have alot of original reporting. Is the 2 other news sources rule pretty hard-and-fast here for a true breaking news story, especially if the OR reporter just happens to stumble into something hot and wants to submit it hastily? [Not sure exactly what the hell it is I'm asking.....if someone else figures it out, then I guess we'll both know!!!]Bddpaux (talk) 04:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Short answer: If there is OR, no. If there isn't yes.
- Long answer: If you've got Original research, you don't require an external source - as long as you OR notes back up everything you've written. This applies to breaking news as well as the non-breaking news. --RockerballAustralia c 05:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
[edit] webcitation - not as primary link
The question has come up of whether and how to use webcitation at Wikinews. On more careful consideration of the nature of news, my conclusion is, no. At least, not as the primary link. Maybe not even as a secondary link, but that does require some thought.
News articles get corrected, and by using webcitation as the primary link, the reviewer wouldn't know they'd been corrected. Sometimes they may even be taken down entirely due to some major problem (like libel), and by using webcitation one might not know.
There might be a use for webcitation to secondarily preserve the form of an article that the author used when writing; one might have an additional parameter on the {{source}} template for this — but even that would have to be used carefully by reviewers, and considering who brought the idea here I'm inclined to examine this wooden horse very closely before taking it inside our gates. --Pi zero (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
