Wikinews:Water cooler/proposals

Refresh

Archive

---

Archives 2009  May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 2010  January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 2011  January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 December 2011 2012  January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 March 2013 April 2013

Wikinews should be the long-term home for "Verified Interviews with Biographic Subjects"

I just saw an out-of-date article about yet another attempt to shut down Wikinews. Looking at how few Recent Changes there are I can see why - this site is less active than even the new URL of Encyclopedia Dramatica. However, there is a repeated need for a specific service that Wikinews would be the best project to provide, which I think should justify its preservation. I should note that I'm not a regular contributor of Wikinews and not a member of OTRS, but I think the two working together can make this happen.

On en.wp I have repeatedly called for "Verified Interviews with Biographic Subjects", and the response hasn't been bad, especially compared to the usual one comes to expect. [1] [2] [3] [4] These should have the following properties:

• Every VIBS entry should involve an actual interview with a subject notable enough for a regular Wikipedia entry in some language (in the consensus opinion of Wikinews contributors).

• VIBS interviewers should be members of OTRS and therefore enjoy some extra level of trust.

• The identity of VIBS subjects should be confirmed to a level suitable for OTRS work.

• The full text of VIBS should be made available to subjects first so that they can point out any errors.

• VIBS should be citable by Wikipedia articles as a primary source for BLP (i.e. negative statements about third parties can't be cited by articles, because it is only an interview with one party), and published on Wikinews long-term.

• VIBS should be a direct competitor to http://icorrect.com which charges $1000 for celebrities to document corrections to their biographic records, which was the topic of discussion in the first link above.

• VIBS should allow celebrities an alternative to editing their own Wikipedia articles, and should be the go-to place people suggest when a editor's "conflict of interest" becomes a topic of discussion on Wikipedia.

• Volunteers should be sought to watch the VIBS feed and update Wikipedia articles neutrally to reflect recent published interviews.

I imagine that a subset of Wikinews' original articles are at or near the VIBS standard and could be upgraded to populate the category from the beginning. Wnt (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. It sounds as if you're proposing to create Wikinews, just not realizing that verified interviews are part of what we already do here. We have experience with doing such things. We'd love to have you help us with what we do. You should talk to LauraHale, and see meta:The Wikinewsie Group.

Ironically, btw, the efforts to close Wikinews are mostly not motivated by our variable levels of activity (sometimes more, sometimes less); mostly, various persons resent the standards we require for publication, including the sort of verification you're talking about. --Pi zero (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I am having a hard time figuring out how to respond to this. I can say that any idea of a verified interviews with biographical information as an English Wikipedia issue is beyond the scope of English Wikinews. This would largely require English Wikinews changing their policies. That said, Category:Disability sport interviews contains a number of interviews we have done with notable subjects in the past year in a specific area. Many of these interviews include audio that has also been uploaded to Commons, and have been linked on the Wikipedia article or the audio has been embedded on the Wikipedia article. Adam Hall (alpine skier) is the one that springs to mind. (Irena Villa and Teresa Perales have audio available but not embedded in the article.) In a few instances, the Wikipedia article about the subject has also been referenced, and we have clarified problems with the Wikipedia article. I know for Trischa Zorn, this was very useful in clearing up issues.

If there are people with Wikipedia articles where there are issues that WANT to be interviewed with the idea of this being fixed, we might have a few reporters who might be willing to do this... but fundamentally, this may be problematic because we need to establish newsworthiness and as reporters, we will ask what interests us. But I am willing to a degree personally to try if some one else arranges the interview. --LauraHale (talk) 00:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, my feeling is that if Wikinews can design its products to meet the specifications of some particular market(s) it will be more successful. I think there are many people who come up on w:WP:COIN who would be good candidates for these interviews - people who are being keelhauled for editing their own Wikipedia articles, when all that is needed to turn "original research" into "citation" is a little bit of verification to put a stamp of approval on the person's comments.

The problem over at Wikipedia is stuff like [5] where people decide that "Wikinews" in general is a user generated site that is unreliable to use as a source. The question is, can Wikinews be upgraded by means of defining a subcategory, these "VIBS", which fulfills more criteria? I think that if some people at Wikinews can show that they can clearly confirm that they are interviewing the people they think they are, they should be able to go to w:WP:RSN and sell the people there on the idea that this particular type of article is a good source, at least as a primary source, not just personal speculation by some random pick-up editors but a genuine Q-and-A with some notable person. (I think Wikinews could ultimately be a great secondary source, but that requires integrating multiple interviews and citations and comes as a later step) Wnt (talk) 07:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The fact that Wikipedia does not officially consider Wikinews a reliable source is at its heart a problem with Wikipedia's political climate. A bunch of folks over there despise us because of our high standards, and having resolved that Wikinews delenda est they then reason from their opinions to invent "facts".

Notable persons? You mean, like Wikinews interviews Spain's most decorated Paralympian, Teresa Perales? Or Wikinews interviews former Salt Lake City mayor and 2012 presidential candidate Rocky Anderson? Or perhaps Shimon Peres discusses the future of Israel?

Btw, of some interest may be w:User:Tom Morris/The Reliability Delusion; the author is both a Wikipedian and a Wikinewsie. --Pi zero (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you're getting carried away here. Wikinews in general might be prone to reliability objections because anyone who walks in the door can cobble together a group of sources that portrays, say, just one side of an argument without the other, or implies a connection that isn't really valid (what they call "original synthesis"). My suggestion here is to wall off a little section of Wikinews and say, these are strictly interviews; if any external sources are mentioned they should be known to the person being interviewed so that a genuine reaction is had; the source gets to correct mistakes; and we know it's genuine. The stuff in that little category should then be defined within some very tight specifications and be far harder to dismiss. Wnt (talk) 23:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

When you say "in general", do you mean "on non-English Wikinews projects"? Because no, on English Wikinews anyone who walks in the door can't readily do what you're describing. --Pi zero (talk) 00:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

@Wnt, they are walled off. They have a special template, which indicates they are interviews. They are in a category called Interviews. Interviews are listed on the front page in an interview only listing place. The interviews are checked to make sure the information is verifiable. (This would involve listening to the audio, verifying e-mail, looking at pictures, having the context of the interview explained. It may be done via scoop, or on the talk page.) If you have a suggestion for improving English Wikinews in the context of our project, that would be great to hear. :) More than willing to listen. (PLEASE READ POLICY FIRST. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!) If you know of people who would like to be interviewed for Wikinews, point them at me and have them explain why they are newsworthy interviews so I can tailor questions and do an e-mail interview. (Or in person if they live in Canberra.) --LauraHale (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

As a random aside, please read Research:Wikinews Review Analysis for an analysis regarding our review process. I would also invite any user who has questions regarding the strength of our review process to read our style guidelines, read how to write an article and then submit an article for publication. Please remember: Most new reporters lose their first 1 to 3 articles before ever getting published... and the reporter and reviewer work together towards a shared goal of successfully--LauraHale (talk) 00:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC) getting an article published. When writing your first article (to check and better understand how our review process works), please remember to make sure your article is 1) newsworthy, 2) copyright violation free, 3) neutral, 4) verifiable, and 5) written in compliance with the manual of style. If you need a Wikipedian type framework, picture no article on Wikipedia being allowed to be published unless it first passes a GA review within 48 hours of being submitted. (GA review must take place in that time frame, not just writing time.) --LauraHale (talk) 00:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for these responses: I may indeed be proposing the already done here. But could someone please restate my original proposed criteria into documented fulfilled criteria? I would like a bulleted list that includes Wikilinks to your relevant procedures, so that I can go back to the RSN at Wikipedia and really hammer on the idea that Wikinews interviews are reliable sources, and have something to quote/cite on that topic to back me up. Once I can establish that doing an interview with Wikinews is a way to create a reliable source for an article, I can go over to en:WP:COI and try to get this written in as a valid approach for editors to deal with getting their own articles fixed. Also - though this is looking a bit far ahead - if I do that, where in Wikinews would I tell the article subjects to go to request someone at Wikinews to interview them? Wnt (talk) 04:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)