Category talk:NPR

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Categories for sources?[edit]

{{flag}} @Mikemoral, Pi zero: Mike it looks like you are adding this category every time a quote or claim is attributed to NPR. I disagree with this practice. I think we have been consistent in only adding Category:BBC when the article is about BBC, not when they are a source. Can we talk about this for a second? Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mikemoral, SVTCobra: I'm inclined to agree with SVTCobra on this. It doesn't seem practical to categorize minor attributions to a news org.
  • Such a category practice would not be maintained, because when we create a new article we don't naturally categorize it by such minor attributions; we've had a Category:Associated Press for some time but don't categorize minor attributions to AP, for instance.
  • A researcher looking for NPR in our archives probably wouldn't want a list of all such minor attributions; they'd want news more significantly associated with NPR.
I'm thinking we should get this straight, just what sort of inclusion principle to follow, and then put it as a usage note on all our news-org categories. --Pi zero (talk) 01:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It does look, however, as if mikemoral has made very reasonable choices. I see that Category:Al Jazeera also includes articles where someone said something exclusively to the news org: "So-and-so told Al-Jazeera [...]". So, perhaps we can compose a usage note... --Pi zero (talk) 01:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pi zero, SVTCobra:I've got a boatload of tabs open with NPR mentions (beyond sources). There's a clear one where Congress considered funding cuts for public broadcasting (so watch out Elmo and All Things Considered), but then it's a bit less clear with the Australians journalist story where an actor in the story appears on ATC.
I would maybe consider adding articles to the NPR cat where we feature information gathered via an NPR interview. The refugee ban article might qualify as significant analysis from NPR to put in the cat, but marginally. Definitely about the news organzation itself. But eh, I feel like I need to think about this a little. —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 04:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We are looking at creating the biggest curation project since {{w}} if we set this precedent, in my opinion. Source names make it into articles when something in their report is unable to be double-verified, such as when they had a reporter on the ground when others did not, or when they are able to obtain a statement (or interview) from somebody which is exclusive to them. This does not make the article about them and they do not merit being categorized. At least, that is the way I have always done it in every article I have written, and I wouldn't have allowed it in any article I have reviewed. And I have, for the most part, been very meticulous about attributions, often writing "according to the BBC" or whichever source.

Unless the source is directly involved in the story (e.g. their journalist got kidnapped) or the story is about them (e.g. NPR's funding is discussed in Congress), I do not believe they should be categorized. I believe we should hold firm on this "rule of thumb" for lack of a better term. The only exception I could imagine is when the entire article is about an exclusive interview which is such a landmark that other sources also write about that exclusive interview. An example of that could be an ABC interview with Trump where he said some unique things and it became news. That is, I believe, a real life example, though I don't know if we have that story.

We would, again in my opinion, be better served to go through the various categorizes for news orgs and remove inappropriate categorization than to sift through tens of thousands of articles and add them every time they are attributed for an exclusive quote. Some quick examples of how I feel:

This, I hope, is a little more useful than my first comment which was just to tap the brakes and start the discussion. I value any feedback and further thoughts on this. Cheers, --SVTCobra 10:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I understand it,
  • when the news org is acted upon (such as, somebody sues them), that gets categorized.
  • when an action by the news org (such as an investigation) is the focus of a news article, that gets categorized.
  • when an article mentions incidentally that some relatively incidental detail was reported by the news org, that doesn't get categorized.
  • the prime outstanding question is, when an article mentions that someone made a statement exclusively to the news org. Senator Somebody told NPR they were pretty sure the one-eyed people-eater was a sort of eggplant color.
@Mikemoral, SVTCobra: are we in agreement that this is the remaining question? I seem to recall many of our pre-existing news-org cats were set up by Green Giant, so conceivably they might have some useful perspective to offer on this. (It might also be interesting to get Acagastya's input, since they're currently requesting adminship.) --Pi zero (talk) 13:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I concur with Pi zero's summary, and my vote on the fourth bulleted point is No, don't include. --SVTCobra 13:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Say we had a category for a journalist, let us assume, Sacha Pfiffer, and the article was talking about child molestation in churches. If we were to write a sentence, back in early 2000s, Pastor X from MA told Sacha Pfiffer, we would have linked and added the category for the journalist. I would hope for more connection to the story, but BRS' actions regarding categorisation have led me choose otherwise, which was thoroughly used in 2018 FIFA World Cup match reports.
But if it was for a news organisation, say ABC told Deutsche Welle, I would link but not categorise it under DW. Unless it was a sting operation like Spotlight, I would add the category of The Boston Globe.
Except for that? I would say "no". But it depends on the context. I am confident these context-sensitive articles would be a rare sight. It is possible we might be overlooking a trivial case, and if so, with the reasoning on this page, it should not be difficult.
•–• 18:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]