Comments:Apple concerned with iPhone icons' alleged misuse

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

I was searching for things to neutralize by looking up mentions of 'it should be noted', I edited an article that was about to be deleted by removing the 'it should be noted' and then I encountered this;

"Apple has also reportedly contacted at least one blogger who posted screenshots of iPhone icons with "cease and desist" requests, although it should be noted that in the one reported case referenced below, the blogger had also posted a download link to an interface containing features allegedly appropriated from the iPhone."

I'd like it if someone removed the although it should be noted that from the article. Thanks. But just because you think something should be noted doesn't mean you can note that in the article. There's a strict NPOV policy like back on Wikipedia.

News is not significantly edited long after the fact; at Wikinews we would consider that rewriting history, and therefore anathema. It is, of course, extremely challenging to produce quality output when you have only a brief time to do it. Lessons learned from the flaws of one article can only be applied to writing subsequent articles (and if something intolerable, such as a factual error, survives long enough to be archived, we can issue a {{correction}}).

It's useful perspective to realize that this article was written before the current era of review (broadly, before 2009).

Btw, Wikipedia and Wikinews have necessarily different approaches to neutrality. An encyclopedia is predominately summaries of things, which news reporting should avoid as it's inherently subjective and therefore non-neutral; and an encyclopedia is also concerned with presenting inherently subjective judgements that would be rejected at Wikinews as opinion/analysis. A major tool of news neutrality is attribution, which on the face of it could not be effectively applied on a massive scale to Wikipedia. Articles in either of the two projects would be likely to fail badly on various basic criteria of the other project (such as neutrality, but also extending to things like newsworthiness-versus-noteworthiness).