Comments:Two-time plane crash survivor, Austin Hatch, scores first goal in college sports

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

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

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.

Start a new discussion

Contents

Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Are You Kidding Me?516:39, 18 November 2014

Are You Kidding Me?

This is not a noteworthy, headline news story. And with his surviving two plane crashes, making a shot in some game is probably the last thing on his mind. Let's celebrate the fact that he actually survived the crash.

AKA Casey Rollins (talk)23:50, 17 November 2014

The criterion of interest here is not "noteworthiness" (a Wikipedian concept) but newsworthiness. Criticism of the significance of the story should be in that context.

Pi zero (talk)00:12, 18 November 2014

I guess I must remember that, coming straight from Wikipedia. However, any news organization should be able to tell between a news story and a non-story.

AKA Casey Rollins (talk)03:51, 18 November 2014

As the reviewer on this, I hesitated over the newsworthiness review criterion. I could see going either way on this; but the story was found interesting enough to cover by Associated Press, The Washington Post, and a long-time Wikinewsie reporter. Cf. WN:Relevance.

Pi zero (talk)05:15, 18 November 2014

Well, keep two things in mind: 1)The Washington Post likely has their own interests 2)my post was meant to be pure commentary and not demeaning or offensive in any way.

AKA Casey Rollins (talk)16:20, 18 November 2014

We should continually self-assess; questioning review decisions after the fact is healthy, needed for vigorous standards. News production isn't perfect — it can't be, given the time constraints — but that doesn't mean glitches in the process should be ignored; for extreme cases there are {{correction}}s, and for most any case there can be discussion of lessons for the future. (Of course, that sort of discussion is more often on the collaboration page rather than the opinions page; in theory, the collaboration page is for discussion of the production of the article, opinions for discussion of the content; but this is, fair enough, a point where they sort-of overlap.)

Pi zero (talk)16:39, 18 November 2014