Comments:Two unconscious drug-overdosed men discovered outside University of Canberra residence hall

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.

Are there going to be any other stories published on Wikinews, or is this the LauraHale variety hour?

Something of global impact would be a refreshing change.

It appears you've been having difficulty writing an article that satisfies our review standards. You'd be better off trying to improve your Wikinews writing so your own articles pass review, rather than heckling those who have already acquired that skill.

I've reviewed a large number of University of Wollongong student articles, left detailed feedback on what needed to be revised to get articles ready for publishing. There are a number of common mistakes that students are making: 1) Not having a news article focused on an event that took place in the past 24 to 48 hours, 2) failure to read the style guide for things like date format, how to cite sources, crediting sources in the text and neutrality, and using an inverted pyramid style, 3) Articles cite problematic sources, which is something I really wish when it was pointed out to one student that Russia Today is not an acceptable source that the student would pass this along, 4) When articles are reviewed, feedback is often ignored or not dealt with immediately, and 5) no infobox, pictures, categories (which suggests students are not looking at recent published examples).

I would be happy to talk to your instructor about this, or even wander down from Canberra to Wollongong to talk about writing for Wikinews if you think your class needs more assistance.

I make the changes and improve my articles as soon as I receive the sometimes 'interesting' feedback. By the time the follow up review arrives, the story is apparently no longer newsworthy.

I am not the only one out of the 100+ students attempting to publish on Wikinews that are having issues with the same kind of thing.

In my humble opinion, the problem is not the writing ability of students, it's more so that the chosen stories don't fall into the personal interest of the reviewers.

I don't think "there is something wrong with this article, but I don't know what it is, sorry" is an acceptable level of detailed feedback that you describe.

I am sorry if this is not the right place to be venting these frustrations, I'm somewhat new to the workings of Wikinews.

We are volunteers. Thus, while we work as fast as we can, other things may be going on and many students are not making a clear effort to speed the process along by reading the style guide and looking at other examples of articles already published to see how their writing should look. Every delay in doing this means newsworthiness becomes a more pressing issue. Thus, students who know they are up against a deadline really, really, really should be focused on reading the style guide so they get it right the first time. And looking at articles that clearly have been written by students not modeling and not reading the style guide is pretty unmotivating. Academically, it is the equivalent of an instructor giving you a list of assessment criteria your assignment will be graded against, and students saying "Meh. We'll do the assignment based on what we think the criteria broadly is instead of against the assessed criteria." I´ve done that in courses before, and I know the grade you get most often on such an assignment: An F.

Your are welcome to your humble opinion, but never assume is a better idea. Being able to verify that is also a good idea. You are making an unfounded accusation that serves your personal interests. It is patently untrue. Look at the diversity of articles that pizero has reviewed, that I have reviewed and that I have published. If your opinion makes you feel better and justifies the annoyance you and your classmates have at your inability to write to assignment criteria, more power to you.

And when it is stated that it there is something wrong but it is not easy to explain, yes, detailed feedback is offered to provide that explains that more. I do not think there has been a single time when that was the only feedback given. Please cite which article had the feedback "there is something wrong with this article, but I don't know what it is, sorry" . Please then cite the student response to this feedback where they asked for clarification as to what this meant. I can tell you how often a University of Wollongong student has wandered in this semester to the IRC chatroom and requested assistance (not once) or how often students ping a reviewer asking for more detailed feedback to speed their article being published ready (rarely). I can tell you the frequency of students ignoring feedback, not responding to feedback, ignoring reviewers is much higher. Wikinews is a symbiotic relationship between writer and reviewer. The student writers like yourself do not appear to understand that.

Your advice is noted and is appreciated.

I can only speak for myself when it comes to the speedy turn around of review/improvements.

While Wikinews may be an every day activity for the reviewers, it is totally new to student writers. It is a daunting thought to have to run the gauntlet that is the process of being published, and many students have been put off after hearing from other student's experiences in the last month.

I find the process interesting, so I will keep attempting to publish.

Good on you Uowpjr19. I'm just dropping in from Wikiversity to take a look at progress. I can see why some of the others are put off. The big red cross on the reviewers notes, all out for everyone to see, and sometimes some pretty poor comments from the reviewers, that don't rightly make sense. But I doubt this experience is any different to a normal news room, all be it behind closed doors. From my perspective, this looks like some valuable lessons to be learning... keep on chugging