Talk:54 dead after bus crash in southern Brazil
Add topicReview of revision 3312684 [Not ready]
[edit]  |
Revision 3312684 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer:
Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews. |
Revision 3312684 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer:
Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews. |
Remarks
[edit]- Links in the body of an article should use {{w}}; this is explained in the Wikinews:Style guide, and you can see examples of the markup in any Wikinews article published recently (actually, for the past four years and change).
- The proper format for dates, for the sources, is also in the WN:Style guide.
--Pi zero (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Review of revision 3313569 [Passed]
[edit]  |
Revision 3313569 of this article has been reviewed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 09:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: As noted in prior review, paywalled sources should not be used. However without the paywalled source, the article was still verifiable. Thus, it may have had an excess of sources. Bear in mind that reviewers must read all sources. Triangulating data points is good, especially casualty/fatality figures. If such can be noted by use of HTML comments within the article, review can - usually - be completed more quickly. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Revision 3313569 of this article has been reviewed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 09:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: As noted in prior review, paywalled sources should not be used. However without the paywalled source, the article was still verifiable. Thus, it may have had an excess of sources. Bear in mind that reviewers must read all sources. Triangulating data points is good, especially casualty/fatality figures. If such can be noted by use of HTML comments within the article, review can - usually - be completed more quickly. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Errata
[edit]- {{editprotected}}
The number death correct is 51, no 54. Saskeh (talk) 04:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- The number is still wrong. Please correct it. Saskeh (talk) 07:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Saskeh: We don't want errors in our archives; if an error gets archived, we issue a {{correction}}. We need proof. What's the evidence for this?
- (I've added {{editprotected}} for you.) --Pi zero (talk) 10:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, @Pi zero:, se the websites (in portuguese):
- Acidente de ônibus em Santa Catarina deixa 51 mortos (video)
- Acidente com ônibus na SC 418 deixa 51 mortos; veja imagens (video)
- Pertences e destroços continuam no local da tragédia com 51 mortos (video and text)
- Sobe para 51 números de mortos em acidente com ônibus; enterro é amanhã (text)
- Número de mortos em acidente com ônibus em Santa Catarina chega a 51 (text)
- Acidente em Santa Catarina deixa 51 mortos; 11 eram crianças (text)
- Acidente com ônibus mata mais de 51 pessoas em Santa Catarina (text and the passenger's list)
- and Gallery Images/Photos
Saskeh (talk) 05:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, this number death continues incorrect. Do not understand why continue keeping the wrong number, despite my warning and the news, since I can not change. unfortunate. Saskeh (talk) 02:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Saskeh: I understand what you are saying. And, yes, I am almost 100% sure the number is incorrect. But what you need to understand is, Wikinews is not Wikipedia. You need to think of Wikinews as a newspaper ... a moment in time ... frozen. The information in this article is the best information we have on March 16, 2015. Real facts may be different. And things also change after. Let me give you a new example. Huge explosions in Tianjin, China. This article says 15 people died. We all know now that it was many more. But this was the best information when we published the article. I hope you can accept this answer. Sincerely. --SVTCobra 02:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Look, at this, Saskeh. Brazil tourist accident. This is RT, Russia's biggest news agency. They still say 54. Do you also write to them to change to 51? I 100% believe you are right, but we don't change history. --SVTCobra 02:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- If we determine that we stated as fact something that is factually wrong, then we issue a {{correction}}. We try to avoid such situations by writing defensively, especially by attributing claims to who said them, of course. We've got one Wikinewsie "almost 100% sure" we stated as fact something that is factually wrong. I've not looked into it yet, myself. Seems to me this still needs to be flagged for further study; yes, it's taking a while, but as long as it's still flagged, we won't lose track of it. --Pi zero (talk) 02:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Pi zero. You read me wrong. In hindsight, the number was wrong. At the time the number was 100% correct to be reported. There is no way Wikinews should issue a correction for this. It was the best information available. Only if the event didn't happen or we were completely duped is there a need for a correction or retraction. --SVTCobra 03:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- @SVTCobra: Not so. We issue a correction if we were wrong. Anybody reading our archive needs to know if we got it wrong. We can't excuse ourselves with "it was our best guess at the time". We could have said "so-and-so said the number of fatalities was such-and-such", and then we would not have to issue a correction provided so-and-so did said that, regardless of whether what so-and-so said was true. We did not do that, however; therefore, it doesn't matter whether we were given bad information, if we got it wrong, we have to issue a correction. The question is whether we got it wrong. --Pi zero (talk) 03:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think the standard is materially wrong. It was not a 'best guess' it was what was reported. If it was our own journalist that made a mistake, then yes, that's a difference. However, if this discussion should progress, it needs to be on the policy pages and not here. I vote against issuing a correction in this case. Cheers. --SVTCobra 04:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- @SVTCobra: There's nothing remotely controversial in what I'm saying; this is the way it's always been. Some of the classic corrections in our archives are things that weren't our fault; it's irrelevant whether it's our fault, to the extent that's even a meaningful distinction. The purpose of a correction is to tell the reader what if anything is wrong with what they're reading, not to "admit to a mistake". Sometimes it's apparently our fault, sometimes it apparently isn't, sometimes it's somewhere between. Either way, if it's wrong we issue a correction so readers aren't misled. --Pi zero (talk) 04:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- We are widening the scope of this discussion well beyond this article. I didn't say you were controversial, I just say we need to have it elsewhere, because if you want to nitpick every number in our history we could have thousands of corrections to deal with. --SVTCobra 04:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not widening the discussion. I'm responding to your remarks, by pointing out that the only question here is whether we made a mistake here.
On the wider issue which you mention re number of potential corrections in the archives, if we got that much wrong, it all warrants correction. We do have means to avoid such problems in almost all cases: attribute claims, making it almost impossible for us to be wrong. --Pi zero (talk) 05:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not widening the discussion. I'm responding to your remarks, by pointing out that the only question here is whether we made a mistake here.
- We are widening the scope of this discussion well beyond this article. I didn't say you were controversial, I just say we need to have it elsewhere, because if you want to nitpick every number in our history we could have thousands of corrections to deal with. --SVTCobra 04:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- @SVTCobra: There's nothing remotely controversial in what I'm saying; this is the way it's always been. Some of the classic corrections in our archives are things that weren't our fault; it's irrelevant whether it's our fault, to the extent that's even a meaningful distinction. The purpose of a correction is to tell the reader what if anything is wrong with what they're reading, not to "admit to a mistake". Sometimes it's apparently our fault, sometimes it apparently isn't, sometimes it's somewhere between. Either way, if it's wrong we issue a correction so readers aren't misled. --Pi zero (talk) 04:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think the standard is materially wrong. It was not a 'best guess' it was what was reported. If it was our own journalist that made a mistake, then yes, that's a difference. However, if this discussion should progress, it needs to be on the policy pages and not here. I vote against issuing a correction in this case. Cheers. --SVTCobra 04:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- @SVTCobra: Not so. We issue a correction if we were wrong. Anybody reading our archive needs to know if we got it wrong. We can't excuse ourselves with "it was our best guess at the time". We could have said "so-and-so said the number of fatalities was such-and-such", and then we would not have to issue a correction provided so-and-so did said that, regardless of whether what so-and-so said was true. We did not do that, however; therefore, it doesn't matter whether we were given bad information, if we got it wrong, we have to issue a correction. The question is whether we got it wrong. --Pi zero (talk) 03:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Pi zero. You read me wrong. In hindsight, the number was wrong. At the time the number was 100% correct to be reported. There is no way Wikinews should issue a correction for this. It was the best information available. Only if the event didn't happen or we were completely duped is there a need for a correction or retraction. --SVTCobra 03:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- If we determine that we stated as fact something that is factually wrong, then we issue a {{correction}}. We try to avoid such situations by writing defensively, especially by attributing claims to who said them, of course. We've got one Wikinewsie "almost 100% sure" we stated as fact something that is factually wrong. I've not looked into it yet, myself. Seems to me this still needs to be flagged for further study; yes, it's taking a while, but as long as it's still flagged, we won't lose track of it. --Pi zero (talk) 02:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Done, correction issued. The key problem here is not that the information is no longer true, as naturally happens with news. It was never true, despite the sources. If we want to change how we handle such situations, that'll need to go to community discussion as there's presently consensus to use this method. It may be desirable to have a different system when faithfully recording apparently reliable information that turns out to be inaccurate, but as touched upon above that's for elsewhere. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 15:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
@SVTCobra:, @Pi zero: and @Blood Red Sandman:: thank you for fixed/correction and also to make sure that my report was not ignored. Really, this Wikinews is not Wikipedia, because it comes on news, that some time later, one or more informations is corrected in the following days. I also believe that there is this and other fixes in the future as keep bugs for a long time (or even years!) Can ruin a lot of innocent people, even to the very Wikinews. Saskeh (talk) 03:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)