The audio of this interview is in the jws at "File:Greg smith.ogg"; that should have been stated here (if I'd not managed to find it, it'd have had to not-ready the article). --Pi zero (talk) 01:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
You have lied to the readers about what was said, which is a violation of journalistic ethics. Correct information can be provided in a variety of ways without lying to the readers; a footnote, for example, or using brackets (as I have done since you seem to think "a couple of" is inaccurate rather than merely value). Any falsification of record by Hansard is irrelevant here. Furthermore, if your article contains information that is not derived from the reporter's notes, then you have failed to provide sourcing information that you should have provided, which when done consciously is also a violation of journalistic ethics. --Pi zero (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I somewhat regret not having renamed this before publication to "Wikinews speaks with ...", which sounds less pretentious than "interview" for such a short exchange. --Pi zero (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Fair enough, but we have very limited time to speak with the athletes. Three minutes maximum. Although they often want to chat, they need to do their warm down after the game. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC).Reply
Transcription is a form of direct quoting, and direct quotes are putting our reputation behind the claim that that is actually what was said. Granted, spoken language tends to come out in halting/restarting incomplete sentences so one may need to straighten things out somewhat, but do not edit to make interviewers or interviewees look good (or bad). It's very clear on the audio, e.g. that the interviewer said "a couple of" Paralympic gold medals, not "three". (In that particular case, "a couple of" is sometimes used idiomatically to mean "a few".)
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.
You have lied to the readers about what was said, which is a violation of journalistic ethics. Correct information can be provided in a variety of ways without lying to the readers; a footnote, for example, or using brackets (as I have done since you seem to think "a couple of" is inaccurate rather than merely value). Any falsification of record by Hansard is irrelevant here. Furthermore, if your article contains information that is not derived from the reporter's notes, then you have failed to provide sourcing information that you should have provided, which when done consciously is also a violation of journalistic ethics. --Pi zero (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I somewhat regret not having renamed this before publication to "Wikinews speaks with ...", which sounds less pretentious than "interview" for such a short exchange. --Pi zero (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Fair enough, but we have very limited time to speak with the athletes. Three minutes maximum. Although they often want to chat, they need to do their warm down after the game. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC).Reply
Transcription is a form of direct quoting, and direct quotes are putting our reputation behind the claim that that is actually what was said. Granted, spoken language tends to come out in halting/restarting incomplete sentences so one may need to straighten things out somewhat, but do not edit to make interviewers or interviewees look good (or bad). It's very clear on the audio, e.g. that the interviewer said "a couple of" Paralympic gold medals, not "three". (In that particular case, "a couple of" is sometimes used idiomatically to mean "a few".)
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.
