Talk:Wikinews interviews Professor Gigi Foster about pandemic control in Australia

Scoop notes

Emailed a copy of the correspondence to scoop. --Gryllida (talk) 07:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Gryllida: please answer the basic information about how the interview was conducted, why it was conducted, how were you able to reach them, why them specifically and other details so to help others learn from this and also, to figure out if there has been any bias (maybe due to omission or ignorance).
•–• 16:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

how the interview was conducted -- IRC chat, logs sent to scoop

why it was conducted -- answered in second paragraph, sentence "She wrote a note in Sydney Morning Herald, arguing for a case against the so-called "lockdowns" - measures which the state governments in Australia were implementing to stop the spread of COVID-19"

how were you able to reach them -- by their work email address

why them specifically -- second paragraph

and other details so to help others learn from this and also, to figure out if there has been any bias (maybe due to omission or ignorance) -- no bias to my knowledge

--Gryllida (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Clarifications further:

• I have contacted the interviewee by their work email. To verify their identity on the chat, I have sent them a five digit integer to their email, and asked them to provide it on IRC. They did output it correctly. This correspondence, both on the chat and on email, is available in scoop.

• Further verification has been attempted when asking them to proofread the article. They asked to correct some mis-spellings and did not state that the text is not theirs. This exchange has happened via their work email also.

• Regarding relevance - when reading the news piece at Sydney Morning Herald, I thought that knowledge from an academic, a local academic from Australia specifically, about the COVID-19-related restrictions, would need to be elaborated a bit. The article was rahter comprehensive but it missed a few points - hence the choice of the interview questions.

• There is some possible conflict of interest, as I work at the same educational institution - though in a different school and we have not spoken or met previously.

Hope it helps. --Gryllida (talk) 02:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

POV concerns

As it stands "One more question.. I've found none political activity going on in this direction.. the closest I could find is https://www.ldp.org.au/freedomday and it is ridiculous, some people dismiss it as a daft proposal." violates our neutrality guidelines. We do not opine in the articles, even in questions.
•–• 16:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

would striking out "it is ridiculous" help? --Gryllida (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Note - that if not, then the entire question could be removed (though if possible I would prefer to avoid it being removed, if this can be done with NPOV) Gryllida (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm tired and busy right now, but: >>Using so-called "lockdowns"<< -- that is cheating AWFULLY close to the edge in terms of Neutral POV. We have worked our way (in the larger world of journalism) into this snarky little use of quotation marks. It is a tricky place to be. I would try to review this, I would.....but, again: I'm tired and busy.--Bddpaux (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

In this particular instance I wrote so-called 'lockdowns' not because I consider them inappropriate, or have a strong opinion, but because I don't like the word - in my opinion it is too generic and vague to be used without the quotation marks.

In an IT related interview I for example would write users of so-called 'clouds' because I don't like the term and consider it a buzzword (without any disrespect or strong opinion about the virtual server rent services that are provided under the name). Gryllida (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Clear explanation--well stated!--Bddpaux (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Reviewing

OR, or not.....it still feels kinda weird to review something so old, but I will give it a go anyway.--Bddpaux (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Read your early emails with her and her Op-Ed piece (interesting!!) she'd written (I want to linger on that article at a later date!).--Bddpaux (talk) 20:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I've verified intro to article and first two questions/answers.--Bddpaux (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

NSW Legislation piece verified.--Bddpaux (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Sky News, Guardian and ABC News sources checked.......also reviewed/cross-checked remainder of IRC stuff.--Bddpaux (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Verified remaining sources.--Bddpaux (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Review of revision 4633472 [Passed]

Revision 4633472 of this article has been reviewed by Bddpaux (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Good work on including your assorted emails. 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 4633472 of this article has been reviewed by Bddpaux (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Good work on including your assorted emails. 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.