Talk:Wikinews interviews Tatton Spiller, founder of political news service Simple Politics

OR

I have uploaded the voice note Spiller sent me to my Google Drive here. If you would like to be forwarded the full email conversation, I can do that for anyone who requires it. Ash Thawley (talk) (calendar) 15:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Asheiou: Yeah, I think it'd be good to forward that. If you can forward it to me, please, I think I can get to this in the next 24 hours. Heavy Water (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Forwarded! Because of the way Spiller answered q 1+2, they've been merged into a single question for the interview. I couldn't see an easy place to split it as he spoke about both. Ash Thawley (talk) (calendar) 22:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• I've become increasingly concerned, as I've mulled it, about the propriety of interviewing other journalists about their work, considering relevance and navel-gazing. I intend to consider the question for a while.
• Spiller's recording isn't displaying in what looks to be the email he attached it to, so I haven't been able to find the "when". Well, in some cases, like this one (an FA), interviews have been published without a solid "when", although I'd like to avoid that if at all possible. Heavy Water (talk) 06:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  Here is a screenshot of the email with the attachment, if that helps determine when. Ash Thawley (talk) (calendar) 10:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

After consideration, I'm just not comfortable with publishing an interview with a journalist who isn't "part of the story" (that's paraphrased from WN:Attribution#Direct quotation), in the same way we don't report on other news organizations' opinions or analysis unless they're part of the story. Theoretically, at least, they're our direct competitors. Sorry. Heavy Water (talk) 19:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Heavy Water: In this case, the story is about a news organization: the founder gave us an interview about the news org itself. As such, he is part of the story, and his insights are relevant.

While we do compete for readership with other news orgs, keep in mind that Wikinews uses an open license - reusing our work is encouraged. Competition is not something we should avoid. (We do avoid advertising though.) - Xbspiro (talk) 13:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

When I said "part of the story", I meant, say, being involved in revealing the BATUTA hoax. In this case, as the interview is simply about the organization, I think it is navel-gazing. I don't see how publishing under a free-use license affects en.wn's status as a competing news organization. Heavy Water (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

It is not the first time we are interviewing someone about their organisation. We actually did have one interview which got delayed to the point it didn't make sense to have it published. But I don't see why we can't interview someone who formed an org. Even if it is a news org. 121.243.89.77 (talk) 08:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Review of revision 4749513 [Passed]

Revision 4749513 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 10:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: It appears consensus is against my original structural concerns about the interview at the talk page. I must say, it feels good to see something being published after nearly a month of drought of output. There were a lot of places where stuff had been cut from the transcript without any indication; in my opinion, this is disingenuous to the reader, and I have observed convention is to stick as closely to a recording as possible in the transcript while not including too much awkward disfluency and such (a balancing act I've been attempting during this review), and a lot of my editing lay in rectifying that, using bracketed ellipses to indicate material had been removed. There were also transcription errors which needed corrected. Others, please note the mention in the above section of how the first and second questions were combined. The lede is...rather bland. It could benefit from, say, some mention of SP's stated aims as described by Spiller in the interview, to draw the reader in. 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 4749513 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 10:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: It appears consensus is against my original structural concerns about the interview at the talk page. I must say, it feels good to see something being published after nearly a month of drought of output. There were a lot of places where stuff had been cut from the transcript without any indication; in my opinion, this is disingenuous to the reader, and I have observed convention is to stick as closely to a recording as possible in the transcript while not including too much awkward disfluency and such (a balancing act I've been attempting during this review), and a lot of my editing lay in rectifying that, using bracketed ellipses to indicate material had been removed. There were also transcription errors which needed corrected. Others, please note the mention in the above section of how the first and second questions were combined. The lede is...rather bland. It could benefit from, say, some mention of SP's stated aims as described by Spiller in the interview, to draw the reader in. 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.

Proposed edit by IP

The IP's addition of "who is" is pleonasm. But I'm not sure about the necessity of "about" there, and, if it is necessary, whether its addition at this point is in compliance with WN:ARCHIVE. I ask for an experienced reviewer to make a decision on whether to sight this. Thanks, Heavy Water (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Heavy Water: It is okay if we don't mention "about", but I do agree with about "x thousand followers". Can't do anything post-24-hour window, but please make sure that in future, we mention about how precise the stats are; also if possible, go for "x thousand" instead of "x000" or "x,000".
•–• 05:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

OK, I'll keep those in mind. Heavy Water (talk) 13:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I think I originally wrote the article with "x thousand" phrasing, yeah Ash Thawley (talk) (calendar) 19:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)