Template talk:WikimediaMention

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Disclaimer & COI[edit]

Simple question: Why? The Washington Post does not display this message when there is a news article about Jeff Bezos. Or ABC doing the same for news about Disney.
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 05:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They should. --Pi zero (talk) 12:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is this, bible? Explain what is the requirement? Don't just say they should. How does that benefit the readers. (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Disclosure of such relationships is basic journalistic ethics. It demonstrates awareness of the potential for bias, allows readers to make an informed judgement about our success at avoiding such bias, and failing to diligently disclose is a standard feature of propaganda. If we do better at disclosing than some commercial news outlets, good for us. --Pi zero (talk) 12:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
first of all, there could not be any bias in the published story. Secondly, it is not at all necessary because every single page says, "Wikinews®, and the Wikinews logo are registered trademarks of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc." “good for us” seriously? There are so many things we could be good at, but we aren't doing it. But when it comes to things that interests you, your opinions shift. (talk) 13:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, they do.
But they also do not mention his paper ownership when his name comes up in a tertiary fashion, such as …more than $1 billion from drug companies and big-name investors such as Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates, where his investment is through a VCE. Of the top ten search results for "Jeff Bezos", 60% noted his ownership, 20% had a direct disclaimer statement, and 20% did not mention his relationship (the one above plus re-sharing a twitter photo of Bezos looking gym-buffed.) - Amgine | t 17:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They do not have an ugly banner at the top telling about the ownership, it is mentioned in the article. WMF cat page mentions that most, but not all would have that template. That article for which my IP was blocked has other important organisations mentioned, and overall role of Wikimedia is very less. Hence, it is a personal choice to include it or not. And as one of the authors, I am clearly against it. Besides, do not remove someone else's comments, Amgine.
acagastya PING ME! 18:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right, they do not. But using the banner avoids needing to make (possibly repeated) in-line disclaimers. My apologies regarding removing the comment; I did not receive an e/c page, and that comment did not exist when I began editing, so I do not know how I managed to do so. - Amgine | t 18:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, I just figured out how I did that, and it was stupidity on my part, using a link from the RC channel. - Amgine | t 18:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The local ABC TV station mentions on its news program that Disney owns ABC whenever it discusses Disneyland, Disney films, or other related topics. —mikemoral (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Every Wikinews page contains information about WMF. We don't have a local tv station, so let's keep the discussion for news websites only. There is no need for those banners.
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 21:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Every Wikinews page, when viewed on the Wikinews site, mentions the Foundation in the fine print at the very bottom of the page, further down than anyone would ordinarily look. With respect, it's unlikely anyone would find it there unless they deliberately went looking for it. This would not suffice to satisfy an appearance of being up-front about the affiliation — appearances are vitally important in these things, as WN:COI notes — and the fine print would probably not appear at all in syndication of Wikinews articles. --Pi zero (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the same would apply for other disclaimers, T&C, Privacy Policy, license etc. And why to bother at the first place if the article has to be neutral? And for the zeroth place: that article has other organisations to dilute any relation with Wikimedia Foundation. It is such a small door for WMF that there even if you say "we have praised WMF, and said how great they are", nobody will believe you.
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 22:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]