Welcome to Wikinews
Getting started as a contributor
Welcome! Thank you for joining Wikinews; we'd love for you to stick around and get more involved. To help you get started we have an essay that will guide you through the process of writing your first full article. There are many other things you can do on the project, but its lifeblood is new, current, stories written neutrally.
All Wikimedia projects have rules. Here are ours.
Listed here are the official policies of the project, you may be referred to some of them if your early attempts at writing articles don't follow them. Don't let this discourage you, we all had to start somewhere.
The rules and guides laid out here are intended to keep content to high standards and meet certain rules the Wikimedia Foundation applies to all projects. It may seem like a lot to read, but you do not have to go through it all in one sitting, or know them all before you can start contributing.
Remember, you should enjoy contributing to the project. If you're really stuck come chat with the regulars. There's usually someone in chat who will be happy to help, but they may not respond instantly.
The core policies
Places to go, people to meet
Wiki projects work because a sense of community forms around the project. Although writing news is far more individualistic than contributing to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, people often need minor help with things like spelling and copyediting. If a story isn't too old you might be able to expand it, or if it is disputed you may be able to find some more sources and rescue it before it is listed for deletion.
There are always discussions going on about how the site could be improved, and your input is of value. Check the links here to see where you can give input to the running of the Wikinews project.
Find help and get involved
Write your first article for Wikinews!
Use the following box to help you create your first article. Simply type in a title to your story and press "Create page". Then start typing text to your story into the new box that will come up. When you're done, press "save page". That's all there is to it!
Tempodivalse [talk] 19:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Cool. I've unblocked your bot. Please get it approved before letting it run arround by itself. If you're watching it edit, its probably ok to let it edit without approval. (at least for now). cheers Bawolff ☺☻ 20:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Hola Ezarate, felizmente su nota está ahora publicada. Arreglé un poquitín la traducción desde el español, lo revisé y consulté a otro revisador que lo publicara (ya que con tanto cambio que le hice, no podía hacerlo yo). Saludos, y gracias por contribuír a Wikinews. Diego Grez return fire 23:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Moving article's to review
- Hi. There is a difficulty with the article as you revised and resubmitted it.
- What is on the page now is, effectively, two separate articles on one page. We need to have one article. It may contain most or all of the same content, but it needs to be organized as one article. As it should be, the first paragraph — the lede — is a brief summary of the focal event; it should succinctly answer as many as reasonably possible of the five Ws and an H about the focal event, and in the process it should show that the focal event is newsworthy; I don't think there's a problem with newsworthiness as long as you mention the day of the funeral (which you do, atm). Then additional paragraphs provide details and background. There are different ways of arranging the later paragraphs; one might describe the funeral, then the death, then give the obituary information about Kohl's life; or one might put those things in some different order; but it all ought to flow well, when read through from start to finish.
- I'm going to not-ready the article, to make everyone aware of the need to revise. --Pi zero (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I have some thoughts I'd like to share, about this.
- Not every article works out. It's frustrating all around when one doesn't. In this case, I see that you put much effort into it. Reviewer acagastya also put much effort in, yesterday, but things didn't come out as hoped. There is a bit of advice sometimes given, at en.wn, that I recall a Wikinewsie once phrased as "Don't marry the article." That is, do your best by an article, but at some point it will either succeed or fail, and either way, you will have to let it go and move on to the next article. When things go wrong — and, for that matter, when things go right — you want to learn all you can from the experience, so you can take those lessons with you to future articles.
- In this case, from what I understand, here are some things that caused problems. (I wasn't the reviewer, so I'm not completely sure I understood correctly.)
- When preparing a synthesis article, once a focal event is chosen, before starting to write, choose at least two mutually independent trust-worthy sources that corroborate the focal event, and read them all before starting to write.
- Although the information all comes from the sources (otherwise the article wouldn't be synthesis), the form in which it's presented must be original. The usual way of saying this is "use your own words", which is admittedly a frustrating way to put it. If you don't already know what is meant, being told to "use your own words" probably won't help. There is some compact advice on how to do this at WN:PILLARS#own. This is one of the reasons to read multiple sources before starting to write: it's easier tp say things in an entirely different way if one has already seen them said in multiple ways.
- I take it there were some criticisms (not just by the reviewer) that the treatment was biased by its choice of what to say and what not to say. We don't analyze, but we also should not mislead our readers by making it seem as if a significant side to a story wasn't there. This is another reason for using diverse sources.
Article on queue
- In fact, I suspect the article you translated from may have been translated from the one that's on our review queue here? --Pi zero (talk) 13:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- Ups, I don´t realize of it, I though that it wasn't here because I don't see it in Recent changes, apologize the inconveniences. Regards!
Re: 192m van rundown in Barcelona
I've edited the article and left a comment. Interesting and controversial story. Please take a look and re-submit for review at your earliest convenience. Thank you. --Gryllida (talk) 11:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Re Spanish Police kills Barcelona attack van driver found dead among the victims
The recent event was that their dead body was found and identified. The leading paragraph needs to say this and have correct grammar.
The provided source says "Younes Abouyaaqoub was killed during an operation in Subirats, west of Barcelona, police said in a tweet. Police earlier said they had shot a man wearing an explosive belt, but did not immediately identify him as Abouyaaqoub." The headline is inaccurate then. It has a different meaning. It is my fault as I misunderstood what happened when suggesting it.