User talk:Gryllida/Principles

Thoughts

• The {{Wikinews essay}} template has gotten souped up in recent times, base on its primary use, which is in project space by veteran wikinewsies who only put stuff into such documents when they know they're channeling the spirit of the project (so to speak). There appears to be a great need for a less drastically this-is-what-the-project-calls-on-you-to-do tag. Should we have it display a different message when transcluded in userspace?
• The angle of presentation of the second principle bothers me. "Articles which follow PILLARS, SG and CG are more clear and accurate." That's blog-thinking. It's true that articles following those are more clear and accurate than articles that don't, but articles that don't follow those things basically won't be published, from a reporter's perspective, and must not be published, from a reviewer's perspective. I get that this principle is meant to come out as a positive persuasion rather than an admonition, and I'm not suggesting it should be an admonition, but we need a way to make it not sound as if those things are optional.

--Pi zero (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Implemented the userspace thing. --Pi zero (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Mass media

This bit stands out to me: "General public is more attracted to controversial poorly written topics. Therefore mass media often lies, because they get money for readership," emphasis mine.

This strikes me as not exactly opposite the concept of qualified sources that shows up in the WN:CONTENT guide, WN:CITE and in other policies and guidelines, but certainly at an angle to it. I guess it depends on whether this is about distrust for all mainstream media or about distinguishing reliable from unreliable sources. Maybe the words "sensationalism" and "clickbait" could be useful to you here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I would have remarked on that (sixth bullet) too, if I'd noticed it (I guess I must not have gotten that far). The word "lies" does seem too extreme for such a bald accusation. How about replacing "lies" with "indulges in sensationalism"? -Pi zero (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Virtual Editor

Were you thinking of VisualEditor? (Which I deplore, of course.) --Pi zero (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)