User talk:Regebro~enwikinews/Archives

Editorials

Yes we CAN have editorials!

"Good editorials, as you mention, are thought provoking, and almost always biased and opinionating. Although the bias in a good editorial is openly displayed, it is still biased. Therefore, a good editorial will ALWAYS make some people upset. An editorial that do not make anybody upset, is simply not a good editorial in the first place." Newspapers have editorials, and I don't see them being hit by lawsuits from people getting upset.

"While there is nothing wrong with a good old flamewar, from time to time, on a wiki that means an editwar. That editwar can only be stopped by not allowing editing of editorials. But that means we need to approve the authors of editorials as being good and thought provoking. And that means we need to decide what is thought provoking and what is a just a heap of stupid crap. This mostly depends on your standpoint on difefrent issues. So, to have good editorials, Wikinews need a political standpoint. " Not really. Editorials on a news source are supposed to be reviews and discussion of the week's news, not random opinion pieces on what your girlfriend did last Friday. If you discuss the week's news, people can't be offended by you mentioning things that happened anyways, and are publicly viewable.

"As long as Wikipedia aim to be a reliable news source for everybody it has to remain factual. Editorials are right out." Newspapers are "reliable news sources" and they have editorials.

"May I suggest that you link to your blog on your personal page and post your editorials there?" Is that not the equivelant of having it on your personal page in the first place? Cap'n Refsmmat 01:54, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would like to give you a long and thorough answer, but I'm a bit short on time, and since most of your comments come from taking snippets out of context and ignoring the rest of the reasoning, a proper answer would be both long and repetitive, so I'm gonna give you an all to short answer. I hope that's OK.

• "Newspapers have editorials, and I don't see them being hit by lawsuits from people getting upset." Nobody has mentioned lawsuits. I mentioned editwars. A newspaper can not (for obvious reasons) have editwars.

• "Editorials on a news source are supposed to be reviews and discussion of the week's news, not random opinion pieces on what your girlfriend did last Friday." I find this argument very strange. Nobody talked about random pieces on what your girldfriend did last Friday. That's not an editorial, it may possibly be a column. We shouldn't have them either, but then I don't think anybody suggested that. :)

• "Newspapers are 'reliable news sources' and they have editorials". Yes. And Wikinews is not a newspaper, so that's rather a moot point.

• "Is that not the equivelant of having it on your personal page in the first place?" No.

--Regebro 13:30, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Nobody has mentioned lawsuits. I mentioned editwars. A newspaper can not (for obvious reasons) have editwars." I know. The equivelant of an editwar is a lawsuit or complaint to the editor. And I'm sure not many people get too worked up over one coumns.

"I find this argument very strange. Nobody talked about random pieces on what your girldfriend did last Friday. That's not an editorial, it may possibly be a column. We shouldn't have them either, but then I don't think anybody suggested that. :) " You're taking it too literally. I meant that the "opinion pieces" would be opinions and discussion of the news, not of any old topic. If you were to make a recap of the news and a discussion of what it could mean, people cannot get worked up on it unless you make nasty remarks (which would be something that is very unlikely).

"Yes. And Wikinews is not a newspaper, so that's rather a moot point. " Some television news shows have editorials, and so do many news internet sites. That doesn't mean they're unreliable.

And also, why is it not the equivelant of having it on your personal page? Cap'n Refsmmat 21:32, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'll start with making two point clear:

1. We ARE talking about the same thing when we say editorial: Discussions about the news. You can stop saying that you don't mean random columns on anything, I never talked about that.
2. I have never contested that newspapers, TV or many other formats of news are good places for editorials. In fact, I mentioned blogs because they are excellent places for editorials. But this is not a blog, neither is is a newspaper nor is it a TV channel. So you can stop mentioning that other formats have editorials. I AM aware if that.

Now, to the rest of your post:

"people cannot get worked up on it unless you make nasty remarks" Yes they can, but that is besides the point. Because it's not about getting worked up, it's about having different opinions. If you write one point of view, and somebody does not agree, they will edit it, you'll edit back, and you have an edit war. A Wiki is not a discussion forum. A wikinews article is not a place for you to give put your opinions or spekulations and thoughts about this weeks news, for the simple fact that then somebody can simply change it. You can not discuss the weeks news if anybody can change your conclusions. Therefore, opinions do not have a place here. It does not work. Wikinews, like all other wikimedia sites, must stay factual.

--Regebro 23:27, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"A Wiki is not a discussion forum. A wikinews article is not a place for you to give put your opinions or spekulations and thoughts about this weeks news, for the simple fact that then somebody can simply change it." A part of the qualification process to make a column, in my opinion, is being a sysop (so we know the person is trustworthy and a good user). There, that part's fixed. Cap'n Refsmmat 00:45, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Being a sysop does not mean you know what you are talking about. And it still solves none of the problems I mentioned. Anyway, I updated the text on my personal page to what I hope is a clearer discussion of the issue. --Regebro 11:16, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To be a sysop means you have passed through the voting process. People trust you. Therefore you must know what you are doing. Cap'n Refsmmat 21:27, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As a sysop, yes. As a writer of editorials and columns no. And also, that type of qualification process goes completely against the grain of wikiness. And again: It solves none of the problems I mentioned.--Regebro 23:35, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Who cares if it goes against wikiness? Wikinews is different than wikipedia or wiktionary!

Having editorial writers not being qualified means they can be crap. A newspaper doesn't let anybody write an editorial. Anyways... the following problems are solved:

• Editwars. A sysop could lock his editorial page.
• People getting upset. That's why the people are qualified, and there's the talk page to make complaints. Too many complaints and it's shut down.
• Having a political standpoint to qualify authors. I have a really simple idea: you pick authors from both sides of the field.

Cap'n Refsmmat 23:58, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

All your suggestions change this from a wikimedia site to a normal news site, of any kind. If you don't want a news site that is based on a wiki I suggest you go somewhere else. As I have noted several times already: If you want to become a journalist and want to practice on the internet: start a blog. --Regebro 00:03, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You obviously aren't understanding it. Only the editorials are anti-wiki! Not everything!
You're taking everything way too literally. Cap'n Refsmmat 03:50, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Then create your editorials somewhere else. Like a Blog. The End.--Regebro 08:27, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Document Stages

Regebro, I strongly agree with you on your stance on document stages. I would like to constructively move forward and get your input on my proposal in order to have something to weigh against the article stages system. -- IlyaHaykinson 19:35, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You were right...

...and the 'article stages' and other rubbish has been binned. I hope you like the new system :). Dan100 (Talk) 18:53, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Happy, happy, joy, joy! :) --Regebro 16:07, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)