Skookum1, welcome to Wikinews! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
Our key policies - if you read anything, read these!
- Wikinews:Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
- Wikinews:Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews:
- Wikinews:Introduction - overview of the site
- Wikinews:Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
- Wikinews:Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
- Wikinews:Contents - the contents page.
There are always things to do on Wikinews:
- Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
- The front page lead articles often need updating
- Developing stories need finishing and publishing
- Discussions need your input
- If you're interested in audio recordings, Audio Wikinews could always use more contributers
- And of course, stories need writing!
By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes (~~~~), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! — Doldrums(talk) 02:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Your comments on BC_election_writ_drops... article
Hey, I chanced on your comments on the BC election writ drops; referendum campaigns underway. Not having read the article, I still wanted to reply to some of your comments: I think a lot of your suggestions were/are good ones: adding photos of further candidates, qualifying the poll (either by stating who it by, or by drawing on a different one for comparison). Certainly, I think you would have found nobody opposing you if they'd have been made shortly after publishing the article (admittedly a day later is pushing it somewhat).
I'm afraid though that the way you put your comments was such, that you probably discouraged any fellow contributors to actually put any of your suggestions into place. Anybody here is happy to have a hand lent them - but if you are requesting someone to do something you believe is important, I think you have to strike a different tone.
I've written some comments addressing the subject matter in more detail on the article talk page.
- I'm always a tad pithy but often seem more deadly-of-intent than my language might otherwise indicate. "Blunt" is more my wont than tact....I hesitated to make various changes as I don't know WikiNews' procedures, i.e. as there's evidently an article-prep phase and who knows what else goes on that's different here from regular Wikipedia. I also will admit to being very defenstive/suspicious about "innocent POV", which in many wikipedia articles has the pretense of objectivity, or at best innocence, but still has a POV effect. That said, I don't have more parts of myself, or more time in the day, to build up this article properly; I've got twenty or thirty things nn the back boiler in regular Wikipedia, I just happaned to see this one's link on the 2009 election page and was taken aback by the NPOV rating on the peer review. Campbell's image and name have a way of turning up way more often than other politicians, and other premiers, and it's clear he has an info-machine running to "massage" Wikipedia in various ways; it's to the NPD's credit, or maybe cupidity, that they don't do the same (Green pages are often POV as well as COI, as are many envirnomental-issues pages, but that's always blatant and often correctable....so I get a bit testy about seeing anything that "accidentally 'favours Campbell, as I've run into his name in more superfluous places, even his picture, where it just didn't belong. Seeing only IT on an ostensibly neutral newspage took me aback, although I'll grant I didn't see much else in teh way of POV once reading it; it's difficult to be NPOV about BC politics because the facts themselves are very POV to recite (on either side). I'm a better commentor than reporter, anyway, and like i said I'm already drawn thin so can't build up cites/new info as much as I'd maybe like to; and I stay away from direct editing on stuff I have my own strong POV about, i.e. when it's partisan (or anti-partisan)....I'm much more ruthless, if that's the word, on "historical fiction" I run across posing as history, but am mindful of being fair to all comers in current politics, but also not flinching frmo dirty details if they're there.....Anyway g'nite, thanks for the welcome template; if I was retired and on a good pension or had resources otherwise I might be able to spend more time on news articles of all kinds; at times it's like regular Wikipedia has swallowed me whole...!Skookum1 (talk) 03:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)