Wikinews:Water cooler/assistance

Page last updated: Saturday 13 at 0120 UTC.

Gumbo of sources!

I am literally curious about this... it intrigues me: What is the deal with some people listing a massive list of source articles on their submissions? I truly don't understand it. I mean: Do they read 11 articles, to then come here and type a 137-word synthesis article?--Bddpaux (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the reason may be that many sources are intended to justify a statement or topic’s significance, similar to how some Wikipedians demonstrate relevance by listing many sources. I explain to contributors that Wikinews discourages redundant sourcing. Our policies and guidelines favor fewer and necessary sources only, since excess sourcing slows and discourages the review process. I often request that they use {{verify}} or something similar to demonstrate what sources are used exactly where, in hopes that that process will lead them to remove redundant sources. I personally think we should start using inline citations, which I believe would help the issue. Another language wikinews uses them, but I don't recall at the moment which one...Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 14:43, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance requested about policy and review for Original Reporting (Interview)

The article Interview with the President of WSA: Today's World Passports and World Citizen Governments

1. It has interview answers paraphrased, they are inexact. Meaning is the same but in the article they are rephrased. Some promotional links to official website are removed as well as links to where books are sold or YouTube videos linked. Additionally, some sentences are just rephrased because article author just liked it that way, without effect on meaning. Is this allowed?

2. Does this pass NPOV/Relevance check?

I would appreciate a response within the next 24 hours as the story is rapidly getting old.

cc @Bddpaux, @JJLiu112, @Heavy Water, @Wikiwide, @Michael.C.Wright, @Acagastya, @RockerballAustralia,

Thanks. Gryllida 12:48, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For 1, I think a note can be added 'The questions and answers were paraphrased for clarity'. at the top.

For 2, I require someone else's judgment, I am not proceeding further. Gryllida 13:06, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I conducted this interview.

I don't believe all the previous interview transcripts were verbatim dialogue records, it's kind of impossible and meaningless. Sheminghui.WU (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For 1, can we use footnote? Then we don't have to worry about typesetting anymore.

For 2, MichaelCWright made many suggestions on this on the discussion page, and I had revised them all. Sheminghui.WU (talk) 13:19, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do find that the article is relevant. I do not find that it is neutral for the following reasons:

1. The following statement is not supported and is therefore biased when stated in wikivoice: "...it has also been formally recognised by six UN member states [emphasis added] at some point in the past (three of them did not impose any conditions), some of which remain valid today (e.g., Tanzania[1])."

My reasoning is stated here (at the article talk page).

2. I also don’t think we should be altering an interviewee’s answers below the lede. Changing their wording introduces interpretation, which risks drifting away from what they actually said and can lead to bias. This was an issue with another, now published article "Wikinews interviews Australian Fusion Party President Drew Wolfendale]." In that review summary I stated "Editing interviewee responses, even to clarify meaning, should be done rarely and only with full transparency (e.g., using square brackets). Attribution and neutrality must remain paramount, particularly in original reporting interviews."Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 14:44, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For 2: I sent the article to the interviewee for a review, and he only asked me to delete one phrase "I believe" and correct my spelling error regarding the court. He said he had no further comments.

For 1: The reference materials are the contents of those official letters. I have listed which countries did not add any additional conditions, while the other three countries focused more on "alternative documents for refugees". ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If post-production editing isn't possible, how can reporters conduct interviews freely? Furthermore, in the Wikinews interviews with Australian Fusion Party President Drew Wolfendale, you(we) also omitted a question I've been requesting to include. And Interviews don't mean verbatim transcripts anyway.

Since the interviewee did not raise any objections, I don't think this affects anything. If it's truly procedurally unacceptable, I can ask the respondents to copy and paste the current text and send it to me. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

> I sent the article to the interviewee for a review, and he only asked me to delete one phrase "I believe" and correct my spelling error regarding the court. He said he had no further comments.

We should not allow interviewees to shape or approve the final article. Our role is to report, not to submit drafts for interviewee approval. This is reflected in WN:OR, which notes:

As long as you have advised your source that you are a reporter, anything they say is presumptively "on the record" and can be quoted. However, sources may expect that only the formal "interview" part of your interaction is going to be used in your story, and may be surprised if you choose to use other material.

And contributors are explicitly warned:

If your source has more experience in interviews than you do, then it is important to consider what slant the person may want to give your final story, and to make sure that you, rather than the source, decide which details are relevant.

Given the verification issues already identified and the increasing influence of the interviewee on content selection, I have growing concerns about whether this article can be published neutrally under our standards.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 22:28, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly because we don't allow any changes to the wording, and for that reason, I sent the article to the interviewee for review. Because this rule seems meaningless to readers, but may only cause respondents to be misled by distorted statements.

The article's direction is determined by the article itself, not by who read it. He simply corrected a spelling error and removed 2 words I added ("I believe"). I don't know what this action actually changed, nor was it explicitly prohibited.

Furthermore, I edited the content of the article to further ensure that I "make sure that me, rather than the source, decide which details are relevant." rather than the source, decide which details are relevant ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"then it is important to consider what slant the person may want to give your final story,", we simply don't have a "final story" here. (Because he give me nothing)

and "to make sure that you, rather than the source, decide which details are relevant.", exactly. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why was it needed to change the replies, apart from removing link to book to buy? Just wondering for motivation. Gryllida 10:59, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'm a reporter not a copy-paste machine, and I want provide a neutral-educational news artical to reader not a raw material. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 11:26, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I think for interviews, if you are rewriting in your own words, then it should be published in prose. If it is published in interview format, then it is expected to be as raw as possible, and any modifications need to be noted in the text. There may or may not be a policy or guideline about this. This is my expectation currently. Gryllida 10:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI for future reference: That's how he said it, too wordy or annoying or ugly, or whatnot - that was his text. In future I recommend before rephrasing interview answers, send a revised copy to interviewee and ask to confirm that the rephrased version is acceptable, and forward their consent to scoop. Gryllida 11:03, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fairenough. That's what I did ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 11:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just forwarded to you. @Gryllida Sheminghui.WU (talk) 11:31, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Check users

There is @Cromium and @Acagastya. Both are away for a while. Is there a nomination needed just in case? Gryllida 10:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we need to do CU here and don't have a local CU, we have to ask the stewards on Meta. If we need more local CUs, we need to have a local election for them. See m:CheckUser_policy#Appointing_local_CheckUsers. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would an admin please add me to the autoconfirmed usergroup?

Hi there! I'm GrinningIodize from the English Wikipedia. I wanted to share my thoughts on the proposal to migrate our content over to Miraheze, but I think that the filters thought that I was a bot because my account hasn't been autoconfirmed yet.

You can see a brief portfolio of my work at the Wikipedia here. Would someone please add me to the autoconfirmed group? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GrinningIodize (talk • contribs)

@GrinningIodize, autoconfirmation happens automatically after a specific number of edits are made within a specific duration of time. I don't know what our exact settings are here, but it won't take long for you to achieve autoconfirmation. Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 16:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I managed to post the comment after ten edits. GrinningIodize (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source "ABC News"

In the Sources section of our articles, we use the "pub" field of the {{source}} template which links to the Wikipedia article about the media outlet from which the source article came, if there is one. However, in the case of ABC News, there are at least two unrelated major sources by that name: ABC News (United States) and ABC News (Australia), both of which I have seen cited in articles here. Would it be possible to create a bot or something similar, which would tag bare references to "ABC News" and notify the editor on their talk page that references to "ABC News" require disambiguation? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]