Wikinews:Water cooler/miscellaneous/archives/2012/June

This is an archive of past discussions from Wikinews:Water cooler/miscellaneous/archives/2012. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current page.

American political coverage

What's with all the attempts to present any democratic candidate but Obama as legitimate? 86.178.198.128 (talk) 22:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The level of incomprehension of our articles implied by that question is quite impressive. --Pi zero (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see. Attorney_John_Wolfe_wins_42%_against_President_Obama_in_Arkansas_primary, Wikinews_interviews_Bob_Ely,_Democratic_Party_presidential_challenger_to_Barack_Obama, Wikinews_interviews_John_Wolfe,_Democratic_Party_presidential_challenger_to_Barack_Obama, Prison_inmate_wins_41%_against_President_Obama_in_West_Virginia_primary, Darcy_Richardson_suspends_Democratic_Party_presidential_campaign - all in the last month. The only other article about the Democratic party was a statement that Obama's statement on gay marriage won him donations, which feels like a right-wing political spin on the newsworthy and rather historic change of views. (let's NOT have an article about him coming out in favour of gay marriage, let's emphasise him profiting by it), and a generalist article near the start of the month

So, think we can drop the easy dismissal and explain why you've had five articles on no-hopers in the last month, while ignoring pretty much everything else about the election? 86.178.198.128 (talk) 01:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It strains credulity to suppose you actually think Obama isn't getting enough press coverage. Especially when juxtaposed with your overall pattern of pivoting nimbly from one accusation to another. --Pi zero (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're saying Wikinews isn't meant as a news source, just as a source of occasional additional reporting? 86.176.220.98 (talk) 10:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IP Address, You ask a good question, but let's turn it around. Where have you read about the people or issues that our reporters have published? Granted, Wikinews is not without its weaknesses or flaws. However, I'm sure you can appreciate that with the resources we have, our volunteer reporters and editors are bringing our audience stories that are deserving of attention but often receive little attention in the mainstream media. In contrast, our attention as an international team is to represent what's going on in the world, and not just one country or one perspective. Those stories that Pi listed above do cover a fresh angle and they haven't been beaten to death in the mainstream. If you want a more comprehensive picture of the world, I would suggest you read the "In the News" on the Wikipedia home page, which has brief overviews with Wikinews articles also listed. As for the content, we all work hard to make sure the stories themselves are not biased. If that's your point, then we have an entirely different issue. My last point is this, why don't you write for us if you see a hole? If you don't come with an agenda and you can write in a non-biased way, then fill the holes. You'll be welcome here! Thanks for asking good questions. Crtew (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone interested in reading habits, I would suggest Pew Research on the matter, like this Americans Spending More Time Following the News. While the research is a survey of the American audience, one of the most disturbing parts of the research is that people in the U.S. are choosing which news source to consume by their political views. In short, what people want is to hear more of what they already believe. While the U.S. offers a particular flavor of this phenomenon, I think you can appreciate how this is also applicable in other countries. I would say a strength of Wikinews is that people are not coming here to get more about what they believe, but to get a different picture. That's healthy! Crtew (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crtew, I like your response. Asking "where else have you heard about these candidates?" is a perfect response. Are we supposed to be cheering Obama on, following the mainstream, chasing the 'tinfoil-hattery' that he's a Muslim born outside the US, ... Or?

As a less well-known media outlet, the leading candidates won't, by-and-large, talk to us. So, those candidates who will talk to us get coverage. Considering one of the perennial complaints is that it is always far-right, versus centre-right (as-in Republicans versus Democrats), covering third party candidates, or challengers to the 'expected' candidates makes for more interesting reading. But, if our IP-addressed critic can weave their way through the Obama press apparatus and land an interview with the Commander in Chief (with appropriate OR notes), we'd be sure to publish it. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If they can authenticate it, of course. Which would certainly have to depend on means other than accumulated reputation since right now they not only don't have an accumulated positive reputation, they have a (very small) accumulated negative one; and of course (while we're musing on wild hypotheticals) even a thoroughly independently authenticated interview would minimally require that the writer be registered rather than a bare IP.

Crtew's remarks are, indeed, worth saying independent of who they're being said to. Which is just as well. (I'd chosen not to reply to the IP's latest comment, as the reply that immediately leapt to mind was 'thank you for proving my point about pivoting from one accusation to another'). --Pi zero (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can, however, see Mr. Random IP address' point of view on this......from an aggregation viewpoint, we have been featuring loads of stuff on "fringe-candidates". Let me offer this: most of our experienced people tend to value OR, and it's probably (as Pi said above) a bit tough to have a chat with ole' Barry himself. I think that needs to be considered on the whole.Bddpaux (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That purported point of view is illusory (not to mention potentially corrosive). It is completely irrelevant to the newsworthiness of our articles whether or not some other article, that was not submitted to us, would also be newsworthy. Our ability to cover stories that are under-covered by msm is a strength, which this IP would apparently like to portray as a weakness, while encouraging us to shift our focus away from our strengths. --Pi zero (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can CC-BY opinion pieces be shared here?

A while ago I've convinced an essayist I know to post his essays under CC-BY license ([1]). I wonder if we could copy some of them to Wikinews? --Piotrus (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews doesn't publish op-eds. WN:NPOV. --Pi zero (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]