Wikinews:Water cooler/policy/archives/2011/May

Replace deleted Osama portrait?

One, perhaps more, article used this image, now deleted:

File:Osama_bin_Laden_portrait.jpg Since this was used for general illustration rather than the news value of the image itself, should we replace it with a Commons image such as the following?

• File:Osama Bin Laden-Pentagon.png (Used on Wikinews Main Page although tagged at Commons for speedy deletion.)

If we do, it may violate the spirit of the archiving policy.

The only article currently linked to the deleted image is:

• "Obama decides against the release of graphic photos of bin Laden" — Wikinews, May 7, 2011

--InfantGorilla (talk) 13:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Why don't we just upload locally? He's dead; Commons aren't going to get any image to satisfy their 'high standards'. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• I see that now - Commons is likely to purge all lifelike images of Osama. Is there an image we can upload locally that is not from a competing news gatherer? --InfantGorilla (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• That could be tricky. Question is, do the CIA own any of the images they've used? You'd assume if there was a wanted poster issued that would have been bought to put in the PD. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but my guess is that wanted posters are published from Al-Qaeda media released via the press, under a kind of presumed fair use rather than an explicit license. I suspect the three-letter agencies were more concerned with catching folks than negotiating media licenses. --InfantGorilla (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• DOD published videos seized from Abbottabad. This should be ok as fair use at Wikinews if Commons deletes it File:Osama bin Laden making a video at his compound in Pakistan.jpg
• Please add it to articles judiciously.
• --InfantGorilla (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved.

Someone added a different image that is likely to better suit Wikinews's goal of creating free content, as a result of this unsuccessful deletion request:

• commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hamid Mir interviewing Osama bin Laden.jpg 2

Let's add the video screenshot to another of Saturday's articles Al-Qaeda says bin Laden death will 'not be wasted'; Pentagon releases videos of terrorist leader in compound - even though it was two days ago - because of the specific relevance.

---InfantGorilla (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikinews:General disclaimer/rewrite

Per my, perhaps foolish, nomination of the "boilerplate" disclaimer for deletion, and as a result of numerous people responding they've no objection to a rewrite, I have made a start on this.

I believe this should be kept short, use as plain English as possible, but still satisfy WMF counsel. Would someone care to ask counsel what are the critical points for inclusion within the disclaimer?

Any comments before we all dive into this? Should we perhaps link to the corrected articles category to prove we're true to our word there? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, it looks ready to submit to WMF review. --InfantGorilla (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• <laughing> Omit needless words? ;-) --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

the Wiki style guide.

I totally understand that you need a style guide, I've finally read all the way through the style guide but I ask someone to please remove the last sentence in the section with the heading "purpose" as it reads "Adherence is very strongly recommended, but not absolutely compulsory." and yet for those who don't stick to this style guide, they tend not to be published so it should be changed to "compulsory." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by B.j Shepherd (talk • contribs) 02:16, 18 May 2011

The WN:SG is a guideline that all users should follow. Even among professional journalists, there is some discord over writing styles and because Wikinews is written for an international audience, it is hard to compile compulsory list. Furthermore, because WN contributors are rarely professionals, article reviews aren't going to be familiar with every single nuance of the style guide (whether they should be or not is a different topic entirely), and requiring compulsory use of the guide would bog down the system. Others may have a different viewpoint on this but that's my general thought on it. Calebrw (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

To follow on from the prior remark; wild divergence from the Style Guide will not be accepted. Consider it 90% mandatory, and 10% discretionary. Since I believe in going up to eleven, you've an extra ten percent of creativity to push in there. I don't feel your complaint is justified because, reading the Style Guide does not make you a good writer. To be a good, or great, writer you should be able to follow every rule in it whilst writing compulsively readable copy; great writers will know exactly where, and when, to throw it out the window, disorient the reader whilst keeping within all other rules/policies, and put together something people will demand their friends and acquaintances read. I've yet to see that from UoW students. No proto-Duncan Campbell or Paul Foot has popped out the woodwork,... yet.

Your comment, Mr Shepherd, is noted. Now, re-read that last sentence as a challenge; can you fit every point of the style guide, then deliberately violate its edicts for style's sake? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we can replace the sentence with a simple description of fact, such as:

Articles that do not adhere to the style guide are unlikely to be published.

--InfantGorilla (talk) 09:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd be perfectly happy with that. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 10:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Pi zero (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)