Wikinews talk:Criteria to use an article as a source on Wikipedia

I created this page, which anyone can move to a more appropriate place, to ask input from both Wikipedians and Wikinewsies about what sort of standards they feel should be in place in order for a Wikinews article to be used as a credible source on Wikipedia. Don't worry or point out if some of these things already are policy - this is more a workshop for everyone.

Below are suggestions I have seen so far (feel free to edit or add anything):

1) Once a page is archived and no longer can be edited.

2) The article should be certified as fact checked and reviewed by an accredited editor

3) Accredited reporters must supply the name they use on government-issued identification (although pen names are still okay)

4) Original Research is encouraged; however, not all original research may be appropriate

5) Audio transcriptions should be made available, unless there is a good reason not to provide it

6) OR notes should includes at a minimum: Who was present for the interview, the manner it was conducted, its length, and if pertinent, the disposition of the interviewee (only if pertinent, for instance, if they are hostile, which will aid in understand the tone)

7) Although paragraph-story interviews are okay, preferably interviews should follow a Q&A style for accuracy and NPOV.

Points to consider

If the intention is to have some articles in Wikinews to be quotable as reliable sources in Wikipedia, we need to apply the same criteria as for any other source, namely:

• Fact checking: A known fact checking/editorial process for these news articles
• Editorial Accountability: A known entity, e.g. an editorial board that approves these articles and bears the responsibility for the accuracy of these
• Journalist Accountability: Journalists are accredited by a known process, their real-life names known and published (pen names OK, but the real name needs to be on record)
• Distinctions between opinion and reportage of facts. Clear distinctions need to be made available in the copy. Is the news article an opinion, or a reportage of facts?

Jossi 22:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

All good points: re Journalist Accountability, I use a pen name although my real name--David Miller--is not a secret and published. But I have photographed and written under Shankbone for so long that I am actually more well-known by that name than my birth name. Also, pen names are common in journalism (I'm a member of the New York Press Club and asked about this point, and the Prez confirmed they are quite common). I think a pen name--once chosen you are stuck--with your real name published on the site is okay.

Jossi, did you read my Israel Journal: The Holy Land has an image problem? That was essentially fact, and reporting, but it contained some minor editorializing. How would we deal with a story like that?

Thanks for your attention. --David Shankbone 22:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If the initial idea is to start with interviews of notable individuals, these issues may need to be considered:

• Interview needs to be submitted to interviewee or his/her agent prior to publishing to elicit comments as to the accuracy of the transcription
• Name, location, medium (phone, live), etc. of the interview
• Were the questions submitted to interviewee in advance?
• Interviewee needs to be made aware of NPOV, and BLP, namely the fact that we will not accept claims or comments about third parties that may be defamatory or questionable in nature

Jossi 22:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Israel Journal: The Holy Land has an image problem

It is a nicely written piece... but it is what can be called an opinion piece, or an editorial, neither of which would be acceptable as a reliable source in Wikipedia. Jossi 22:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you there. But it should be marked somehow? I am also currently proposing we do some guest editorials on here--again, not something for WP--do you think there should be demaracations for different reporting?

Editorials traditonally used {{Editorial}} (but then again, traditional we didn't allow them to leave userspace whatsoever). Bawolff ☺☻ 19:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, I usually send my interviews post-publishing to the interviewees; but there have been a couple of times they want to take things back that they said. Generally, the answer is 'no' unless there is a good reason ("I totally misunderstood the question", e.g.) I firmly believe they should be sent a copy of the published interview, but why do you think it should be sent pre-published? --David Shankbone 22:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

To avoid legal implications. The Wikimedia Foundation should not bear the brunt of a legal challenge. Jossi 23:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I see your concern, but since we record our interviews, and indeed will begin to post the audio recordings, that should negate that concern, no? --David Shankbone 23:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This is too focused on interviews. We should strive for a policy that encompasses all or most of the OR on Wikinews. --+Deprifry+ 22:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I have a better idea: why don't you create a list that deals specifically with OR stories? I think interviews are a different animal; related, but different. We'll put both conversations on the same page. I think once we start discussing them, we'll see that issues in OR stories don't often occur in interviews, and vice versa. Want some help? --David Shankbone 22:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

WP-qualified article symbology

What kind of symbol should we use for a Wikipedia-qualified article? Another question is: should we just incorporate all of this into the Featured Article process and propose that FAs may be used, and adhere to the criteria to address the concerns outlined above, or keep FA and WQ separate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Shankbone (talk • contribs) 03:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I created in the past some seals for WP, that were never used.... See w:User:Jossi/sandbox/policylogo. Maybe some of these can be repurposed, or at least bring forth some ideas.Jossi 04:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm opposed to a two-tier wikinews (stuff thats good enough for wikipedia, and stuff that isn't). Bawolff ☺☻ 07:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you are alone in thinking that everything we do on here is of the quality to be used on Wikipedia as a source. --David Shankbone 14:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

chicken or egg

Which should come first our policies in regards to OR and interviews, or should it be that we find out what hoops Wikinews needs to be jumped through to satisfy Wikipedia requirements of Verifiability, Reliable source, and Original Research. Gnangarra 07:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Other Thoughts

We also need to build relationships with outside media organisations to this we need to be able to ensure that events get covered quickly and professionally. We have the advantage of cost over other sources, for a media outlet to run something we wrote their cost is attribution only both for the story and any images we may provide.

Another way is ask Jimbo to put a condition on interviews he gives to smaller media outlets to be uploaded here as well, these interviews can be instantly archived unaltered. Gnangarra 07:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

over-relliance of accredited reporters

I'm slightly concerned with demand for accreditation in this proposal. While I agree that accreditation fulls a role, we should not rely on it for people to be truthful, as people with names still lie cheat and steal, but people don't expect them to (or expect them to less). This could imply a false sense of security. (To quote: A weak security system can be worse than no security at all, because it may lull users into unwarranted trust.[1]). To summarize, I think that fact checking and such is important and good, and nothing should be able to get pass that, but an additional layer of security by saying that accredited reporters only, as they are without a doubt honest and good is a bad idea.[Did that make sense?] Bawolff ☺☻ 20:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I champion your feeling, but there are two reasons that make accreditation necessary for use on Wikipedia: 1. because Wikipedia demands it and they ultimately will go for no less; and 2. because accreditation should mean something. And that is a very attractive plum for people to reach for: accreditation means your work might be deemed use-able on Wikipedia. --David Shankbone 05:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If only accredited, then so be it. IMO, that means we as in the reporter is fully responsible for his or her work. I think for now, its ok to say only accredited, so long as the article itself is sourced. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 07:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

Does Wikinews dictate Wikipedia policy. this editor and I think otherwise. Septrillion (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Septrillion: That question seems somewhat insane to me. Afaict this ancient page represented Wikipedian policy attempting to intrude on Wikinews (rather pointlessly, since, politically, there is no way Wikipedia would ever accept Wikinews as reliable, regardless of the quality of our output). --Pi zero (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

No it is not. This is a page on Wikinews dictating what criteria Wikipedia should use in determining reliability of Wikinews articles. The appropriate place for such an article would be on Wikipedia itself. Septrillion (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Nope. I misread the article. Septrillion (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Septrillion: I'm not sure I'd ever noticed this page before. It really was confusing; thanks for drawing attention to it. Hopefully the new hatnote makes the situation much clearer. --Pi zero (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Septrillion (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)