Wikinews talk:Don't disrupt Wikinews to illustrate a point
Add topicI think that the issue being raised should be raised here on the talk page. You're probably digging a hole to mention be bold on this particular policy page. Being bold is making a point, and this policy page is the perfect example of that. I think the inclusion as it stands leaves too much room for WikiLawyering. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- hmm you're proably right, but I think being bold is one of the most important policies here. Theres also a difference between being bold, and disrupting to prove a point. I don't know. You can revert it if you want. Bawolff ☺☻
23:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- hmm you're proably right, but I think being bold is one of the most important policies here. Theres also a difference between being bold, and disrupting to prove a point. I don't know. You can revert it if you want. Bawolff ☺☻
Note at the bottom
[edit]The thing at the bottom says that this is GFDL and not CC because it came from WpA, unless it's rewritten. That a bad thing (IE. Should it be rewritten)? 68.39.174.238 17:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
"disrupt" and POINTy difference
[edit]Sometimes, to understand what is wrong with something, we need to change to context to understand the underlying problem. For example, this article Time magazine refutes Donald Trump's Twitter claim he was nominated 'Person of the Year' might sound okay for the first world citizens, since many know who Donald Trump is. However, Wikinews is not limited to the first world audience. Instead of Donald Trump, if the headline was Time magazine refutes Patrice Talon's Twitter claim he was nominated 'Person of the Year', everyone would raise their eyebrows wondering who is he? [Benin's president] So, to point this out, we need a hypothetical scenario. But it is not disruptive so those discussions should not be shushed by asserting WN:POINT. Answering important questions (in a way establishing uniqueness and newsworthiness) or if not possible, minimising ambiguity might need this. Talking about newsworthiness, that headline fails to establish newsworthiness since who is Donald Trump is an important question one needs to answer -- and newsworthiness is not limited to the article itself -- headline is the first thing one notices, and it must not fail to convince readers that it is newsworthy.
•–• 09:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Why is the page not a guideline
[edit]Why is this page not a guideline? Ofreporter (Talk) (Contribs) 07:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Ofreporter: It's a policy. --Pi zero (talk) 07:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)