Wikinews talk:For Wikipedians

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Guideline template[edit]

I've added {{Guideline}} to the top of this page, as it's generally accepted material. -- Cirt (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

“Fair use isn't quite the same“?[edit]

What's that about? Copyright laws are copyright laws and not subject to any second guessing by Wikinews editors. What's it good for to pretend there's any different rules for Wikinews? Imho this whole misleading paragraph should be deleted! Gray62 (talk) 09:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Our fair use policy on Wikinews was hammered out exhaustively with Wikimedia Legal. The paragraph isn't misleading, though you don't seem to have understood it.

A basic news value is seeking to learn objective facts first, and only then using them as a basis for forming opinions, rather than starting with an opinion and then rejecting facts if they don't fit the opinion you've chosen. --Pi zero (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

“Right here, right now“?[edit]

This would make sense IF Wikinews was a real news site now, with lots of new, fresh stories (a different frontpage!) every day. Alas, it ain't, the published stories are usually several days old and stay on the mainpage for a long time, because there's simply no fresher content to replace them with. Under these circumstances, it doesn't make sense to use phrases like “today“ and “yesterday“, which will only confuse the reader about when something happened. Editors should be encouraged to cite the date instead. Gray62 (talk) 09:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

You've failed to understand what the paragraph is saying, probably because you don't want to understand; you're evidently too busy looking for excuses to badmouth the project. --Pi zero (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

“The exceptions that make the rules“[edit]

This paragraph needs to be rewritten so that nobody gets the wrongheaded idea that it's ok to simply make shit up or add his own rants to the news here. Imho even the headline conveys the impression that editors may claim their own exceptions from the rules, and should be replaced with the more neutral “Original reporting“. IF that should be allowed at all, since it raises serious verifiability issues and doesn't seem to be happening anymore anyway. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to admit that the dream of turning Wikinews into a real newssite, with reporters of its own, is dead? That needs to be discussed, imho. Gray62 (talk) 10:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikinews is a real news site. That's a massively important thing about Wikinews that you're failing to grok, in your general freaking out over our level of output. --Pi zero (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
As it happens, btw, I agree that that paragraph ought to be improved some; will give it some thought. --Pi zero (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

“Wikinews and Wikipedia licenses are not the same“[edit]

Sadly, true, and a major obstacle to content creation here. That the same wheel needs to be invented twice, at Wikipedia and Wikinews, creates useless redundancy and wastes valuable editor time, which is in dire shortage here. Wikinews can't afford such nonsense, but needs to remove this handicap to content creation. If bureaucrats can't decide on a license change on their own, they need to talk with the Foundation about this. This incomlatibility has to go, and then the whole paragraph can be deleted. Gray62 (talk) 10:08, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

There's a Wikinews story explaining the background: Wikinews switches to Creative Commons license So, it's the Wikimedia trustees who opted for CC license 2.5. Ironically, the reason for that had been worries about “differences of chosen licensing between each Wikinews edition“. But by doing that, they created a unbridgeable difference with Wikipedia's license. Afaics, that's a more severe problem. Content reuse from other Wikinews sites doesn't seem to happen on any relevant scale anyway, probably because reviewers reject foreign language sources (makes sense to me, how to check the validity?). Gray62 (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
No, it's not an obstacle to content creation here. Wikipedian material is likely to be unsuitable for news reporting on several criteria, and people trying to import text from Wikipedia would only waste effort that they, and others, could have put into writing news; so it's just as well they have to write fresh copy here. --Pi zero (talk) 23:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

We could keep talking[edit]

Damn good point, but it doesn't belong on this page, which shall inform Wikipedians editors about the differences at Wikinews. This is only relevant for reviewers. Gray62 (talk) 10:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The paragraph as a whole is mostly about differences between Wikinews and Wikipedia. I'm not sure the wording of the start of it is, er, ideal, but I'd want to study it some more before tinkering, to try to understand the point intended by that first bit. --Pi zero (talk) 23:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Could use a section on the need to resolve talk page discussions[edit]


This conversation has been marked for the community's attention. Please remove the {{flag}} when the discussion is complete or no longer important.


I recommend adding the section "Discussion" below "Citation."

Reviewers almost always wait for all collaboration/talk page discussions to resolve before beginning review. On Wikipedia, it is not necessary to acknowledge every talk page comment, but ignoring comments on Wikinews can cause an article to age out of FRESHNESS. For example, if someone makes a suggestion that the initial drafter does not want to enact or points out a perceived problem, it is best for the drafter to respond with a brief explanation. If the drafter does wish to enact the suggestion or if the problem is real and fixable, the reviewer will usually see the drafter make the necessary change in the page history, but it is still good to post on the talk page "I did this" where it will be visible.

Thoughts, folks? This was something I noticed and put in one of my essays, but it could stand to go here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

My immediate thoughts are
  • An interesting thought, broadly speaking.
  • I'm leery of claims about what reviewers "almost always do". I hope to think deeply on this proposal, thoroughly immersing in it. Noting, that's not going to happen instantly.
  • Given this is interesting and thought-worthy, I'm flagging it, at least for the nonce. It might just draw some wider comment.
--Pi zero (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
My suggestion for the first sentence would be something along the lines of "It is often helpful for an article drafter to resolve any talk page discussions for easing the review process"; this avoids any implied instruction creep for reviewers, i.e., it implies what reviews are supposed to do. I think "Collaboration" would be a better header as talk page tabs are labelled so (if anything, it's more for consistency in terminology). Another thing is that comments about an article by reviewers and others often can be placed on the article's talk page, or the drafter's usertalk page (often, iirc, for newers users). Might be worth noting. —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 05:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Next:

If you are wondering why reviewers have not yet begun to process your draft, check that all collaboration/talk page discussions have been resolved. On Wikipedia, it is not necessary to acknowledge every talk page comment, but ignoring comments on Wikinews can cause an article to age out of FRESHNESS. For example, if someone makes a suggestion that the initial drafter does not want to enact or points out a perceived problem, the reviewer may not know the drafter does not intend to respond and could choose to wait until they do. If the drafter does wish to enact the suggestion or if the problem is real and fixable, the reviewer will usually see the drafter make the necessary change in the page history.

That should minimize chances of instruction creep, @Mikemoral: Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)