Wikinews talk:Policies and guidelines

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

Story unknowns[edit]

Proposed policy: Rather than simply reporting on what is known, make an effort to include an explicit summary of what is still not known about a story. Knowing which relevent questions remain unanswered can be at least as important to the reader as knowing which questions have been answered. The reader will be made to realize that the news is not a complete, objective summary of the truth (a la Walter Cronkite's preposterous signoff, "And that's the way it was"), and will not be able to treat the reporting as authoritative; instead, he or she will be confronted with the need to think more critically about what has been reported. TimShell 03:17, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To me this is interesting as a writing style, but I'm not sure if it is A) a feasible writing method or B) an appropriate news reporting method. It would certainly develop information in a different way! Can you write an example article which uses this method? - Amgine 20:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
An example: "At time of writing, comment was being sought from Walter Cronkite."
Another: "The exact location where the arrests were made was not given, and it is not known whether the crew of the boats were traditionally entitled to fish there."
Another: "Accuracy of the statement has not yet been verified." - Simeon 12:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Linking to Related Stories[edit]

I'm a newbie, and I couldn't find any conventions on this. Is there a template we use, or should I just put a "See Also" section at the bottom as in Wkipedia? --Jpbrenna 17:09, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're doing great work, Jpbrenna!
  • The specific place to look for this is actually in the style guide, but I believe you'll find there is no specific template. Usually the related news articles would be the first section under the article body, above the sources, references, and/or external links sections if present. But you'll have to check the guide for the definitive answer. - Amgine/talk 20:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Amgine is right and wrong. The answer is in the style guide. But there is a specific template and section heading. There are several stories in today's news where these are in use, too. Uncle G 00:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for articles and copyrights[edit]

I'm sure this subject has been covered before, but as I'm new and haven't found anything about it yet, I thought I'd ask. I see that most Wikinews stories are based on stories reported elsewhere in the news media (e.g. articles from the NY Times, the L.A. Times, etc.). So, it seems all the legwork is being done by paid reporters for other news sources and all we're doing is collecting and rewriting those stories. Is that legal? Is it ethical? The terms of the AP wire agreement allow subscribers to use and rewrite AP stories, but since we don't subscribe to the AP or other similar organizations, how are we allowed to do that? Cluth 22:22, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is legal - we don't copy & paste a single thing - everything is written in our own words. Whether that's ethical - or even worthwhile - is something individual readers and editors have to decide for themselves. Personally I think it is - too many mainstream media news sources are biased or plain old inaccurate, and this is our chance to avoid such mistakes. Dan100 (Talk) 22:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion from policy page[edit]

Does this mean we can or cannot cut-and-paste from Wikipedia into a WikiNews article? If it is allowed, what is the procedure for marking it? BryceHarrington 01:16, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume you can, but under soures, you need to link back the the Wikipedia article you took it from.--Ryan524 19:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We can not use Wikipedia text in our stories, they are under GFDL and we are under PD. --Cspurrier 19:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removing rule about reverting[edit]

There has not really been a three revert block since I think 2008? Maybe 2010? Can we get rid of this rule? :D --LauraHale (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3rr has been a touchstone concept for a long time. If two people are reverting each other, it becomes clear once one or both make three reversions that it's not a simple disagreement. If one person is opposing a coalition, however informal, it is made obvious the will of the community - however small - is being opposed by one person. (Obviously extenuating circumstances might exist in a given situation.)
This doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed, just that there are good and proven reasons why it does exist as part of the policies. Has something changed which make it less-relevant? - Amgine | t 20:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]