Wikinews talk:Publish checklist

I agree with the principles of this document, however I feel it should be rewritten and, afterward, a printable version (with checkboxes, etc.) created by a user. Thunderhead(talk) 19:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Preventing unsourced information in articles

• The only way to prevent unsourced information is to get every single piece of information in Wikinews articles and post it on their talk pages and check every sentence if they are sourced facts. But that would take too long... —FellowWikiNewsie 02:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Boldly rewritten

I have rewritten this guideline. I feel that its previous version was a rehash of other review guidelines in existence and did not contain relevant instructions for the current process, such as the lead shuffle, creating wikidata entries, etc. Let me know if I missed any steps or if I completely overstepped any boundaries here. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 19:20, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

Hi

1. That was written without consensus. I am concerned. Consensus needs to be achieved before altering a guideline not after. Please don't do that again. Consensus is best sought with a respective post at a water cooler where users are subscribed, and with amble time to get feedback from multiple users.

2. https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews%3APublish_checklist&diff=4841745&oldid=4637843 is a pain to review. Is there a link which shows the changes more clearly?

Thanks. Gryllida (talk) 12:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi

• I've merged old text into the current revision. It is in section 1. Please let me know if you have any objections to this. I'm hoping you are OK with keeping the chunk that I added for the sake of it being meaningful and I think it is reasonably clear and not obsoleted. If you want it gone, please do not remove it. Please add a note to this discussion and include a reason why you would like it removed.
• About my second question it looks like the change was 'add sections 2, 3, 4, 5'. My personal view is that this is okay but I don't use Wikidata and I don't know why someone should use it or how. I think a discussion of how Wikidata works is in that section.
• About my first point above it was surprising I needed to hunt down a official page edit in a random corner of the site and it was edited without having someone's input. I hope that this can be avoided in the future as it may compromise the integrity of the site.
• I posted this query for sake of consistency.

Regards, -- Gryllida (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Votes

• Comment I support addition of sections 2,3,5 noting I oppose removal of prior revision and I re-posted it in section 1. Noting I do not have clarity about Wikidata usage (section 4) and I would expect it needs further discussion. Gryllida (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Recent concerns

Hi Gryllida,

Thank you for sharing your concerns and feedback. I’d like to clarify a few points regarding the recent rewrite:

1. Good Faith Edit: My rewrite was made in good faith, with the intent to update and improve the guideline to better reflect current review practices—including the lead shuffle, creating Wikidata entries, and related steps.
2. Guidelines Creation/Maintenance Process: To my knowledge, there are no explicit Wikinews guidelines governing how guidelines themselves are proposed, maintained, or changed. Instead, our processes seem to mirror how policies are handled: evolving through community consensus, practice, and bold edits where necessary.
3. IAR and Community Improvement: Per WN:IAR, we are encouraged to ignore rules if they prevent us from improving the project. I believe this rewrite aligns with that principle by modernizing the guideline to meet current needs.
4. Past Precedent and Participation: When the proposed version of this guideline was promoted to an official guideline (an edit I support), there was no record of a vote or formal consensus-seeking discussion. To my knowledge, you did not raise objections at that time. If your position has changed, I’m happy to hear your current perspective.
5. Openness to Feedback: I appreciate your concerns and am open to discussing any specific issues with the revised sections, particularly around Wikidata (section 4). However, I believe the rewrite strengthens the guideline and aligns it with both our operational practices and community principles.

Thanks again for engaging in this conversation. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 14:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)