Wikinews talk:Writing an article

Locations in all caps.

ARE THERE ANY GOOD REASONS FOR THE ALL CAPS? — Jeandré du Toit, 2004-1204t22:46z

Yes, it makes it very clear that it is not part of the first sentence, and the reader can easily see the location. Typically, the location is on the same line as the first sentence, hence the need for this distinction. - Simeon 08:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Need for a article editing form.

Rather than using the current edit box for news articles a form with a number of text field and drop down boxes would be a labour saving device and assure a standardised format.

Text boxes for article name and the article itself would be needed. Date would be assiged automatically (but able to be edited). Drop down lists for geographical area, country and topic would be easy to set up based on the available Categories. Alan Liefting 00:09, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That would be a radically large change in the software that we are using to build the wiki-almost to the point of changing it completely, I'd think (but I'm no developer, so I don't know). Probably a long ways away, I'd suspect. Lyellin 01:09, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dates

I've changed this to recommend a "house style" of dates to be Month Day, Year (i.e. December 26, 2004). This will let the date be automatically linked to the date categories used on this site. I believe that it helps Wikinews to have a consistent dating style. Please feel free to raise objections. -- IlyaHaykinson 02:21, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Journalistic Ethics

Simeon made a great start on adding a section about ethics to the tutorial, but I think in its present form it is a bit confusing for new contributors. Maybe we can re-write it? see also his new page Wikinews:Code of Ethics:

Code of Ethics

Wikinews hasn't yet to my knowledge adopted or developed a particular Code of Ethics, but several exist already, and there is even (at least) one being developed for adoption by Bloggers. For the time being, lets just say that we should be working somewhat along the lines given in these documents.

* US Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics

* Australian Journalists Association existing Code of Ethics and proposed revised Code of Ethics (story | more)

* Latvian Union of Journalists Code of Ethics

* Association of Southeast Asian Nations Journalists' Code of Ethics

* Bloggers' Code of Ethics

We will develop a Journalists' Code of Ethics document for wikinews, then link to that from this section, instead of the miscellaneous links and vague assertions above.

'Advanced readers...'

- From the blockquote at the top of the page. I find that rather patronising. Further, there's info on this page all new contributors need read, even if they are familiar with the workings of a wiki. Finally, a big link to an article that doesn't exist doesn't look too good. :( Dan100 00:59, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

References

If think the template for adding references is a bit too much like hard work. Personally I favour just adding a link and the name of the originating website - much easier and quicker, and it does the job. Dan100 08:58, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If we are using the work of specific indiviiduals as the basis for our product, then they should be named and credit duly given. If the writer doesn;t do this, the work will pass on to editors to add it later. -- Davodd | Talk 09:18, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, but don't be suprised if the system breaks down once the number of new articles a day starts going up. Dan100 17:52, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I changed the instructions to adding references after writing the article from adding them first then saving the article. This is because the old instructions said to do this to get other people writing the article. If that were to happen, you'd inherently end up with an edit conflict. Quite apart from this probably being confusing to a new user, it would also lead to people writing two versions of the same article which are totally different as they are both starting from scratch - merging the two (or more!) versions together would be a nightmare! Dan100 17:52, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Byline

I've changed the Byline template and instructions so there's no longer a location given. I know this is standard practice in print media, but we're a little different. Anyone can write a story about something happening anywhere, and I just don't think the location of the writer has relevance. Dan100 (Talk) 20:02, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The template for a date-only header already exists — {{date|January 17, 2005}}. I think that there are legitimate reasons to have bylines, such as when the reporter is at the location. -- IlyaHaykinson 20:50, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The page history isn't playing ball but someone (you?) has changed the instructions to using the date template. I think that's a good change, and better than my attempts to remove the location from the byline template. Dan100 (Talk) 19:30, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've changed it a while ago, but then you removed the other options that included byline, I think. Either way, I think it's the way we want it now? -- IlyaHaykinson 19:49, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lol, I didn't notice that there were actually different templates when I cut out the instructions about the location options! Thanks for pointing that out :). Yeah I think what we have now is great. Good work on adding the date template. Dan100 (Talk) 20:03, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Impressive updates, Dan100

Many thanks for your good work! - Amgine 19:23, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Using "subst:" with templates

I have outlined the issues with this change on the talk page for the Reporter's tools page.

I have restored the suggested usage of the "date" and "source" templates presented in "Writing an article" until a consensus is reached on whether "subst:" should be used or not. — DV 20:21, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why there should be no edit links or ToC on this page

This page is a 'front-line' page - that is, it is among the first that will be encountered by a new user interested in editing. There's no need for edit links - in fact it makes it all too easy for people to start 'experimental editing' which, while not harmful (nor vandalism), is tedious to remove. Finally, they look messy, and we're trying to present a professional look.

There's also no need for a ToC. It's simply a series of steps to be followed if you want to publish a story, and that doesn't need a table of contents. Despite our best efforts, there is a minimum number of essential steps, and having the top of the page dominated by a large box highlighting just how many steps there are could be off-putting a new editor. Dan100 (Talk) 11:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In Russian

Add this please ru:Викиновости:Написание статьи.

Done --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Spelling mistake

Substite "hierchically" with "hierarchically" in the See Also section. –Tom Morris (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Done by user:Pi zero. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Freezing articles?

I've seen it claimed that, once that article has been published and archived, it is as important to Wikinews to freeze the article as it was as it is to ensure our articles are good before publication.

What are the policies regarding freezing articles? I have a vague memory of having read something about that, but I'm unable to find it now.

If Wikinews freezes articles, there should be a policy on that, and it shouldn't be hard for people like me to find, I think. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@DavidMCEddy: I realize I need to write you a really good overview of the big picture of Wikinews. If I can manage really good. I recall remarking recently on the difficulty of documenting things on a news site. In this particular case, perhaps what you're looking for is WN:ARCHIVE? --Pi zero (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Pi zero: Thanks. Might it be appropriate to cite that in this article on "Writing an article" (and perhaps elsewhere)? I think people who want to write for Wikinews would like to understand the process of (a) writing, (b) editing, (c) publishing, then (d) freezing and archiving. DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

An interesting thought. It's sometimes been remarked here that anything you contribute to Wikipedia is writ in water, whereas if one succeeds in publishing here, it has permanence, and one would think that would attract more contributors. But that sort of thing isn't an attraction if it isn't presented well. --Pi zero (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)