Wikinews has a No Editorials policy. That means
certain types of articles are automatically out. Things like consumer reviews,
debate articles and other opinion pieces (well researched or not), and opinion
filled product reviews are not allowed. Interviewees can interject opinions
(their opinions are usually what the interview is about, after all), and you can
report what the opinion of other people is, but not your
own.
Basically, any story on
Wikinews should only include verifiable facts. You can present those facts
in a fun and flamboyant way that readers will enjoy, but you shouldn't
place your own opinion into a story. Because of this you shouldn't try and
be "fair and balanced", unlike the major national and international media
organizations; after all, who decides what is "fair" and what constitutes
"balance"? The very act of attempting to "balance" an article involves altering
the facts in order to artificially create a sense of equality between two sides.
For political editorial pieces (which are by their very nature opinion
pieces, so we don't do them) that's fine. When you're writing a story
about a car accident, or about NASA launching a new probe, it's not
fine. After all, where is the "fair and balanced" in the sentence "NASA launched
a probe today"? Well, I suppose you could go out and get a Flat-Earther quack to
give you a quote about how the whole space industry is a conspiracy designed to
keep us sheeple from the "truth" that the Earth is actually flat...
but... that's stupid. That's also what CNN and FOX do. All. The. Time. It's
WRONG, but they do it anyway, because it helps ratings. Any story that deals
with the facts of a case doesn't have two sides, it just has the facts. That's
it. "Sides" are for editorials and opinions; opinions aren't part
of news, they're meant for blogs and comments
pages.
A couple more things: reprinting press releases is
not allowed. Press releases can be used as sources, but not directly copied from
(except when quoting, obviously). Also, Wikipedia is not
considered a reliable source; you can use the references from a Wikipedia
article directly as sources, so not being able to quote Wikipedia shouldn't be
much of an issue if you're careful.
I've bolded the examples below that definitely
wouldn't be allowed on Wikinews.
For your second question, our current problems are
twofold: 1) quality issues often sneak in, and 2) we don't produce enough
content. The answer to both issues is the same: we need more users. So our
current problem is how to attract and retain high quality users. Producing
news is a difficult and stressful process. An article about a random
event can take years to develop on Wikipedia, whereas on Wikinews
it needs to be written and copyedited in *at most* 3 days. And frankly
anything we publish that is 3 days old is past its best before date. No one
clicks on links about a plane crash that happened 3 days ago. News happens fast
and needs to be reported fast. That tends to take its toll on our contributors
eventually. Burnout rate is very high on Wikinews.
gopher65
--------------------------------------------------
From:
"Jan Wikiphoto" <janwikifoto@mail.cameraman.se>
Sent: Monday, June 28,
2010 4:37 PM
To: "Wikinews-l" <wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Cc:
"Jan Wikiphoto" <janwikifoto@mail.cameraman.se>
Subject: Re:
[Wikinews-l] Info about revision review (UN to protect freespeech on
internet)
>
> Hello all,
>
> What are the
'allowed' subjects in Wikinews? I have read the mission
> statement
and the discussion page, however that basically only says
> distribute
free news that anybody can re-use. So I would like to know,
> what
the welcome subjects, allowed subjects, and un-welcome or prohibited
>
subjects? Is there any info about how the subjects work internationally
-
> what I mean is are there any different rules for different
countries,
> when it comes to Wikinews?
>
> Specifically, it
says 'where anyone can write the news'. Let me make
> a list of some
examples (not meaning that I myself will try to write about
> this, but
that I want to know, as that will give me useful information.).
> Anone,
please tell me which are good, and feel free to elaborate a little
> on
why or why not. If it does not say 'original' or 're-writing' then
it
> basically means original reporting.
>
> - Political
news, less important reports
> - Political news, breaking news
> -
Interview with (fairly known) fotball player
> - Interview with (only
locally known, in the city of origin) fotball player
> - Report from
fotball game (national level), only reporting what happened
> (no
interviews, no original photos)
> - Interview with singer (famous only in
country of origin)
> - Interview with singer (only locally known)
>
- Report from concert (globally known singer, ex: Lady Gaga)
> - Report
from concert (only locally in the small city known singer)
> -
Review of say wines that are nice and good value for price, in the
summer
> (such stories go well in Sweden and the UK generally
speaking)
> - Story about how to make raspberry jam or
raspberry pie, with the
> fresh berries, focusing much on
recipes
> - Story about how to upgrade your Flash (Adobe Flash)
for your Windows
> - Report about Flash, including criticism regarding
security
> - Report about Flash, made as an interview with an expert, who
is critical
> regarding Flash and security
> - Review
of say new I-phone, or other gadget
> - Report about research on
sexual behaviour, like reports about if the
> G-spot exists or not,
based on university scientific reports
> - Story about say the
G-spot, based on only material in say Wikipedia
> - Story about
star, say like Paris Hilton, maybe what diet and skin
> cleansers
they use to stay beautiful - original reporting, interview
> (maybe
by telephone)
> - Story about star, say like Paris Hilton, maybe what diet
and skin
> cleansers they use to stay beautiful - using exisiting
sources on
> the net and in magazines
> - Story about the
annual fiscal report from some major corporation
> (at least listed
on some stock market)
> - Consumer stories, like 'the best credit
cards for you', or 'the best
> TV buys for soccer championship', or
'the best internet deals for
> summer shoe
shopping'
> - Short report about road closures on important roads
(like Paris
> for french wikinews, Helsinki for finnish wikinews,
etc), basically
> just telleing what roads are closed for work and
when
> - Re-printing a press release from say Safeway, about
opening a new
> super-market (just taking the release more or less
literally as-is)
> - Debate article - relatively neutral,
but still with a discernible
> opinion
> - Debate article -
heavily pro one opinion, but researched and with
> fact
references
> - Debate article - heavily pro one opinion, without much
research
>
> Yes, many examples, but it will give me a
better picture of what is
> in demand. It is not necessary to
comment each of them.
>
> Next question:
>
> What is
most important currently, for english Wikinews? If I was 'a site
>
owner', then I would first look for readership (whether the site was
>
commercial or non-commercial), secondly reputation and influence in
>
society, and probably also productivity, quality, appreciation by
readers,
> and of course making a profit if commercial. However,
what are the vital
> points, at the moment, for english Wikinews?
>
> Best Regards from
> Jan Wikiphoto, in Sweden
>
<janwikifoto@mail.cameraman.se>
>
>
_______________________________________________
> Wikinews-l mailing
list
> Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
>