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