Comments:Members of Anonymous tell Wikinews about upcoming protests

IT'S OVER...
NINE THOUSANDDDDDD!! --TUFKAAP - (talk) 11:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What Nine Thousand?! 70.50.75.23 14:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)meh

Anonymous Biased?
The large amount of articles about the group Anonymous in wikinews really make this website look like it is a strong supporter of what they are doing. Which is fine, but wikinews is supposed to have a strong NPOV commitment from what I understand. This article here hardly seems like news and more of an advertisment to recruit more people for an upcoming protest. While looking at some of the past articles coivering protests its more of a celebration of what Anonymous is doing combined with one of the protester's flickr site. I don't think its wrong what Anonymous is doing I think its pretty cool, but I think that its wrong that Wikinews is being used as a rally point. Unless of course Anonymous has donated considerable amounts to wikimedia, then from what I hear its okay.

Overtly Anonymous Biased
I'd also like to add a Wikinews admin making a comment like the one above really seems to confirm the overtly biased nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.96.1 (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Then. Make.  Your.  Own.  Article.  Fephisto - (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Not biased
I fail to see how this articl is biased in any way. The wikinews reporter's question are appropriate and relevant to the story, and do not express bias. This is an interview with only one side of the conflict, and thus it is acceptable that only one opinion is explored.

If you'd like to balance the debate; do an interview with some scientologists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.75.23 (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We've tried! Bjweeks - (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I also emailed scientology to see if they want an interview, but, insurprisingly, no repsonse.--Anonymous101 (talk &middot; contribs) 15:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Then you don't want to see it
The article itself is questionably noteworthy. Who else picks up articles like this? what outher media outlets is running this story? It would be one thing if the protest had already happend but this is a recruitment article to rally more people for the protest. If you fail to see that that, then you don't want to see that. Take that into consideration with the other Anonymous article that is running on the front page above the one about Jimbo Wales promoting self interest over dedication to truth & neutality really lets you know how wikimedia operates.
 * I can see the concern for this article but what is wrong with the other article on the front page? It was picked up by many news outlets. Bjweeks - (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's literally self-interest (Anonymous article) above truth & neutrality (Jimbo Wales Article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.96.1 (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU COMMENT
I emailed scientology and would have included them both but Scientology refused to respond. This does not act as a promotion for the protests as I mentioned that the last protest contained activity which some people consider illegal. Also, it's newsworthiness is clear as its about a prrotest that is about to happen. --Anonymous101 (talk &middot; contribs) 15:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)