Talk:Atari Melbourne Project revealed

Everything in an article needs to be sourced directly. Just a link to a games website and saying 'insider contact' is not enough! Dan100 (Talk) 09:19, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How did Woodward and Bernstein do it then? The trouble is, my source is an employee who doesn't want to be named. The article is centred around the information from that source, so I'm not sure how to proceed. RJC531 10:04, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, well first of all get everything else sourced as per Writing an article here. With your source, have you anything written down, any e-mails, transcripts of conversations, that sort of thing? If you have, take his name out and anything else sensitive, and then copy to this page. You must understand our point - we could have people claiming anything they like about anyone from 'insider sources', and it could all be untrue. We don't want to publish stuff that isn't true, so we need some sort of evidence! Dan100 (Talk) 10:18, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was actually told the information in a private conversation, I don't have anything written down but I guess I could reconstruct a transcript. I'll get the other stuff sourced. Then do I submit it again on the main page? I do understand the position, it makes complete sense - I'm just new to wikinews. RJC531 10:21, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that you should take contemporaneous (at the time) notes of conversations and that these are valid sources, a journalist should not have to name a source that should be kept confidential (thought that sometimes gets controversial). It is also good practice to try and verify information received from one source with another, such as seeing if the press office will confirm. You shouldn't need to resubmit, I think your notes go on this Talk page, someone else will probably be surer. Can there be an original reporting tag put onto the page and hold the disputed tag? ClareWhite 11:09, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, considering that the author has referenced everything else possible and has basically done his best, I think we should put it on the front page again. I don't suppose we'll be getting better notes, but RJC wasn't to know our demands as a 'first-timer', and we shouldn't kill the story because of that. RJC, you probably want to have a read of Original reporting if you haven't already. Dan100 (Talk) 14:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Dan and Clare and thank you for your advice. --RJC531 18:36, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)