Talk:EU fines Microsoft $1.35 billion for non-compliance with antitrust decision

Unpublish?
This article was created with the "Published" tag, but has since gone through some significant editing, most notably by User:99.226.39.245. I happen to think that this user's contributions (which involve adding both content and sources) are good, although in need of some copyediting, but it suggests that the article isn't really in a "published" form. I'd be bold and shift it back to developing, but it's now the 3rd lead on the main page. Should it be unpublished until it's in a more stable state? (P.S. I'm going to leave a note on the talk pages of 99. and User:Wiz432, the article's creator, to invite comment.) Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 01:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I happened to notice this event and decided to start researching information on it. But yes, I have not yet come on a very stable copy of the events as I pick up new details with almost every article I read. But, I have never done this before and don't know the rules, so it's up to you and others to decide. 99.226.39.245 01:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, from now on, please direct the questions from the user I've just created. "Foamsintowaves". Thank you! 99.226.39.245 01:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia
Should this event be uploaded to Wikipedia, and is so, which article should it be merged into? Or should it be an article on it's own? Foamsintowaves - (talk) 03:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No valid reason to unpublish !
Thank you Chris and Foamsintowaves for a meaningful discussion about this news article. Your concerns about "stable" and "complete" form of news are genuine and here is my opinion about it:

If a news is reported for the first time on Wikinews, it gives a summary of "what happened" and it cites valid sources, it should be published and there is no reason why it should be held back in "developing" stories section. Once the news is published it draws more and more attention from a larger audience and if they want to add more details in news, they can do so - ''that is beauty of the "Wiki movement". ''

There is difference between a news and a research article. Sole purpose of a news is to report an incidence and if possible give credible sources to verify it. It is also important that news come into public domain as early as possible.

Instead of going through the "perfectionist" approach, it is better to go through the "contributory" approach. Let someone publish a news with a good description of "what happened" and its valid sources to verify it. Later on, if someone has more information s/he can add it to that news. That is the principle behind Wikinews. And lets do it in a timely manner. If a news is not published timely or as early as possible then it has lost most of its appeal. It is one bottleneck which is preventing Wikinews from getting a larger audience. It is really unfortunate that few news are published on Wikinews. Right now it is 02:00 pm ET but still I do not see any new news in the "Economy and Business" section on Wikinews (the latest news is the news we are taking about and it is 1-day old !). We need to adhere to practices which encourage more and more voluteers to post news on Wikinews.

Most of the people reporting news here are volunteers and not professional journalists.

I joined Wikinews a short time ago and I am not a professional journalist. I am a stock analyst and found it surprising that there is no section for stock market on Wikinews, therefore I created a category "Stock Market" under "Economy and Business" section and took time to post a news which is of much interest to business people and investors.

 IMHO we should follow the following guidelines while posting a news on Wikinews:

 News should not be a duplicate on Wikinews Article should give a good description of "what happened" It should cite credible sources and should be categorized properly It should conform to Wikipedia "content guidelines" 

Once the news article meets the above criteria, it should be published. And it is the advantage of Wikinews that as more and more audience see the news if they have more information they can add it to the news story. After all, Wiki movement stands on the collective wisdom.

When this news article was published it met all the points mentioned above, therefore I do not see a reason why it should have been unpublished.


 * I would agree if an author first keeps the news in "developing" status for 1 or 2 hours before moving it to "published" state. It would give an opportunity to other editors if they want to expand the article further. But as most people here are volunteers and not professional journalists, it will be difficult for them to devote extra time. Also, it will be the right step when the author is "unsure" about his writing, otherwise perhaps s/he is compromising with the "time" factor of the news.

Your valuable comments are welcome. Whatever we do but we should keep in mind that "Wikinews should be able to publish news from diverse category, its credibility should not be compromised and it should publish news as quick as possible." So far, it has been unable to establish itself as a source for "news-in-time" which is preventing it from getting a larger audience.

I hope this discussion will help in improving Wikinews further and bringing in its "timely" factor for news publishing.

Wiz432 - (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Typo
"Independant" => "Independent" Van der Hoorn (talk) 12:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Sken   my talk 10:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)