User talk:Darkfrog24/IDrafter

Collaboration welcome
I know you in particular like to write solo articles. Any thoughts on this? It could use a section on why people like to write solo articles and how collaboration when you don't want it can interfere with the process. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 1)There are three reasons, all of which relate to the time constraint. --Gryllida (talk) 03:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 1.1) solo writers learn more quickly by doing as much as they can themselves; --Gryllida (talk) 03:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 1.2) the article does not need re-reading to edit the article layout, as it would need in the case different authors were writing different parts of it; -Gryllida (talk) 03:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 1.3) they are a lot more familiar with the content of the sources and are thus able to address any questions more quickly. Gryllida (talk) 03:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) The writing is not really always solo, per se; if the so-called "initial drafter" can not cope with a particular request, and asks for help, then this help is readily available. --Gryllida (talk) 03:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't think that's quite true. At best, it's a generalization.  Fortunately, it's not the core subject of this essay, so we don't have to get into it.
 * 2) I'm not sure I follow you. Who is re-reading what?
 * 3) On this one, yes. It does take time to read sources, but if someone else wants to contribute and read the sources, that doesn't actually slow anything down.
 * I'm talking about more along the things like why Acagastya likes to draft articles offline and then upload them whole. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We need a leading author to take care of proofreading and organizing the article to ensure its layout is correct at the time it is submitted for review. Typically the initial drafter is leading, if they can, as they have the most interest and knowledge of the event being reported. (If they can't, someone else becomes the leading author 12-24 hours after the initial drafter abandons the article.) Gryllida (talk) 06:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

When a reviewer reviews an article with multiple authors,
 * a) authors don't get individual feedback, and can't improve their (crucial) on-project reputations, because the reviewer can't learn about individual authors from reviewing it.
 * b) for the reviewer, the review is more difficult and less rewarding than a review of an article by one reporter, because there can be no rapport with the mind of the reporter (as there is no single mind behind the article), neither for work on the article nor for deep feedback (which is the primary means by which expertise passes from generation to generation of wikinewsies).

--Pi zero (talk) 05:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced this is true. If it were, then the drafters should never take talk page suggestions unless they are fully and wholly convinced of them to preserve the pure one-mind-ness of the draft.  But then that treats the interaction between drafter and reviewer as more important than the interaction between reader and article.
 * For now, let's go with I don't want to write anything that contradicts WN:CONTENT, WN:WRITE, WN:WWI, which is also true. It's perfectly natural for policies and practice to change over time, especially on small projects, but they don't look out of date to me.
 * Since there's been confusion about audience before, I see this as being for new guys once it's finished. I've given at least one new guy the "this is how it works here; if you want to solo we'll respect your wishes" talk on some article collaboration page or other, so I feel there's a need for it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Titles
Since this is leaning toward "how to write a solo article," I'm feeling WN:SOLODRAFT. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You've demonstrated consistently that you don't understand how the project works. So everything you write on the subject is sure to be permeated by basic misapprehensions.  Trying to choose a shortcut to such a thing is inappropriate, because directing others to it is inappropriate (and ultimately harmful to the project). --Pi zero (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that the comment about 'SOLODRAFT' is best left alone; this would not prevent Darkfrog24 from applying the principles in their work (with great success in the case the principles are good). Gryllida (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Pi zero, you are the one who claims the site gets "shut down" for long discussions, so stop trying to pick fights.
 * Let me save you some time, whevever you are tempted to say something like "Don't bother to do [specific improvement] to this essay because you are too stupid to write essays," I'm going to assume you're in a mood and ignore you, so please reread WN:ETIQUETTE and keep it to yourself.
 * What are the new guys going to think when they see you acting like this? "Wikinews has reviewers who constantly belittle the drafters and try to hijack talk page threads. This sounds like a fun place for me to volunteer my time and energy!" No.  They're going to be turned off and they're going to get out of Dodge.
 * I was going to give you my permission to remove my reply along with your post, but there was an edit conflict.
 * To reply to Gryllida, who's actually at least mentioned the subject of this thread, since I've added a section about how to request someone else write the article, SOLODRAFT may no longer be best. But we don't need a title until this essay is ready for Wikinews space, so there's time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My reluctant presence here was motivated by your expression of interest in proselytizing the contents. --Pi zero (talk) 19:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Missing information
There are a few important principles, in my opinion, which this essay does not include.

1) "When you create an article, you may quickly receive feedback on its talk page. It will greatly assist you in your writing; your writing procedure is not lonely."

2) "In the case you do not wish to address some feedback items because you are new and the requested task is too hard, you may request that a volunteer finishes the task for you. This should be done by replying to their message, writing the steps you think the task should involve, and asking for help. Help can also be requested at WN:Water cooler/assistance. This means the article would be written by several people, typically with you being the leading author as you have the most familiarity and interest in the event."

3) "In the case you are unable to continue work on the article, about a day after it is creation a volunteer may finish it for you. As it slows things down, it is undesirable. It is better if you read the feedback and complete the article early and quickly."

--Gryllida (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hm... I will ponder this. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

WN:BOLD
If you have not noticed already, WN:BOLD does not exist, and it is a good thing it does not exist. What I have noticed previously (with your comments about WN:OWNTALK), you are assuming the policies on en.wp applies to en.wn too, which clearly is not the case. You should first research the thing you would be writing and then draft it. 27.59.37.32 (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not an assumption. I read a Wikinews policy or guideline page that said something to the effect of "We use WP:OWNTALK here on Wikinews," and it linked to the Wikipedia page.
 * Allow me to quote the guideline WN:ETIQUETTE: "Wikinews invites you to be bold," with a link to WP:BOLD. So we might not have a separate page (and we might; I haven't read every single one), but yes, WN:BOLD is officially endorsed here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note (I believe this has been remarked before), Wikinews:Etiquette has been badly in need of an overhaul for years. Specifically, a bunch of it is antiquated and there's stuff in it that is simply known to not work well. --Pi zero (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we can concede that this is not an assumption on my part, though.
 * Pi zero, if you really are worried about new guys getting the wrong idea, then any out-of-date policies and guidelines are better targets for your attention than an essay still in userspace. What's a new guy more likely to read, an essay draft still in someone's userspace or an official guideline and policy?  Heck, we tell them to read policy.
 * If there truly is a Wikinews consensus about WN:BOLD either being different from WP:BOLD or not being good at all, then a talk page discussion at WN:E to that effect would likely be very brief and straightforward. Heck, I can think of a few reasons WN:BOLD should be different from WP:BOLD and I just quoted the darn thing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I remarked to you earlier to not communicate with Pi zero extensively. Responses to his messages may be appropriate, but nothing that concerns him as a person. This time you have attempted to suggest how to prioritize Pi zero's work. Please do not do that. The decision of Wikinews administrators about where their efforts should be put belongs to them. --Gryllida (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I've copied it to User:Gryllida/E where I have left some remarks inline in the text. Gryllida (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, Gryllida, you made a suggestion and I listened to it, and I thought part of it was good to act on, but Pi zero is an adult, and if he doesn't want to talk to me, he doesn't have to come and write aggressive comments in my userspace. I tried deleting the comment, but he put it back.  He insisted on having this discussion.  I think it's fair that I defend myself in a reasonable way, and I believe I've done that.
 * I've said it many times before and I'll say it again: Every participant here is a volunteer and it is their decision how to spend their time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe you can address the content (the key point) of his remark without interfering with his personal matters. For example, father than suggesting to change priority of his work, offer your help: "Yes, I like to give a high priority because this information may be misleading others. When you do this, I hope my suggestion to include the difference of news boldness and encyclopedia boldness is useful to you. Please let me know if there is anything else that I can do to help. " Gryllida (talk) 23:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Gryllida, this isn't about work priority. Regardless of whether you agree Pi zero was calling me stupid, can you recognize that I feel like he was calling me stupid and I want him to stop and/or go do something else for a while?  Do you see how insinuating that I am unqualified to write essays describing what I've seen here on Wikinews interferes with my personal matters, to use your words?  I wrote a response that validated him.  I am already being extra nice.
 * Also, I'm in the maybe zone about WN:E being misleading. If I were to go to WN:E and propose a change, it could be misread as WN:POINT. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess his pointing out of your lacking may have made you feel insulted. However, if you continue to think in this manner, we will have to stop pointing out your lackings to you. It will not be an efficient solution. I suggest you to change your way of thinking about this. Gryllida (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The "lacking" isn't real.
 * I don't actually misunderstand the way Wikinews works. I've been here for years with my eyes open.  If there really were some big principle that "everyone" sees but me, then it would be very, very simple to just write it down the way WP:VERIFIABILITY is written down.
 * When I was a new guy, I was like "Oh? Something I don't grok yet?  That makes sense; I'm a new guy!" And for the next year or so "Hm, something I still haven't seen?  Well maybe there is, and maybe not." At this point, I no longer believe it exists.  It's like that story the Emperor's New Clothes.  If I can see the emperor over there with his royal  hanging out, are there really magical clothes that are invisible to all but the worthy or is he just naked?
 * So yes, it would be good to stop pointing out that you think I don't understand. I already know you think that.  I disagree with you.  Time to accept it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not like usage of "whatever you think I don't understand is not written down, therefore I understand" as a valid principle. Instead, I think "I do not understand this, because it is not written down" is more valid. Gryllida (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. More like "Whatever it is that you think I don't understand 1) isn't written down and 2) is not visible in any other way either, so it probably does not exist."  It's like saying "You don't understand the process our humor department uses to write the weekly joke article!" when we don't have a humor department and I can't find any weekly joke columns. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The problem that this essay solves
This essay is meant to address a problem: A stub article here on Wikinews can mean "I am calling dibs on this subject because I want to work on this article myself" or it can mean "I want someone else to write this article" and they look exactly the same. This causes bad feelings either when a well-meaning subsequent drafter fleshes out the stub only to have their contributions blanked or when a well-meaning article requester sees their request "ignored" by Wikinewsies who've mistaken it for a dibs-call. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is indeed a problem. It is better if they want to work on the article themselves. Currently it is encouraged by engaging with the author immediately after submission. If they respond, it means they are still working on it. If they do not respond, 12-24 hours after their last edit it usually means they abandoned the page, and anyone is welcome to insert their content, from a prepared personal sandbox if they wish. Gryllida (talk) 00:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I pinged an initial drafter at 17:54 today. Sometimes a 12-24 hours delay is harmless and sometimes it is not.  Still, good idea.   I'll add it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that ping. Two points.
 * 1) At 10:19,they submitted it for review; at 11:32 they received review comment; at 12:28 you already started editing. I think this is too early for you to edit the content at this stage. Instead, ask the author to do the fixes, and offer your help. (This does not prevent you from preparing your version in a personal sandbox to merge it in 12 hours in the case the author does not wish to give news writing a second try.)
 * 2) The wording of the pint is a little confusing to me.
 * What 'next move' do you want them to make? Is it the submitting for review? I suggest to be more explicit about that.
 * When you mention you will re-check the story with fresher eyes, they may start to think that they should wait for you. Should they wait, or themselves proofreading and submitting for review would speed the process up while you are having your break? I think the latter. However, this part is not clear in the text, in my opinion.
 * You could, for example, write "I have addressed the reviewer comments, including finding a second source for the Red Cross quote. Please proofread or check, and submit for review at your earliest convenience." Gryllida (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikinews' written rules explicitly permit anyone who wants to to edit drafts, and I've been thanked for doing so.
 * Given the quality of the article in question at the time, I think it unlikely that its newcomer drafter was prepared to bring it to publication without some serious prompting.
 * Any next move they want. They clearly know how to work the review button, so that's on the table, sure.
 * I suspected this already, but I just ran the first 32 words of Sir P's initial draft through Google and they're just copypasted from Reuters Africa . It seems likely to me that Sir P doesn't speak English as a first language and really meant to request an article. It's just a guess at this point.  I could be wrong, but if that's the case then it's possible that Sir P would not have understood Pi zero's review.  Or maybe he would have understood it but wouldn't have been interested. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Any next move they want. They clearly know how to work the review button, so that's on the table, sure.
 * I suspected this already, but I just ran the first 32 words of Sir P's initial draft through Google and they're just copypasted from Reuters Africa . It seems likely to me that Sir P doesn't speak English as a first language and really meant to request an article. It's just a guess at this point.  I could be wrong, but if that's the case then it's possible that Sir P would not have understood Pi zero's review.  Or maybe he would have understood it but wouldn't have been interested. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I see the Wikinews process to be that an individual drafter works on their own article and that another drafter doesn't edit the article unless invited to do so. Instead, comments go on the Talk page. If an editor wants help, they ask for it. In other words, the default is not Wikipedia-style collaboration where everyone helps create an article. I see the process I describe as following directly from the drafter-reviewer relationship, drafter reputation and growth, and time constraints, as well as not assuming that collaboration is welcome or required. Ca2james (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with you here. I would like to use this as an opportunity to add that if the author abandoned the article for approximately 12-24 hours, then in my opinion it is great if someone else can take it and work on it. I think this is an important aspect as the newcomer seeing someone else publish their story can be a learning opportunity for them, and a sign of someone caring about their initial interest in the topic. Gryllida (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Your view here, Ca2james contradicts what I have seen while producing articles for Wikinews. It is relatively common for more than one drafter to work on an article and for non-first drafters to jump in without asking first, and to be thanked for doing so.  I can find examples if you want.
 * Then there is written guidance to consider: WN:WRITE says "...no one editor needs to do all these steps alone! You can do as little or as much as you want — the wider community of editors may well take up your story where you leave off" and WN:WWI says "A Wikinews story does not have one reporter as its author, the world is invited to join in..." Again, there's more and I'll show it to you if you want.
 * I do not want anything in this essay to contradict written policy, at least not for now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * These two quotes are correct, with 'leave off' meaning 'either abandon for 12-24 hours or write `I can not edit this anymore`' (in my interpretation), and 'join in' meaning 'leave feedback on talk, or edit directly if asked, or edit directly if the author left off' (in my interpretation). It is just these things are not spelled out. I do not see a contradiction here. Gryllida (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's generally not what those idioms mean in English. "Take up where one left off" specifically refers to completing a task left incomplete by someone else. It looks to me that WN:WRITE and WN:WWI refer to editing the article itself, hence words like "author."
 * If nothing else, this article has brought to light a meaningful contradiction. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, 'leave off' means 'either abandon silently or abandon after leaving a note that I give up'; and 'take up your story where you leave off' means 'start editing the story after seeing that the author left off'. Gryllida (talk) 01:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see a contradiction either. Darkfrog24 I would be interested in seeing examples of editors working directly on another editor's articles uninvited and without some prior understanding that the drafting editor invites input directly on the articles. Ca2james (talk) 02:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In my personal view, this happens sometimes; I also did it before. However, it may give higher risk of edit conflicts, and less leading or writing practice for the first author. In my opinion, both of these things can be demotivating and should be avoided. Gryllida (talk) 02:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * EDIT CONFLICT: Okay. I'll just check a few thank logs and ...and the thank logs do not name the edit for which one was thanked.  Well this is going to take a minute then.
 * These are just from my own thank log: Gatwick article Multiple drafters did a lot of work on this one. You can see from the talk page that there was a lot of discussion, but no one actually asked permission.
 * While I was digging, I found an article started as a stub that I fleshed out to reviewability.
 * To reply to Gryllida, think of this essay as a way of avoiding edit conflicts. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I thought it would be taken as a given that I was looking for examples that didn't involve you. You do things the Wikipedia way, where everyone jumps in to edit the article and because you do it that way, you think it's the way things are done on Wikinews. But the culture here is not that of Wikipedia; it's much more of a news organization where the norm is one drafter per article, unless that drafter specifically requests help or abandons the article. Of course there will be exceptions, especially with new editors, but those exceptions do not imply that multi-author articles are the norm. So don't show me what you do. Show me that others are regularly doing what you say they're doing. Ca2james (talk) 03:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ca2james, of course I'm not going to take that as a given. Of course I'm writing about my own experiences.  And of course the articles that I've worked on myself over the years are the ones I remember.  Frankly, since I've been here, I've drafted such a high proportion of articles that the way I do things has become a part of the way we do things.
 * But I hit Random Article until I found a few that meet that criterion:  arguably these....  And those are only the ones with large contributions from more than one drafter, not counting when there's one principal drafter and other people jump in to add a single paragraph or a single pic or a couple of copyedits.  As you can see, no you don't need permission to jump in and edit. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The editing tag
This essay does a good job at telling how to avoid edit conflicts, but not how to collaborate on the talk page. Talk page collaboration is an excellent way to engage with the current author to encourage and to guide their continued work, thus enhancing their leading and writing practice, without risking edit conflicts. Why do you not include it in the essay? --Gryllida (talk) 03:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The article does recommend using the talk page already. What additional stuff were you talking about? Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The premise 'use editing to request no collaboration, or else abandon the story with a note `please finish it for me`' is misleading: the readers may think that in the first case they receive no help, and the only way to receive it is the latter option. In fact, they still can (and should) receive it at the talk page, and this is the primary way of receiving collaborative feedback. Gryllida (talk) 04:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If it's confusing to you, then it'd probably be confusing to my target audience, but I'm finding it a little difficult to parse this talk page comment of yours. Could you rephrase? Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not like the `use editing to request no collaboration` thought expressed in the essay, because in this case collaboration will occur at the talk page. Gryllida (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm still not clear on what you mean. Do you mean "if people post at the talk page, then it's not really no collaboration"?
 * Here's what WN:WRITE says about the editing tag: To avoid edit conflicts you might first want to insert the tag and then save your story. This tag is a request to other editors to refrain from editing the article, since the "tagger" is rewriting substantial portions of the text and therefore any other edit is very likely to result in an edit conflict. Use this tag only when it is really necessary, and be sure to remove it as soon as possible.
 * Does this change to the essay address the issue to which you are reacting? Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a good clarification, but there is more confusion that remains. It is provided in the next section, below. Gryllida (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments about the first section
1) "How to request no collaboration"
 * bad heading, because collaboration would still occur.

2) "The default setting on Project Wiki is collaboration,"
 * wrong, the default is having collaboration on talk page at first and then it is followed by editing directly after the story is abandoned.

3) "Add a note to the Wikitext using to give your version of  "
 * seems redundant, if editing is there people usually already manage to not touch the article. if they do touch it, we should work out how to implement an appropriate editnotice with red stop signs on it when this occurs.

4) "Add a note to the Wikitext using to give your version of  "
 * good, but this is already known and adding such a comment is not required

5) "Write "No collaboration yet, thanks!" or "Please talk page only" in your edit summaries, the talk page, or both."
 * good, but 'please talk page only' is the only sensible option, and it is not necessary to write this as it is already obvious to anyone who used a talk page before. that's something people learn within their first couple days

6) This section is missing notes about how to react to the feedback provided at the talk page. --Gryllida (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * 2) The default setting at Wikinews is indeed collaboration. See WN:INTRO, WN:WRITE and WN:WWI. They were all around a long time before I got here.
 * Oooooooh, I see what's going on here. The point of these bullet points is to give the contributor multiple different ways to inform the rest of the community of their wishes.  They're not supposed to do all of them; they're supposed to pick one or two that they like.  I'll add text to that effect.
 * 6) "How to react to talk page feedback" is a very big topic that could be best served by a separate essay. It's not bad, but it's not the goal of this particular page.
 * New guys come here with all sorts of different ideas about what's going to work and what isn't. I think saying "this is obvious" might be a little premature.  To that effect, on your point 1), 1) To your mind, what is "collaboration"?  I know what I mean by the word, but what do you mean?  Various guys are likely to show up here thinking both things. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In these documents, collaboration does not necessarily mean only direct editing; the talk page discussions are also considered a form of collaboration. Gryllida (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay... I'll ponder this and then incorporate it into the essay.
 * Would you say, given this definition of collaboration ("one drafter works on the article and other contributors make talk page suggestions counts as collaboration"), that the statement "The default setting on Wikinews is collaboration" is correct? Or do you think it's correct but something else about it still bugs ya? Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "The default setting on Wikinews is collaboration" is correct, in principle: talk page collaboration occurs immediately. However in this essay it feels like "The default setting on Wikinews is editing the article itself directly at any time", which is true at Wikipedia, but false at Wikinews.
 * The phrase "no direct collaboration" is vague and definition is not provided.
 * When you write "solo or minimal-collaboration article" you mean "article in which editing of the article itself directly is minimized", but this is not clear to the reader, either.
 * I think that heading and the first paragraph should be rewritten.
 * My proposed title for section:
 * "When you are starting your draft"
 * My proposed content for it:
 * "When you are starting your draft others will speak with you at its talk page, and usually avoid editing it directly so that you have comfortable time editing it by yourself as long as you wish. After you walk away others may start editing. In some cases you want to avoid that, for example when making one longer edit. In these cases you can use the editing template at the article top to indicate that you are still working on the story."
 * Then you could add your other methods, but I think that the editing template has the advantage of being seen more visibly; if I want to edit the third paragraph, to remove a typo or add something, I will not read any comments which you put in the first paragraph...
 * Hope it helps and you can adapt it to suit your preferences and intended meaning. Gryllida (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Some of this looks quite good to me and I'll work on it. However "The default setting on Wikinews is editing the article itself directly at any time" is what is meant by "collaboration" throughout Project Wiki, including here on Wikinews.  This is true in written policy and true for what I have observed during my years here.  If those policies need updating, then we should update them, but right now they are in force and I will not tell newcomers to disobey them.
 * Consider the text: "For most articles, the initial drafter is the one who supplies most of the sources, writes most of the text, and hits 'review,' with other drafters making smaller contributions as they like." This is exactly what we do here; you do it yourself. No one asks the drafter's permission to edit the article; we all just jump in.  Sometimes a change is suggested on the talk page first and sometimes it is not.
 * I think the direction for this article is going to be "you can see how to do things the usual way anywhere; here's how to do things the two unusual ways." Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think you want to encourage people to directly edit the article while another contributor is working on it. This risks edit conflicts and is unwanted here. At Wikipedia it can be allowed because people make one-off edits a lot more often. Gryllida (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe Wikinews used to be less collaborative before 2016 when I started here and has since grown closer to written policy. As things stand, I'm calling it like I see it.  Most of the time, the initial drafter does most of the work but not all of it, and anyone who wants may make any reasonable edit they want.
 * There is a whole section of this essay about what people can do to prevent edit conflicts when they want little or no collaboration. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm getting the impression that you think my view of Wikinews is more different from your own than it really is. Are you familiar with the connotations of the "Officially ... but in practice" construction used in the introductory paragraph? Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hope it helps and you can adapt it to suit your preferences and intended meaning. Gryllida (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Some of this looks quite good to me and I'll work on it. However "The default setting on Wikinews is editing the article itself directly at any time" is what is meant by "collaboration" throughout Project Wiki, including here on Wikinews.  This is true in written policy and true for what I have observed during my years here.  If those policies need updating, then we should update them, but right now they are in force and I will not tell newcomers to disobey them.
 * Consider the text: "For most articles, the initial drafter is the one who supplies most of the sources, writes most of the text, and hits 'review,' with other drafters making smaller contributions as they like." This is exactly what we do here; you do it yourself. No one asks the drafter's permission to edit the article; we all just jump in.  Sometimes a change is suggested on the talk page first and sometimes it is not.
 * I think the direction for this article is going to be "you can see how to do things the usual way anywhere; here's how to do things the two unusual ways." Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think you want to encourage people to directly edit the article while another contributor is working on it. This risks edit conflicts and is unwanted here. At Wikipedia it can be allowed because people make one-off edits a lot more often. Gryllida (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe Wikinews used to be less collaborative before 2016 when I started here and has since grown closer to written policy. As things stand, I'm calling it like I see it.  Most of the time, the initial drafter does most of the work but not all of it, and anyone who wants may make any reasonable edit they want.
 * There is a whole section of this essay about what people can do to prevent edit conflicts when they want little or no collaboration. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm getting the impression that you think my view of Wikinews is more different from your own than it really is. Are you familiar with the connotations of the "Officially ... but in practice" construction used in the introductory paragraph? Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm getting the impression that you think my view of Wikinews is more different from your own than it really is. Are you familiar with the connotations of the "Officially ... but in practice" construction used in the introductory paragraph? Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Found another good suggestion
This comment by Amgine on Ottawihitech's page also looks good. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)