User talk:Dox96

Welcome
, welcome to Wikinews! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Brian McNeil / talk 09:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Comments
We're still ironing out the last of the bugs on the comments system, the Comments talk: will eventually be hidden. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Extricated
Dox, I have extricated and restored your article from the work that I did. Although, I did not publish, I marked it 'Ready' for the immediate attention of other editors. You may persue your problem of the single source with them. I am sorry that we did not find common ground here, and I hope that this does not dissuade you from contributing to Wikinews.--SVTCobra 04:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Iran/Observer article
Hi SVTCobra, thanks for separating the articles out. I guess the orginal article can be re-dated to prevent the "fish-and-chips-wrapping" problem of it becoming stale. Actually, I do appreciate you looking at and contributing to my work, even if I don't agree with you. I can see that there were misunderstandings between us which caused the original friction. That anonymous "cleanup" tag really annoyed me. I'm sorry if you were offended by what I said (you seemed quite taken aback by my description of "propaganda"), but I really do have strong feelings about what constitutes "balance" and good journalism. For example, I do not think that taking comments from one side and comments from the other side constitutes "balance". Both sides could be lying through their teeth (and frankly, this is frequently the case). These cases require more journalism to find some independent analysis of the situation. I really don't think that my article was originally unbalanced. Dox96 04:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, your article isn't inherently imbalanced. Technically you did your part in balancing the article with a lot precautionary statements about the reliability of the sources. From my point of view, that shows a pre-disposition toward a source, for better or worse. It would be like basing an article on a press release from a politician and then saying "Well, no one takes them seriously." (extreme case, for illustration)


 * The way I like to keep my articles neutral is to gather a bunch of sources, and use direct quotes from the players involved. Of course, I could pick and choose, and sometimes you have to because those talking heads just keep talking, but I try to pick what they are trying to say. If you look at my articles, they are filled with direct quotes. No one has ever commented on that, so I don't know if they notice, but I don't editorialize and I try not to play favorites. I hope to see you again here on Wikinews. --SVTCobra 05:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but Let me illustrate the problem with "single-source" articles
About the Huliq comment, forgive me, yes, I did know that they don't mirror every story. They do filter by some standard, be it MSM equivalents or whatever. There is probably a person behind it, not a computer.

About the newsroom I am sorry that no other editors took an interest in your story, frankly it saddens me that it stood there in the Newsroom, marked as 'ready', and no one fixed a comma, had objections or even published it. That ought not be. 'Ready' is supposed to be at the top of actionable events here.

Single source I do have a problem with single-source articles, which you probably noticed from our interactions. To understand why I take such a staunch view take a look at the mess we have with this article Chinese submarine "embarrasses" U.S. Navy, which did manage to get published. You can follow what is at the article and its talk page, but also look at Admin discussion for the same. It too, was based on a single source. In it you will see that we are people too. --SVTCobra 03:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)