User talk:Gownirony

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 10:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

script?
Your asking some Wikinewsie to interview somebody from a script you've written? This sounds wildly non-neutral. --Pi zero (talk) 02:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I would be performing the interview. I was an investor when I was younger, but my voice is too far gone for me to continue raising Cain, I have retired from all that. Therefore I am interested in doing interviews with notable upstarts from around the United States and the United Kingdom, just for fun and to share my expertise in a collaborative atmosphere. I've been hesitant, but I've been looking at the "interview requests" on this site for a couple months now. Somebody finally requested a business, so I jumped at it. You seem to be very knowledgeable around here, especially with reviewing interviews. If I'm not following procedure, then I apologize, you know more about this process than I. Educate me, so that I might be able to excel here. I would like to know more about this process. Gownirony (talk) 08:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I would not be against somebody else carrying out the interview, if that's the norm, but this used to be my area of expertise. I can give you my personal e-mail if there's a verification process involved of any sort. Gownirony (talk) 08:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see.


 * A general observation: The usual path (noting, as a general rule there are no general rules) has been that a contributor starts out with synthesis articles and works up to original reporting; by the time they get there, we know them, and they know Wikinews writing.  People do sometimes come along wanting to dive right into interviews, and I understand the attraction (somebody who wants to do interviews doesn't necessarily have the temperament for synthesis), but it does leave us without either of those two functions of the usual path.  I'm trying to remember if I've ever seen someone succeed going directly to interviews, and I'm not certain I haven't but certainly it'd be the exception; all the cases I recall atm were failures.  The most recent one I recall, for example, felt wrong, and on investigation we concluded the interviewer was probably in cahoots with the interviewee; that case was pretty acrimonious.


 * On the functioning of the site overall, you might find WN:PILLARS helpful.


 * I suggest you go to the proposals water cooler, explain what you'd like to do, and ask for advice on how to proceed, assuming nothing of what I've said. I'm the most active around here lately, but some of the others do come by, and I can perhaps point some of them toward your inquiry.  So you're not limited to my perspective.  --Pi zero (talk) 11:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

This is spectacular, much obliged, pointing me in the right direction is very kind of you. Those links were highly informative, I think I understand things quite a bit better. Any aide you are willing to render would be helpful. Let me state that, I am willing to verify who I am via e-mail or on Skype chat. I am trying to live disconnected, as much as possible, since I spent my whole life wired (literally and figuratively). All I have now is low-speed internet, so I can help people via my expertise, in-between time on the lake. Please note that I am willing to go through the synthesis route, if that would lead to a more acceptable state of things. I think my questions are pretty hard-hitting and informative though, I did not intend for them to sound non-neutral. Half the time are the same types of questions that got me yelled at, and kicked out, when I was a young whippersnapper.


 * "How do professionals gauge your market?"
 * "As demonstrated in your logo, you publicly adhere to Christianity, are you afraid of alienating your audience?"
 * "What separates Heaven Sent Gaming's game news project, aywv, from IGN?"
 * "Do you publish directly, or is there an editing process involved?"
 * "Is the creative process for web video creation impacted by external influences outside the company?"

I think these are informative questions, for readers thinking about entering this start-up's field, and the interviewees to critically and fundamentally explain who they are. I would appreciate it if you could contribute, or modify, questions that would be great. I look forward to working with this community, and if someone other than me wants to carry out the interview that might be better anyway. I was just going to e-mail them the questions, but having someone who knows how to record internet phone calls would be able to capture candid audio. I definitely don't want to hinder the integrity of this site's Original Reporting. I still would be honored if I could do this interview, but if that's not recommended I understand. I want to go through the proper channels, and do this right. Gownirony (talk) 12:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Interview
Forward all emails to scoop ("scoop at wikinewsie dot org"); that's the non-wmf email address we maintain for such purposes. It makes the emails available to those who review the article. --Pi zero (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You'll want (if you haven't already) to browse through our Category:Interview for a sense of how we arrange the articles. There'd be an introduction, which ought to draw on synthesis sources for its information.  --Pi zero (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I forwarded the e-mails to scoop. Thank you Pi zero for helping me out, your help has been appreciated. I looked at a few other interviews, as per your recommendation. I will put together the introduction via the synthesis route. I have found several external sources, to put together a small informative introduction. Gownirony (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems that things (from a sheer news event standpoint) have lost their steam on that article. It appears to've been an interesting interview, but even interview articles need to have a focus. Your intro paragraph should outline why these people are notable. Why is their company notable? If the intro misses that, it should at least be very clear somewhere in the interview why they (and subsequently your talk with them) is worth reporting on...know what I mean? I can sit down and talk with Bob the butcher for two hours, but who cares?  My article should make very clear why this guy/these people/this company/this organization are, y'know, special. The interview itself seems to ramble and bramble about somewhat aimlessly (and, that's a sin I'm quite guilty of in my interviews); but as journalists, we're not there to chat....we're there to interview. I think there's a small chance that something meaningful can still come from all that discussion, however. --Bddpaux (talk) 14:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Bddpaux, thanks for the advice, this is my first interview here on Wikinews, so please accept my humble apologies for dragging my feet; I just want to do this right. I agree with your concerns, and I will make adjustments to the article. I will add information pertaining to their significance, though I'm not too worried from a "news event" perspective, perhaps I should more correctly point out that online entertainment start-ups are a subject of great interest, and that these particular individuals are in a book from late June of this year; as long as I get this out within the first six months of that book, the information and news for this topic is still fresh. I will attempt to trim the rest of the audio files, and get the article published within the next seven days. So far the interview has provided significant information, especially with the minefield that is Christianity and Video-Games; which they handled adeptly without dodging. And not-to-mention the question "How do professionals gauge your market?", which their answer contained valuable information for business people looking into the new media market and field; they even pointed out industry leaders, in their field, that people can look towards in building a successful business model. I tried to make sure that they could have open-ended questions, which is where the rambling comes in, this adds to them being able to honestly answer the key questions. I tried to not anger fans of their work, while still grilling them. My next interview will be interesting as well, once I've finalized this interview I will conduct one with a pretty famous YouTuber. So please, point out any shortcomings I am having with this interview. Gownirony (talk) 01:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Timeliness
How are things coming on your plans for the interview article? I should point out, timeliness is one of the defining characteristics of news. Different forms of news are more resistant to staleness than others, and interviews are generally the most resistant of all, but even interviews eventually succumb. --Pi zero (talk) 11:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Pi zero, please accept my sincere apologies, I think what I can best take away from this experience is to "Keep It Simple Stupid". I will keep this in mind, once I take on my next interview. I will simply publish the audio from this for now, the video can come later... but other than the slow-coming video, due to my own fault, I think the interview is ready for publishing. I will simply turn the link, to the video, into hidden text until I have it completed. Your patience has helped me to pursue this, and I am very grateful for it; you may review the article at your leisure. Gownirony (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * When you're ready to have it reviewed (which, if I'm understanding correctly, you are), please submit the article for review. The status tag at the top of the article should have a "submit for review" button that you can click; if not, there are instructions on the status tag.  Having you submit it makes it crystal clear, in the edit history of the article, that the decision to submit was yours.  --Pi zero (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikinews interviews Mario J. Lucero and Isabel Ruiz of Heaven Sent Gaming
I hit a snag in the verification phase (to say the least). My review commments; and also of interest, my . (I feel, now that it's irrelevant history, I should after all have pushed you to do some synthesis writing for the project before undertaking this interview.) --Pi zero (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Its okay, this is a good learning process, especially if I want to be a productive participant here on Wikinews. I have now added a link to their notes, somehow I forgot to add the notes they sent me to the sources. You have been incredibly helpful to me, and I appreciate it. I will definitely take your advice, before I undertake another interview, I'll do a few synthesis articles. It seems I've always had a penchant for doing arduous tasks before taking it easy. Friend, what else do you recommend? Gownirony (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't forget to resubmit the article when it's ready to go.


 * Of the three most difficult tasks on Wikinews, writing is the only one that's really got any documentation, although even that documentation has holes in it. There's WN:SG, of course, and WN:WRITE.  More recently, WN:PILLARS.  More broadly, WN:Newsworthiness was finally written down in recent times.  WN:Never assume is another principle we've been trying to live by for many years but didn't have in written form until relatively recently.  I'm trying to wrap my head around a complete overhaul of our WN:NPOV page, which rambles and doesn't really do a good job of explaining the essence of neutrality as we've always striven to practice it.  We've struggled from time to time over the years with documenting copyright/plagiarism know-how, but never produced anything much (except maybe the quick blurb at WN:PILLARS).


 * The second, undocumented task is reviewing. I'd been a reviewer for a while before I finally asked other reviewers, how do you go about reviewing?  I tried to document some aspects of it (WN:Tips on reviewing articles), but wasn't satisfied with the attempt and didn't know how to improve it.


 * But the third task is so hidden, implicit in the activities of the project, I only gradually became aware it existed, never mind knowing how to do it. The third task is teaching.  Nobody told me a major part of Wikinews is finding ways to capture what experienced Wikinewsies know and enable newcomers to apply it and learn it.  So I'm afraid I don't really know what to suggest to you &mdash; I'm trying to learn how to explain what you, as a newcomer, are trying to learn.  (I do have this notion that interactive semi-automated tools &mdash;&mdash; could be a vastly better way to capture practical how-to knowledge than help pages and manuals.  The trouble is that wikis as given are really good at building documents and nothing else; so I'm several years into a project to add interactivity to wiki pages.  But that's a long-term plan.)  --Pi zero (talk) 15:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You are doing an admirable job at helping me out, and you have done so with patience. I have gone over, and added to my browser's bookmarks, the documentation from the first and second steps. I actually like the documentation from the second task, I think it could be expanded to talk about "Readying An Article For Review", perhaps that could allow both editors and reviewers to have a go-to guide. By the way, you are doing a fantastic job at the third step, and it is appreciated. I believe the interview's ready to go, with the link to those notes added to the sources. Gownirony (talk) 09:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The Tips page has gotten a bit better over time, as I've tried to add things to it whenever I've realized they needed saying somewhere. I've remained dissatisfied, though, with its depiction of review.  One might get the feeling, from the checklist, that review is a sort of bureaucratic process.  It's not at all like that, in my experience.  Yes, you try not to miss things that are on the checklist, though I've just about never consulted the checklist while doing a review (like a final exam where you're allowed to bring in one page of notes:  you probably don't even look at the page during the exam, the benefit is from having thought deeply about the course material in order to write the page).  But the really time-consuming part of review is usually the source-check, which really doesn't come through from the checklist.


 * Btw, do you have the water coolers on your watchlist? (Noting Brian McNeil just posted something education-related on the proposals water cooler.)  --Pi zero (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * My overall feeling about this interview is that I have failed miserably. We're going round and round while I try to explain that I can't verify stuff in it, and if I was going to fail to make all this clear in advance so that we had to go round and round like this it should have happened about a month ago, when the interview was clearly still very fresh.  The instincts about how to write neutrally (in the Wikinews sense, which has a lot to do with attributing claims and opinions) and provide verification, should already have been in place before we tackled this interview; that's why I said I should have pushed you to do a bunch of synthesis before this, with emphasis on before.
 * Review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Which said, I do think we're getting there. --Pi zero (talk) 06:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I understand what your saying, and I completely agree with you. I will add the sources to the statements, as requested. And I have done some rewording, and backed claims more appropriately. I am beginning to understand, I need to make reviewing easy, in order for verification to go smoother. I do agree though, I think we're almost there. Tell me what else you think is problematic, before I submit it for review. Gownirony (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Would also like to add that I'm worried about the age of the article at this point, but I think I've added the appropriate verification this time. Feel free to throw out any information you can't verify, we're almost there. Gownirony (talk) 11:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, you being worried about the age too is at least a good sign that we're on the same wavelength. --Pi zero (talk) 13:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no downside to resubmitting at this point, rather than waiting to see whether or not I think it's ready: whether things need more work by you or don't, either way resubmitting wouldn't cause any greater delay, and if things are close enough to okay, not resubmitting could hold things up.


 * In fact my best guess is, any lingering problems at this point are fixable within reviewer's purview. --Pi zero (talk) 13:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That said, as time makes itself available to me today I hope to proceed with the review as if it had been submitted, except of course that if I were to complete the process and it hadn't been submitted, that would give me paws pause. --Pi zero (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, again, thank you for all the help. You've really taught me how to get an article readied. I will definitely work on verifying statements, and I will take this experience to work on a couple other articles before taking on another interview. Gownirony (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Published. Congratulations; you're a published reporter. (We're carried by Google News at the same rating as BBC, Al Jaz, etc. Not to get carried away, that's also the same rating as Fox News and Voice of America. :-)  I didn't write any review comments this time, being rather saturated atm; but, as always, see the . --Pi zero (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)