User talk:Josve05a

Wikinews interviews André Costa, employee at Wikimedia Sverige, regarding the lawsuit between BUS and WMSE
Hi. I've not yet had a chance to really look closely at your other article, though I suspect there'll be problems since you haven't written for Wikinews before and, well, we do have an initial learn curve. But the interview I can see is a problem; I've not-ready'd it with these review comments. We need extensive documentation on interviews. There should be a Sources section on the article with an original reporting template, leading to the collaboration (aka talk) page with reporter's notes. Those notes should explain the circumstances of the interview, how it was preserved (audio recording or whatever; we recommend handwritten notes in addition to whatever else one does, and note that our page WN:OR emphasizes the importance of preparing for an interview ahead of time, which can be a problem when somebody drops in, with no prior Wikinews experience, and presents a piece of OR like this).

How are you related to the story? We need to consider whether you have a potential conflict of interest (of one kind or another), whether there's anything that calls for disclosure either on the article or on its collaboration page.

The rule of thumb on OR notes is, aim for more documentation than needed, not for merely "enough". Audio files are often included with interviews; scans of handwritten notes are often involved in OR of many kinds, although no particular form such as that is specifically required.

Materials are routinely emailed to "scoop" — that's "scoop at wikinewsie dot org", a private mailing list we use for verification and when documentation should not be publicly exposed (personal/private information, embargoed stuff, and the like).

Btw, just to make things more complicated, we've also currently got a class of university journalism students submitting articles, which puts an intermittent strain on our reviewing resources. --Pi zero (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... Yes I am relatively new to Wikinews (I've been an opponent to this site in the past for various reasons and therefore never really edited here). The enire "prose" (is that the right word?) is copied from Bildkonst Upphovsrätt i Sverige (BUS) v. Wikimedia Sverige which has sources to back it up. I don't know how to cite this. Josve05a (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You'd use a "Related news" section to cite another Wikinews article. However, you can't cite an unpublished Wikinews article.  So that would hinge on getting the other article published.  I anticipate problems to resolve along the way to that; I'll try to either review it or write up some preliminary remarks on its talk page... when I can.  Hopefully within today UTC.  --Pi zero (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I also made some notes regarding who I am and ho the interview was made on #The interview. Josve05a (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you.
 * I admit to curiosity. You say you used to be an opponent of Wikinews.  I wouldn't want to ignite anything here, but just broadly, how does it come to pass you're submitting to us now?  Is it something about the particular story, has your attitude toward Wikinews fundamentally changed, or did you just figure, more mildly, I'll give it a try?  --Pi zero (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Since the close of sv.wikinews I thought that wikinews was, to be blunt, a waste of time. It is a "unknown new-site", which almost nobody knows of. It has some news, but more is horrible outdated and when looking in categories most news are multiple years old. The reason why I submitted news today was after I explained the issue on IRC (#wikimedia-commons) and wonderend how this hadn't hit "mainstream-news" yet, they suggested that I write a piece on wikinews. Josve05a (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * ...and this is what I meant about not igniting something. An account here of what was done to Swedish Wikinews wouldn't use the word "closed"; perhaps "sabotaged" or "vandalized"... you can see that conversation would go nowhere useful, at great speed.


 * Some-language Wikinewses do suffer from a visibility problem. This, however, is English Wikinews.  We have about fifty thousand followers on Facebook; we're listed by Google news as a news site; and we have university journalism professors sending their students to us to learn about hard news.  We do need to make what we do work better, so it's more practical for us and becomes a viable path for other-language Wikinewses to follow, and we're working on things to make that happen.


 * Amongst our various strengths, we can indeed be a highly effective way to get greater exposure for (newsworthy) stories that the English-language msm (mainstream media) isn't attending to. Foreign sources are difficult for us to work with, though, and I can see that's one of the challenges facing your synthesis article that I'm now reviewing.  --Pi zero (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you intend to pursue publication of the interview? --Pi zero (talk) 12:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Bildkonst Upphovsrätt i Sverige (BUS) v. Wikimedia Sverige
Okay, I've reviewed this. The key known problem is that it's not presented in the form of a news article; I elaborate in my review comments. This may well be the sort of article where there will be further layers of problems that aren't visible until after earlier layers; we'll just have to see. I did note in the review comments, that if we're having trouble getting the synthesis article into shape, we may want to separate out the problem of verifying the material, which is needed for its use in the interview regardless of the synthesis article's fate. --Pi zero (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The article has been published. I felt we could have done more with the subject if not distracted by the current review overload and the inevitable challenges of your first en.wn article; I'm aware those distractions couldn't be avoided, but I do regret them nonetheless.


 * A detail I'd like your feedback on quickly: the supreme court document says &mdash; I believe &mdash; clearly that they decided to hear the case on Monday rather than on Tuesday.  Is this your understanding?  Where did you get the Tuesday date?  We can only make changes that affect the substance of an article during the first 24 hours after its publication; after that, if there's anything factually wrong in the article we would issue a correction.  (Nobody likes to issue a correction; it's quite deliberate that the template is ugly.  We're proud that we do issue them whenever they're called for; but we try very hard to make sure they aren't called for.)


 * Another thing: I didn't find anything in any of the sources to indicate both parties had requested a hearing by the supreme court.  If you want to restore that information, tell me where I missed it or provide sourcing for it, but again, it can only be done during the first 24 hours after publication.


 * The next step is to try to do something with the interview; I'll comment on that at the interview collaboration page, where I'm aware you've pinged me. --Pi zero (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)