Wikinews:Water cooler/policy/archives/2024/March

Marking articles stale
Can only reviewers mark articles awaiting review as stale? I don't see where that is explicitly stated in policy. If not, I could help at least reducing the list by marking abandoned articles as such and recommending Gatwicking. Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 15:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No, anyone can do that. That would be a great help. Heavy Water (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I know original reporting gets more leeway in the review system as far as when they're considered abandoned vs stale, etc. What is the general consensus on keeping them in the queue when we don't have enough active reviewers to work through it and the original review request date is significantly past? For example, the article titled Latin American expedition of Viktor Pinchuk: meeting with the traveler took place in Yalta was written and added to the queue in December and has not been edited in three weeks. The original editor has had similar articles on the same topic published (meaning it isn't merely a drive-by article). There are also notes in the Collaboration page, which also lends credibility.


 * In situations like that, should the OR articles remain in the queue for a reviewer to address? Or is there a rule-of-thumb that can be followed by non-reviewers to help manage the queue?


 * Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 15:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)


 * If memory serves, there is an 'official' answer to this question.... I just can't remember it/find it at present. In terms of OR, I'm just thrilled to see anyone doing good OR these days, and have been bending the rules SEVERELY in terms of freshness this week -- but we might need to dig into that a bit more. We just simply must maintain our focus: This is a news organization... and we need news.--Bddpaux (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'll continue to leave OR in the queue and let a reviewer manage them until we get clarity on how to officially proceed. Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 23:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

This is probably about 3 inches outside the bounds of 'policy', but.......
....it has been on mind for a long time. Some contributors (and it makes me laugh) will submit an 11-sentence article, that has 9 sources (and I'm not exaggerating).... What gives with that? Any ideas?--Bddpaux (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * When I overdo it with sources, it's partly out of a feeling of defensiveness—the need to defend every fact, else it get's removed by a reviewer. More than once I've been told to reduce the number of sources I list. I also like to share sources I've used, that have helped me understand a topic. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 23:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Editorials
Would Wikiversity consider allowing editorials? I mentioned this in one of my replies on an opinion page: Without at least some analysis, so much media (not necessarily here) amounts to propaganda laundering because it merely passes along what is said at press releases, by politicians, pundits, and so forth with the air of "objectivity". If Wikinews is an independent project there should be no problem with allowing for some critical viewpoints to counterbalance the distortions, half-truths, euphemisms and misrepresentation that come from so many official sources. AP295 (talk) 04:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The perceived failure of WikiNews can be attributed to its restriction to news reporting alone, which, compared to other projects, leads to a significant loss of value. By limiting itself to content that is easily replaceable, WikiNews has experienced a substantial decrease in both brand value and user engagement, ultimately resulting in a loss of market share. In contrast, Wikivoyage allows users to contribute travel diaries, aligning with the idea that supports a more inclusive approach. By allowing community contributions and embracing a more diverse range of content, WikiNews has the potential to be revitalized and become a more outstanding media platform. Reintroducing the original Wiki proposal for this project, which was initially rooted in the idea of collaboration and synergy with blogging, could further support its revival. Kitabc12345 (talk) 01:07, 25 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The problem is as I've stated. Speaking generally, news media has become a tool of the government and various corporate interests. It observes and reports upon them selectively, passing along information from sources that aren't impartial to begin with. "All the news that's fit to print." The rest? Well that's all just misinformation, allegedly. I am glad you seem to agree with allowing editorials, they're sorely needed. My policy suggestions (and sometimes even my suggestions to follow policy) are often ill-received. We have every right to expect salience and truth, to demand it, and sometimes that comes in the form of an opinion rather than primary or secondary accounts of events that are choreographed in the first place. AP295 (talk) 04:38, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Due to editorial limitations, maintaining a neutral and collaborative approach becomes challenging for WikiNews in the long term. Establishing an independent media platform would provide greater freedom to express diverse opinions and foster public discourse? Despite potential opposition, I strongly believe this suggestion greatly benefits WikiNews' plans. It's important to note that including editorials does not necessarily contradict our policy of neutrality or that of the media industry, as they can also be presented in a neutral manner. Kitabc12345 (talk) 10:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It does contradict neutrality, but there shouldn't be a policy of neutrality in the first place. In that context, "neutrality" is a debasement of "impartiality". I should have realized this sooner, it's a big one. "Fair" may even be a better word than "impartial" here. AP295 (talk) 11:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * But thanks, I realized something important. AP295 (talk) 11:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikinews has deemed editorials to be completely incompatible with our neutral point of view policy. Editorials are for better or worse, opinion pieces. Opinions can be very pointed when it comes to news. SVTCobra 16:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The policy is what should be changed. Excluding editorial work is precisely the same as saying that there's no need for critical discourse or social critique. Large news organizations seem to retain this prerogative in various forms. Wikinews should as well. Isn't it rather unbecoming for wikinews to turn its nose up at editorial submissions when it's on its last legs, and at a time when independent editorialization is actually quite rare and becoming rarer? AP295 (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This has been debated in the past. I understand where you are coming from. The other problem is that anybody can edit articles. If you submit an independent editorial, but another editor doesn't like your slant or 'take' on the subject, can they just change it? Can you then change it back? Can a third person add a different perspective? It is extremely difficult to have a collaborative editorial. Imagine the heated edit-wars which could result from an editorial about the current Israel–Hamas war. Who will be the arbiter of what is "independent" and "fair"? To change the policy, a new policy specifically covering editorials would have to be formulated and gain a broad consensus. We barely have the active user-base to gain consensus on a simple deletion request. Also, it would be such a fundamental change to neutrality, we may need to seek WMF approval to implement it. SVTCobra 18:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Here are some of the past discussions. There may be others in the archives.
 * Wikinews:Opinion articles poll
 * Water_cooler/proposals/Archive/7
 * Water_cooler/policy/Archive/15
 * SVTCobra 18:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Why must an editorial be collaborative? This hardly seems like much an obstacle. Naturally the author of any given piece would have the final say on what goes into it. This is pretty much standard practice on Wikiversity. They call it a collaborative effort, and it is to some degree, but I'd never edit someone's resource (except perhaps to undo vandalism) without talking to them on the discussion page first. For the most part people stick to their own resources unless they're invited or given permission, with a few exceptions. The same general convention of proprietorship would apply to editorials as well. If someone disagrees with the opinion in an editorial, let them write and publish their own editorial instead of changing or censoring something that isn't theirs. Entirely reasonable, no? AP295 (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what goes on at Wikiversity, but collaboration is at the heart of the entire Wiki-vision, no? I agree, it is difficult (if not impossible) to have collaborative editorials. I do not know what exactly you mean by "resources" in this context. Here's what Meta has about this project: Wikinews. But do you envision any limits to what constitutes an editorial? Can someone opine that the Earth is flat? Should someone be allowed to argue that Russia's special military operation is indeed to eradicate Nazis in Ukraine? Surely, there must be some form of review before publishing. I am all for a debate on this, but I currently see too many roadblocks. Cheers, SVTCobra 20:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "I have no idea what goes on at Wikiversity" Hence my explanation, to which I'll add that "resource" is wikiversity's jargon for "article", for reasons perhaps best known to whoever decided on it. "collaboration is at the heart of the entire Wiki-vision" I don't see how this rhetorical statement precludes a basic convention of respect for other's work. Clearly it's a non-issue. If an author starts an editorial, one would ask their permission on the corresponding talk page if they want to contribute, otherwise one can write one's own editorial. "Surely, there must be some form of review before publishing." Yes, surely. Why is that a problem? AP295 (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You haven't addressed some of my specific examples. How far can "independent" views go? As far as the review process, if I review it, am I just checking spelling and grammar? Or am I agreeing it is 'fair'? Do we need a disclosure at the top of these editorials that they are the opinion of a particular editor? I am trying to tell you that this is more of a Pandora's box than you realize. Hopefully, the flag will bring in some other people to comment on your suggestion. Cheers, SVTCobra 21:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "How far can "independent" views go?" Isn't that the job of the reviewer? If a submission doesn't violate the UCoC, then the reviewer can use their own judgement, respecting that it's an editorial. Articles involving "flat earth" and other obvious falsehoods are not a difficult call. Wikinews already reviews articles. "Do we need a disclosure at the top of these editorials that they are the opinion of a particular editor?" Only if you don't think readers will know what "editorial" means. AP295 (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the last I will say until others speak. Reviewers are not infallible and everyone has a POV. If I, as a reviewer, happen to be pro-Trump or pro-Biden, I might be inclined to allow editorials I agree with and fail others. (In truth, I hope I can be more objective than that.) But I hope you can see the problem. As far as "flat earth" is concerned, it may be an obvious falsehood to you and me, but others genuine believe it. And while that may be an extreme case of 'false vs true', there are other subjects where that gap narrows. SVTCobra 22:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I presume Wikinews reviewers are halfway competent and make a reasonable effort, though you seem doubtful. Perfection isn't necessary. None of these hypothetical issues stop other newspapers and websites, so it's absurd to say this won't work on wikinews until the policy has been tried. There's no question that independent editorials and critique are socially important. At present they're as endangered as they are valuable, and that's bad news. AP295 (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I said I wouldn't reply, but you got me. I do not know if you are based in the US or elsewhere. If you are familiar with US politics, you need not look any further than Fox News and MSNBC. One could consider their editorials 'fair' or 'radical propaganda', depending on one's viewpoint. Did you bother to look at the old discussions I listed? Have you heard the expression, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"? Maybe Wikiversity doesn't draw controversial topics like the news does. On Wikinews we have people questioning the bias of an obituary for John Paul II from 18 years ago. SVTCobra 23:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * "One could consider their editorials 'fair' or 'radical propaganda', depending on one's viewpoint." Yet they're still allowed to have their say, and on national TV no less. Shouldn't the rest of us? Political mass media in the USA is ersatz. I've written about it elsewhere and if you're interested I'll link it. I don't have time to read your links now, but if you really think I should I'll give them a look. "On Wikinews we have people questioning the bias of an obituary for John Paul II from 18 years ago." So what? AP295 (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "Yet they're still allowed to have their say, and on national TV no less. Shouldn't the rest of us?" We do, don't we? You can post you views on Twitter (cough X), on Facebook, on Tumblr, or any other freely available site. Most of them indulge in opinionated views. "So what" you say, well, this was not even an editorial. You would have Wikinews join the maelstrom of biased op-eds? I don't disagree with you that it could increase engagement, but I wouldn't want to put any of this content on the main page except perhaps a link to an editorial section. SVTCobra 00:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

So much social media garbage is just that. The salient observations and comments that do exist are buried under marketing and PR propaganda. People are not likely to find good critique even if they try. High-quality social critique is underrepresented and grossly so. It has been for a long time, and wikinews can do something about it. Don't you trust your own reviewers to make good judgement calls? I just looked at your links and they're about what I expected. I've already addressed much of the opposing argument, if not all of it. In fact for some time now I've been accumulating material for an essay on why the word "opinion" should not be viewed with contempt, and who might stand to gain from loading it with negative connotations. Mass media need people to sneer at the very idea, because (regardless of partisan association) they largely exist to launder propaganda. Their reporting may be factual and largely free of editorial, but often they're simply the conduit by which so much humbug, propaganda and falsehoods told by others reach the public. In order for this swindle to work, the public must have a very low opinion of opinion itself, and they presumably set many contemptible examples, of course not in such a way that you'd attribute them to "the news", which must be thought of as factual and objective, or perhaps neutral. We are encouraged to consider opinion as the diametric opposite to fact. Yet there's no real reason to sneer at the very idea of opinion, less reason still to consider it inferior to the information mass media delivers. We must have editorials. AP295 (talk) 00:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * AP295, I urge you to consider this: You have no experience with en.wn, and thus no accumulated reputation on this, a project where never assuming makes accumulated reputation a cornerstone of project social interactions, insisting on a radical change to en.wn neutrality, and by extension en.wn as a whole. I'm not engaging in ad hominem; it's just that people who aren't experienced with the project have their opinions given less weight because their inexperience means they're both less likely to understand it and haven't accumulated a reputation yet. And to me it looks like you're providing more and more evidence to support the conclusion you don't understand how the project currently works.
 * To be fair, I'm not sure if you read anything on en.wn's NPOV beyond WN:NPOV, which Wikinewsies have recognized for at least more than a decade as an inaccurate representation of what NPOV really means here, more accurately described by WN:Neutrality (please note en.wn essays != en.wp essays in acceptance; much of widely-accepted en.wn convention isn't written, and some of what is isn't set in stone tablets policies or guidelines, but is written in essays).
 * Your response of "obvious falsehoods are not a difficult call [for the reviewer of the editorial]" to SVTCobra's question about limits seems absurdly naïve, as does your later statement "I presume Wikinews reviewers are halfway competent and make a reasonable effort" and thus can determine limits. Seriously? If you're going to make a proposal like this, you can't just make cavalier hand-wave statements effectively amounting to "we'll cross that bridge when we come to it" to a question about the fundamental viability of the proposal. In modern times, we're hardly ever mired in lengthy disputes over articles being "POV" largely because of the authority granted to the reviewer in evaluating an article &mdash; a mandate rooted in their upholding of Wikinews policies, unwritten practices, etc. In the system you envision that mandate would be uprooted in relation to editorials because the reviewer would be forced to make judgements based on their personal views about a topic instead of based on those conventions. It's worth noting all the discussions SVTCobra linked to were from long before the modern peer review system was introduced (around mid-2008 depending on how one defines it), during an era of self-publication.
 * "None of these hypothetical issues stop other newspapers and websites, so it's absurd to say this won't work on wikinews until the policy has been tried" &mdash; I call bullshit on the notion that it can't be obvious without a trial something other news outlets do isn't something we can. En.wn isn't any of those outlets and doesn't have the same conventions.
 * "Isn't it rather unbecoming for wikinews to turn its nose up at editorial submissions when it's on its last legs [...]?" Many people, including myself, when they're new to en.wn, have this assumption the project is dying or has never been very "successful" at all based on observing low project output as measured by article count per whatever unit of time. In short, while there have been periods in project history when there was more output than this, it's been at a similar level to this for a few years now. A steady egress of "many" (whatever that's defined as) articles is important, for sure, but so is quality, and we should never, in my opinion, feel pressured to make a radical change to the project or somehow loosen quality control just because we "aren't publishing enough articles". In fact, it is, or at least used to be a commonly-held belief on en.wn loosening standards based on the idea of leniency allowing for more output actually reduces output in the long run because the project loses some of the idealistic striving that incentivizes people to do the difficult volunteer tasks of contributing in the first place.
 * And please, the Wikiversity analogies are mostly irrelevant to en.wn. To risk stating the obvious, these are different projects with different social structures and very different missions. Heavy Water (talk) 07:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * When I read between the lines, the only concrete objection is that you doubt your reviewers can handle the task of reviewing editorials. I suppose you'd know better than I how capable they are. You gave them review privileges. Since you don't seem keen on the idea I'll take your reply to mean "no, we're not going to do that". It's your project so I cannot insist that you do anything and I will drop the issue if you want me to. That said, I think I've made a lay-down case in everything I've written so far that it's well worth it to permit some social and political critique along with the rest of the news, and that this should be a matter of course rather than considered a dubious "radical" measure. If someone makes this suggestion in the future, please cite this discussion as well. AP295 (talk) 11:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, "I don't want to do that and I think it wouldn't be good for the project" was my intended message; I obviously neither can nor want to prevent others from making their own judgements. Heavy Water (talk) 16:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any harm in upgrading the agreement. There seems to be no problem between Wikipedia's upgrade from 3.0 to 4.0? All content is automatically upgraded, because we did not switch the copyright license to other restrictions, but only adopted the updated protocol. On the contrary, upgrading to 4.0 for news actually has great benefits because many free projects (other news agency website projects) have adopted the CC B Y4.0 guidelines. We can't copy the content of those free projects, which is quite annoying. Kitabc12345 (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to publish it in the wrong place. If you want me to say something, I don't think the editorial can do it for the current system and practice of Wikinews. So it's not good either do that things for projects even now. Kitabc12345 (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @AP295 185.71.135.180 (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Editorials are... difficult. They aren't very compatible with Wikinews as a project and as an idea. I can't see how allowing editorials will bring anything good with this platform. Allowing editorials probably won't drive many more people to the site and they have a big risk of being misused. On top, it's difficult to review an editorial that you don't agree with. The current review process leaves no room for it. Ash Thawley (talk) (calendar) 05:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I can see that this is a non-starter, and it doesn't exactly surprise me. Yet there's no reason why an editorial cannot be objective and insightful. Neutrality and consensus are grossly overrated here and on most projects (though I understand their ostensible role in the editing process on other Wikis). Hitchens once wrote an amusing play on words, "the truth cannot lie, but if it could, it would lie somewhere in between." Most often it's the way the people interpret the news that's wrong. Editorials would allow genuine critique and discourse to occur. A few good editorials and a bunch of rubbish editorials would still be better than news that can only pass along what officials and pundits say. I see that it's not going to happen here, yet I object to the insinuation that opinion or critique is somehow a diametric opposite to "fact" or should be considered as simply a debasement of the information it's based upon. AP295 (talk) 08:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There are some smart, even evocative words written in this discussion. However, a guiding principle at this project (however one wants to play Sushi chef with the term) is, Neutral Point of View. I always try to bring these discussions back to that. It is much like the concepts of 'random' and 'reliability' in research. On paper, those are very concrete things, but in practice, they are slippery little critters! NPOV can absolutely be the very same way. We report on DISCRETE NEWS EVENTS here... that is it, nothing more.--Bddpaux (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "However, a guiding principle at this project (however one wants to play Sushi chef with the term) is, Neutral Point of View. I always try to bring these discussions back to that." Question begging. Take my comments as a critique of NPOV if you like. AP295 (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I certainly have and will continue doing so -- tiny sticky wicket: (I get my knickers in a twist when people refer to English WN as a failure, so there is a twinge of bias in that regard) -- consider this: Were you aware that, in time past, a University communications department undergrad. professor [I believe the University of Wollongong]used this project as a laboratory for his young Journalism majors? e.g. 'You have to get 1 article published on that platform to pass this class.' Additionally, a grad. student (Laura Hale) some years back did some INCREDIBLE coverage involving piles of OR on the Paralympics? That was good coverage, BTW. Just a few tidbits in that regard.--Bddpaux (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how any of that relates to the discussion. AP295 (talk) 06:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Policy regarding posts on opinions sections of published articles
This post on the opinions tab of an article is relatively off-topic. Is there any policy regarding the "Opinions" tab of articles? The opinion was posted by an IP account and is the first and currently only post by the account. It smells like vandalism but it could be legit. Any thoughts or links to existing policy? Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 18:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete that garbage. This isn't an open forum for cranks to whine about nonsense. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yep. Pure garbage. There is (I think) a policy somewhere. The opinions are (if memory serves) suppose to focus on opinions about the quality of the article etc., not trailing way off too much about the topic therein.--Bddpaux (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There are effectively no policies governing the comments namespace. There was one that was written up when the namespace was first introduced in 2007, but it was never adopted, and a suggestion to revamp and adopt it in 2015 never went anywhere either. From time to time, admins have seen fit at their own discretion to delete gibberish, extremely off-topic comments (the banner at the top of commentary pages says comments need to remain on-topic, but actual enforcement isn't strict), and the like &mdash; and of course threats, harassment, or spam should certainly be removed. I recall one incident where an admin deleted a similarly ludicrous and conspiratorial comment they deemed to be disinformation, but reversed course after another objected. An example often given to demonstrate the depth of the community's tolerance on this was how when BRS interviewed a neo-Nazi in 2008, neo-Nazis were allowed to advocate their views on the comments page (and be mocked for them). Heavy Water (talk) 03:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll see if I can dig up an old conversation to read. The search for the keyword "opinions" is, as one can imagine, not very helpful. That article by BRS certainly generated a lot of back-and-forth. @@ Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 13:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * and, frankly: I'm guilty of rarely even looking at the Opinions page on most article.--Bddpaux (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This is the proposed policy I was talking about: Comment Space (I'd forgotten BRS went over it in 2011). Plus these discussions. Heavy Water (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)