Talk:Iranian newspaper website attacked
It's my first go at writing a newspaper article. Please criticize! Would you be so gracious as to tell me why you change the things you do?
Baffledexpert 17:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Hi and welcome! I think all sources can be in the "source-section" and only links to wikipedia in the text. I fix some so you see what I mean. Then I make some categories. :) International 20:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot. On the subject of references, I'm just changed the page and added a paragraph. My co-author, Mo, has contacted the company hosting the service, and he found that it has been a DoS attack. Baffledexpert 20:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Please forgive me if I undid your edits! Grrr. I should have looked here first.Baffledexpert 20:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- The most recent sources for this stroy are on February 7, 2006 and the oldest is December of 2005. If sources cannto be found that are recent to the story, then It should NOT be published under todays date as it is very old news. Jason Safoutin 20:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- I might agree with you, but Mo, my co-author, did original research TODAY on the ground about the sources of this (see above). Also, is it not acceptable to post news that is more than a day old? I have in mind here some questions about journalistic responsibility-in particular the responsibility to do long term reportage. Please explain why you think it is not acceptable to cover week-old stories. Further, I posted this in the section on "Stories in Development", not today's news, because it is an ongoing story that Mo in particular is tracking carefully. I figured I was not ready for prime time. 'Stay tuned' as they say. Finally, the site is still (as of this morning) down. That, in my book, makes it current. Look, I have better things to do than enter a flame war about this, and look, as I said, it's my first post. If wikinews is only interested in news that is less than one week old (all else being 'very'(?!) old), or if it's only interested in rehashed meta-reporting, I'll go elsewhere. No problem, and no offense taken or given. I'm truly interested in knowing what the culture is around these parts. If I'm doing something inappropriate, I'd like to know, honest and truly. I welcome your considered reply about what Wikinews desires. Baffledexpert 01:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC) 01:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- I don't mean to hammer this point about timing, truly, but the BBC reported this story today, on February 16, at 16:12. That means they reported it long after us.Baffledexpert 04:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- I might agree with you, but Mo, my co-author, did original research TODAY on the ground about the sources of this (see above). Also, is it not acceptable to post news that is more than a day old? I have in mind here some questions about journalistic responsibility-in particular the responsibility to do long term reportage. Please explain why you think it is not acceptable to cover week-old stories. Further, I posted this in the section on "Stories in Development", not today's news, because it is an ongoing story that Mo in particular is tracking carefully. I figured I was not ready for prime time. 'Stay tuned' as they say. Finally, the site is still (as of this morning) down. That, in my book, makes it current. Look, I have better things to do than enter a flame war about this, and look, as I said, it's my first post. If wikinews is only interested in news that is less than one week old (all else being 'very'(?!) old), or if it's only interested in rehashed meta-reporting, I'll go elsewhere. No problem, and no offense taken or given. I'm truly interested in knowing what the culture is around these parts. If I'm doing something inappropriate, I'd like to know, honest and truly. I welcome your considered reply about what Wikinews desires. Baffledexpert 01:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC) 01:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- The most recent sources for this stroy are on February 7, 2006 and the oldest is December of 2005. If sources cannto be found that are recent to the story, then It should NOT be published under todays date as it is very old news. Jason Safoutin 20:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Please forgive me if I undid your edits! Grrr. I should have looked here first.Baffledexpert 20:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot. On the subject of references, I'm just changed the page and added a paragraph. My co-author, Mo, has contacted the company hosting the service, and he found that it has been a DoS attack. Baffledexpert 20:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
original reporting edit
Baffledexpert, read this and if everything is ok I guess you can publish your article :) International 21:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Okay. I read it and changed the tags at the bottom; is there anything else I should do? Thanks again for your help.Baffledexpert 22:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Original reporting notes edit
It appears that there has been some original reporting for this article, which is excellent. We try to place details of original reporting in a section on the talk page titled "Original reporting notes", so it is easy to find if someone wants to track down the source of a statement. Baffledexpert has said "My co-author, Mo, has contacted the company hosting the service, and he found that it has been a DoS attack." Was the contact by email? Telephone? Who was the company? Are you able to provide the contact details so that another contributor can confirm the report? - Borofkin 23:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- My colleague Mo contacted the newspaper's internet host's administrators yesterday (February 16) by telephone to confirm that it has been a DoS attack, as had been our suspicion. The hosting service is http://www.ouriran.com, and their phone number is(416) 383 0030. Thanks very much for your patience, by the way. I'll get the hang of it. I should have caught the requirements the first time. Baffledexpert 01:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)