Talk:Putin delivers eighth annual address to parliament

Collaboration

I've published, maybe I should have done so before but it would have resulted in a big edit conflict as I was writing a pretty extensive story. I'm leaving it for a moment to give everyone a chance to copy-edit and merge, then I will expand it further.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks pretty good now, if you want to put the "editing" flag on and do your second expansion. --SVTCobra 16:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Reuters

SVTCobra, you changed my sources to the direct sources on the Reuters site. While I don't have a problem with this, I don't see any advantages either. It seems common practice around here to do this. Although the text is 99% identical, this might not always be the case, since newspapers rewrite the stories they by from press agencies. But most importantly, I think we should use the sources that the editors have actually read instead of the more generic press agency versions, because the sources can theoretically differ and are used for fact checking. But I admit, it is more of a theoretical concern to me.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, my thinking is two-fold. 1) who is more likely to keep the stories available 2) I know for a fact that the stories at reuters.com get updated, while on other sites they are kinda like a snap-shot (but I guess that might have its disadvantages too.) --SVTCobra 16:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, updates means that errors might be changed, and an editor could be accused of errors. I doubt major news sites would become unavailable in the future. Let's say I personally prefer this way of doing things. Sources potentially have huge implications, for example in case of a copyright lawsuit.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

scheduled-to-be-final state-of-union

To me, that sounds terrible, plus it's mentioned below, so there's no need to cram everything in one sentence.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)