A Wikinews article is suppsoed to be about a focal event that is fresh. The lede, as it goes about its explicit function by succinctly answering basic questions about the focus, is supposed to make it clear that the focus is newsworthy; so it has to identify a specific, fresh focal event. I'm not seeing that here. The only date mentioned in the lede is over a month ago.
The sources don't have dates on them, except the last one (which isn't listed in the style called for by the Wikinews:Style guide). The second to last one appears to be from 2010. The first two appear to be two copies of the same source with no date at all on it; there seems to be a second half, somehow, which has a date in February. The third one (having noted that the first two seems to be the same) says "March".
If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.
A Wikinews article is suppsoed to be about a focal event that is fresh. The lede, as it goes about its explicit function by succinctly answering basic questions about the focus, is supposed to make it clear that the focus is newsworthy; so it has to identify a specific, fresh focal event. I'm not seeing that here. The only date mentioned in the lede is over a month ago.
The sources don't have dates on them, except the last one (which isn't listed in the style called for by the Wikinews:Style guide). The second to last one appears to be from 2010. The first two appear to be two copies of the same source with no date at all on it; there seems to be a second half, somehow, which has a date in February. The third one (having noted that the first two seems to be the same) says "March".
If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.
When people starting making accusations and throwing insults, the function of Wikinews is to report what they're saying about each other, not to decide who's right. This headline takes sides. The text makes editorial judgements, presenting one side as "right" and the other as "wrong". It's quite possible to present the facts forcefully in a story like this without taking sides.
Honestly, I don't know whether I could fix all these problems within my purview as reviewer; perhaps I could if I were alert enough; but I do know at this moment I'm not sharp enough — I'm ready for a night's sleep, and I'm not comfortable doing so with this sitting on the review queue with these serious problems.
If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.
When people starting making accusations and throwing insults, the function of Wikinews is to report what they're saying about each other, not to decide who's right. This headline takes sides. The text makes editorial judgements, presenting one side as "right" and the other as "wrong". It's quite possible to present the facts forcefully in a story like this without taking sides.
Honestly, I don't know whether I could fix all these problems within my purview as reviewer; perhaps I could if I were alert enough; but I do know at this moment I'm not sharp enough — I'm ready for a night's sleep, and I'm not comfortable doing so with this sitting on the review queue with these serious problems.
If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.
There are two main ways for a Wikinews article to fail neutrality.
Presenting a claim, or opinion, as objective fact when Wikinews needs to remain neutral — and needs to be seen to remain neutral — on its merits. We must both be neutral and appear neutral. We commonly use the term analysis, or sometimes assessment, to describe these sorts of things that should not be presented by Wikinews as objective fact. The wonderful thing about this is that it can be fixed by attributing claims. Proper attribution allows us to report, in a visibly objective way, that somebody else main the claim/expressed the opinion. Occasionally contributes get irate because we won't let them publish some cherished belief of theirs as fact; but a visibly objective report, which they could have written, would have done more good for their cause than one that looked biased.
Biasing choice of what to present. Our task is to provide the reader with objective information, treating them as an adult capable of making intelligent judgements when given good information. Sometimes we are reporting about one side of an issue, as when we do an interview with somebody (but we should do our best to ask questions that bring out insights useful to the reader).
This article is clearly taking a position. The headline itself is obviously biased; anyone casting a skeptical eye on that headline would see it for an opinion piece. Wikinews does not publish opinion pieces. The tone of the article itself is, essentially, "X condemned Y because Y did bad things" instead of "X condemned Y, accusing Y of doing bad things". Y's guilt is presented as fact. It does no good to say that Y did bad things and then provide details to try to convince the reader; in fact, that does harm to the cause of the article and (if we published it) harm to Wikinews. We should not be trying to convince the reader, and we should not appear to try to convince the reader. We should report objectively what X said about Y, and in an obviously objective way try to provide — and be seen trying to provide — information that would naturally be wanted by an intelligent unbiased reader who was trying to understand the situation better. It appears that the sources consist of the condemnation itself and an opinion piece in support of it, plus an article used to support a paragraph arguing that Ariza is overpaid. Which looks for all the world like it's there to promote the condemnation. There are no sources about what Ariza said, only sources making the case for condemnation.
If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.
There are two main ways for a Wikinews article to fail neutrality.
Presenting a claim, or opinion, as objective fact when Wikinews needs to remain neutral — and needs to be seen to remain neutral — on its merits. We must both be neutral and appear neutral. We commonly use the term analysis, or sometimes assessment, to describe these sorts of things that should not be presented by Wikinews as objective fact. The wonderful thing about this is that it can be fixed by attributing claims. Proper attribution allows us to report, in a visibly objective way, that somebody else main the claim/expressed the opinion. Occasionally contributes get irate because we won't let them publish some cherished belief of theirs as fact; but a visibly objective report, which they could have written, would have done more good for their cause than one that looked biased.
Biasing choice of what to present. Our task is to provide the reader with objective information, treating them as an adult capable of making intelligent judgements when given good information. Sometimes we are reporting about one side of an issue, as when we do an interview with somebody (but we should do our best to ask questions that bring out insights useful to the reader).
This article is clearly taking a position. The headline itself is obviously biased; anyone casting a skeptical eye on that headline would see it for an opinion piece. Wikinews does not publish opinion pieces. The tone of the article itself is, essentially, "X condemned Y because Y did bad things" instead of "X condemned Y, accusing Y of doing bad things". Y's guilt is presented as fact. It does no good to say that Y did bad things and then provide details to try to convince the reader; in fact, that does harm to the cause of the article and (if we published it) harm to Wikinews. We should not be trying to convince the reader, and we should not appear to try to convince the reader. We should report objectively what X said about Y, and in an obviously objective way try to provide — and be seen trying to provide — information that would naturally be wanted by an intelligent unbiased reader who was trying to understand the situation better. It appears that the sources consist of the condemnation itself and an opinion piece in support of it, plus an article used to support a paragraph arguing that Ariza is overpaid. Which looks for all the world like it's there to promote the condemnation. There are no sources about what Ariza said, only sources making the case for condemnation.
If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.
As the sources stand atm (keeping in mind the press release was updated), I don't see that the press release summarized the professional communications between them, or mentioned requesting information about the research for the film, or an issue about licensing. If this is mentioned in any of the other sources, then my limited ability to cope with the Spanish text is not up to finding there, and some guidance needs to be provided to help me locate/translate it.
I've not yet tackled the in-depth source-check beyond that point. If I were able to continue the review at this time I would hold off on this point to see whether I could point out later problems at the same time; but frankly I've the limits of what I can do today, so there seemed no point in holding off asking about this.
If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.
As the sources stand atm (keeping in mind the press release was updated), I don't see that the press release summarized the professional communications between them, or mentioned requesting information about the research for the film, or an issue about licensing. If this is mentioned in any of the other sources, then my limited ability to cope with the Spanish text is not up to finding there, and some guidance needs to be provided to help me locate/translate it.
I've not yet tackled the in-depth source-check beyond that point. If I were able to continue the review at this time I would hold off on this point to see whether I could point out later problems at the same time; but frankly I've the limits of what I can do today, so there seemed no point in holding off asking about this.
If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
... were noted here. However, the comments were mostly concerned with accusing unnamed parties — on a different wikimedia project, no less — of corruption in various forms. At first I tried to simply allow the comment and note that some aspects of it were inappropriate, but the commenter responded by upping the volume of the inappropriate parts, so I've removed the comments altogether. WN:NOT#war --Pi zero (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Hi Alpha Omeg. Sorry to jump in here, but the article was published in March. You need to think of Wikinews as a newspaper. Once it is printed it can't change. The article was published with all information sourced and attributed. If those sources turned out to be false, we can write a new article with the new information. But your information is not new, either. It is already 1 or 2 months old. But most importantly, it was not available at the time that Wikinews published this article. Wikinews is NOT an encyclopedia and we do not edit our old news. It is a record of what was known at the time. I hope this comment helps. (If every source was retracted, we have a way of following suit by putting a label on the article). Cheers, --SVTCobra22:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Hi, SVTCobra. On the contrary. The present message is to protect with available sources the validity of the sources used at the time when the article was originally published, as you correctly write, March. If you go to the 'opinions' section, you will find messages that try to state that the information published was not accurate and even 'not neutral'. Nothing more false than that. The English Wikinews published totally true news months before the Spanish press did it, and a large number of 'establishment' news sources from Spain indeed did publish the same news plus complementary information on the journalist's follow up at Spanish courts. So those who tried to discredit the sources originally used where trying to trick Wikinews in order to protect the journalist's reputation. Indeed, the same article was rapidly deleted at the Spanish Wikinews website where allegedly 'Wikinews was being used to discredit the journalist'. Nothing more false and far from the true mission of an independent news source: Spanish Wikinews deleted the article breaking Wikipedia's own international rules about journalism. The case now is being presented at the Legal department of Wikimedia foundation. Thanks. --Alpha Omeg (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
There are very few facts reported in our article, although even so I'm not satisfied that I applied sufficient rigor to some of them. We're neutral on the merits of accusations either way in the matter; we're concerned with whether the accusations were made, and whether the background information we present is accurate. The merits of the accusations should not be argued on this collaboration page. --Pi zero (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
The merits of the accusations are not being argued, but the fact that the article was deleted without further explanations at Spanish Wikinews, for instance, even when the sources have been accurate beyond all doubt. The rigor applied is more than correct, since the press comuniqué is still online at Latin ACE Awards official website, for instance and basically. The accusations were made, and are made now as the official website shows no difference, and the background information we present here is accurate. English Wikinews was pioneer in this case, as we can see what happened later on in all Spanish 'establishment press'. Regarding Revista de Estudios Alicantinos, we can read there more and accurate information about the case. When the reporter pretended the demand at Spanish court was not true, in a final strategy to escape of the 'media storm' that could damage her professional name, Revista de Estudios Alicantinos published direct information about the lawyer representing the filmmaker, court documents that demonstrate the authenticity of the demand and later on even has published the name of the lawyer representing now the reporter in the cause. The problem with Revista de Estudios Alicantinos is that published before other media important information related to the case, and that's of course, was a problem for those interested in 'hiding' what happened 'for real' in the US with ACE's public condemnation after reviewing the case. Not celebrating the situation from my side, and reviewing it from a neutral POV, the question is that Wikinews English published neutrally real information, and Spanish Wikinews deleted it immediately, showing real 'lack of neutrality' and caring to avoid make known facts that were and are true. The reporter's strategy and her 'friends' or 'protectors' at Spanish Wikipedia has been trying to destroy Revista de Estudios Alicantinos' reputation, something that has been a failure. However, is very late for all that since the audience can read real in-depth information about the case thanks to fact that it has been published by Revista de Estudios Alicantinos. Thanks. --Alpha Omeg (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
