User:Darkfrog24/Suggestions

This is a draft for a possible official Wikinews essay. It is discussed on the collaboration page, where the principal author welcomes comment on its contents, but it has not yet been proposed for promotion to any official status. In its current form, it is primarily a way of organizing the Wikinewsie's own thoughts and experiences.

This is an essay by one or more individuals on using and contributing to Wikinews. It contains their advice or opinions, not necessarily those of the Wikinews community. Community essays can be found here; links to official policies can be found in the Wikinews introduction.

This is an user essay, suggested by its author(s). It's not a community essay, nor a policy or guideline.

Here on Wikinews, the person who first writes the bulk of an article, here called the initial drafter, tends to play a greater role than the first major contributor to a Wikipedia article, but that does not mean the rest of the community is excluded. Per our written policies, any Wikinewsie may make almost any change to any article during the development period, but many people in our community are more comfortable suggesting changes on the talk page rather than editing someone else's draft directly. They usually expect the initial drafter to add the idea to the article. Here are few tips on how to avoid conflict surrounding talk page suggestions.

In general, development-period suggestions fall into one of several types...

The great idea This is the idea that the drafter wishes had been their own. The drafter usually implements it right away with enthusiasm and a word of congratulation to the suggester. If there is conflict, it is because what the drafter did and what the suggester was imagining turn out slightly different. If you suggest a change that the drafter loves, but what you see in the article doesn't exactly match the vision in your head, don't complain. Every action the drafter performs is by necessity his or her own version of that action. If you truly believe your version of your idea is better, remember you can always edit the draft yourself.
The factual correction This is when the initial drafter made a simple, non-subjective factual mistake or misunderstanding of Wikinews policy, like calling Puerto Rico a state or not using our correct number of sources. These can sometimes ruffle feathers but generally aren't a big deal because it is not a matter of whose opinion is better.
The research project This is clearly a good idea. Clearly. Yes, including an extra paragraph or three on this subject would make the article better but looking up extra sources necessary to do so would take more time or effort than the drafter, a volunteer, is willing to spend. Here's the thing: The suggester doesn't always know that. Especially when the drafter is covering a subject with which he or she is more familiar than the general public, the suggester might assume that information is a lot easier to get than it really is. They might not even know that it isn't in the sources already in use. So long as the article is not unpublishable without the extra content, consider saying, "The sources I've seen so far article don't happen to contain that information. Do you know of any other sources that do?" or "I don't have time to do the roughly X hours of extra research that that would involve, but I still think this is a good idea, and I certainly would not revert if someone else wanted to take initiative on it."
The indifferently good suggestion This is the suggestion that might make the article a little better but not enough to justify the extra work. The suggester either thinks this suggestion is better than it really is or just feels like suggesting something, the way someone might order food in a restaurant even if they aren't hungry. Tell the suggester they are welcome to enact their vision upon the article (so long as they do all the research, sourcing and implementation work themselves). Keeping your co-Wikinewsies feeling happy and involved is sometimes more important than producing a draft that looks just how you want it to. Let them make their mark on "your" draft. Any conflict is likely to come when the suggester expects the drafter to react as if this were a great idea (see above) and is disappointed when he or she does not.
The indifferently bad suggestion This is the suggestion that might make the article a little worse but not by enough to justify reverting it. As with mildly good suggestions, sharing ownership of the draft and making sure your fellow Wikinewsies feel included and involved is more important than creating a draft that is perfect in your own equally biased eyes. However, it is important not to make the change yourself. In the event that this turns out to be a very bad suggestion that only looked mild, "I only did this because so-and-so told me to" will not do for an excuse. Wikinews is not immune to grudges and drama, and if you make a change that you think is bad, you could be accused of disrupting Wikinews to make a point, even if you were only trying to be agreeable.
The very bad suggestion Here, the suggester wants to insert something POV or counterfactual, to insert a common misconception, use incorrect English, do something against policy or otherwise render the article no longer helpful to the reader. On Wikipedia, the thing to do would be to ignore the talk page comment completely, but Wikinews reviewers usually will not start processing an article until all collaboration page issues are addressed. Your best option as a drafter is to remember that everyone here is operating as an amateur and expecting professional work all the time is not realistic. If possible, direct the suggester to a source for facts, a reputable English language style guide, or the relevant Wikinews policy or guideline. If it's a really embarrassing mistake, do so as privately as possible. Sometimes you will do this and the suggester will continue to insist that they are right. Sometimes, you will not be able to find any resources that will convince the suggester to change their mind. In these cases, revert any blatantly incorrect change, but just once. Start a thread on the talk page, briefly explain your position, and then walk away. If you have to, allow the article to age out and start another. Do not assume your efforts were useless. Sometimes, people are unwilling to admit that they are wrong at the time but nonetheless quietly refrain from repeating the mistake. Keep any "I told you so" in your head and quietly move on.