Welcome to Wikinews
Getting started as a contributor
Welcome! Thank you for joining Wikinews; we'd love for you to stick around and get more involved. To help you get started we have an essay that will guide you through the process of writing your first full article. There are many other things you can do on the project, but its lifeblood is new, current, stories written neutrally.
All Wikimedia projects have rules. Here are ours.
Listed here are the official policies of the project, you may be referred to some of them if your early attempts at writing articles don't follow them. Don't let this discourage you, we all had to start somewhere.
The rules and guides laid out here are intended to keep content to high standards and meet certain rules the Wikimedia Foundation applies to all projects. It may seem like a lot to read, but you do not have to go through it all in one sitting, or know them all before you can start contributing.
Remember, you should enjoy contributing to the project. If you're really stuck come chat with the regulars. There's usually someone in chat who will be happy to help, but they may not respond instantly.
The core policies
Places to go, people to meet
Wiki projects work because a sense of community forms around the project. Although writing news is far more individualistic than contributing to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, people often need minor help with things like spelling and copyediting. If a story isn't too old you might be able to expand it, or if it is disputed you may be able to find some more sources and rescue it before it is listed for deletion.
There are always discussions going on about how the site could be improved, and your input is of value. Check the links here to see where you can give input to the running of the Wikinews project.
Find help and get involved
Write your first article for Wikinews!
Use the following box to help you create your first article. Simply type in a title to your story and press "Create page". Then start typing text to your story into the new box that will come up. When you're done, press "save page". That's all there is to it!
- 1 Synthesis technique
- 2 Chicago air traffic facility evacuated for basement fire
- 3 Patient under evaluation with Ebola-like symptoms in Washington D.C.
- 4 Safety improvements take place on Route 1 in College Park, Maryland
- 5 Broadcast reporting
- 6 Tools for writing
- 7 Philae space probe lands on comet
- 8 FAA: NextGen Upgrade for Washington, D.C. metro area in place for holiday travel this week
- 9 US Navy says naval laser in working order
- 10 Researchers say light signal from space suggests merging black holes
- 11 Scientists find ancient solar system in Milky Way galaxy
- 12 Delta Air Lines jetliner skids off New York airport's runway
- 13 FAA: Amazon gets experimental certificate
- 14 Plane crash in Illinois kills seven
- 15 podcast
- 16 Boeing 737 jetliner crashes in Russia and Flydubai plane crash leaves 62 dead
Hi. General principle: don't start with source passages and then modify them; that's asking for accusations of plagiary. In synthesis writing, you're looking to use information from the sources, but present it in an entirely original way. See WN:PILLARS#own. --Pi zero (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. I will try to present it in an original form. Sam.gov (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- The article is bullshit anyway. Flight recorders do not magically dematerialise upon battery expiration, making the notion they will not be found after this arbitrary time complete sensationalism based upon a false premise. See South African Airways Flight 295 (one recorder salvaged after 14mths), Air France Flight 447 (both recorders salvaged after ~3yrs), etc etc. The recorders become substantially harder to find after they cease transmitting and that is well worth trying to focus an article on, but the myth that they are somehow thereafter unrecoverable lacks any credibility. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 20:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to say that the recorders magically dematerialize; what I'm trying to say is that the can be harder to find if the beacon's battery dies. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I did put Air France Flight 447's example in the article to fix any misunderstanding and added more info. Sam.gov (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Published. Congrats! And thanks. :-) I completely get how the choice of image would happen, yet coming to the choice fresh, it just didn't come across right. Review comments, . --Pi zero (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi. This has been published. There were significant problems, which I had to address during review; I could have sent it back to you for revision, but the story would be likely to go stale pretty quickly, and I thought perhaps you could get more out of the experience by looking at what I changed and how, and reading my review comments. Review comments; . --Pi zero (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
We don't encourage it, but if you must use it, document it really extensively. If you heard something on the radio, say, when exactly did you hear it (you might even mention the circumstances under which you heard it), and how and in what form did you take notes? --Pi zero (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Tools for writingEdit
Hi. Hit a snag on this: the sources are all from the same news agency (CNN); that's the "mutually independent" part of "two mutually independent, trust-worthy sources". --Pi zero (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Pi zero, thanks for letting me know. I changed the sources to reflect independent publishers among the sources.—Sam.gov (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I thought a lot about this, while I was checking the sources. I just wasn't comfortable with an article that, all but the two paragraphs at the very bottom, comes from a press release by the FAA. In this case the single-sourcing seems particularly of concern for neutrality (which I wondered about on the earlier NextGen article, you may recall). Anyway, review comments, . --Pi zero (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Pi zero, thanks for the comments. I added the two last paragraphs and the two other sources because it talks about how the weather could also affect air travel in that region while the metroplex is in place. I'll try to fix these issues by adding more sources that also talk about the NextGen system. —Sam.gov (talk) 05:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Did get this published. I had difficulties along the way, which I've written up as best I could in my review comments. The two sources weren't as independent of each other as one would like, the paper itself wasn't linked from the article, and I particularly noted there were a bunch of passages too close to the sources. I recommend working on the distance-from-source.
I'd really have liked to hear more about why a sine-wave-like signal is an indication of a black hole merger. That would have made the article distinctly stronger. --Pi zero (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Published. Some bumps along the road, see review comments, . I changed the picture, even though your picture choice was a much nicer picture, because it seemed like these planets are small rocky and hot, so I didn't want to give the impression they'd have oceans. (Not sure if I should have changed the image, but that's what I was thinking.) --Pi zero (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
You got this submitted in good time; unfortunately, with the current glut on the review queue, it didn't get reviewed in time. :-(
I also made some other observations about the article in my review comments; I'd don't nearly a full review, despite the freshness problem, because it's such an interesting subject. A point I said little about in my review comments is that the non-government sources both mentioned Amazon wants to use drones in ways well beyond what the certificate allows on the face of it, and is doing more extensive experiences outside the US. --Pi zero (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
The notification system gives you the diff of the particular edit that pinged you, but unless that's the most recent edit on the page you have to then study the page to understand what's happened since, and then edit the most recent version of the page. Some things about that system suggest to me it was designed by someone who didn't fully understand, or perhaps care about, the practical workings of discussion using wiki markup.
Hi. It looks like another user also started an article on the same story, earlier today. I have no idea, of course, what problems that article may have (other than being maybe under-length); it hasn't been submitted for review. The writer submitted another article for review about three days ago, but it failed its first review because it prominently featured a couple of important quotes that weren't from the current event but rather from an event last month (oops), and the writer didn't attempt to revise and resubmit. Thought I'd point out the other article exists, though. --Pi zero (talk)
- @Pi zero: Thanks for pointing out the other one. I decided to abandon the under length article and leave it at that and start a new one because I accidently deleted the parameters that were automatically there in the earlier one I started. I'll see what I can do with this one. —Sam.gov (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)