Wikinews:Water cooler/assistance/archives/2017/January

Media and username in Print Edition

Hello. While I was creating the print edition today,

  1. I thought using File:HollyWEED.jpg as it would have been more informative for the article Hollywood sign modified to read 'Hollyweed'. Later, I noticed the media was nominated for deletion. This makes me wonder, is it okay to have a free image for print edition which is different from the one on the English Wikinews article? Or will it cause unnecessary complications?
  2. I noticed that a File:BujumburaFromCathedral.jpg used on the article Gunman kills Burundi environment minister Emmanuel Niyonkuru was uploaded by User:SteveRwanda. But the user is now known as User:Amakuru. Which username should I mention on the print edition. (I feel I should use the latest name. What if a new account was created which has the previous username of the original author? But, in the summary template, the old username is mentioned.)
  3. This time, I have also authors of the media to their website/Flickr page/Commons Page. I don't know if it is a good idea, but if we are linking it on the website, it would be good if we reflect the same in the print edition. But the question arises: What should I do if the author, a wikimedia editor does not have a userpage? Should I link to his or her contribution/media uploaded? Should I do this for all authors on Wikimedia?
    Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 19:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I want to credit a wikimedian author who doesn't have a user page, I link to their Special:Contributions. I've used different styles to credit flickr authors, but since all-in-all I'd rather not link externally, lately I've given the name unlinked and then added ({{w|flickr}}) after it. --Pi zero (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All of these are good questions. With the first, I'd say we should stick with whatever image(s) were used in the article unless a good reason not to arises. Your example raises a good reason, a much better image became available. Although it turned out the better version was deleted, but had the new image been okay than I don't see why we shouldn't use it.
To the second, it's more subtle than that. SteveRwanda/Amakuru has not changed how they are credited on the Commons file description. I did check the userpage for, say, a full name we could use. Of course, the subtlety is lost in the print version, which is a problem. (More on this in my comment to your third question.)
As for the third, touching also on the second, we don't actually have any particular house style for credits. Maybe we should. As this conversation shows, they aren't as straightforward as you'd expect. Probably it should be a guideline rather than a hard policy, to cover any future unusual cases. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 13:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Using The Independent

In the Terms and Conditions of The Independent's website says that "Your promise to us The Website and the Content may only be used for your personal, non-commercial use." One needs to agree to the T&C while creating an account, but we use The Independent as a source, to verify facts. Does this, in any way, violate the T&C since we do not have a non-commercial term in the CC license. Also, we are not copying their copyrighted material — just considering the facts.
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 18:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't binding, so we're (mercifully) saved from playing around with the myriad possible interpretations. If it were, however, I'd submit that individual reviewers and writers are drawing upon it for personal noncommercial use. The works they create are new materials. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 19:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews and focal events

Please assist Sorry if this is too elementary but I like contributing here and I feel like I still don't have a good grasp on the copy and professionalism needed to write good news. With our sister projects, it's a little easier since everything is a work in progress and collaboration is assumed but here there are deadlines (even if some are slightly artificial) and there are expectations regarding the public interest, professional ethics, etc. That having been said, I would love to do some original interviews for the site but do I always have to have a specific focal event? For instance, if I were speaking to an academic about language death, that is a process which by definition has been "on-going" for millennia. Does something in particular have to hit the news cycle to publish this conversation now? What about a musician who toured with a popular act in the 1990s? Surely, he could have insights into how the industry functions today even if most of his anecdotes will be 20 years old. Thanks for indulging me. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. That's a good question, and fortunately the answer is simple: A decent interview with an interesting somebody can become its own focal event. Wikinews:Newsworthiness#Freshness discusses this to some degree. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 22:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Blood Red Sandman: So if I understand correctly, then as long as the interview is sufficiently factual, interesting, and professional, it is de facto newsworthy even if there is no particular event "in the news" as such? —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much. The interview itself is the event in the news. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 22:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]