Wikinews:Water cooler/policy
Page last updated: Tuesday 10 at 0540 UTC.
|
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
January 2024 |
Policies and guidelines and the Style guide contain or link to most of the current en.Wikinews policies and guidelines, however policy is based on the accepted practices of the day on Wikinews, often these might not be written down. This section of the Water cooler focuses on discussions regarding policy issues.
You may wish to check the archives to see if a subject has been raised previously.
Heave your say and comments
editRecently, I've noticed that some published articles are missing the {{Have your say}} template, which I believe is optional. But, without this template, won't the corresponding "Comment:" namespace page be abandoned? Since the comment page is linked through this template, it might not be easily accessible otherwise. As far as I know, there aren't any specific guidelines about whether to use it or not, but I believe it has been a long-followed tradition. Wikinews:Article layout in a nutshell#What have you now got?. --Asked42 (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, it is needed I think. Does this omission correlate with a particular reviewer? Could be bug on a particular browser or script setup. Gryllida (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- It’s likely these articles weren’t created using one of the “Write an article” fields, which preload Template:New_page and include all required elements. You can see in some cases, the "Have your say" template is absent from the beginning, which doesn't happen if one uses one of the "Write an article" fields.
- I’ve overlooked this myself in the past and added the template afterward, without considering the impact to the associated “Comments” page.
- This touches a broader issue we’ll eventually need to address—how to phase out LiquidThreads once we have enough active users and consensus to do so. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 21:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- I think there is a fundamental problem with Have Your Say/Comments. Because of the auto-generation, the red is always turned to blue. I think it would be better not to do this. Because most articles receive no comments, the blue link could indicate those few times when another person has spoken and therefore conversation is possible. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hello,
- 1) The 'have your say' template is added when creating a new draft. This isn't added by the reviewer. If some articles are missing it, it's because they started with some other process than this.
- 2) Edits to the template are welcome. I would probably suggest 'Be the first to comment' as wording, rather than red links. Red links are pretty rare in Wikinews published stories.
- Regards, -- Gryllida (talk) 09:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- If changing it is going to be a big deal no matter what... In most published news, are the comments only accessible by switching to a new page? Not always. If we want people to comment, we need to let them know there are other people there to talk to. Why not make comments visible on the same screen? Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
Reaffirming Core Policies: Verification, Copyright, and Neutrality Over Speed
editI would like to raise serious concerns about the decision to publish the article titled "Competitive local elections held in England." In the initial review, later described by the reviewer as a "pass," the reviewer explicitly stated, "I haven't verified everything." Publishing unverified content is a direct violation of core Wikinews policy, as is knowingly allowing copyright violations. This article was published despite containing instances of unverified information, copyright violations, and non-neutral language. These actions undermine three of the project's core pillars: verification, neutrality, and copyright compliance.
I believe we need to re-prioritize adherence to these pillars over the speed of publication. With so few active reviewers, our capacity to quickly identify and correct mistakes is limited. That makes it all the more important that we focus on getting it right the first time.
Reviewers should also not be expected to fix everything alone. Authors also have a responsibility to rigorously check their work for neutrality, sourcing, and originality before submitting for review. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 18:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- I want to take a moment to sincerely thank both reviewers and contributors for the noticeable improvement in our collective approach to maintaining high editorial standards on Wikinews. Since these problems were identified and we started a course-correction, I’ve seen a significant reduction in problematic phrasing in submitted articles, which speaks to the diligence and commitment of our community. This progress is a testament to our shared dedication to upholding the core pillars of verification, neutrality, and copyright compliance. Let’s keep this momentum going and continue to work together to produce accurate, reliable, and high-quality journalism. Thank you all for your hard work!
- I’d also like to encourage all contributors to review the proposed guideline at WN:Plagiarism and share your thoughts and suggestions at Wikinews talk:Plagiarism. Your feedback is invaluable in ensuring our policies and guidelines reflect the standards we collectively expect. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 13:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- That was worded funny. I would suggest reaching out to individual users whose writing improved, on their talk pages. They do not all read this page. Gryllida (talk, live chat) 20:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Request from Role account for policy exception
editI'd like to open a discussion regarding the account Forealid, which is a Role account used by a team promoting the work of artist Ali DAMICHE (also known as ALI D / FOREALID). Under current policy, the use of Role accounts is discouraged unless explicitly permitted by community consensus:
The community may, by consensus, grant exceptions for specific role accounts. This is expected to be infrequent. — WN:ROLE
The stated purpose of this account is to submit content related to the artist’s work. However, this raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest under WN:COI, as the account appears to be promotional in nature. The article submitted by the account titled "ALI D (FOREALID) begins shooting new film after VEVO debut" is based largely on social media posts and lacks sourcing from independent, reputable news outlets. Its tone also leans promotional rather than journalistic.
The article does not clearly establish why this event matters now. Starting production on a film, especially without details such as title, plot, cast, or distribution, does not inherently constitute a news event unless it has significant public interest or impact.
Before proceeding with further contributions from this account or a full review of the draft article, we should determine whether the community supports an exception to the Role account policy in this case.
Input is welcome on whether the use of this account aligns with our editorial standards and whether an exception should be granted. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 15:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- I was contacted off-wiki by the account via email seeking guidance on how to ensure their articles align with Wikinews standards. My response summarized the public policy and linked them back to the ongoing community discussion for transparency. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 14:01, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- They need an account for each person. Role accounts are not allowed by policies. It may be a good idea to ask someone to confirm on Meta. Gryllida (talk, live chat) 20:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- Gryllida, thank you for your input. While I appreciate your engagement on this issue, I’d like to clarify that decisions about role accounts exemptions are not made unilaterally. As per WN:ROLE, an exemption may be granted if the community supports it. This means we should discuss and decide together, rather than taking individual actions.
- Of course, @Forealid could choose to create individual accounts on their own and notify us here that this exercise isn’t necessary, which would likely be faster and easier.
- In the meantime, let’s allow the discussion to continue and give others the opportunity to contribute. Thanks for your understanding. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 13:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- It was not my decision. It was my note based on my understanding of policy. (I am disappointed that it was not obvious from what I wrote. Your interpretation sounds insulting to me.) Seeing that your understanding differs, would you have access to examples of role accounts being approved in the past? Gryllida (talk, live chat) 10:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
- In the meantime, let’s allow the discussion to continue and give others the opportunity to contribute. Thanks for your understanding. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 13:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- I have not stated my opinion either way yet. I would like to hear other opinions before sharing my own. I will say (as I alluded to above) that the contributions made by the account so far have amounted to promotional content, which is forbidden by our WN:COI policy.
- Therefore, even if the community decides to allow a role account in this case (which is allowed by our policy), then all contributors to that role account must understand and abide by our PaGs.
- Regarding your comment about policies, I think there might be some confusion. Role accounts are not strictly prohibited by our policy. Exemptions are expressly permitted if the community agrees. And even with exemptions, role accounts must still comply with PaGs. That’s where my understanding may differ from yours. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 16:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Clarifying category creation standards
edit- Note: See lengthy discussion about improving our category scheme here: Wikinews:Water cooler/proposals#Categories
The commonly cited "3–5 published articles" minimum for creating a new category does not appear to be grounded in any current policy or guideline.
The historic Wikinews:Categories and topic pages proposal has no mention of a required article minimum and in fact encourages creation of specific location and topic categories as needed.
Wikinews:Categories (a draft essay by Pi zero) also does not reference any minimum threshold. It contains no community discussion and focuses on categorization mechanics, not limitations.
The only known reference to a 3–5 article threshold appears in WN:Archive: "Once a topic, such as a city or politician, has three to five relevant articles, a category should be created..." However, this statement:
- Appears in a policy about archival procedures, not category creation policy.
- Suggests a point at which category creation becomes necessary, not a restriction on earlier creation.
- Does not prohibit creating categories in anticipation of future use or to aid organization.
I propose clarifying our categorization guidance to reflect that early or anticipatory category creation is acceptable when it improves organization, navigation, or supports planned coverage, while still encouraging responsible and judicious use.
Current policy text:
- Once a topic, such as a city or politician, has three to five relevant articles, a category should be created and added to relevant articles.
Proposed policy update:
- Once a topic, such as a city or politician, has three to five published articles, a category should be created and applied to those articles.
- This guideline is intended to assist administrators in identifying when a new category is warranted during the archival process. However, nothing in this policy prohibits editors from creating categories earlier when doing so improves navigation, supports anticipated coverage, or contributes to better article organization.
- In all cases, editors are encouraged to use discretion and ensure the category is relevant, appropriate in scope, and likely to be reused.
Lastly, in practice, only administrators can edit archived articles, and we currently have very few active admins. This means that relying solely on category creation during the archival process can delay basic improvements to article organization. Clarifying that editors may create appropriate categories earlier, outside of the archival workflow, could help streamline collaboration and improve navigation. I see this proposal as a small but practical step toward increasing reader retention through better article categorization and association.
Your thoughts and suggestions are appreciated. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 14:02, 23 May 2025 (UTC); edited by adding note at top 14:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- One quick thing I wanted to mention before diving into the rest of this: I still think having a dedicated page to discuss category creation (e.g. creating something like Wikinews:Water cooler/categoriesandtopics) will be helpful in the future, since the need for category creation and responsible discussion around that will likely greatly increase over time. I'm proposing this to replace the current method described at Wikinews:Content guide#Write news articles, which suggests that category-related discussion should be held at Wikinews:Water cooler/proposals. GreekApple123 (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- Strong support This is definitely a step in the right direction. All I can think of adding for now is that there are probably further ideas we can put into policy regarding categories, but let's finish discussing those at the [Water cooler/proposals] page first. GreekApple123 (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- One thing I might suggest is that this policy should encourage uniformity with Wikipedia categories (or at least articles) where possible. But at the same time, Wikinews may need more refined ways to process information, so the Wikipedia standard should be seen more like a minimum standard. GreekApple123 (talk) 16:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- Part of what also needs to be looked at is the ease of editing and moving existing categories (since part of dealing with categories is subcategorization), though I am not sure how to phrase that into a policy. GreekApple123 (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Seeking consensus on the changes to publish checklist
editPlease see Wikinews:Publish checklist and the talk page. Thanks. Gryllida (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)