Wikinews talk:Newsworthiness

Expansion

Following some [not so] recent discussions at the policy WC, i've decided to take a hack at trying to determine what is "newsworthy" enough for inclusion here. I think it's important to have this, to avoid future confusion over our definition of newsworthiness. Please feel free to change or remove stuff you disagree with (but please bring the issue over here). Tempodivalse [talk] 04:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Essay status

Recently, "newsworthiness" has been part of the criteria to publish news articles, yet this is still an "essay". What's the point of enforcing the "newsworthiness" if it's still an essay? Will it retain the "essay" status? --George Ho (talk) 04:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

An essay can be about something that's enforced. A lot of documentation on Wikinews has lesser status than the thing it documents; best not to underestimate important principles based on the status of pages describing them. Newsworthiness has always been part of the criteria to publish news articles. The community spend many years slowly thrashing out how to articulate the principles involved.

That said, it's probably reasonable by now to promote this to a guideline; in practice it's heavily relied upon. --Pi zero (talk) 05:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

On reflection, I'm a little concerned about instruction creep. Some things described here are policy, others are guideline or simply convention. --Pi zero (talk) 05:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Then you need a consensus to promote the essay to a "guideline" status. Right now, I see many people becoming increasingly frustrated with a very low monthly amount of published articles. Also, how can consensus be achieved with the very low community here? --George Ho (talk) 07:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

The best way this can be helped is if each one of us writes one story a week. This can be your own or this can be picking on someone else's draft that just appeared in the newsroom and is newsworthy. --Gryllida (chat) 08:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

On the other hand, maybe the whole page should be written from scratch in order to retain the essay status. --George Ho (talk) 07:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the way the page is written; seriously, it's a high-quality document.

"many people becoming increasingly frustrated"? Nah, newcomers being frustrated is a constant on any project that maintains standards (it happens on Wikipedia too, but they get away with it partly by —come to think of it— unconscious misdirection, channeling that frustration into discussions that ultimately contribute to the project's toxic social atmosphere). Well, that, plus also-usual flak from off-project factions that lack tolerance for projects that work differently than theirs do. News production is hard, which is part of what makes it worth doing (that was demonstrated by the project fork a few years ago, which died of insufficiently high standards).

Moreover, though, I'm not proposing any change in the status of the principles involved; I only meant to suggest a change in the status of the page, which describes things ranging from, as mentioned, policies to conventions. Anyone who doesn't take pages such as this, or WN:PILLARS, seriously because they're called "essays" is missing the point. So the more I think about it, the more it seems we're better off leaving it as-is. --Pi zero (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

There is w:template:Supplement, but it's used as clarification for one of existing rules there. It can be copied here, right? --George Ho (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Re whether a typical Wikipedia template can be used here, I know of three positions: no, because the licenses are incompatible; yes, because the license difference doesn't apply to code (that position sounds hinky to me); yes, because simple templates are below the level of originality for copyright to kick in anyway. However, this [supplement thing] strikes me as rather bureaucratic. And, not thoroughly vetted by the community is clearly wrong in this case. That's an argument in favor of just changing the tag here to acknowledge this is, in fact, a guideline. --Pi zero (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I would support such a change: that is, to mark this as a guideline (or a policy). I personally consider this a well written, concise and enforced document. --Gryllida (chat) 06:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Policy

@Pi zero, George Ho: If we want to elevate this to policy, it needs careful consideration and to put forward for consensus from Wikinewsies. --SVTCobra 20:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I see that the template has just policies underneath the three. What about "Wikinews:Style guide" (guideline), which is included in Template:Policy nav1? --George Ho (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. Something to ponder. --SVTCobra 20:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The name of the template is simplified; it does say 'policies and guidelines'. This page is descriptive on about the same level as the style guide; I think it's happy where it is. --Pi zero (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)