Wikinews talk:Water cooler/policy/Archive/11

Press releases

Has then been any discussion regarding the use of press releases to date? Are there any guidelines for their use? I assume there're no copyright issues (press releases being in the public domain). The main reason I'm interested is because one of the most reknowned news websites in New Zealand, www.scoop.co.nz Scoop.co.nz], relies exclusively, with exception to commentary, on press releases for its source of news and publishes them verbatim. Straight from every horses mouth, no filtering, no restrictions on who is published. It doesn't get more neutral than that. And since NPOV is policy of Wikinews it seems to me that such a strategy is also in the interests of Wikinews; we could have a section where all press releases are published verbatim. Great source of news of course too. Christiaan 00:14, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any direct use of press releases. In my experience reading them (and creating them, at times), press releases are amongst the most POV things you can have. Every company claims to be "the world leader in ______", and to have invented the "most efficient _______". The core of good journalism is to never believe anything anyone says without verification. Having press releases verbatim would violate that principle. -- IlyaHaykinson 00:25, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

They're only POV if their content is published under the guise of journalistic writing. Publishing a press release verbatim does not mean the publisher believes what is said in the press release. What makes a PR NPOV is that you know exactly who is making the statement. Once a journalist starts filtering this line becomes extremely fuzzy. I'm not suggesting we publish press releases as if they're news stories, I'm suggesting we have a section that is clearly for press releases. Christiaan 08:54, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see no reason to do this, though. There are thousands of press releases daily, and none of them benefit from the nature of a Wiki. Either they are launching points for stories (in which case they are too POV, usually), or they have to be protected (and might as well be a non-wiki site elsewhere). In addition there are already sites that do this very well. I think the power of Wikinews is expressed in having humans collaborate to analyze information and present it to the readership — just listing some company or government announcements is nothing new and nothing that our users can't get elsewhere. -- IlyaHaykinson 09:02, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay, you make some good points but you don't address the fact that it's very useful as a news reader to be able to refer to press releases in order to make some of your own judgements. Press releases may not benefit from the nature of a Wiki however Wikinews is primarily a news site and newsreaders benefit from the ability to refer to press releases when reading news articles. Traditionally this has been an impossiblity due to the restrictions that newspapers, etc. have in regards to space. We, of course, don't have this restriction. Christiaan 09:18, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think I may see your point about needing to refer to some press releases. However I continue to think that Wikinews is not the right place for this. Perhaps there is another place for this in WikiSource though. -- IlyaHaykinson 16:51, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think I might take this discussion to meta and see what people have to say. PRs on either Wikisource or a section on Wikinews would be of benefit to readers and writer of news on Wikinews it seems to me. Christiaan 18:40, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What Wikinews is not addresses press releases directly: Wikinews articles are not press releases. Publishing the drivel from PR personnel is not "neutral", as you suggest, it is giving others a forum and having no discernment. As for Scoop, it is not "reknowned"; it is at most infamous, and is known for potentially current/cutting edge but more predominately untrustworthy urban mythos/ad copy/investment spam. And it is not a major site in terms of NZ traffic, even NZ news traffic. You can't draw much with raw advertising; there has to be content. Reliable, believable, trustable content. <Picks up soapbox and leaves> - Amgine

Like I said above, I'm not suggesting we publish press releases as if they're Wikinews stories. I'm suggesting we create a separate section for them altogether. Call Scoop what you like (it has in fact won awards for "best content" on New Zealand's version of Webby Awards: http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/archive/scoop/stories/20/ea/200110041409.9c322297.html ), I was simply citing it is an example of a very good news source. It's extremely useful as a news reader to be able to go and read exactly what the prime minister said instead of reading what some journalist believed she said. This is what makes it NPOV. I would like to be able to read a news story on Wikinews and then have the option of being able to refer to all the press releases related to that story so I can make some of my own judgements about what each party has to say about any given situation. What you're basically suggesting is that Wikinews readers are too dumb to judge press releases and that they need your superior powers of deduction before they can go away enlightened as to the "truth". Yeah right. Christiaan 09:11, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Christiaan, please don't try to give scoop any "cited" benefits by linking to them. They are already less than a tenth of the traffic of Wikinews (see www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=3m&size=medium&y=r&url=wikinews.org#top) primarily due to their content. - Amgine 20:03, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Amgine I'm really not interested in your little power games. I will link to whoever I think appropriate. Christiaan 20:34, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

When using a press release to create a story, people may want to keep in mind the following: 1. Press releases are copyrighted unless otherwise noted. 2. Press releases are inherently POV in nature. 3. Press releases, being an official statement from a concerned party, may be used as source material for quotes (but keep in mind No. 2) as long at the source is cited as being a press release or a "statement." -- Davodd | Talk 07:42, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Are press releases really copyrighted? My understanding is that they are released into the public domain by definition. Press releases, if published verbatim, are NPOV because you know exactly who is making the statement. Christiaan 08:49, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I point you to the copyright statement of this press release as an example that not all press releases are in the public domain. -- IlyaHaykinson 09:02, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's one example. My understanding is that this, strictly speaking, cannot be called a press release. Christiaan 09:20, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here are some possible answers:

"Once that press release or PSA is sent out, you cannot take it out of circulation, and you can't control its use. It has been publicly distributed, and it is probably public domain under the copyright law. Anyone who has it can use it for any purpose." (D.R. Yale and A.J. Carothers, The publicity handbook : the inside scoop from more than 100 journalists and PR pros on how to get great publicity coverage : in print, online, and on the air, Chicago, Ill.: NTC Business Books, 2001, p. 66.) [1]

"Companies (and indeed organizations generally) produce many documents. Some of these are in the public domain, such as annual reports, mission statements, press releases, advertisements, and public relations material in printed form or on the World Wide Web." (A. Bryman, Social research methods, Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 376.) [2]

"information that has always been in the public domain but was previously inaccessible to most people - because it was held in some special place, or released only to specialists. Press releases, for instance, once landed only on the desks of journalists. Now anybody can read press releases on a company's Web site." (F. Cairncross, The death of distance : how the communications revolution is changing our lives, Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2001, p. 80.) [3]

Christiaan 09:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Press releases have to be part of a larger story

Hi Christiaan,

One of your citations contains this revealing little snippet:

"the inside scoop from more than 100 journalists and PR pros on how to get great publicity coverage"

While I think a repository of interesting, Wikinews-selected press releases would be interesting to browse, you are touching the third rail on an open source/everything-is-free site when you suggest anything that will help commercial interests to "get great publicity coverage".

While I don't think everyone on Wikinews and its sister projects is an anti-capitalist, anti-corporate activist, there are enough contributors with such political views that such a proposal will not even be considered. Take it or leave it, that's the politics on the ground.

However, I am sure no one will object if you can find two sides to a given press release, where one side puts the featured company in a bad light, or exposes some additional angle that the issuer of the press release may not have anticipated. Another way to use press releases would be to compare and contrast the claims made in other press releases from the company's competitors, which could also show a larger trend that is forming as a result of the press release.

It isn't news unless there is a controversy of some sort. Posting uncritical copies of press releases is not reporting the news.

It's hard enough that we have so little reporting that Wikinews is largely a news aggregator. Let's not make it worse by blindly copying other sources.

Cheers,

— DV 10:28, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi David, thanks for the considered response. It's interesting that you mention the views of anti-capitalists, etc. as been in opposition to such an idea. I very much consider myself an anarchist and an anti-capitlalist, and I consider the idea of publishing press releases verbatim for the purposes of complimenting news stories very much in keeping with such a world-view (for reasons I've mentioned above).

The thing about news is that it is very much publicity, by definition. And the thing about press releases is that anyone can write one. One of the biggest lies in the media world today is the idea that there is such a thing as objective news, even that which attempts a NPOV. Knowing who is saying what and what their world-view happens to be is key to getting around this problem.

You wrote, "posting uncritical copies of press releases is not reporting the news," and I agree, it's making accessible what people are saying with regard to the news. I want to emphasise again that I am not suggesting publishing press releases as if they are news stories, but as press releases, period.

One thought I've had is to go about adding links to press releases for relevant news articles. The problem with this of course is that links can disappear and we have no control over what is at the other end. Publishing press releases verbatim on Wikinews would stand as a record (what Wikisource is to Wikipedia if you will (maybe that's where they should be?)).

Anybody is welcome to contribute to Wikinews so a selection of press releases, as you suggest, would work fine it seems to me. Christiaan 13:32, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My take: press releases form the basis of any news story that isn't original reporting, or re-hashing of original reporting. Much of what you read anywhere is based on press releases. We'd be mad to ignore them. Whether they're POV or not is irrelevant; it only matters that articles are NPOV. Certainly I make much use of them as sources, and will continue to do so. Dan100 (Talk) 17:48, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

BTW we're not talking about copying and pasting press releases as Wikinews articles, are we?! I'd never do that. I might base an article on a press release, but I'll write my own article in my own words, and use my judgement. Dan100 (Talk) 17:52, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The original suggestion, if I understood it correctly, was to allow press releases to be posted en masse and without editing. - Amgine 18:16, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes that's correct Amgine, but in a section separate to some degree from new articles. Kind of like what Wikisource is to Wikipedia. Christiaan 18:34, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think we can do better to that. I think we should say 'no' to un-edited press releases, but encourage their use in writing articles. Dan100 (Talk) 18:36, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Press releases on Wikisource

It seems that press releases would indeed fit the policy of Wikisource: Currently, Wikisource documents must have been previously published and be in the public domain or covered by an open source license. There are currently no other requirements.

So, for the basis of a wider discussion what I'll do is pick out a story (one that I can find a bunch of related press releases for) and create an example whereby there is a news story on Wikinews which includes at the bottom a link to relevant press releases which I'll put on Wikisource. I'll then post links to this discussion, and the examples, to meta and a couple of email lists. And we can go from there. Christiaan 19:14, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Christiaan: If the press release is already previously published, why put it on Wikisource? Just add the PR link as a source to the article. - Amgine 20:06, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's okay not to like the idea Amigine. I think it's a good idea and one worth having a wider discussion about. The reason to keep our own copy of press releases is, as I wrote above, because we have no control over external links; they might disappear or get edited. You argument doesn't follow, the same could be said about a lot of text on Wikisource. Christiaan 20:30, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is why we call them "sources" and not "references". Although on Wikinews we do want verifiability where possible, it is not a make-or-break situation as it is on Wikipedia. My question is, why should they be on Wikimedia servers at all. It is already clear they should not be on Wikinews. I accept they *can* be on Wikisource, I just don't see the point since hosting press releases is already done (see Wikinews:Reference desk for a list of commercial aggregators). - Amgine 20:53, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Copying press releases verbatim into any wikimedia project will, in the vast majority cases, result in eventual deletion due to copyright issues since most come from companies who will not give up control of their name, brand name, logo, statements or other material included in the content of the release. And to answer a previously asked question: YES, press releases are copyrighted unless the writer or source specificaly states they are released into the public domain — it doesn't matter if there is a visible "©" symbol or not. If they survive the copyright challenge, being that they are written as the official statement - or opinion - of a specific side, they are inherently POV in that thly respresent the Point Of View of a particular individual, group or corporation. All Wikimedia Foundation projects (with the exception of wikisource) require that all content represent a neutral point of view - which by definition almost preemtively negates any addtion of "cut and paste" inclusion of any press release regardless of its copyright status. -- Davodd | Talk 01:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Precisely, with the exception of Wikisource. Can you cite something that will back up your claim that press releases are copyrighted. I've cited a number of reputable sources that claim they're in the public domain. Christiaan 07:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

According to the U.S. copyright law, anything created by anyone is under copyright protection. In order to be in the public domain (or licensed under a specific license), the work must be explicitely released into it. -- IlyaHaykinson 08:06, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes I realise this, but one, this is the U.S., and two, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if for whatever reason press releases were an exception. Why do so many reputable sources claim they are in the public domain? I'd like proof either way as this could put this discussion to bed before we spend too much energy on it. Christiaan 08:31, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's not just U.S. law - it's the International Copyright Convention rule as ratified by these countries (most of the world). Basically, once something is written, it is automatically covered by a copyright. The owner then must take specific steps to release it into the public domain for it to be eligible for cut and paste-type inclusion here. If someone does cut and paste press releases to Wikinews without written permission of the rightful owner to release their work into the public domain, rest assured, there will be no shortage of Wikinews members here to slap a copyvio tag on it and quickly vote for it to be deleted from our servers.

FYI: Sample copyright statements and usage restrictions by sources of press releases

• Businesswire U.S., Canada
• PR Newswire U.S., Canada, Australia, UK
• PRWeb U.S., UK, China, France, Canada, Latin America

-- Davodd | Talk 08:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced. I'd like to see a case in law or some opinions from lawyers. The word "release" could for instance be the "specific step" you're talking about. Who knows? I don't and I'm not sure you do either. Christiaan 13:32, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On case Law: Most countries in the world do not recognize case law as valid (Only the U.S., the UK, Canada and a few other countries have a case law-inclusive legal system.) It seems to me that you are the only one confused by the concept of statutory copyrights. So, this leads us to the first rule of proactive quality control (CYA) in journalism: When in doubt, leave it out. – which applies to this case. BTW: I am done with this conversation since intelligent, constructive discussion has devolved into conjecture for conjecture's sake. -- Davodd | Talk 22:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Christiaan, it doesn't matter what any lawyer's opinion is about this matter.

These organizations are explicitly prohibiting anyone from copying, aggregating, or storing their press releases on another site for retrieval.

These organizations are also much larger than Wikimedia, and undoubtedly have large legal staffs that would be more than happy to send out a DMCA take-down notice, (or even an old-school Cease and Desist) that would create all sorts of legal problems.

Please, let's not abuse the privilege of editing on Wikinews, a site the Foundation is providing to us for free, by risking a lawsuit over something which we can easily avoid.

Regards, — DV 13:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

DV, can we keep the straw man arguments out of this? I wasn't specifically talking about the examples above. Christiaan 14:13, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

IMHO I would expect that most organisations and politicians would be horrified if their press/media releases were considered public domain and able to be editied, modified or otherwise changed by third parties into a neutral article or story and then have the story attributed (in part) to the organisation concerned. Press/media releases are all about an organisation telling their story, with their spin. It might be their news but it may not be neutral or balanced. Quoting a substantial part of a press/media release as part of a story is probably fair use but copying the text verbatim and not writing a story around it is lazy journalism and is a poor practice that leads to unethical and biased reporting. If you cannot do better than an organisation's press/media release do not even waste your time copying it - just post a URL to link to the original media release and provide a resource for someone else to write a story - they will if it is newsworthy.

BTW I have watched Scoop in New Zealand for several years. In my view it is a Press/Media Release publishing site. The press releases it posts are full of POV, not NPOV. Scoop advantage is that it gets the Press/Media Release out there quickly. The people who make and read Press/Media Releases are prepared pay Scoop to publish Press/Media Releases - which is why it makes money and doesn't have (too many) copyright problems. -- Huttite 22:45, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tech company press releases?

I've seen a lot of tech company articles which were pretty close to press releases. Its pretty easy to fix the political ones. But its POV when an Apple fanboy's article about a new iPods doesn't mention the ongoing battery life issue.

Well, to be the annoying user I am - I'd disagree with you when you say that political POV is "easy" to clean up in an article. :P. But yes, there are issues with some of the technology articles. Mostly, however, in the iPod case - issues with the batteries are not that widespread, and the main "issue" was a result of an urban myth, which has been mostly erradicated from current models (faulty batteries are going to happen in every electronic device that utilizes a rechargable battery). --Mrmiscellanious 03:29, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I was actually talking about the general unreplacability issue, but yes I guess tehy fixed up a lot of things. Anyway, I do feel that political bias is easier to detect them advertising bias. And I feel advertising bias is actually more dangerous to the wiki in the long run.

What is user Edbrown05 doing?

Why is user Edbrown05 acting crazy. Making nonsensical comments, putting comments in places that make no sense and you have no idea what he's even talking about. I think he's perhaps just trying to be amusing. Would someone remind him that wikinews is not a chat room nor a place for him to amuse himself? --MateoP 04:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikinews is absolutely a place to amuse myself, sometimes I even write a story. -Edbrown05 05:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

But I do realize I am getting close to crossing that invisible line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior, it's in my nature to push that. -Edbrown05 05:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)