Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:In the news: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 212: Line 212:
:::::It technically does, but at the same time doesn't. ATA is repeating stuff in policy so its arguably unnecesssary, but seeing specific statements that are poor !votes can help to make abstract ideas more concrete. Just an idea though. --[[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 17:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
:::::It technically does, but at the same time doesn't. ATA is repeating stuff in policy so its arguably unnecesssary, but seeing specific statements that are poor !votes can help to make abstract ideas more concrete. Just an idea though. --[[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 17:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
::::::{{ec}}{{break}}I'll agree that ITN poses an inherent contradiction between encyclopedia principles and the ethos of news. But ITN is there (as it is on most other major Wikis) and I'd guess it's probably the most viewed fixture on the Main Page. So to avoid the pushmi-pullyu syndrome, perhaps we need to strike a more consistent balance between content and timeliness. However, one can't accomplish that by referring to a WP rule book. It's a matter of judgment, in this context often on the fly. – [[User:Sca|Sca]] ([[User talk:Sca|talk]]) 17:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
::::::{{ec}}{{break}}I'll agree that ITN poses an inherent contradiction between encyclopedia principles and the ethos of news. But ITN is there (as it is on most other major Wikis) and I'd guess it's probably the most viewed fixture on the Main Page. So to avoid the pushmi-pullyu syndrome, perhaps we need to strike a more consistent balance between content and timeliness. However, one can't accomplish that by referring to a WP rule book. It's a matter of judgment, in this context often on the fly. – [[User:Sca|Sca]] ([[User talk:Sca|talk]]) 17:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
::::I think this is a good idea. The problem is a support vote on significance is treated as a support on quality as well. A "vote" of support that does not mention quality should be called out by other editors, much like significance arguments in an RD or ITN/R. [[Special:Contributions/159.53.78.141|159.53.78.141]] ([[User talk:159.53.78.141|talk]]) 17:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

{{reftalk}}
{{reftalk}}

Revision as of 17:46, 16 April 2019

Click here to nominate an item for In the news. In the news toolbox

Upcoming ITN/R suggestions (Apr-Jun)

This post attempts to highlight potential nominations that could be considered and where else to continue looking for news items. The recurring items list is a good place to start. Below is a provisional list of upcoming ITN/R events over the next few months. Note that some events may be announced earlier or later than scheduled, like the result of an election or the culmination of a sport season/tournament. Feel free to update these articles in advance and nominate them on the candidates page when they occur.

April

May

June

Other resources

For those who don't take their daily dose of news from an encyclopedia, breaking news stories can also be found via news aggregators (e.g. Google News, Yahoo! News) or your preferred news outlet. Some news outlets employ paywalls after a few free articles, others are funded by advertisements - which tend not to like ad blockers, and a fair few are still free to access. Below is a small selection:

Newspapers

News agencies

News services

Unlike the prose in the article, the reference doesn't necessarily need to be in English. Non-English news sources include, but are not limited to: Le Monde, Der Spiegel and El País. Which ironically are Western European examples (hi systemic bias). Any reliable African, Asian or South American non-English source that confirms an event took place can also be used.

Happy hunting. Fuebaey (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the mess regarding the Mueller report...

While there's more than enough blame to go around that no specific editor can be called out, there is one thing that I think was clear that we need to heed in the future: blurbs that clearly have reasonable objections to posting do not need to be posted right away. From the initial suggestion [1] to the first posting [2] was about 9 hours. With the amount of questions on the blurbs, quality, and appropriate posting or not, that needed more time for consensus. We are not required to post as soon as possible, and probably waiting a day would have resolved 90% of the blurb problems that came up on ERRORS. (This is not meant to be blaming User:Stephen for posting quickly - we have tended to post blurbs fast if there is apparent support, but most other cases, there's very little side discussion that indicated a potentially problematic blurb. The rapid posting here is a symptom of ITN in general, not any specific editor's fault).

Basically, if you are an admin that can update ITN, and it looks like you are trying to review a minefield with respect to the comments made to date for a news item that is not going stale any time soon, I would think it better to wait and let consensus better emerge, which should avoid massive amounts of post, back-and-forth, editing on the main page blurb. --Masem (t) 23:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Masem: respectfully, we've discussed to death the idea of a minimum delay in posting, and every time it's come up as unnecessary. There was consensus to post the proposed blurb at the time of posting. Perhaps the most interesting thing here is that it was pulled because a number of people didn't like the posted blurb, and couldn't agree on an alternative. That is a new development. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If the item was about to go stale, I would agree that at that point, there was at least a weak consensus to post. But the item wasn't going stale at 9hr out. More time should have been left to get more feedback. --Masem (t) 17:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    How long should an item be open for people to oppose it? 24 hours? Two regular business days excluding holidays? The only breakdown in the process here was the pull based on hysterical disagreement about the blurb which were founded in irrelevant objections to the suitability of the attorney generals summary of a DOJ report. That's it. The fact that an item can be pulled because fewer people disagreed with the blurb than agreed with it should be chilling. If you think that there should be a minimum time for all nominations before posting, go ahead and open that RFC with your proposed minimum. FWIW I understand why you're frustrated, but more process isn't the solution here. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The Mueller blurb was an anomaly because of how much of a media circus it has been for the past three years. No need to create a new rule here. Hard cases make bad law.--WaltCip (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the two comments above. I saw the current blurb today and was a bit surprised. I read through the discussion; it had undertones of unreasonable distrust, partisanship and confirmation bias sprinkled with a reluctance to accept. That does not happen often.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They know about the cabal!

I don't know how I never saw this, but the search box auto-completed WP:ITNCABAL where we're described as "insular. Process-wonks". We can't have people knowing the secret formula of disaster stubs and European sports we post .. since we're supposed to be "insular process-wonks" anyone wanna take this to WP:RFD for the lolz?— Preceding unsigned comment added by LaserLegs (talk • contribs) 01:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As fun as that would be, as a presumptuous member of the ITNCABAL, I fear the dreaded Streisand effect would expose us as frauds.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not wrong... --Jayron32 13:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the cabals on that page are described in a rather silly and lighthearted fashion. WP:ITNCABAL reads as someone's personal venting/ranting against ITN. Seems a bit strident, if you ask me.--WaltCip (talk) 12:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, that was added back in 2009 by a now-retired former admin. ITN was arguably not even as wonky back then as it is now!--WaltCip (talk) 12:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible the cabal may take its work too seriously. I've brought up ITNC in real life a few times, explaining how it determines what appear on the in the news section of the main page. Without exception, everyone is unaware the MP exists. They all just search from www.wikipedia.org, which defaults to the English site. SIGH. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth-Margret Pütz

... (died 1 Apr, reported 5 Apr) has been marked ready long ago, - what else needs to happen? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda Arendt In the case, you should ping some admin.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. It was already posted.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moon landing

Can we reopen that discussion? It is still significant news even though it failed. Kees08 (Talk) 20:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But it's no longer ITNR. So I'll get onto that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notre Dame fire

Is there any appetite for discussing whether the right balance was struck with the posting, pulling and re-posting of the Notre Dame fire entry? This is a classic example of a new article (the fire article) being created and updated to the point where it was ready for the Main Page. The sense I get from looking at this discussion is that there is a divide of opinion, but rather entrenched ones, between those who are convinced that it was right to pull it and those who are convinced that it was wrong to pull it. I am not sure of the timings, but it is possible that the quality of the article was changing faster than people could post their opinions. Nominated at 17:30, fire article created at 17:32, first ITN posting at 18:19, pulled at 19:26, re-posted at 20:08, 32 minutes later. I suppose the questions are at what point it was 'ready' to be posted, and the 'wheel-warring' question that may have led some people to be reluctant to repost (leaving it for Masem to reverse the pull himself). People may disagree on where to draw the line in general (and how cautious to be), and they may also disagree on this specific article (and how ready it was). I will put a note at the original discussion, and ping those who did the actions and expressed particularly strong views (actually, pinged everyone [total of 39 if I didn't miss anyone], as that seems more objective). Carcharoth (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC) @Theklan, Ritchie333, Masem, Davey2116, Stephen, The Rambling Man, Cryptic, Amakuru, WaltCip, Ad Orientem, LaserLegs, Knowledgekid87, GreatCaesarsGhost, Pawnkingthree, Black Kite, Sca, Lepricavark, Renata3, King of Hearts, 331dot, XYZtSpace, Mjroots, Jheald, Pigsonthewing, Amakuru, BrendonTheWizard, Gimubrc, Kiril Simeonovski, StudiesWorld, Sadads, L.tak, Njardarlogar, Headbomb, A lad insane, Bluecrab2, Jusdafax, Muboshgu, BabbaQ, and Purplebackpack89:[reply]

I took a judgement call that there was consensus to post. This was based on the number of people voting "support", the quality of the article at the time (still a stub, but all properly sourced) and the likelihood the article would be improved quickly (extremely high). However, since I know ITN nominations can be controversial, I put in a "get out clause" that allowed any admin who disagreed to pull it, at which point we would need a solid consensus to repost while avoiding wheel-warring. I understand the ITN criteria, but in the case of something like the Notre Dame fire, Wikipedia being in the real world is important, and I suspect if we hadn't included it in "In The News", you'd have a bunch of posts (albeit almost certainly in the wrong place) from newbies or IPs wondering what we were trying to "censor". I think this article is an extreme case and can't really be used as a precedent for anything in the future. I will say that I was thoroughly wound up by TRM's comment here which made some of my later replies possibly appear a bit snippy; I know full well he has strong opinions on main page quality, but that isn't really an excuse to leave an incivil content-free post on a project page. Fortunately, ITN is not well-known to newbies, otherwise I feel there's a risk somebody might (incorrectly) assume TRM was calling the fire news coverage "a fucking joke" and respond accordingly. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the first posting was a little premature, but the article was being heavily edited at the time. I tried editing it myself but gave up as I kept getting multiple edit conflicts. This was probably one of the few occasions where an IAR early posting was, on balance, appropriate. That no admin got into a wheel-war and that Masem re-posted the blurb is also a good thing. The situation was not a dire emergency that required action to be taken. Admin's tools are not there for an admin to use to get their own way, but to be used for the good of the project. Especial thanks to Ritchie333 for not restoring the blurb, and to Masem for restoring it when it became clear that consensus was against the pulling in the first place. Mjroots (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The time at which the article was actually ready to be posted to the front page was at the time of its second posting. By then, significant copy-editing had taken place amidst the sea of edit conflicts to actually put the article in a presentable state. Absolutely nothing of value was gained by posting the article to the main page too early, apart from displaying an article which was being subjected to an editing frenzy on account of actively breaking news. The article as it was posted then bore little resemblance to the refined version that was posted the second time around. It was unequivocally a terrible idea to post it. It contravenes WP:NOTNEWS and goes against WP:ITN guidelines of minimum quality. We need to get ourselves out of the habit of "post this ASAP!" in reaction to sensational breaking news stories. We're not Fox News. Our goal is not to be the first one to break news to the public. In doing so, we risk posting misinformation at best and WP:BLP violations at worst - that might be okay if we're a news agency, but we're an encyclopedia. The guidelines are in place here and in article space for a reason so that we don't find ourselves in that position. If we're just going to base consensus on the number of people who show up to say "Support" vs "Oppose" then we may as well just scrap the guidelines.--WaltCip (talk) 13:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Links to show the state of the article at the times being referred to will help. Some of those contesting the pull will not have been aware of the state of the article at the time it was pulled. On something like this, you almost have to discount early views as the article will have changed so much since people posted those early views. Carcharoth (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)As I said above, this was an unusual case so WP:IAR is appropriate, and I did not base the decision to post on a head count. The article as posted was this, which doesn't look particularly promising, but I then went off to improve it to post-stub status. I couldn't as I kept getting edit conflicted. Fifteen minutes later, without me pretty much lifting a finger, the article looked like this, being over 1,500 characters of prose, with every claim cited to a reliable source. I don't think I've ever done an "early post" like this before, and I don't forsee that I'll be doing one again. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) x3!!! You state that you did not base the decision to post on a head count, but in your initial reply above, you stated your consensus was based at least partly on the number of people voting "Support". Unless I'm misreading something, I don't see how you can reconcile those two premises. In addition, WP:IAR's premise is based on the "rule-ignoring" improving or maintaining Wikipedia. I know it's difficult to calculate the tangible impact that an editorial decision can have, but I personally disagree that Wikipedia was improved or maintained by this posting which ended up being pulled anyway. Still, as you say, it was your judgment call as an administrator. I respect your decision though I disagree with it.--WaltCip (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Also, since you amended your previous comment prior to me finalizing my reply (thus causing the edit conflict), I think your showing the difference in article states proves my point that it would have been more prudent to wait for a few minutes for the article to get into the more promising state, rather than to make an early posting. At this point, however, I'll drop the stick.--WaltCip (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And under normal circumstances I would agree with you completely. When people oppose ITN nominations on quality, I take an implication that it's because they are unable to improve the article themselves, which clearly couldn't have been the case here, given the blanket rolling news coverage. And that point, I will refrain from the equine flogging too. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One of the problems is that an article in this state of flux can go from stub to longer-but-unsourced, to sourced-and-OK, to longer-again-and-back-to-being-unsourced (and so on). (Sorry, I pinged so many people there are lots of edit conflicts!) Carcharoth (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way that this case fell under WP:NOTNEWS, I would also review the minimum quality guideline. Calling out an article for inferior quality goes against WP:SOFIXIT and is subjective. The question then must be asked.... what makes a poor quality article, and when does a poor quality article become acceptable? I feel that Ritchie made the right call per WP:5P5 and stand by the posting. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is a question of stability as well. At what point does an article become stable enough that the quality will not vary in an unreliable fashion? Carcharoth (talk) 13:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I mean I get the point of not rushing.... but it bothers me a lot that we are going by no firm point of view. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) WP:SOFIXIT is redundant because the article had no shortage of people trying to "fix it". As Carcharoth stated, the fact that the article was in such a state of flux is, if not an indication of poor quality, certainly not an indication of good quality either. See also WP:RSBREAKING. The initial post was not even an hour removed from the event's occurrence; though it did not occur in this specific instance, what if we would have posted a hoax?--WaltCip (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with all above. If you look at the pre-first-post comments, there was opposition based on quality, but supports were only talking about significance. The supports were abdicating their responsibility to consider both. A posting admin needs to "read the room" and pick up on this. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One other thought about wheel-warring - I know I have had my disagreements over whether things should be posted to or pulled from the Main Page. In general, though, I think that once we post something, it's bad form to pull it again. Obviously I felt impassioned enough about the state of the Notre Dame fire article that I called for a pull, since the process currently allows for it, but I would rather have no pulling at all. Once a decision has been made by an admin to post a blurb to the main page, the focus should then turn to ensuring that the blurb is accurate and up-to-date. Having the story up for a few minutes or hours and then pulling it again confuses our readers and is also where the majority of conflicts in ITN/C arise, since the root of the conflict is from one admin viewing the suitability of a blurb differently from another admin - and I can't think of many people who like to have their judgment openly questioned by a colleague. To me, this shows that we need comprehensive and concrete changes in the guidelines for what qualifies as a postable blurb - but I don't know what exactly that would entail.--WaltCip (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I voted to restore the blurb at a time when the article was pulled but already in a decent shape. A bit problematic in this case was article's fast improvement as a result of the story's enormity, and it was impossible to reach a stable version before posting. We probably invoked WP:IAR to make this little exception.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bad cases make bad law. It was a rapidly developing situation and reasonable, good-faith editors differed on how to proceed. I personally don't have an appetite for discussing it further. Lepricavark (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think pulling was the right call. In a case where we've put up an RD with multiple unsourced statements, of course we should pull, but here there weren't any BLP issues, and although the article at the time of posting was short, it was obvious that it would be expanded rapidly.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My decision to pull was based on a one sentence update in the body of the main cathedral page (even with the separate fire page, that was not ready) and that the fire page was all over the place and not well-structured to be of the quality we usually expect for a major fire incident, plus questionable sourcing (zero need to use Twtter references for a major event under the world's news coverage). Add that we have respected participants in ITN (like Walt and TRM) that were cautioning about quality. After I pulled, I jumped in to help clean it up so that I could repost asap. In hindsight, a key issue at the time was the rate of edits. It was likely on the order of more than 1 or 2 edits per minute, which is in no way going to be stable, which is a quality factor. Yes, the edit counts are still high, but that's dropped significantly (1 edit every 2 minutes? roughly?) So a factor that we should also be considering is stability. If edits are coming so fast that it is impossible to make sure the article is of quality, we should hold off. We know that these edit rates always drop off after a few hours, we can wait that out. --Masem (t) 14:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 • Generally agree with Walt that it's bad form to pull something – especially a major news story like Notre Dame – shortly after it's posted. In the case of Notre Dame, needed improvements in the initial article cudda shudda been made without pulling it from ITN. Was it posted too soon? Maybe. But seems to me most readers will understand that something is a fast-developing story.
As mentioned in previous pushmi-pullyu situations, it looks very amateurish to readers. – Sca (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This still comes at the point of reiterating - the front page (and ITN specifically) is not a news ticker. We should not be writing or posting for readers that come to the main page and so "Ok, let's see what's happening arond the world"; that's not our purpose, that's what BBC/CNN do best. Timeliness is secondary importance to quality. We want to feature articles within ITN that have shown quality updates or if a new article, a quality start that can be readily built on by other editors. The article on the fire wasn't at that state when I pulled. We have to keep it in our minds that we're not here to be helpful for readers that come thinking we're a newspaper. --Masem (t) 16:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is why we should be basing our decisions to post something primarily on article quality, and that an admin should post something only after checking article quality. I have rarely[1] have seen an article posted which was pulled for any reason except the quality of the article. Posting a fantastic article where there are objections from the "I wish major news sources hadn't reported on this" crowd usually isn't a problem. Posting a shitty article because some people, who show no evidence of having read the article being put forward for consideration, support posting it is the only reason most [2] articles have been pulled from the main page. The lesson we should take from these times when it happens is check the damn article. Before you vote support check the damn article. Before you post it to the main page check the damn article. Before you nominate it even, check the damn article. If quality comes first, nothing would ever be pulled from the main page. --Jayron32 16:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Quality" is subjective, there is no fix by going with WP:ILIKEIT or WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT comments. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I want to add that basing a decision on personal opinions is not helpful nor is it a strong argument. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quality has clear metrics. Does the article have enough text to describe the event and give it a greater context? Is the article sufficiently referenced? Are the citations to quality sources? That sort of thing. Quality assessments have nothing to do with "I like it". It has everything to do with "does this text sufficiently meet Wikipedia's quality standards to put it on the main page". While there may be some differences over what good enough means, those discussions are quite fine to have, because they at least show people reading the article and coming up with improvements. What we don't want to have is any posting of any article ever where people have not looked at the text of the article we are posting, and made some assessment of the quality, and where it has fallen short, where improvements have been made. What we don't need any more of is people not checking the article itself and just voting "support" because the story seems important to them. We can't stop people from doing that, but admins are supposed to have enough Wikipedia experience to know how to ignore those comments. Admins are not blind enactors of uninformed votes. --Jayron32 16:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: I think we can be over-precious and over-sensitive about not exposing our process. Even though the article at time of posting was clearly work-in-progress, not extensive, and pretty rough in what was there, I still think it was appropriate to put up our link to what was the breaking developing story of the moment, so people could find it, see what we had, and in many cases contribute. This was clearly a huge thing, of global interest, that was going to be of ongoing significance. For slower stories, and e.g. obituaries, I think the quality bar before posting is a useful mechanism that encourages us to make improvements that otherwise we might not make, to articles of important current interest; and so makes sense. But in a case like this, of rapid development and massive immediate interest, I think it was the right call just to run with what we had. Jheald (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, as I said above, there is a difference between "We've read the article, and for these reasons, we think we should post this a link to it on the main page" and "We've never read the article at all, and we don't care, just post it" I'm fine with discussions that reach the conclusion that we post a less-quality article for specific reasons. What isn't cool is when people vote without reading the article and make arguments that do not indicate that they have assessed and weighed the quality of the article and then, even more problematic, is where admins have not read the article and have given weight to votes of people who have not made it clear in their rationale they have considered article quality. Problems don't arise from posting articles that are works in progress. Problems arise from holding discussions and basing our actions on discussions where article quality is not a factor in the discussion. --Jayron32 16:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps on our instruction page we can have a similar concept of WP:ATA when !voting on news topics. Such as "Do not simply say in your !vote that the news is important and should be important. Make sure to consider the article quality." (This alongside, "Do not oppose simply on country specificity", "Do not complain about ITNR topics", "Don't mention the Boat Races" :) --Masem (t) 16:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It already basically does though. Much of the guidance at WP:ITN says as much. There are entire sections devoted to discussing quality. --Jayron32 17:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It technically does, but at the same time doesn't. ATA is repeating stuff in policy so its arguably unnecesssary, but seeing specific statements that are poor !votes can help to make abstract ideas more concrete. Just an idea though. --Masem (t) 17:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)
I'll agree that ITN poses an inherent contradiction between encyclopedia principles and the ethos of news. But ITN is there (as it is on most other major Wikis) and I'd guess it's probably the most viewed fixture on the Main Page. So to avoid the pushmi-pullyu syndrome, perhaps we need to strike a more consistent balance between content and timeliness. However, one can't accomplish that by referring to a WP rule book. It's a matter of judgment, in this context often on the fly. – Sca (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a good idea. The problem is a support vote on significance is treated as a support on quality as well. A "vote" of support that does not mention quality should be called out by other editors, much like significance arguments in an RD or ITN/R. 159.53.78.141 (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ by rarely, I literally mean "never", but say rarely because I'm hedging that someone will search the archives and find the one example that I didn't remember.
  2. ^ read: I really mean "every single time", but again, I'm allowing that someone may find a counterexample
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news&oldid=892757923"