维基新闻:新聞價值

维基新闻,自由的新闻源
跳到导航 跳到搜索
翻译的方针
本页记载的是翻译的方针
它是其他语言版本维基新闻中的正式方针,並非中文維基新聞中的正式方针,內容僅供參考。它是否适用中文维基新聞,請參照其他語言的维基新聞相應頁面或本頁面的討論頁內容進一步完善本頁,请在茶馆相关讨论或本頁面的討論頁中发表意见

方针与指引

中性的观点
内容指南
样式指南
引用来源

回退不過三原則
原创报道
委派政策
删除方针
版权信息
图像使用守则
命名常规
保护方针
封禁方针
翻譯指引
被放棄的新聞

礼仪
用户名

每篇維基新聞新聞稿都在報道新聞事件。關於事件是否適合報導的主要標準是它應該具有新聞價值

Each Wikinews article focuses on a news event. Our main criterion for whether an event is suitable for coverage is that it should be newsworthy.

維基新聞試圖廣泛地發布(知名的)主流消息作為新聞報導。但是,維基新聞是獨特的項目,並遵循自己的標準。維基新聞覆蓋全球,但覆蓋範圍可能是局部的;而且我們可能報導的事件(本地或全球)幾乎沒有或沒有以前的主流報導; 因此,我們無法適當地使用類似於維基百科的關注度準則的納入標準。我們的新聞價值概念儘管在我們的報導上有一定的限制,因此我們仍然是新聞網站,但應該歡迎所有這些不同類型的材料。

Wikinews seeks to publish, broadly, what a (reputable) mainstream source would run as a news article; however, Wikinews is its own unique project with its own standards to follow. Wikinews is global in reach but potentially local in coverage; and we may cover events — either local or global — with little or no previous mainstream coverage; so we cannot approriately use inclusion criteria similar to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Our notion of newsworthiness, though putting meaningful bounds on our coverage so we remain a news site, should welcome all these different kinds of material.

那麼,什麼是「新聞價值」? 具有新聞價值的新聞稿要通過了三個測試:特定的、相關的和新鮮的。

What, then, is "newsworthy"? Newsworthy items pass three tests: They are specific, relevant, and fresh.

特異性[编辑]

每篇新聞文章都記錄了標題和領導必須識別的特定事件—焦點。正在進行的焦點過程不太可能通過。在持續的過程中尋找一些特定的發展,以作為重點。地震是特定的,而大陸漂移不是。但是,有關大陸漂移的研究結果的發表仍然是一個特定事件。

Each news article documents some specific event — the focus — which the headline and lede must identify. An ongoing process is unlikely to pass muster; look for some specific development in an ongoing process, to serve as the focus. An earthquake is specific, while continental drift is not. The publication of, say, the results of a study about continental drift is, however, again a specific event.

提供圍繞焦點的材料,那麼文章可以覆蓋的範圍不僅僅限於其特定的焦點。文章的主體從焦點向外螺旋,提供有關焦點的詳細信息和背景。它仍然圍繞焦點—不要寫一篇提到焦點的文章,而後突然朝另一個方向發展—但是通過連貫的介紹,可以將焦點放在更廣泛的上下文中。例如:

An article can cover a larger picture than just its specific focus, provided the material is built around the focus. The body of the article spirals outward from the focus, giving details and background about the focus. It is still oriented around the focus — don't write an article that mentions the focus and then abruptly takes off in a different direction — but with coherent presentation, the focus can be placed in a wider context. For example;

Relevance[编辑]

  • [[:]]

Stories are judged on a case-by-case basis; editors may have somewhat differing opinions on the definition of "relevant". However, here are some guidelines for whether a story is likely to be considered acceptably relevant:

  • How many people does the story impact? To how many people would this story be relevant? If the answer is a few hundred or less, the story would probably not be significant enough for inclusion.
  • Is the story getting coverage in the mainstream media? If not, then that could — but not always — be an indicator that the story isn't relevant to enough people, even at the local level. There is a flip side to this — if a story is being covered by many news sources, that does not necessarily indicate that the story must be newsworthy enough for our standards. In this case, one should apply the impact/relevancy question described above.

The car crash test[编辑]

  • [[:]]

A good test is to compare the story to a minor traffic collision of the sort that might grace the pages of a local paper. This might be considered the very lowest end of what would be sufficiently newsworthy local news. If the story is less important than that, it's not likely to be published. Examples of acceptable articles at the lowest end of the newsworthiness scale are;

Earthquakes[编辑]

There are lots of detectables around the globe each day; we generally allow an earthquake is news-relevant in itself  if its magnitude is at least 6.0. The IRIS Consortium says earthquakes of that size happen about once every three days on average (as of this writing; [1]).

Btw, a hint on writing earthquake articles: the usual scale for measuring earthquakes is the moment magnitude scale; the Richter scale is mostly not used anymore.

A smaller quake could be news-relevant, but there would have to be some additional reason, such as property damage, or casualties, or because earthquakes of its size are especially unusual in the area where it occurred. Here are some examples of articles about smaller earthquakes.

The Wikimedia exception[编辑]

  • [[:]]

Historically, Wikinews often published articles about sister projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. In recent years this has come to be frowned upon as "navel gazing". Stories about Wikipedia etc are not banned, but the bar is set slightly higher in this regard, not least because there are dedicated internal newsletters. Examples of articles that are acceptable are;

Freshness[编辑]

Wikinews:新聞價值
Facts don't cease to be facts, but news ceases to be news
Wikinews:新聞價值

Wikinews saying

The focus of a Wikinews article must be fresh when the article is published.

An unpublished article is typically considered stale when it's two or three days old. There are two exceptions to this: one for reporting on a story where new information about the event comes to light days later, and one for original reporting; we'll discuss these in more detail below.

Just when an article goes stale depends on context; for example, how the story develops after the article is written, and how widely the event has been covered by the mainstream. With the exceptions noted, it's very rare for an article to be published more than three calendar days (in UTC, the time Wikinews keeps) after what the article is reporting.

New information[编辑]

  • [[:]]

If the event was in the last seven days but new information came to light in the last two to three days then the article is still acceptable. In most cases however the new information will be suitable to refocus on, with a headline and lede identifying the new information as the event is being reported on.

This is not a dependency on the date of source publication; although information in a source article cannot have come to light after the date the source was published, it may have come to light before the source was published and thus the two to three days would be from the earlier date. Similarly the date when information came to light doesn't matter unless our article includes that information.

In the vast majority of cases it will still be appropriate to treat such an article as {{stale}}, and refocus on an entirely new event (per WN:GATWICK). In rare cases, however, new information come to light will make it appropriate to publish an article with a slightly older focal event.

Examples;

  • Template:Tsl, in which a stale article was refocused based on new developments. This technique has come to be described as 'Gatwicking' an article.
  • Template:Tsl, an article published nearly four hours later than a piece normally would, on the basis of new information.

Original reporting[编辑]

Original material can also enhance freshness. Exclusive content has the potential to extend our freshness horizon by days or even weeks, depending on the nature of the original material. Note however this is an advanced technique and it is strongly recommended editors get to grips with writing before graduating to original reporting. Here are examples:

Becoming the news[编辑]

Sometimes, original material will be an event in its own right. This might be in the form of an exclusive interview with somebody important, or it may mean the release of documents exclusively to Wikinews. Though even this will eventually go stale, there is great leeway in timeframes for releasing such material.

Here are some examples:

Breaking news[编辑]

If there's a major new development in the story after the article is written, the article might go stale much faster than two or three days. In intense situations, an article can be stale already a few hours after the event. The deciding factor is, would it feel 'behind the times' to publish an article about the event without mentioning the new development.

This can make it challenging to cover a rapidly developing story on Wikinews, but there are several things you can do to increase your chances of things working out.

  • Use the special {{breaking review}} tag that warns reviewers time is unusually critical for this article because it might go stale much faster than most articles do. (Don't abuse this tag: it isn't for articles that are on the verge of going stale at the normal pace.)
  • Have someone on-hand who's willing and able to review the article immediately. This can work if you know about the need ahead of time, or if you can find someone (perhaps on IRC) in the event.
  • Communicate with the reviewer by some more direct channel than wiki collaboration pages; typically, we've used IRC for this. Direct communication can shave hours off the review process, because if the reviewer has a problem they can talk to you in real time and avoid a clumsy, time-consuming cycle of not-ready/revise/resubmit.
  • If you foresee a possible problem, try to phrase the article 'robustly', so it's more likely to remain true, and hopefully remain news, even if other things happen before it's published. This can be tricky, and won't always work, but statistically you can improve your chances this way. Emphasize discrete things that happened, that may be of interest even if something else happens later. When feasible, try to avoid open-ended statements about the continuing state of things, that are at a high risk of ceasing to be true at any moment and thereby spoiling the article.