Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:28, 16 October 2014

Journalism Redirect‑class

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism Redirect This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Tags

Stumbled on this article, which has multiple issues per tag, especially notability. I'd nominate for deletion, but let's see if it can be fixed first. Coretheapple (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure it can be fixed; it may need to be merged into Russ Baker. I started the article after seeing the illustrious names on the Editorial Advisory Council, assuming that there must be enough material out there to justify an article. But bizarrely - to the point where I wonder if the people on this Council are actually aware of being on it! - there seems to be almost zero coverage. Perhaps someone else could have a go at searching, because it seems a bit odd, given Baker's background and that Council. Podiaebba (talk) 10:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Well it's listed by Project Censored as one of two dozen Independent News Links; for me that's enough, but I know others may not agree. I would also point out that I do think that covering news sources is one of the more useful things Misplaced Pages does, because when searching for info about news sources it gets tangled up with endless mentions of or copies of info from the news source. So even when there isn't that much to say, putting all that there is to say in one place is a useful service to readers. (In the absence of that, they're likely to rely entirely on what the source says about itself, which isn't better.) Podiaebba (talk) 11:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You've done all you can with this, but I'm afraid the article still doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines. I don't think Project Censored is enough, and the other mentions are incidental or non-notable. Would you be OK with merger? Coretheapple (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I think at this point the sum total of what is there is useful as a standalone article, and merging it into Russ Baker will either unbalance that article or lead to a loss of information. As I said above, I think these kinds of articles can be very useful. Podiaebba (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

First, an observation that WP:N is a guideline (as distinct from policy), with the standard caveat about editor discretion, and its primary criterion is another guideline, WP:RS. That said, WP:N is the primary criterion for determining whether a topic is encyclopedia-worthy as a standalone article.

When we look at a news organization in general (NBC, NYT, etc.) we are much more likely to find it cited as a source when a story is picked up, rather than actually discussed as such in an article about the organization. Tabloid and fringeish media outlets are more likely to have an article written about them and less likely to have articles citing them. This observation should temper our expectations when we look for RS.

WhoWhatWhy’s stories are often picked up. A few examples among a great many:

• The Hollywood Reporter linked to WhoWhatWhy's investigation of Michael Hastings' car crash footage (July 26, 2013, last link on page).
• The Nation columnist Greg Mitchell (formerly Editor and Publisher) recommended one of WhoWhatWhy’s articles. (Well, that's in a blog, so doubtless stalwarts will cavil.)
• WhoWhatWhy is frequently mentioned in El Pais, Spain’s top newspaper, e.g. on 20 February 2012 "Lo recomienda la web WhoWhatWhy, que se define practicante del periodismo forense: pensando fuerte, cavando profundo" ("He recommends the Web WhoWhatWhy, definitive forensic practitioner of journalism: strong thinking, digging deep").
• On August 16, the acclaimed magazine Mother Jones credited WhoWhatWhy with debunking the “unauthorized cremation” story about the body of investigative journalist Michael Hastings--and noted that even the quality British paper, The Independent, published the false report.
• NBC News investigative reporter Bill Dedman periodically features WhoWhatWhy on his list of recommended sites, e.g. on August 16.
• On September 4, the Prosecutor cited three WhoWhatWhy articles in a court hearing for hacktivist journalist Barrett Brown. On September 7 the article “The FBI’s Summer Reading List” cites this court document and salutes the feds’ “great taste in journalism.”
• DailyTekk singled WhoWhatWhy out as one of the “100 most interesting websites of the year,” and as one of its top five news sites.
• The National Security Archive at George Washington University praises WhoWhatWhy: “WhoWhatWhy does an excellent job breaking down Schmidle’s sourcing and finds it sketchy, to say the least.”
• WhoWhatWhy is frequently cited or linked to by respected nonprofits and institutes, e.g. the Maynard Institute.
• Former CBS News correspondent and author Tom Fenton cites WhoWhatWhy’s foreign coverage on numerous occasions in his Global Post column. Examples here: “as pointed out by Russ Baker, whose web site is sharply critical of American media coverage, reporters should be telling us more about their usually anonymous sources inside Syria”; and here: here: “We cannot be certain the story is not true. Horrible incidents of rape are common in all wars. But so far no one has produced convincing evidence of a government ordered campaign of mass rape in Libya. Russ Baker's excellent analysis gives a detailed investigation of the Viagra/rape story.”
• Acclaimed journalist Glenn Greenwald praised WhoWhatWhy’s coverage in his column in the UK’s Guardian.

Bn (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

That is a lot. I'd be happier if these weren't incidental mentions. Coretheapple (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

As to quantity, this is scratching the surface. As to getting more than "incidental" mentions, I can only say again that for even an undoubtedly notable news organization such as the Washington Post we mostly find RS citing it as a source when a story is picked up, and very rarely discussed as such in an article, chapter, or book that is explicitly about the organization. Maybe we can find WhoWhatWhy mentioned something about investigative journalism, but that again is apt to be a mention inter alia. An adversarial piece by or fostered by some entity whose activities and interests WhoWhatWhy has too frequently exposed would also count for notability.

Bn (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Absent further objection, I'm removing the notability tag. Bn (talk) 03:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I object and have restored the notability tag. I agree with Coretheapple. None of the cited sources or the ones linked to by Bn come close to satisfying the relevant criteria, as they are contain trivial (if any) coverage. Bn's counterargument about news organizations not receiving their own coverage is simply false. There are lots and lots and lots of independent articles about the Washington Post. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Comparisons to the NYT and Washington Post are inappropriate. This is a news organization. It is more significant and more noteworthy than many a newspaper, such as the Polk County Democrat or the , which appear to have article status primarily because of the notability of their category. An appropriate comparison might be to other entities in the other categories listed at the bottom. I'll contact people there and ask if they can point to articles or book sections about them. Founded 2006, 8 years.

Bn (talk) 15:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Ha, you're the one who brought up the Washington Post, not me! In any case, I see several problems with your analysis:

• Traditional print media are analyzed under a separate guideline from web-based media (WP:NMEDIA vs WP:WEB).
• Unlike WhoWhatWhy, both the Polk County Democrat and the Florida Flambeau have been the subjects of significant coverage by independent reliable sources. (E.g., Democrat: ; Flambeau: , .)
• Notability isn't based on the presence or absence of other WP articles. If the Democrat and the Flambeau didn't meet WP:NMEDIA then they would need to be deleted as well.
• The age of a website has nothing to do with notability. If it did we'd have all kinds of weird stuff getting articles.

Finally, if you want to prevent the article from being deleted you should post your arguments at WP:Articles for deletion/WhoWhatWhy, not here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Restructured

The article has been restructured, with new sections and additional content, including additional references for notability. An article in a RS magazine about WhoWhatWhy and its coverage of a story with regional and national significance will appear in January. For competitive reasons, the magazine has requested that details be held until publication. Bn (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC) I learned about the magazine article by contacting Russ Baker and asking about RS discussions of WhoWhatWhy. I have no special connection or affiliation with the organization, no CoI. Bn (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Redirect-Class Journalism pages
• NA-importance Journalism pages
• WikiProject Journalism articles