- The answer is messily, with regional bias and usually in complete disregards of guidelines. The process is at WP:ITN/C. You can ignore the guidelines at the top there, as most editors do. Fgf10 (talk) 08:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, excepting when the article has to do with the United States, which tends to get an illogical bias against it for simply being in worldwide news too much, the guidelines are followed fairly closely, which is that a) the articles are updated and of sufficient quality, and b) you can demonstrate that news sources are covering the story and c) there's consensus that point a) and point b) are met. Often, when people complain about some article getting posted or not, usually it's because a) is the problem: the article quality is not something we can post on the main page, usually because of major referencing problems. Otherwise, however, the guidelines are followed very closely. --Jayron32 10:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Bias against the US? That's rich.... Fgf10 (talk) 11:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There are frequent opposes purely because an event happens in the United States. No one ever says they oppose an item because the event happens in Zimbabwe or China or Indonesia or Liechtenstein. The rules expressly say that opposing votes cannot be because an event happens in a specific country. The U.S. is regularly the only country for whom people break that rule to express their opposing votes. Any perusal through the archives can produce dozens of examples of people opposing events expressly stating that they oppose solely because the event happens in the U.S. That happens to no other country in the world. --Jayron32 17:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm no. This is because a significant proportion of stories based in the US that are proposed on ITN are parochial even within the US (prime example, mass shooting #32487 etc), let alone worldwide. It does seem that a large proportion of our editors from the US don't have quite the same global perspective as the rest of our editors have. This is one of reasons combating the systemic bias on Wiki is proving so difficult. Ah, no rest for the wicked eh? Anyway, this is not the place to discuss this. Fgf10 (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You opened that door yourself. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The families of people who died during mass shootings within the U.S. will be comforted by your belittling them and their experiences in a patronizing way, merely because their death happened in the U.S. and not a country more worthy of their dying to be noted in. --Jayron32 00:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, they happen so frequently in the US they are not news. Simple. No need for melodramatics as above. Also, not poorly worded, phrased exactly as intended. Fgf10 (talk) 08:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The real bias victims are dead wrestlers. Also a legendary promoter? So what? Also a legendary booker? Not even worth closing! Made a few Hollywood movies? Welcome aboard, I guess. War, you say? Absolutely! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those were particularly newsworthy, so were either correctly closed or should not have been posted. Perspective, people! Fgf10 (talk) 08:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't speak for Fgf10, but even if their response was poorly worded, I doubt they intended to belittle anyone's death. However it's clearly true that what deaths we consider worth covering, not just on ITN, but the encyclopaedia proper. Many people die each day on the road. Unless they're famous or it's particularly notable accident for some reason, it's not going to be any where on wikipedia. Many other people die for many other reasons, including gun violence in the US, every day. Heck I once added a bunch of people I didn't know when I was briefly in to social gaming on Facebook. I added most of these people to a special list, but because of the difficulties mass deleting people whenever I looked and the fact I rarely use Facebook, I've never deleted most of them. A few weeks ago I read one of them was seriously ill, and they died a few days later. I went back through their history and found it all started with what was expected to be a fairly routine (I know some people will say there's no such thing) surgery. Sad but true. There's no intrisic reason why this person's death is someone less or more important than the many deaths of the various airplane crashes, or the recent bombing in Thailand. Speaking of bombings, if a bombing kills a few people in the US, or at least parts of Thailand, or the UK, or whatever, this is likely to get an article, and if it's up to scratch in time end up on ITN. Yet sadly, I'm not sure that all bombings that kill a few people in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Yemen, or heck even Pakistan will get an individual article. Systemic bias aside, I'm not sure even if you put in all the work, find all the source, etc, you will survive an AFD for each individual article. Nil Einne (talk) 04:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- To give another example of what I'm talking about, consider Murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward. While murders of journalists working (albeit this murder not really having much to do with their work), are rare in the US or much of the developed work, and this murder was undoubtedly traumatic for colleagues, families and friends, particularly given the way it happened, it seems unlikely this would be such a common headline story on world media were it not for the fact it happened on live news (probably intentionally) and to a lesser extent the murderer uploading their own recording of the murder. Does this mean it should be on ITN? One thing I didn't emphasise before, but if you try to argue it's unfair to those affected to exclude the item, what about the other 300+ journalists or millions of other murder victims in the world? (There isn't so much a geographical bias issue here, although I suspect if this had happened here in NZ it would probably have received less media attention, despite the fact such gun murders would on a per capita in NZ be less common.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I find the U.S. stories of significantly greater public interest than, say, the World Snooker Championship or the other obscure events that get thrown up on ITN seemingly at random. Neutralitytalk 06:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As prime example of bias right there! Just because snooker isn't a thing in the US, doesn't mean it isn't elsewhere and is obscure. Perspective, people! Fgf10 (talk) 08:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Contrawise, just because an event is of interest in the U.S. doesn't mean it should be discounted for that reason alone, as you do above and frequently at ITN. Your major criteria for deciding if an event is newsworthy is not how reliable sources cover the event, nor on the quality of the Wikipedia article, but rather on the coincidence of its geographic location. --Jayron32 10:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting claim. In the mood to back that up with evidence? I both support and not support US based stories, based solely on their merit. Fgf10 (talk) 11:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You just stated above that you have a blanket policy of opposing U.S. based stories because they are "parochial". Your own word. --Jayron32 12:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You appear to have problems parsing my sentences. Allow me to quote my own words back at you. "This is because a significant proportion of stories based in the US that are proposed...". Explain to me how that constitutes a "blanket policy"? In fact, I supported a US based story just today. Fgf10 (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It must have caused you such pain to have to do so. I admire you for your bravery. --Jayron32 15:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Not so. I would feel the same way about the World Snooker Championship even if it were in the United States. My point is that the relatively obscure 2014 World Snooker Championship apparently automatically got onto ITN as a recurring item (with a peak viewership of 5 million), while much more closely followed U.S. items (e.g., 2014 Rose Bowl and 2014 Sugar Bowl: 18.6 million and 11.3 million, respectively) do not get on. Now, ratings aren't the sole proxy for newsworthiness, but it is very hard to argue that there's no anti-U.S. tendency at work here.
- (For the record, I would gladly get rid of 80% of the "automatic" sports items). Neutralitytalk 14:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't disagree with the above, but it really belongs at ITN talk if anywhere. μηδείς (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
