Talk for Wiki Project "Anonymous sources"

Talk about this Project

  1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    In these Trumpian days of alt-facts and the North Korean nuclear denouement we are desperately in need of factual news but also of positive uplifting Good News. Stories that will restore our faith in the the ultimate redemption of a human race that has fallen far short of our sublime potential.

    WikTRIBUNE needs to devote itself to a creating and maintaining a balanced world. To disproving the tired old adage that – No News is Good News.

    Stories of Hope, of Success against the odds, of Change for the better, of a truly Greener and fairer society.

    May this Tribune herald the dawn of a brave new and better world.

  2. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)
    DU
    Deleted User

    thought y’all might find This Column in “entrepreneur and philanthropist Pierre Omidyar’s Civil Beat that was launched in 2010 as a local digital platform that looks beyond traditional print and television media approaches ( http://www.civilbeat.org/about/ ) of possible interest:

    Reader Rep: When Anonymous Sourcing Is Practically Encouraged
    http://www.civilbeat.org/2017/10/reader-rep-when-anonymous-sourcing-is-common-journalism-suffers/

  3. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

    An anonymous source not authorised to speak on behalf of…

    An anonymous source in the office of…

    An anonymous source with knowledge of…

    Those aren’t very helpful to a reader trying to gauge the legitimacy of a particular statement. Perhaps we should also include the reason that the editors chose to maintain anonymity? Or would every reason be ‘to avoid negative consequences of being associated with this piece of news’?

    It feels like any stories with anonymous sources should be somewhat devalued, but then again I’m not a journalist so I’ve never had to cover for a source. Maybe just clearly mark the story at the top as ‘includes anonymous sources’ to distinguish from other stories that can be more directly verified? That seems like a way to measure broadly how open a site is, based on the percentage of its stories that have completely verifiable sources.

    1. [ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)

      Interesting idea, thank you. In many cases of course sensitive information would never emerge were it not for anonymous sources but we should always be clear when and why we are using them — personal safety for example.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Be the first to collaborate on our developing articles

WikiTribune Open menu Close Search Like Back Next Open menu Close menu Play video RSS Feed Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Follow us on Instagram Follow us on Youtube Connect with us on Linkedin Connect with us on Discord Email us