Wikipedia talk:Don't jump the gun

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Initial comments

Curious what people think of the essay (my first foray into this part of Wikipedia). Having worked on some major news event articles and terrorism lists, this seemed like something that could be useful. Certainly open to suggestions, edits, etc. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other notable examples of 'getting it wrong' include that Ch4 'named' the culprit in yesterdays Westminster event, whose photograph circulated widely, they had to retract when their 'perp' turned out to be in jail. Other, esp. non-UK outlets were still circulating the claim and photo after the Ch4 retraction. If I remember correctly, unnamed witnesses at both Nice and Munich last year were claiming that they heard 'God is Great', neither claim has ever been confirmed by authorities.

What seems worthy of addition to you essay, is to NOT add to categories until nature is 100% certain. Also, probably a lost cause, but to NOT create 'content forks' for perp., victim, etc. until the need to do so is apparent. I personally would beef up 'official' designation as required since even RS news outlets (and UK foreign ministers in respect of Munich) are themselves 'jumping the gun' in assuming 'terrorism', or implying terrorism, especially when it is not their own country which has been hit or for other 'local' reasons.

The other side of 'breaking news syndrome', is the fact that editors (especially 'fly-ins') are less keen to add the more nuanced, or frankly contradictory info that often emerges weeks, months or years after the story has left the headlines. I would argue that this 'bigger picture' is actually why we are here. Could something be added to the essay to encourage 'staying with it'? Pincrete (talk) 13:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely good advice, and a good idea to encapsulate what has long been preached on many separate current event talk pages. As a betting man, I don't see it actually stopping the problem, but would wager it'll convince some people to slow down. That's a step in the right direction. Thanks for trying. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do intend to fully absorb the text of your well-written essay and let you know what I think, but it will have to wait till the CAT:ADMINBACKLOG and OTRS backlogs are down to a more manageable level. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, well... I can't lie. That RFA did make me kind of forget about a few things. I'll read it now. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @EvergreenFir: What are your thoughts on WP:TRUTH? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This example might be relevant, relating to this. Pincrete (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]