The New York Times does that with breaking news. It is a better practice even if it is only a few reporters and editors that are involved. Fred

Thomas Dalton wrote: Perhaps "happily overwrites totally while updating information" ought to be part of the definition of "news source", in new-media analysis. It does serve as a distinction, say BBC versus us.There's a bit more to it, of course. Charles

2009/6/11 Carcharoth <carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com>om>: Yep, the BBC do exactly that. Very annoying indeed!

Unsurprising indeed. I get the impression, from projects such as Knol, that Google is something of an admirer of the Wikipedia model. AGK

2009/6/7 geni <geniice(a)gmail.com>om>: It was certainly surprising to see Microsoft getting into directly providing a Wikipedia mirror. - d.

On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 6:43 PM, geni<geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: Sometimes they do. During a recent earthquake, we all watched as the various news sites started with single sentence articles "There has been another earthquake" and rapidly expanded them to several paragraphs, one paper relying on twitter trawling to fill the space. But at a certain point, the article itself (imho) does have to stand alone as a description of a point in time, and be superseded by other articles as events change. Though maybe it depends whether new events have occurred, or whether new information has simply come to light. You could definitely make a case for having a few, big, detailed articles on high profile court cases, rather than a string of tidbits. Steve

It may be, yes, but I doubt most organisations outside of the Wiki bubble have heard of Wikinews—Google included—or are at least are aware that it is a distinct project from Wikipedia. (The similarities between the enwiki Main Page's "In The News" section and Wikinews doesn't help matters; cf., recent WikiEN-l thread on the two.) AGK

I can't imagine why they would add Wikinews as a source - it has no authority, whereas Wikipedia does. On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Andrew Turvey <andrewrturvey(a)googlemail.com > > ----- "Joe Anderson" <computerjoe(a)gmail.com> > From: "Joe Anderson" <computerjoe(a)gmail.com> > > To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Sent: Monday, 8 June, 2009 17:18:29 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, > Portugal > > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Google thinks Wikipedia is a news source > > > > On 2009-06-07 08:48:26 +0100, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> said: > > > > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/chiropractic/3601011581/ > > > > > > > Could someone speak to Google? > > > > Surely isn't this entering Wikinews' territory somewhat? > > Why? The more Wikimedia content is made available to others the better, > surely? This is a great endorsement of our material. > > If anyone complained, all they'd do is take Wikipedia off their list. They > wouldn't necessarily add Wikinews. > > Andrew > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >

Actually, no, based on use of reliable sources. Fred

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Andrew Turvey<andrewrturvey(a)googlemail.com> wrote: -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key

Just seen my first Wikinews link from Google news. Uploaded it to: http://www.flickr.com/photos/24667756@N04/3626171622/ (sorry for the poor quality) I also saw a google news link from the main "World" news linking to an article I'd created less than 24 hours previously - Harith al-Obeidi. Makes you wonder - what kind of criteria are they using? I'm extremely flattered, of course, but I wonder if they do a manual look through the article before deciding whether to link. Andrew ----- "Joe Anderson" <computerjoe(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Sage Ross<ragesoss+wikipedia(a)gmail.com> wrote: Strike that. Creation date doesn't seem to figure in. [[Murder of Meredith Kercher]] was created quite a while ago, but is linked from Google News results about the recent related developments. -Sage

Thomas Dalton wrote: True enough. Wikinews is inevitably subject to Darwinistic considerations. Unless it produces material that attracts readership it will just be ignored. Ec