They are the same and that is why I strongly opposed that wiki. 

My comment four months ago:

"I am against a private OR Wiki for the following reasons
  1. .Wikinews should be open to the public not closed to the public.
  2. .Collaboration should be encouraged
  3. . We are a news source, we should want other news sites to copy news, even pre-publication.
  4. . We want the news to be easily copied by others. --User:Anonymous101 Talk 12:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)"

Thanks,

Anon101
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 11:50 PM, bawolff <bawolff+wn@gmail.com> wrote:
To me "...the need for a non-public space for Wikinews to develop stories..." == embargo wiki, which was proposed and voted on etc (with concencuss to create), and than not created. (see wc)
-bawolff

On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Wikinewsie: Anonymous101 <wikinewsie.anonymous101@googlemail.com> wrote:
Quote from previous email on mailing list: "...the need for a non-public space for Wikinews to develop stories..."


Isn't this going completely against the idea of a wiki? Should we really stop people from seeing the development process for the majority of our users. To me this just seems like a way to allow us to censor articles without anyone noticing.

I am concerned that Wikimedia is going to start censoring all our articles. This sort of thing, along with Wikinews:WMF Reports is what is going to stop us being unbiased.

Thanks,

Anon101

_______________________________________________
Wikinews-l mailing list
Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l




_______________________________________________
Wikinews-l mailing list
Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l




--
Jonathan Winterfield - Journalist - Wikinews editor - Wikinews Administrator