I just want to say that I see a significant difference between the Wikipedia: In the news
section and our front page.It is not just the interviews. Wikipedia is restricted to those
events that merit an encyclopedic entry for posterity, while we can cover event that are
more temporal in nature. Sure, there is a great deal of overlap, especially while Wikinews
is small. Earthquakes, wars, elections all get their own Wikipedia pages.In recent news,
however, we have had a series of articles, that I have not seen on "Wikipedia: In the
news" and that would be the stories on Daniel Hauser and the court-ordered
chemotherapy.Daniel Hauser does not have a Wikipedia entry, but we have at least three
stories on his case:Minnesota boy with cancer and mother return to abide by court
rulingsMother and son disappear after court orders cancer treatmentCourt rules teen must
take chemotherapyWikipedia barely mentions this case in Hodgkin's lymphoma:
Notable_cases.As we grow, these differences will grow.Cheers, SVTCobra----- Original
Message -----From: Brion Vibber Date: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 7:23 pmSubject: Re:
[Wikinews-l] Wikipedia's 'In the news'To: fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net, Wikinews
mailing list Cc: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> El 5/26/09 4:28 AM, Fred Bauder
escribió:> > Wikipedia needs to do what is good for Wikipedia, and some > news
coverage> > is good for Wikipedia. Detailed original reporting is outside >
Wikipedia's> mission, as is a sophisticated presentation of the > significance
of news.> > As things happen, information about them is added to the > corpus of
human> > knowledge and thus added to Wikipedia.> > Wikinews does relatively
little to really support firsthand > reporting > either. I'll admit I'm not
a hardcore Wikinewsie, but what I've > seen > over the last years has generally
been either:> > * Original interviews> or> * Re-reporting of news stories in
other media> > Look at today's top stories:> >
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Trial_against_Church_of_Scientology_begins_in_F…
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/North_Korea_conducts_test_of_nuclear_weapon>
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Obama_nominates_Sonia_Sotomayor_to_U.S._Supreme…
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Cyclone_in_Bay_of_Bengal_kills_at_least_17> > All four
are just rehashes of information found at other news > sites -- > the sources are
all media news outlets: CNN, BBC, Al-Jazeera, > Reuters, etc.> > There is an
original reporting section:>
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Portal:Original_reporting>
> but the stories are relatively rare, and even many of those seem > to be >
basically "a public event happened, here's a description" or "a >
press > conference happened, here's some info".> > > Wikinews lacks a
local angle (there's no locality) or a unifying > political angle (we're
supposed to be neutral), either of which > could > make it much easier to organize
original reporting. Compare with > say > Indynews, which has a strong political
angle and has been much > more > active about providing infrastructure. Editorial
quality > sometimes > suffers, but I at least feel like they've got a
mission...> > -- brion> > _______________________________________________>
Wikinews-l mailing list> Wikinews-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l>