[Foundation-l] Seeking clarification

[Jason Safoutin]

> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 12:30:08 +0000
> From: "Andrew Gray" <shimgray at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Seeking clarification
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> 	<foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> 	<f3fedb0d0801230430l47db917fq5b6398a63c60c5ad at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 23/01/2008, Jason Safoutin <jason.safoutin at wikinewsie.org> wrote:
>
>   
>> It is realistic. Plain and simple: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If you
>> want news on an encyclopedis, change it to "Wikipedia and news". Until
>> thin, this creates a competition between Wikinews and Wikipedia, *not*
>> collaboration.
>>     
>
> We've had this discussion a hundred times before and still haven't
> reached a satisfactory conclusion :-)
>
> Decreeing "Wikipedia doesn't do news" hasn't, on the whole, *worked*,
> because it still gets news, at least "big-ticket" news. It still gets
> used, actively and enthusiastically, and very, very effectively. It's
> still where people run to for big unexpected stories, for air crashes
> and hurricanes and revolutions.
>
> We have three options - gently encourage people to move this over;
> take drastic measures to encourage people to move this over; or accept
> the status quo. And, somehow, we need to do this without lessening the
> overall utility.
>   
Well I can say a few things Wikinews is famous for that WP could not 
even dream of achieving: One we broke the story on Chris Benoit edit on 
WP. 2) London Bombings 3) Israeli President Peres 4) Scientology website 
being attacked....and that's just a short list because there are SOOOOO 
many.

The thing it should be is that anyone who wants to write a *news* 
article should be directed to WN. The news section of WP should contain 
more WN stories other than just a link. And yes it has to be forced 
over. Projects have to change. And WP needs to accept change. AS I 
stated in a thread just before this reply, WP is not the only WMF project.
>   
>> Right. The ones *not* in competition are the ones that are not the same
>> projects or similar to projects of WMF Wikieducator = Wikiverity and
>> Encyclopedia of Life = Wikispecies.  Those IMHO are *direct* competition
>> and both of which receive an endorsement by WMF. Again, WMF needs to
>> endorse and think about their projects first and foremost. Period.
>>     
>
> Perfectly serious question: *Why*?
>
> Let's imagine that EoL gets up and running properly, and makes
> Wikispecies look like a school project - it's got $50m, high-level
> backing, some Actual Professional Management, and all sorts of useful
> back-end stuff that we simply can't offer, not to mention a very good
> way of tapping into a highly skilled author pool and getting focused
> press attention if it so wants.
>
> I'm not saying this *is* going to be the case - EoL barely exists just
> now - but it's certainly got the potential to happen... why shouldn't
> we endorse it, in that case? Why shouldn't we encourage people to use
> it and contribute to it, why shouldn't we offer them assistance where
> we can?
>
> The WMF's goals are not "set up some websites and protect their
> interests aggressively". They are to get the content out there, to get
> more of it created, and the sites and the hosting are a means to that
> end.
>
> Assuming that because we have started a project we must see it through
> to the bitter end, we must keep clinging to it and pushing it even if
> something better comes along, is really not a very productive
> standpoint. It skirts close to a rather uncomfortable arrogance that
> we are the best possible people to handle any "central" collaborative
> project, and everyone else needs to find their own little niches
> around the territory we have staked out...
>
>   
Because they need to endorse and provide for and help improve their own 
projects first. We have Wikispecies...help them first...help the WMF 
projects first and foremost.

Jason Safoutin (DagonFire1024)