Brown, Darin wrote:
I can't agree. If wikinews really is a form
of
"alternative media", then how
is wikinews any different than various
alternative
media with a clear
leftist, rightist, libertarian, conservative,
populist, etc., etc., slant?
Just because we say we don't have a bias? Fox
News
says they don't have a
bias, either. And look at them.
And then we are taking money from people for
Wikimedia, under the guise that
we are using to present a neutral relaying of
information. If this is okay
for us, again, Fox News or the New York Post
could
just as well do the exact
same thing. But people who pay money to watch Fox
News or the New York Post
*know* it's biased.
What? Since when are people *paying* for Wikimedia
content???
Where is the comparison here?
The comparison is in reality. As I wrote at
wikinews:purpose , there are some inherent
contradictions between a newsgathering organization
operates and how a wiki operates. Someone once said
that 'wikipedia will eventually just become a wiki'
(rather than an encyclopedia). WP has so far proven
that inasfar as anonymous contribution and
organization of facts toward creating what we call an
"encyclopedia" the wiki software model works quite
well.
Wikinews on the other hand, has largely remained just
an experiment in 'throwing wiki software at the news
org idea'. It was bound to fail without some sincere
rethinking of the software and how it works, andmany
had commented a long time ago that some other
I.e newsorgs need secrecy/privacy and trustworthiness
in its source referencing and fact gathering. WP:CITE
doesnt work if the source is complete background, and
the only way that BG sources can be used in a story is
if the story is written by credentialled people, and
published in a newspaper with some trust an
accountablity. Of course, when even the NYT (oogle
"Sulzberger lucky sperm club" ) and others before it
can seriously cross the line into Yellow Journalism,
we can at least hold to an idealistic notion that 'we
cant be any worse.' But that notion is unfortunately
always predicated on the upstart model - the notion
that someday we will get there even if we dont have
even the foundation of a newsorg set up.
Wikinews just will not work. Journalism requires
journalists and journalists cost money, use up a lot
of airfare and quite regularly get shot at. ('Alaskan
crab fishing' -- my ass). Beyond that, journalists
want the perks and credentials of journalism, as well
as the support of editors and publishers, whos
professional reputations are also on the line.
The real point is: Wikimedia's purpose itself has
fundamental contradictions with the purposes of a real
newsorg. Even lucky shot videographers want to call
around to see what they can get for their video. Its
amazing Wikipedia has worked so well so far, but thats
largely because commercial newsorgs and publishers
have done the real work for us. And because theres no
time value urgency, so the information is free to use
for historian purposes, such as Wikipedia's.
SV
__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.