[WikiEN-l] BBC blog on WSJ study

[Ray Saintonge]

Bod Notbod wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>   
>> Certain copyright issues are also at the heart of the problem, notably
>> that you can't copyright information.  You can copyright expression, but
>> Wikipedians are quite happy to not use the actual wording of news
>> reports.
>>     
> I wonder how true that is, though. I'm sure people on Wikinews do
> sometimes cut 'n' paste, but I feel there's more to it than that.
>   

Indeed there is, but I suppose that I envisioned the ideal Wikimedian. 
The information/expression distinction is often blurred. When it comes 
to derivative works it can be difficult to determine whether something 
is derived from the information or from the expression.
> It actually takes quite a bit of work to read an entire article and
> process it in your mind then put out a purely self-made version. And,
> let's take the *most* optimistic view of editors: you're still
> reporting a report. Some guy went out there, said what he saw, got
> money for it, funded by advertising.
>
> At best, all we can do is say "this guy saw what he saw and now I'm
> repeating it".
>   

Yes, and if more funded reporters went there and came back with 
different reports of what happened, the aggregator tries to synthesize a 
single neutral story. It is dangerous to truth to base one's knowledge 
on a single view when the situation could be as in Akutagawa's [[In a 
Grove]], or in the Fuller/Suber [[The Case of the Speluncean Explorers]].

I wouldn't draw the conclusion that all these reporters are necessarily 
funded by advertising, though a significant portion is.

> Don't misunderstand me... I'm still on Wikipedia/Wikinews's side on
> this. But that's as a reader and editor, not as someone running a
> business.
>
> Surely it must be true to say that Wikinews would be nothing without
> paid journalists from whom we aggregate content?

Perhaps, but as long as Wikinews is doing little more than aggregating 
professional sources it will be stuck in an unimaginative rut. There 
must be some reason why the Serbian Wikinews has been so much more 
successful than the others. What can we learn from that?

The perspective of the reader/editor needs to be reconciled with that of 
the business person. That can only come when each side understands and 
appreciates the efforts and values of the other.

Ec