> Something that has often confused me is Wikipedia's 'In the news'
> section.
>
> More often than not, the stories are the exact same as Wikinews', and
> in my opinion the presence of this section on Wikipedia actually stops
> people visiting Wikinews, as they can get all their important news off
> Wikipedia.
>
> To me, it seems counterproductive that a news story (I know Wikipedia
> doesn't do news, but current events often is effectively a news story)
> has to effectively be written twice (once on Wikinews and once on
> Wikipedia, due to licensing issues) when both projects are hosted by
> the same people and share a common goal: to provide free content.
>
> Could the two somehow be linked closer than a mere hyperlink? Could
> Wikipedia grab Wikinews' feed for the 'In the news' section or could
> content be copied off Wikinews onto Wikipedia once the new licence has
> been implemented?
>
> Would Wikinews not really benefit if current events editors on
> Wikipedia moved over to it?
>
> I'm sure this has been discussed hundreds of times but I am curious
> what the past consensus has been.
The current events section on Wikipedia has been a feature of the front
page almost from the beginning, long before Wikinews was a project. It is
simply a partial record of the major stories of the day, not an
independent report of the news. (This is not quite true as those
Wikipedians who control the front page have some editorial influence on
what is highlighted). It is rather mediocre and spotty in its coverage,
including some very minor stories and missing some major stories. It
definitely needs attention by people who are news oriented, although it
could go in different potential directions. The stories included
contribute to article development with active work often occurring on the
subjects of the stories, thus it is part of the dynamics of how Wikipedia
works. It would be a shame to disrupt that dynamic.
Fred Bauder