There was a bit of discussion about Wikinews on Foundation-l a few
weeks ago, which those of you don't follow that list might be
interested in. The thread starts here:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-May/051762.html
The gist of the discussion was that Wikinews doesn't have a model that
is compelling enough for users to create the sort of critical mass
that would be necessary for it to be truly successful, in the face of
all the competition in the online news sphere. My contribution to the
discussion started with a blog post I wrote recently, "Rethinking
Wikinews":
http://ragesossscholar.blogspot.com/2009/05/rethinking-wikinews.html
-Sage (User:Ragesoss)
> 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
In a message dated 5/23/2009 9:02:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com writes:
> information on standard dosage,
> information that we have made the policy decision to omit.
> I think this a particularly stupid decision.>>
-------------------
Would you be willing to post here a direct link to where this is in policy?
And also link to where you propose that we remove it. I agree with your
opinion that standard dosage is not "advice".
Will J
**************
An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
Steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221322948x1201367184/aol?redir=htt…
bcd=MayExcfooterNO62)
Of course I agree with you Carcharoth. When you revert vandalism, you
should make sure you're not reverting to previous vandalism.
But what was asked was "what if you are reverting to *incorrect*
information". That's not the same as reverting vandalism. We cannot expect each
vandalism reverter to know whether George Bush was born in Texas or Maine.
Simple vandalism is one thing. Reverting to "This drug is used to treat
diabetes" is a quite different animal. I'm sure you would agree.
If we expect *each and every* vandal reverter to suddenly also be an expert
in that article, than we're going to be facing a big problem. There simply
aren't that many experts to handle the vandals. I hope you can see this
point.
Will Johnson
**************
An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
Steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221322948x1201367184/aol?redir=htt…
bcd=MayExcfooterNO62)
In a message dated 5/24/2009 12:11:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com writes:
> There is a big difference between a specialist encyclopaedia like PDR
> and a general one like Wikipedia.>>
-------------
Yes the difference is, we re-report what all the specialist encyclopedias
have said, in one big project, instead of fifty little ones.
We may not reproduce every detail, but we would certainly reproduce the
most important details.
Will Johnson
**************
An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
Steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221322948x1201367184/aol?redir=htt…
bcd=MayExcfooterNO62)
The PDR is a reliable source. If we are relying on the PDR for dosage
information, then we have no liability for re-reporting what they say.
If a person self-medicates, then they are already taking on the liability
for what they are doing. Any case-law for a person suing the PDR over
incorrect information?
At any rate, the person would have to sue the editor, not the project, and
the editor could stand on the basis of simply quoting the PDR.
The PDR is an encyclopedia of drugs and our project as an "teritary source"
if you will (although I hate that term teritiary), should report everything
that any other reliable encyclopedia has to say about whatever topic. It
seems encyclopedia to me, to report what another encyclopedia states.
Will Johnson
**************
An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
Steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221322948x1201367184/aol?redir=htt…
bcd=MayExcfooterNO62)
> On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 8:36 AM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Judge-Turned-Journalist Files Wikipedia Defamation Complaint in Her Old
>> Court
>>
>>
>> http://www.abajournal.com/news/judge-turned-journalist_files_wikipedia_defa…
>>
>> Here is the edit complained of:
>>
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catherine_Crier&diff=prev&oldid=2…
>>
>> by 75.17.15.39 an ip address use by AT&T
>>
>> Fred Bauder
>>
>>
> That's not the IP address name in the suit, Fred.
>
> We already addressed this several days ago on Wikipedia Review.
>
> http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=24370
>
> The IP address named in the brief is: 75.16.196.192
>
> Did you look at the court documents? How did you conclude that
> 75.17.15.39
> is also culpable?
>
> Greg
>
Here is another insertion of the material:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catherine_Crier&diff=prev&oldid=2…
by 75.17.12.84 another AT&T Internet Services address
75.16.196.192 also resolved to AT&T but specifically to Southwestern Bell
but shows no edits to Catherine Crier. That may not mean the address is
wrong.
Fred Bauder