I'm tempted to answer that with never. Too much room for abuse, which the BP may or may not solve. We wouldn't know until the BP document is made and tested to prove it works. Until then, and after, a better option may be to limit it to the wikinews articles that are first cited by other reliable sources. Until then, it may as well be the White House encyclopedia citing White House press releases.
--- Cool Hand Luke failure.to.communicate@gmail.com wrote:
A particular dispute over a Wikinews reporter citing quotes from his own interview has turned into a generalized debate about when Wikinews should be an acceptable source. See this RS/N
Jimbo has suggested that Wikinews create a best practices document. BP-compliant articles would be verifiable and thus should be available to Wikipedia editors as a reliable source. See this Wikinews water cooler
.
I think that this is a great solution, which would answer the continual objections that Wikinews faces on our project. However, more editors should weigh in.
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (Wikia supported site since 2006)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs