In this
(
http://www.nabble.com/FW%3A-Wikinews-reporting-on-WMF-and-projects-to171709…)
thread relating to a WMF ordered removal of content from Wikinews,
Mike Godwin wrote:
"The idea that you can post an incomplete or inadequate or false news
story up on the site and then wait for people who happen by to fix it
is a recipe for lawsuits -- the expensive kind, that the Foundation
and Wikinews can't afford to defend.
What probably needs to happen is some kind of process in which initial
versions of news stories are vetted before they're made publicly
available for further editing."
Personally, I would expect to hold a news source to a lower
expectation of accuracy than any encyclopedia because news, by its
nature, is subject to the pressure and distortion of immediacy.
I generally support the notion of increasing the distance between the
general public and new unchecked material, though certainly not
everyone does... but to whatever extent the position is valid,
wouldn't it be extra-true for Wikipedia with its encyclopedia
aspirations and enormous viewership? Thoughts?
Wikipedia articles use previously published information, so it is less
true. However, one can repeat actionable libel or privacy violation.
Fred