I wouldn't even go so far as to say one is "more important" than the
other.Wikinews provides a moment by moment reflection of what takes place in
the news.
Wikipedia often draws on that kind of source material (from reliable
sources) for its articles, but anyone who wants to track a news matter in
more detail (or some time later), or wishes to find actual sources or free
content equivalents for the day by day mainstream press reports, will find
that in Wikinews, not its larger sibling.
FT2
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Michael Peel <email(a)mikepeel.net> wrote:
On 25 May 2009, at 12:53, Fred Bauder wrote:
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
I'm also of the view that there should be a closer interaction
between Wikipedia and Wikinews, particularly with this "In the news"
section (which I'm aware is a bone of contention with wikinewsies).
It's good that news is "written twice", as the two have different
styles and different purposes, and although I would argue that
wikipedia is the more important one to work on (given the longer
lifetime of the content), if support can be given to Wikinews then
that can only be good. I wouldn't particularly worry about disrupting
dynamics - dynamics, by their very nature, change over time, mostly
for the good.
The selection of the news is inherently different, though, so I'm not
sure that a simple feed from Wikinews would work. Perhaps a simple
"(more...)" link after each of the entries linking to the Wikinews
article (when one exists) would be a good start?
[[User:Mike_Peel]]
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l