But speaking only about the basics--the wikinews
concept is an interesting idea. But just to throw it
out there--Indymedia blew it with Google news by
virture of not having a means to community edit
content. Wiki allows people to edit willy
nilly--our
experience on wikipedia shows that a community can
deal with vandalism, but with an encyclopedia we can
take it easy. With "news" there would be a need to
have current states of articles in tip top shape,
allowing a much much smaller margin of leeway for
vandals and cranks, etc. Ideally a sysop pool of
maybe
2-300 might be able to deal with issues quickly
enough
-- some extra protections like limitations on anons,
etc would be necessary.
Just throwing it out there-- how much would the
Wikimedia ware have to change to meet the needs of
such a project?
~S~
Whenever a new subproject is added to Wikimedia,
people say that we'll need more security. But that's
completely pointless. Remember Nupedia? That would
have been completely accurate, but it was too
constricting and not many people contributed to it. In
any event, there is no reason why news should be more
restricted than an encyclopedia; if anything, it
should be the reverse.
LDan
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com