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
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]]
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
<snip>Fred Bauder:
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. </snip>
I would echo that. Wikipedia's "In The News" section, like "Today's Featured Article," attracts attention to an article that would probably otherwise not have received it; as with any Wikipedia article, reader attention does, in a portion of cases, lead to editor attention (as the visitor discovers 'edit this page' and explores the wiki set-up, for good or ill :-)). That Today's Featured articles are not protected is an extension of that reasoning: pages that receive main page exposure will almost certainly receive a useful burst of attention (along with, as always, a burst of not-so-helpful contributions that can only be counteracted with our editor's vigilance).
*AGK*
Wikipedia and Wikinews have slightly different "takes" on a new matter. Wikinews reports (as the media do) the current happenings of the day. Wikipedia tends to produce a summary of the entire topic or issue, with background and analysis (from reliable sources) rather than just "what just happened today".
The two don't conflict, and the writer is probably correct on both points - Wikinews suffers from people visiting the article rather than the news entry, and also, Wikipedia articles gain higher profile in an area of topical interest and this encourages readers to visit wikipedia too.
They shouldn't be in conflict. Users should be encouraged to visit Wikinews for the actual news, and to stay on top of (and keep a finger on) events as they happen, and encouraged to visit Wikipedia for a more in depth analysis of the background, event, or issue as a whole (if an article exists).
What I'd like to see is perhaps put (news) (background) links for each item, or (news) (analysis) maybe. Somehow it would be good to have Wikinews getting recognition on Wikipedia's front page that the news is its province, and yet not to disrupt the links of stories to Wikipedia articles.
Design suggestions? :)
FT2