2009/6/7 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/chiropractic/3601011581/
- d.
Unfortunate but unsurprising. Not that long ago Google was telling traditional media that they should construct their articles in a more wikipedia like manner (ie continuously update a single article per event rather than creating a string of new articles).
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 4:43 AM, genigeniice@gmail.com wrote:
2009/6/7 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/chiropractic/3601011581/
- d.
Unfortunate but unsurprising.
Fortunate and surprising, actually. Wikipedia articles actually serve the purpose of an news source (with the restriction on original reporting, yadda yadda), so the inclusion somehoe makes sense. Especially considering that "infoboxes" are common in newspapers, too. Our infobox just happens to be 50.000 words long on average :)
Unfortunate but unsurprising. Not that long ago Google was telling traditional media that they should construct their articles in a more wikipedia like manner (ie continuously update a single article per event rather than creating a string of new articles).
-- geni
The New York Times does that with breaking news. It is a better practice even if it is only a few reporters and editors that are involved.
Fred
2009/6/7 Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
Unfortunate but unsurprising. Not that long ago Google was telling traditional media that they should construct their articles in a more wikipedia like manner (ie continuously update a single article per event rather than creating a string of new articles).
-- geni
The New York Times does that with breaking news. It is a better practice even if it is only a few reporters and editors that are involved.
The BBC News website does too. I'm not a great fan of that approach, it makes it hard to find out what the new information is (they don't have "(diff)" links like Wikipedia, so you have to play a game of spot-the-difference manually).
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/6/7 Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
Unfortunate but unsurprising. Not that long ago Google was telling traditional media that they should construct their articles in a more wikipedia like manner (ie continuously update a single article per event rather than creating a string of new articles).
-- geni
The New York Times does that with breaking news. It is a better practice even if it is only a few reporters and editors that are involved.
The BBC News website does too. I'm not a great fan of that approach, it makes it hard to find out what the new information is (they don't have "(diff)" links like Wikipedia, so you have to play a game of spot-the-difference manually).
Perhaps "happily overwrites totally while updating information" ought to be part of the definition of "news source", in new-media analysis. It does serve as a distinction, say BBC versus us.There's a bit more to it, of course.
Charles
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/6/7 Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
Unfortunate but unsurprising. Not that long ago Google was telling traditional media that they should construct their articles in a more wikipedia like manner (ie continuously update a single article per event rather than creating a string of new articles).
-- geni
The New York Times does that with breaking news. It is a better practice even if it is only a few reporters and editors that are involved.
The BBC News website does too. I'm not a great fan of that approach, it makes it hard to find out what the new information is (they don't have "(diff)" links like Wikipedia, so you have to play a game of spot-the-difference manually).
That is annoying. Especially if you link to or quote from a news article and find it has been updated later. I can't remember if they update the URL as well. The other problem is that some news sources (can't remember what the BBC do) only give the "latest update" date and time. So you are sometimes left in the dark as to when the *first* version of the news story was published. Which can sometimes be vital information for a reader. This is even more annoying if a story was published weeks or days ago, and then suddenly the only visible date on the story is today's date. It's like, uh, I linked to this page, giving the original date of publication of the story, and now you've trashed the page and changed the date. Epic fail.
And don't get me started on webpages or "news" stories that fail to give *any* date of publication at all. If you are lucky, you get a generic copyright date at the bottom of the page, which usually bears no relation to when the page was initially published or last updated.
Carcharoth
2009/6/11 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
The other problem is that some news sources (can't remember what the BBC do) only give the "latest update" date and time.
Yep, the BBC do exactly that. Very annoying indeed!
Carcharoth wrote:
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The BBC News website does too. I'm not a great fan of that approach, it makes it hard to find out what the new information is (they don't have "(diff)" links like Wikipedia, so you have to play a game of spot-the-difference manually).
That is annoying.
Very annoying.
Especially if you link to or quote from a news article and find it has been updated later.
They need to learn about permalinks.
And don't get me started on webpages or "news" stories that fail to give *any* date of publication at all.
Arrgh.
Unfortunate but unsurprising. Not that long ago Google was telling traditional media that they should construct their articles in a more wikipedia like manner (ie continuously update a single article per event rather than creating a string of new articles).
Unsurprising indeed. I get the impression, from projects such as Knol, that Google is something of an admirer of the Wikipedia model.
AGK
2009/6/7 AGK wikiagk@googlemail.com:
Unfortunate but unsurprising. Not that long ago Google was telling traditional media that they should construct their articles in a more wikipedia like manner (ie continuously update a single article per event rather than creating a string of new articles).
Unsurprising indeed. I get the impression, from projects such as Knol, that Google is something of an admirer of the Wikipedia model.
AGK
Knol is somewhat different.
Perhaps more directly the recent actions of Google and Microsoft bing suggest that part of being a modern search engine is effectively presenting wikipedia content to people.
You also have the issue that both google maps and Microsoft's multimap have the ability to show wikipedia articles on their maps.
2009/6/7 geni geniice@gmail.com:
Perhaps more directly the recent actions of Google and Microsoft bing suggest that part of being a modern search engine is effectively presenting wikipedia content to people.
It was certainly surprising to see Microsoft getting into directly providing a Wikipedia mirror.
- d.
2009/6/7 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2009/6/7 geni geniice@gmail.com:
Perhaps more directly the recent actions of Google and Microsoft bing suggest that part of being a modern search engine is effectively presenting wikipedia content to people.
It was certainly surprising to see Microsoft getting into directly providing a Wikipedia mirror.
- d.
Not really new. View say central London on multimap then select the wikipedia tick box.
With Encarta abandoned microsoft has no real interest in developing an alternative to wikipedia any more so why not use it?
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 6:43 PM, genigeniice@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunate but unsurprising. Not that long ago Google was telling traditional media that they should construct their articles in a more wikipedia like manner (ie continuously update a single article per event rather than creating a string of new articles).
Sometimes they do. During a recent earthquake, we all watched as the various news sites started with single sentence articles "There has been another earthquake" and rapidly expanded them to several paragraphs, one paper relying on twitter trawling to fill the space. But at a certain point, the article itself (imho) does have to stand alone as a description of a point in time, and be superseded by other articles as events change.
Though maybe it depends whether new events have occurred, or whether new information has simply come to light. You could definitely make a case for having a few, big, detailed articles on high profile court cases, rather than a string of tidbits.
Steve
2009/6/12 Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com:
Though maybe it depends whether new events have occurred, or whether new information has simply come to light. You could definitely make a case for having a few, big, detailed articles on high profile court cases, rather than a string of tidbits.
The Guardian and (I think) the NYT do this through topic pages, giving all the articles on a large and complicated story on one page in date order. Very nice.
- d.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/chiropractic/3601011581/
- d.
Wikipedia only aggregates news, but as those who read many newspapers, and watch several channels of TV know, that is what all news sources do; they develop a few stories independently, but the bulk of their coverage is aggregated. Wikipedia aggregates news fairly well, better than some mainstream news sources such as CBS, ABC, or CNN.
Fred
On 2009-06-07 08:48:26 +0100, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com said:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/chiropractic/3601011581/
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Could someone speak to Google?
Surely isn't this entering Wikinews' territory somewhat?
Surely isn't this entering Wikinews' territory somewhat?
It may be, yes, but I doubt most organisations outside of the Wiki bubble have heard of Wikinews—Google included—or are at least are aware that it is a distinct project from Wikipedia. (The similarities between the enwiki Main Page's "In The News" section and Wikinews doesn't help matters; cf., recent WikiEN-l thread on the two.)
AGK
----- "Joe Anderson" computerjoe@gmail.com wrote:
From: "Joe Anderson" computerjoe@gmail.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, 8 June, 2009 17:18:29 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Google thinks Wikipedia is a news source
On 2009-06-07 08:48:26 +0100, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com said:
Could someone speak to Google?
Surely isn't this entering Wikinews' territory somewhat?
Why? The more Wikimedia content is made available to others the better, surely? This is a great endorsement of our material.
If anyone complained, all they'd do is take Wikipedia off their list. They wouldn't necessarily add Wikinews.
Andrew
I can't imagine why they would add Wikinews as a source - it has no authority, whereas Wikipedia does.
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Andrew Turvey <andrewrturvey@googlemail.com
wrote:
----- "Joe Anderson" computerjoe@gmail.com wrote:
From: "Joe Anderson" computerjoe@gmail.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, 8 June, 2009 17:18:29 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland,
Portugal
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Google thinks Wikipedia is a news source
On 2009-06-07 08:48:26 +0100, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com said:
Could someone speak to Google?
Surely isn't this entering Wikinews' territory somewhat?
Why? The more Wikimedia content is made available to others the better, surely? This is a great endorsement of our material.
If anyone complained, all they'd do is take Wikipedia off their list. They wouldn't necessarily add Wikinews.
Andrew _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
PageRank authority. People-actually-read-it authority. People believe what they read there authority.
A de facto authority.
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 12:51 PM, AGK wikiagk@googlemail.com wrote:
I can't imagine why they would add Wikinews as a source - it has no authority, whereas Wikipedia does.
What type of authority, Brian? Reliability? Based on original reporting?
AGK _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Andrew Turveyandrewrturvey@googlemail.com wrote:
----- "Joe Anderson" computerjoe@gmail.com wrote:
From: "Joe Anderson" computerjoe@gmail.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, 8 June, 2009 17:18:29 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Google thinks Wikipedia is a news source
On 2009-06-07 08:48:26 +0100, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com said:
Could someone speak to Google?
Surely isn't this entering Wikinews' territory somewhat?
Why? The more Wikimedia content is made available to others the better, surely? This is a great endorsement of our material.
If anyone complained, all they'd do is take Wikipedia off their list. They wouldn't necessarily add Wikinews.
Andrew _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 2009-06-08 17:47:10 +0100, Andrew Turvey andrewrturvey@googlemail.com said:
----- "Joe Anderson" computerjoe@gmail.com wrote:
From: "Joe Anderson" computerjoe@gmail.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, 8 June, 2009 17:18:29 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Google thinks Wikipedia is a news source
On 2009-06-07 08:48:26 +0100, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com said:
Could someone speak to Google?
Surely isn't this entering Wikinews' territory somewhat?
Why? The more Wikimedia content is made available to others the better, surely? This is a great endorsement of our material.
If anyone complained, all they'd do is take Wikipedia off their list. They wouldn't necessarily add Wikinews.
Andrew _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Wikinews is carried by Google, fyi. So it may be confusing for them to see two WMF links.
Just seen my first Wikinews link from Google news. Uploaded it to:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24667756@N04/3626171622/
(sorry for the poor quality)
I also saw a google news link from the main "World" news linking to an article I'd created less than 24 hours previously - Harith al-Obeidi. Makes you wonder - what kind of criteria are they using? I'm extremely flattered, of course, but I wonder if they do a manual look through the article before deciding whether to link.
Andrew
----- "Joe Anderson" computerjoe@gmail.com wrote:
From: "Joe Anderson" computerjoe@gmail.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, 8 June, 2009 18:42:59 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Google thinks Wikipedia is a news source
On 2009-06-08 17:47:10 +0100, Andrew Turvey andrewrturvey@googlemail.com said:
----- "Joe Anderson" computerjoe@gmail.com wrote:
From: "Joe Anderson" computerjoe@gmail.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, 8 June, 2009 17:18:29 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Google thinks Wikipedia is a news source
On 2009-06-07 08:48:26 +0100, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com said:
Could someone speak to Google?
Surely isn't this entering Wikinews' territory somewhat?
Why? The more Wikimedia content is made available to others the better, surely? This is a great endorsement of our material.
If anyone complained, all they'd do is take Wikipedia off their list. They wouldn't necessarily add Wikinews.
Andrew _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Wikinews is carried by Google, fyi. So it may be confusing for them to see two WMF links.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Andrew Turveyandrewrturvey@googlemail.com wrote:
Just seen my first Wikinews link from Google news. Uploaded it to:
Wikinews has been included in Google News listings for a while now, since shortly after Stable Revisions went into operation.
I also saw a google news link from the main "World" news linking to an article I'd created less than 24 hours previously - Harith al-Obeidi. Makes you wonder - what kind of criteria are they using? I'm extremely flattered, of course, but I wonder if they do a manual look through the article before deciding whether to link.
Inclusion of Wikipedia articles in Google News appears to be based on a) having been created recently, and b) having as its title a term that is part of the core topic of a collection of articles that Google News determines to be related.
Also, it looks like Wikipedia links have been rolled out to more (all?) Google users. A few days ago, I wasn't getting the Wikipedia link yet; now I am. Does anyone NOT get links to Wikipedia articles now? http://www.google.com/news?pz=1&topic=w&ict=ln
-Sage (User:Ragesoss)
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Sage Rossragesoss+wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Inclusion of Wikipedia articles in Google News appears to be based on a) having been created recently, and b) having as its title a term that is part of the core topic of a collection of articles that Google News determines to be related.
Strike that. Creation date doesn't seem to figure in. [[Murder of Meredith Kercher]] was created quite a while ago, but is linked from Google News results about the recent related developments.
-Sage
2009/6/8 Joe Anderson computerjoe@gmail.com:
Could someone speak to Google?
Surely isn't this entering Wikinews' territory somewhat?
Sure it is, but that's not Google's problem, it's ours. Google will link to wherever the best article on news topics are. At the moment, that is very often Wikipedia, not Wikinews. I would like to encourage people to go to Wikinews when they want to write about current affairs and only create a Wikipedia article after the event is over, but I don't think there is anything approaching a consensus for that.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/6/8 Joe Anderson computerjoe@gmail.com:
Could someone speak to Google?
Surely isn't this entering Wikinews' territory somewhat?
Sure it is, but that's not Google's problem, it's ours. Google will link to wherever the best article on news topics are. At the moment, that is very often Wikipedia, not Wikinews. I would like to encourage people to go to Wikinews when they want to write about current affairs and only create a Wikipedia article after the event is over, but I don't think there is anything approaching a consensus for that.
True enough. Wikinews is inevitably subject to Darwinistic considerations. Unless it produces material that attracts readership it will just be ignored.
Ec
2009/6/8 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/6/8 Joe Anderson computerjoe@gmail.com:
Could someone speak to Google?
Surely isn't this entering Wikinews' territory somewhat?
Sure it is, but that's not Google's problem, it's ours. Google will link to wherever the best article on news topics are. At the moment, that is very often Wikipedia, not Wikinews. I would like to encourage people to go to Wikinews when they want to write about current affairs and only create a Wikipedia article after the event is over, but I don't think there is anything approaching a consensus for that.
True enough. Wikinews is inevitably subject to Darwinistic considerations. Unless it produces material that attracts readership it will just be ignored.
Yep, that's the same catch-22 faced by projects like Citizendium. They have to become better than Wikipedia (in some way, not necessarily in all ways) in order to get any readers, but they can't get the contributors needed to beat Wikipedia without readers.
Nieman Journalism Lab has some more about what's going on, including details direct from Google: http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/06/google-news-experimenting-with-links-to-wik...
“Currently, we’re showing a small number of users links to Wikipedia topic pages that serve as a reference on current events,” as an experiment.
The post also does a nice job of explaining why Wikipedia (and not something like Wikinews, which is striving to do the same sorts of datelined stories as traditional newspapers) is what Google wants to promote.
-Sage (User:Rageoss)
News is the first rough draft of History, which is probably why wikipedia is not supposed to be news.