Here's an interesting article; http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/by-the-people/2008/07/29/1217097249794.html?p...
interesting that the author notes "Wikipedia came into its own on July 7, 2005, at 8.50am, when four synchronised bombs exploded in London's transportation system." - I'd be interested to hear thoughts in general about this article - but on this point specifically... should the en-wiki be encouraging the 'news' type items over to Wikinews, or embracing them as a core strength of the project....
cheers,
Peter PM.
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 6:35 PM, private musings thepmaccount@gmail.com wrote:
Here's an interesting article; http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/by-the-people/2008/07/29/1217097249794.html?p...
interesting that the author notes "Wikipedia came into its own on July 7, 2005, at 8.50am, when four synchronised bombs exploded in London's transportation system." - I'd be interested to hear thoughts in general about this article - but on this point specifically... should the en-wiki be encouraging the 'news' type items over to Wikinews, or embracing them as a core strength of the project....
cheers,
Peter PM. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I don't see any issue in Wikipedia working with "news" type events when they clearly will be of encyclopedic notability, and of course Wikinews should do so as well, each one in its own style. The London bombings were of this nature. It's the more "passing" items that are of unclear notability that should be initially on Wikinews only, and covered on Wikipedia only later on if a body of coverage really does become established over time.
Journalists live and breathe news, so they often get really excited about Wikipedia's role in news dissemination.
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 10:34 PM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 6:35 PM, private musings thepmaccount@gmail.com wrote:
Here's an interesting article; http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/by-the-people/2008/07/29/1217097249794.html?p...
interesting that the author notes "Wikipedia came into its own on July 7, 2005, at 8.50am, when four synchronised bombs exploded in London's transportation system." - I'd be interested to hear thoughts in general about this article - but on this point specifically... should the en-wiki be encouraging the 'news' type items over to Wikinews, or embracing them as a core strength of the project....
cheers,
Peter PM. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I don't see any issue in Wikipedia working with "news" type events when they clearly will be of encyclopedic notability, and of course Wikinews should do so as well, each one in its own style. The London bombings were of this nature. It's the more "passing" items that are of unclear notability that should be initially on Wikinews only, and covered on Wikipedia only later on if a body of coverage really does become established over time.
-- Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
should the en-wiki be encouraging the 'news' type items over to Wikinews, or embracing them as a core strength of the project....
I'd say news ought to be kept on Wikinews. Wikipedia reporting on current affairs tends to result in timeline articles and new bits keep getting added to the end. Major events tend to get enough attention that someone sooner or later refactors them into decent articles, but lesser (but still notable) events get left as "As of 17th April, ... . As of 18th April, ... . As of the afternoon of 18th April, ... . etc". Reporting the news on Wikinews and then writing a quality article after the fact would result in Wikinews getting the attention it deserves and Wikipedia getting good encyclopaedic articles.
As long as the wikipedia article actually links the wikinews page and doesn't just redirect to a more general subject (or worse, show as blank).
On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 9:22 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
should the en-wiki be encouraging the 'news' type items over to Wikinews, or embracing them as a core strength of the project....
I'd say news ought to be kept on Wikinews. Wikipedia reporting on current affairs tends to result in timeline articles and new bits keep getting added to the end. Major events tend to get enough attention that someone sooner or later refactors them into decent articles, but lesser (but still notable) events get left as "As of 17th April, ... . As of 18th April, ... . As of the afternoon of 18th April, ... . etc". Reporting the news on Wikinews and then writing a quality article after the fact would result in Wikinews getting the attention it deserves and Wikipedia getting good encyclopaedic articles.
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 Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 7:39 PM, Ben Yates ben.louis.yates@gmail.com wrote:
As long as the wikipedia article actually links the wikinews page and doesn't just redirect to a more general subject (or worse, show as blank).
On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 9:22 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
should the en-wiki be encouraging the 'news' type items over to Wikinews, or embracing them as a core strength of the project....
I'd say news ought to be kept on Wikinews. Wikipedia reporting on current affairs tends to result in timeline articles and new bits keep getting added to the end. Major events tend to get enough attention that someone sooner or later refactors them into decent articles, but lesser (but still notable) events get left as "As of 17th April, ... . As of 18th April, ... . As of the afternoon of 18th April, ... . etc". Reporting the news on Wikinews and then writing a quality article after the fact would result in Wikinews getting the attention it deserves and Wikipedia getting good encyclopaedic articles.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Ben Yates Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I would see nothing wrong, in that instance, with a soft-redirect page saying something to the effect of "Please see the news article for this event on Wikinews (insert link here)", if that really is the appropriate thing to redirect to. Other times, it may have to be mentioned on a disambiguation page or the like. And if we do wind up with an article on a "flash in the pan" event that turns out not to be appropriate for an encyclopedia article, we could always redirect it to the Wikinews archive in the same way. Benefits Wikinews (by making sure it gets eyeballs), benefits us (by making sure we -don't- get those types of articles and that news stays on the project designed to work with it).
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 2:23 AM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
I would see nothing wrong, in that instance, with a soft-redirect page saying something to the effect of "Please see the news article for this event on Wikinews (insert link here)", if that really is the appropriate thing to redirect to. Other times, it may have to be mentioned on a disambiguation page or the like. And if we do wind up with an article on a "flash in the pan" event that turns out not to be appropriate for an encyclopedia article, we could always redirect it to the Wikinews archive in the same way. Benefits Wikinews (by making sure it gets eyeballs), benefits us (by making sure we -don't- get those types of articles and that news stays on the project designed to work with it).
A redirect to wikinews was in place for a while when this was a current story:
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Former_Chief_Operating_Officer_of_Wikimedia_Foun...
Penwhale replaced a biog with with a soft-redirect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=177836977
I have just now restored a little of this article deleted history, from Penwhale's edit on-wards, as that doesn't include any of the biographics edits. I hope others will agree that these undeleted edits are _interesting_ from a collaborative management angle and that there is little need to keep those edits hidden.
(I have specifically chosen to avoid mentioning the name of the subject as it isnt the interesting part; I hope others will do the same.)
-- John Mark Vandenberg
I didn't like the Wikinews model for covering big stories last time I looked at it. Specifically, there is a strong tendency to write lots of little stories on updates and ignore the big picture. Also, when new information comes out which supercedes the old information, the old story doesn't get updated to reflect this new information.
I don't much care which domain name is used to get to the story, but I think the Wikipedia model of news story development is a refreshing change to the status quo. In other words, if Wikinews wants to allow story development to last for weeks or months for certain big stories, then I'd support redirecting the Wikipedia article there. But until it does so, Wikipedia offers something that is unavailable at Wikinews, and in fact is unavailable anywhere else on the Internet.
On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Also, when new information comes out which supercedes the old information, the old story doesn't get updated to reflect this new information.
Isn't that the typical model though for most news stories published (at least here in the US)? Newspapers, TV news, etc. aren't going to go back and modify the story after so many hours or days, they'll publish a new one if they think it has merit.
- Joe
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Also, when new information comes out which supercedes the old information, the old story doesn't get updated to reflect this new information.
Isn't that the typical model though for most news stories published (at least here in the US)? Newspapers, TV news, etc. aren't going to go back and modify the story after so many hours or days, they'll publish a new one if they think it has merit.
Yes, which is exactly why I said that the "Wikipedia model of news story development is a refreshing change to the status quo" and that "Wikipedia offers something that is [...] unavailable anywhere else on the Internet."
When a big story happens and there are 80,000 stories about it on Google News with varying levels of redundancy and timeliness, it's nice to check out the Wikipedia article which invariably gets started, at least as a starting point. I don't think Wikipedia does a particularly great job at it, but then again, neither do the traditional news outlets. In particular, I remember during the early days after the Menezes shooting the Wikipedia article was repeating the same untruths as the news media, *without attribution*. But I really like the concept of writing an encyclopedic article about a recent news story. And I think if the very people who are arguing against these articles would instead work toward making sure they remain encyclopedic, they'd be especially useful. Yes, there are examples of newsworthy events being covered in Wikipedia which are written poorly. But I don't see how that's an excuse not to write about any of them at all.
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 6:06 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Also, when new information comes out which supercedes the old information, the old story doesn't get updated to reflect this new information.
Isn't that the typical model though for most news stories published (at least here in the US)? Newspapers, TV news, etc. aren't going to go back and modify the story after so many hours or days, they'll publish a new one if they think it has merit.
Yes, which is exactly why I said that the "Wikipedia model of news story development is a refreshing change to the status quo" and that "Wikipedia offers something that is [...] unavailable anywhere else on the Internet."
When a big story happens and there are 80,000 stories about it on Google News with varying levels of redundancy and timeliness, it's nice to check out the Wikipedia article which invariably gets started, at least as a starting point. I don't think Wikipedia does a particularly great job at it, but then again, neither do the traditional news outlets. In particular, I remember during the early days after the Menezes shooting the Wikipedia article was repeating the same untruths as the news media, *without attribution*. But I really like the concept of writing an encyclopedic article about a recent news story. And I think if the very people who are arguing against these articles would instead work toward making sure they remain encyclopedic, they'd be especially useful. Yes, there are examples of newsworthy events being covered in Wikipedia which are written poorly. But I don't see how that's an excuse not to write about any of them at all. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
BLP has become a totally separate issue, I've run head-on into it with the "Star Wars kid" article, in which a totally public piece of information (the subject's name) is being withheld from the article due to misplaced "privacy" concerns. In this case, the reporting over time on the subject has made it quite encyclopedic, and the fact that -even the sources the article cites- give the name really eliminate any privacy concerns.
BLP has turned into the monster those who went up against it feared. I'm sorry to say I was one of the ones who said "That won't happen, we know better. We would know better than to use it as a hammer in genuine content disputes, and we'll keep its scope strictly limited to unsourced or poorly sourced information."
I'm sorry to say, I was very wrong. And it needs reined in, sooner rather than later.