Message: 4 Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 08:39:31 -0500 From: "Chip Berlet" c.berlet@publiceye.org Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Re: Press badges To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Message-ID: 477C2A7D4CCE994B8CF296DA69A31D3D39BDE1@server.publiceye.local Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Wikinews, however, is a form of alternative media, and should fee free to issue press credentials to members of the Wikinews community who have a track record of regular and substantive contributions, and a willingness to recognize that they are carrying the reputation of Wikinews with them; and thus should behave in appropriate ways given local country/city media standards--even if they disagree with those standards.
I can't agree. If wikinews really is a form of "alternative media", then how is wikinews any different than various alternative media with a clear leftist, rightist, libertarian, conservative, populist, etc., etc., slant? Just because we say we don't have a bias? Fox News says they don't have a bias, either. And look at them.
And then we are taking money from people for Wikimedia, under the guise that we are using to present a neutral relaying of information. If this is okay for us, again, Fox News or the New York Post could just as well do the exact same thing. But people who pay money to watch Fox News or the New York Post *know* it's biased.
darin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Brown, Darin wrote:
Message: 4 Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 08:39:31 -0500 From: "Chip Berlet" c.berlet@publiceye.org Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Re: Press badges To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Message-ID: 477C2A7D4CCE994B8CF296DA69A31D3D39BDE1@server.publiceye.local Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Wikinews, however, is a form of alternative media, and should fee free to issue press credentials to members of the Wikinews community who have a track record of regular and substantive contributions, and a willingness to recognize that they are carrying the reputation of Wikinews with them; and thus should behave in appropriate ways given local country/city media standards--even if they disagree with those standards.
I can't agree. If wikinews really is a form of "alternative media", then how is wikinews any different than various alternative media with a clear leftist, rightist, libertarian, conservative, populist, etc., etc., slant? Just because we say we don't have a bias? Fox News says they don't have a bias, either. And look at them.
And then we are taking money from people for Wikimedia, under the guise that we are using to present a neutral relaying of information. If this is okay for us, again, Fox News or the New York Post could just as well do the exact same thing. But people who pay money to watch Fox News or the New York Post *know* it's biased.
What? Since when are people *paying* for Wikimedia content???
Where is the comparison here?
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
--- Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Brown, Darin wrote:
I can't agree. If wikinews really is a form of
"alternative media", then how
is wikinews any different than various alternative
media with a clear
leftist, rightist, libertarian, conservative,
populist, etc., etc., slant?
Just because we say we don't have a bias? Fox News
says they don't have a
bias, either. And look at them.
And then we are taking money from people for
Wikimedia, under the guise that
we are using to present a neutral relaying of
information. If this is okay
for us, again, Fox News or the New York Post could
just as well do the exact
same thing. But people who pay money to watch Fox
News or the New York Post
*know* it's biased.
What? Since when are people *paying* for Wikimedia content???
Where is the comparison here?
The comparison is in reality. As I wrote at wikinews:purpose , there are some inherent contradictions between a newsgathering organization operates and how a wiki operates. Someone once said that 'wikipedia will eventually just become a wiki' (rather than an encyclopedia). WP has so far proven that inasfar as anonymous contribution and organization of facts toward creating what we call an "encyclopedia" the wiki software model works quite well.
Wikinews on the other hand, has largely remained just an experiment in 'throwing wiki software at the news org idea'. It was bound to fail without some sincere rethinking of the software and how it works, andmany had commented a long time ago that some other I.e newsorgs need secrecy/privacy and trustworthiness in its source referencing and fact gathering. WP:CITE doesnt work if the source is complete background, and the only way that BG sources can be used in a story is if the story is written by credentialled people, and published in a newspaper with some trust an accountablity. Of course, when even the NYT (oogle "Sulzberger lucky sperm club" ) and others before it can seriously cross the line into Yellow Journalism, we can at least hold to an idealistic notion that 'we cant be any worse.' But that notion is unfortunately always predicated on the upstart model - the notion that someday we will get there even if we dont have even the foundation of a newsorg set up.
Wikinews just will not work. Journalism requires journalists and journalists cost money, use up a lot of airfare and quite regularly get shot at. ('Alaskan crab fishing' -- my ass). Beyond that, journalists want the perks and credentials of journalism, as well as the support of editors and publishers, whos professional reputations are also on the line.
The real point is: Wikimedia's purpose itself has fundamental contradictions with the purposes of a real newsorg. Even lucky shot videographers want to call around to see what they can get for their video. Its amazing Wikipedia has worked so well so far, but thats largely because commercial newsorgs and publishers have done the real work for us. And because theres no time value urgency, so the information is free to use for historian purposes, such as Wikipedia's.
SV
__________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com
Amended:
--- steve v vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Wikinews on the other hand, has largely remained just an experiment in 'throwing wiki software at the news org idea'. It was bound to fail without some sincere rethinking of the software and how it works, andmany had commented a long time ago that some other...
...major rethinking needed to be done on the project. Indymedia for example has a niche, which some claim is driven by the POV entrenchment of core editors, but as Darin pointed out, such a niche is is in fact no different that why Fox News has succeeded commercially etc, or why the concept of 'Independent media' (ie. free media, open media, non-commercial media) are dominantly leftist and egalitarian. Philosophy in fact drives newsorgs, regardless of the editorial striving for objectivity.
If you look at your average local newspapers and their histories, theyve gone through an early period where they catered to businesses (gain startup revenue, establish clientele) -- later trying to move toward an actual community sensibility: But rarely they move toward an altruistic or egalitarian philosophy, because egalitarianism and capitalism repel each other like magnets, in the same way that commercial ads and editorial policy converge like magnets. Every newsorg has to find a balance between the push and pull that makes these work. Just to be clear though, Fox News has thus far been 'successful' because the U.S. has a large mentally retarted population.
SV
__________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com
Well thats a bit out of context, although admittedly my rant was likewise a bit out off the topic of photobadges (seems to suggest an expansion into other press credentials, though). But you are right Mark -- the comment was inappropriate. "Politically disabled" or "journalistically challenged" might have been better -- but again I digress...
SV
--- Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
steve v wrote:
the U.S. has a large mentally retarted population.
It's nice to see that the quality of discourse remains high.
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
Delirium wrote:
steve v wrote:
the U.S. has a large mentally retarted population.
It's nice to see that the quality of discourse remains high.
The "retarted" population is the set of those people who have had a pie thrown in their face more than once. :-) It's from the French word "tarte" meaning "pie".
Ec