I suppose we could redirect all articles on current events to Wikinews. What we are doing with that type of article is about the same as CNN. They throw in a bit of original reporting, but mostly just comb other media and repeat it. Would Wikinews put up with that?
Fred
-----Original Message----- From: Gabe Johnson [mailto:gjzilla@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 1, 2007 07:38 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NY Times Magazine on Wikipedia
On 7/1/07, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
-- Sean Barrett | In America, anyone can be President. sean@epoptic.com | That's one of the risks you take.
First of all, congratulations to Gracenotes and the other Wikipedians mentioned in the story.
However, we need to think. What can we, at WP, do to avoid choking Wikinews and making it a backwater alley of the WMF projects? Or should we just give up on it, or fold it into Wikipedia? Thoughts and suggestions appreciated. ~~~~
-- Absolute Power C^7rr8p£5 ab£$^u7£%y
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Article's ending note ...
"Wikipedia may not exactly be a font of truth, but it does go against the current of what has happened to the notion of truth. The easy global dissemination of, well, everything has generated a D.I.Y. culture of proud subjectivity, a culture that has spread even to relatively traditional forms like television — as in the ascent of advocates like Lou Dobbs or Bill O’Reilly, whose appeal lies precisely in their subjectivity even as they name-check “neutrality” to cover all sorts of journalistic sins. But the Wikipedians, most of them born in the information age, have tasked themselves with weeding that subjectivity not just out of one another’s discourse but also out of their own. They may not be able to do any actual reporting from their bedrooms or dorm rooms or hotel rooms, but they can police bias, and they do it with a passion that’s no less impressive for its occasional excess of piety. Who taught them this? It’s a mystery; but they are teaching it to one another."
... Nice.
-- Jossi
"But the Wikipedians, most of them born in the information age"
Hmm......this is the most truthful statement there :P
On 7/12/07, Jossi Fresco jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
Article's ending note ...
"Wikipedia may not exactly be a font of truth, but it does go against the current of what has happened to the notion of truth. The easy global dissemination of, well, everything has generated a D.I.Y. culture of proud subjectivity, a culture that has spread even to relatively traditional forms like television — as in the ascent of advocates like Lou Dobbs or Bill O'Reilly, whose appeal lies precisely in their subjectivity even as they name-check "neutrality" to cover all sorts of journalistic sins. But the Wikipedians, most of them born in the information age, have tasked themselves with weeding that subjectivity not just out of one another's discourse but also out of their own. They may not be able to do any actual reporting from their bedrooms or dorm rooms or hotel rooms, but they can police bias, and they do it with a passion that's no less impressive for its occasional excess of piety. Who taught them this? It's a mystery; but they are teaching it to one another."
... Nice.
-- Jossi
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7/1/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
I suppose we could redirect all articles on current events to Wikinews. What we are doing with that type of article is about the same as CNN. They throw in a bit of original reporting, but mostly just comb other media and repeat it. Would Wikinews put up with that?
Fred
Isn't that mostly what Wikinews does? I don't think it's mostly original reporting.
On 7/12/07, Rory Stolzenberg rory096@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/1/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
I suppose we could redirect all articles on current events to Wikinews. What we are doing with that type of article is about the same as CNN.
They
throw in a bit of original reporting, but mostly just comb other media
and
repeat it. Would Wikinews put up with that?
Fred
Isn't that mostly what Wikinews does? I don't think it's mostly original reporting. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Folks,
Why would we do that when one of our strengths is our articles on topical issues?
It has gained us a significant number of readers as recent news articles have indicated.
http://www.editorsweblog.org/news/2007/07/wikipedia_ranks_first_for_online_n...
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Regards
*Keith Old*
On 7/12/07, Rory Stolzenberg rory096@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/1/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
I suppose we could redirect all articles on current events to Wikinews. What we are doing with that type of article is about the same as CNN. They throw in a bit of original reporting, but mostly just comb other media and repeat it. Would Wikinews put up with that?
Isn't that mostly what Wikinews does? I don't think it's mostly original reporting.
In the article, Dee makes the observation that many have made that Wikipedia's treatment of news, particularly with major stories like the London Tube bombings for example, is to give the big picture overview as opposed to traditional news media which give a collection of articles telling pieces of the story at a time, from different angles. A Wikipedia article on a news story will aim to speak with a single voice (the neutral point of view) whereas news media will offer different treatments of the subject in each little piece that they give (the cumulative effect is often the same, of course).
Wikinews is there to do that latter type of reporting, the type that traditional news media does, telling individual pieces of the story, while the former is properly left to Wikipedia. It's the lack of a critical mass of participants on Wikinews which means that both types are sometimes included in Wikipedia.