>
>>> Wikipedia is not, and should not attempt to be, a news source. If
>>> you
>>> can't
>>> accept that news coverage is incomplete and *not encyclopaedic*
>>> then you
>>> don't understand the differences between the projects.
>>>
>>> I don't want to get dragged into a prolonged flame war on the
>>> subject, but
>>> I
>>> agree wholeheartedly with the philosophy that Wikipedia should not
>>> try to
>>> act as a news source.
>>>
>>> Someone dies? The facts (date/time/cause) go on Wikipedia. The obit
>>> goes
>>> on
>>> Wikinews.
>>>
> Speaking as a former reporter (and still a sometime journalist), I
> respect the distinction Brian is trying to make here. To me, the
> problem is partly enforcement (I don't want to add a new restriction
> on Wikipedia contributions) and partly user satisfaction. I think this
> is less an issue of project rivalry than one of simply trying to
> address how users actually use the projects. I know from experience
> that en.wiki users value the up-to-dateness of Wikipedia entries
> regarding breaking news. I think this particular user community
> (en.wiki) would like for that usefulness to continue, and I would be
> saddened to see a new class of edit wars start based on whether this
> or that addition should be in Wikinews rather than Wikipedia. What I
> would like to see more of is Wikipedia articles citing Wikinews as a
> source.
>
> ---Mike
Thats the problem...well one. Wikipedia will not use us as a source. The
only time we got to be a "source" is when Chris Benoit, the wrestler,
killed his family and some user posted it on WP 14 hours before it was
supposed to have happened, and even the source on WP was just the
article's talk page.
We have a template or two on WP such as {{Wikipediapar}} but I think
that its not enough. For one, I don't fully understand why WP won't
allow Wikinews as a source...and of the 2 years I been on WM...I have
yet to get a logical answer.
Jason Safoutin (DragonFire1024)