Brian writes:
> 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