Daniel-
Such developments, in Wikipedia, would often be summarized down to one paragraph or even one sentence ("Mufti Nizamuddin Shamzai was killed by unknown assailants on May 30, 2004 [1]"), where the Wikinews article would contain as much detail as possible, quotes from all relevant parties (which we can freely copy from outside sources), speculation about the future impact etc.
Wouldn't Wikipedia want an article on Mufti Nizamuddin Shamzai so that we could give a detailed summary about him?
Yes, of course. The hypothetical sentence above would be in that article. In an encyclopedic biography, one single event in a person's life will often be just one sentence. A Wikinews article on that same event, on the other hand, could be very detailed.
But I concede that many of our other articles which cover current history are overloaded with what I consider to be needless detail on current events
Yes, but even in these cases, the individual news items are much shorter than the respective Wikinews articles would be. The [[John Kerry]] article is a good example:
"On March 11, after meetings with Democratic superdelegates in Washington and with former opponents Howard Dean and John Edwards, Kerry accumulated the 2,162 delegates required to clinch the nomination."
This one sentence in the article would be a fairly long article on Wikinews: [[Kerry meets with Dean, Edwards; clinches nomination - March 11, 2004]]. This would include concession quotes, details on recently finished contests, photos from the events etc. If you already think the article about the campaign is overloaded now - imagine if all that other stuff would be added, too!
So while original reporting would probably start on a Wikinews project soon after it is started, I fear that that would draw too many people away who are now working on keeping Wikipedia up-to-date.
I see your point, but I think this fear is justified only in the sense that some Wikipedia contributors may choose to spend their time on Wikinews instead of Wikipedia; this argument can be used against any new project. The tasks themselves are very different - and, if we use fully compatible licenses (which of course I also would hope for if at all possible), any useful information can be copied back and forth.
When the pressure on Wikipedia to start including dictionary entries reached a certain point ..
Yes, I fully realize where you're coming from. Our past is however not necessarily representative for our future. While pressure alone is a good reason to consider starting a spin-off project, it is not the only reason for the Wikimedia Foundation, with its focus of creating free educational content. The reason it *was* the only reason in the past is that the organizational identity of Wikimedia is developing as we write this.
The difference here is that while we have clear rules against original research/reporting on Wikipedia, the *pressure* to do it regardless is much lower and will probably always remain so.
For every new project, we should answer a few questions: - Is this within our mission to educate? - Can this be usefully done using a wiki? - Will we be able to reach a critical mass? - Can this be better done within an existing project? ...
The question "Is there pressure from an existing project to do this?" serves to underscore the project priority, but even if there was pressure from our existing projects to do something like, say, build a Micronation Wiki, that doesn't necessarily mean that we would want to do it (although, given the example of the conlangs, this seems to be increasingly the case).
Doing so at the right time will ensure that the aspects of that project we want to have in existing projects will remain viable. Doing so too early, or creating a project with a very limited scope (such as the Sep11wiki), will either result in the failure of that project, or the harming of that aspect of Wikipedia. So yes, I do see any new project through the prism of what it will do for Wikipedia and other existing projects. I see this as being prudent, not as being "very, very dangerous."
It is prudent, and it is not what I was referring to as dangerous. What I refer to as dangerous is a position where we *only* start a project when the pressure from existing projects is too high. Perhaps one should substitute "pressure from existing projects" with "pressure from the community". I absolutely agree with you that there should be a clear and visible interest from the larger Wikimedia Community in a Wikinews project. Any overlap with existing projects is important. And the question whether Wikinews should be launched may be a first test case for a newly defined voting process for new projects.
And those people who are being stopped from doing original reporting will clamor for either letting them do so in Wikipedia
Therein lies your fallacy. I - and others, I believe - would never advocate original reporting in Wikipedia because I do not want to harm Wikipedia. Plausible arguments can be made that dictionary defs, source documents, quotations etc. belong in an encyclopedia. Encarta has a source library, for example, and it has a built-in dictionary. But no plausible argument can be made that an encyclopedia should do original reporting a la CNN, the New York Times or Linux News.
Thus, while I am actively advocating a news project, I would *never* use Wikipedia as my platform of advocacy. It is not closely related enough to justify that. This ties in to my point above that pressure from an existing project alone may often be sufficient, but it is not *necessary* to start a new one.
Then advertise the idea for Wikinews to see if there are enough people to start such a project.
I will do this as soon as the Wikimedia Commons is launched (unless someone else preemtps me, of course). One project at a time..
Starting small is fine, starting too early is not. We need to determine if now is a good time to start such a project.
I agree that we need to gauge if there's interest before we do it.
My goal is to help put a representation all human knowledge under terms that ensure its freedom. That goal is not served when we use licenses that allow for non-free derivative works.
My goal is to find a good balance between building free educational content and exposing people to said content. Obviously each of these components is important. The best way to serve this goal may be a copyleft license, but in an instance where we can gain tenfold exposure by adopting a non-copyleft license, this is something I think we must consider.
I am not opposed to copyleft per se. I just don't want to subscribe to a dogma. The copyleft vs. attribution-only debate is older than this thread, and there are good arguments on both sides.
We are, by far, the largest user of the GNU FDL so I for one am willing to work with the FSF
So am I, of course, and I believe everyone else in this discussion as well. A new version of the FDL or an FCL has the potential of tremendously improving our current situation. There are reasonable people in the FSF and I hope they will listen to our side of the story. Let's just not assume the FCL will become a reality and prepare for the case that it won't. A free content license migration clause for new projects would be a good start - we can get rid of that clause if it turns out to be unnecessary.
Regards,
Erik