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