On Thursday 15 September 2011 12:40 AM, Andrew Lih wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Sarahslimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 12:34, Andrew Lihandrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
And, in Wikipedia's crowdsourced way, potentially a re-oriented, mobilized Wikinews could produce in one week what National Geographic normally produces in one year. This could be a multimedia endeavor that could kick up the Wikimedia efforts in audio and video that seem to have stalled lately.
WMF's mission is about giving free access to "the sum of all human knowledge."
Wikipedia is about condensing and curating knowledge.
Wikinews can be the force to go explore and acquire it.
Yes, exactly. I'm currently working on an article about female genital mutilation. Can you imagine how wonderful it would be if I could find some women who had experienced this, arrange an interview, contact a Wikinews person in London, or Kenya, and ask them to put certain questions to those women?
That way, you can make the interview and the article interactive, in the sense that you could ask the women to address specific points in the article, then link to the video in that section. It would give us a whole new depth of coverage.
This is exactly what it's like to work for an international news organization, where someone in the Timbuktu office has an idea, and collaborates with someone in the local area to produce it. We do have that potential as a movement. It's just a question of how to give people the confidence, and the space to add their material. And to have sensible editorial policies that encourage quality without stifling early efforts.
Yes, and if you look at Achal Prabhala's Oral Citations project, it's very much in line with this.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Oral_Citations http://vimeo.com/26469276
Also, by coincidence, in the 1990s I oversaw a masters student project covering FGM in Africa which had original reporting with women that had undergone the procedure. Instead of that story just sitting on the shelf, wouldn't it be great to have that body of reporting and those interviews as part of a Wikimedia project that could be source material? I focus in on A/V in particular for this effort, because it provides a level of verifiability. Of course you can still fake/stage audio and video, but it's more involved to do that than synthesizing typed words.
I've been following the Wikinews discussion, and I've been hesitant to comment only because I know so little about it. The little I know tells me that it could be something great, and perhaps the reason it's not quite there yet is because it was ahead of it's time. Turn on the television news today and it's routine to see tweet-ins and live comment feeds from other social media; indeed, a significant chunk of what mainstream American television channels report these days is feedback as journalism. The other big thing happening here in India, for instance, is citizen journalism - a tired, catch-all phrase but nevertheless a firm reality - which forms at least two hours of every major news channel's content per day.
It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that the world now follows the Wikinews model. But Wikinews started up in 2004...while Twitter was founded only in 2006, Apple's Iphone only hit the market in 2007...and much of the infrastructure that could enable the Wikinews model of journalism in mainstream media was built much after Wikinews was founded as a project. I don't know enough about Wikinews and what's plaguing it currently, but as an outsider it would seem to me that it has the potential to be something really significant.
As for oral citations, or the idea of using audio and video interviews to record knowledge, all of us who worked on the project would be delighted if there were unintended consequences to the project, like perhaps being of use to Wikinews, which is not something we thought about at the outset. Michel (Castelo Branco) suggested earlier that as Wikinews explicitly allows original research as a policy, it could be used as a workaround for oral citations on Wikipedia. We don't have fixed ideas about this and welcome discussion in general - though I think there is value in facing the boundaries of citation on Wikipedia squarely. We would like to offer up the project as a way to confront the limitations of citations as currently allowed, the problem of knowledge that isn't published in print, and, in time, open up a larger discussion on this. (We'll be soon posting a wrap-up of the oral citations project once a few things are done).
A related - and interesting - problem/opportunity is the vast amount of audio-video archival material that already exists in the world, almost none of which has any direct effect on Wikipedia. In most cases, tapping into the 'raw' archive would be disallowed within Wikipedia on the grounds of it constituting a 'primary source'. (This is also a problem for Wikipedians who'd like to use private archives - even corporate archives - as sources, but can't). But there is nothing to say that Wikinews could not tap into this vast pool of curated material and create 'news' out of it. In general, it would appear that Wikinews has a set of very flexible policies and practices, and it seems as if they could be put to boundless good use.
Cheers, Achal
-Andrew
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l