--- Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
So, to me, a site with
- articles submitted to NPOV,
- personal analyses only partially submitted to
NPOV and not editable, and 3) editorials not submitted to NPVO has a name, Indymedia. Not wikinews :-)
That's almost word for word what I say (I also often say "if you want to tell the world what you think, get a blog").
And I do not agree. I think all wikimedia projects should adhere to NPOV. Strictly. As much as we can.
But I then thought I had no idea what other wikinews have been doing on this issue and that possibly some of them have adopted editorials (which will quite naturally report a pov). Is this the case ?
We recently discussed this on en:
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Water_cooler#Wikinews_Editorials
It's a bit long but probably worth a read if you're interested. I won't summarise - it's best if you have a read yourself.
It also looks like I didn't contribute there, but personally I see no reason why we should have them. Wikinews provides a fully-npov and well fact-checked news service, and not a lot more. If you want more biased and sloppy fare, go to Indymedia (as Anthere suggests). Indymedia gets around four times our traffic, btw, although it has been going since '99 or thereabouts.
However, I understand that de.wikinews runs or did run editorials. Hopefully Erik or someone else can explain more...
Dan
___________________________________________________________ How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com