Brian McNeil wrote:
The duplication of effort between the two projects is frustrating; news should be written on Wikinews and linked to from the "in the news" section. Sure, the summaries remain for people who don't want to visit Wikinews - we can probably have something coded up that puts a "Return to Wikipedia" link up. We do have an unwritten policy on Wikinews of trying to make the site "sticky". By that I mean we want visitors to read several articles, browse around the site a bit, and perhaps get involved.
I'm not too clear here on what you think Wikipedia is doing that it shouldn't be. The current events page itself contains only very short summaries, and the only other thing I can think of is a tendency to add excessive detail on recent events into Wikipedia articles (sometimes called "recentism"), which eventually gets purged once the hubbub dies down and calmer hands return to editing the article. If there's some way of redirecting that energy to Wikinews, then I'm all for that.
In a lot of cases, though, the news summaries that get written on Wikipedia *should* be there, because a summary of a notable event is encyclopedic. For example, [[2007 Peru earthquake]] deserves an encyclopedia article, and not just because it happened recently---we have similar articles on earthquakes from decades and centuries ago.
The "in the news" section is really intended for that---a way of highlighting encyclopedia articles that contain information of timely relevance (but are still real encyclopedia articles that will still exist 25 years from now), not a way of distributing a news feed.
-Mark