Andrew Lih provided a couple of days ago a link to his excellent analysis of ten years ago, but in short - Wikinews has a very different nature that all other Wikimedia projects. Wikipedia, or say Wikivoyage or Commons are incremental - you can add a paragraph of text or an image, walk away, come back in a week and continue. A new item for Wikinews should be written quickly - one day old news are not really news - and published in a form which is digestable from the very beginning. It is not incremental, and there is very little room for collaborative writing.
And competition for news items is of course way stronger than for wikipedia articles.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 8:52 AM Jennifer Pryor-Summers < jennifer.pryorsummers@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 3:49 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
I wouldn't describe Wikinews as a success case, though.
Paulo
Compared to Wikitribune it is! But more importantly, if Wikinews is not thriving, then why not? Does it lack resources? What could or should the WMF do to revive it? Perhaps some of the money spent on rebranding would be better spent on the projects that are not doing so well as the big Wikipedias -- or perhaps the WMF should cut its losses and close them down, on the principle of reinforcing success instead. These are the big questions it should be asking itself.
JPS _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe