With a softer opinion of Indymedia than Jimbo, I would
however say that I support him here. I do not think we
should develop particular strong relationship and
collaboration with Indymedia.
Indymedia is clearly biaised. It does not matter that
many of us appreciate Indymedia, or even that some of
us participate to it.
What is important is that we are different, and we
must stay different, not only in concept but in our
We both occupy the same ecological niche in the news
ecosystem, but we do not have the same roles. Both
roles are important and must be preserved separate.
Our role will be to offer neutral news.
Their role is much more to counter balance other
biaised news network, which will keep on existing (and
which MUST keep on existing).
In a diverse world, neutral and biais is important.
However, not only do we want to be neutral, but we
want to be **seen** neutral by our readers. It is even
more important for a wikinews project, where news will
be published in 4 hours.
I deeply believe neutrality is a goal which can only
be approached after hundreds of careful contributions
by many many editors. Neutrality needs time to happen.
In wikinews, articles will be published in less than a
day. Most are likely to be written by a limited number
of editors. This is why, it is even MORE critical for
wikinews, to appear INDEPENDANT and UNBIAISED.
If we want to be seen neutral by our readers, we must
NOT show in any way that we are linked or
collaborating with a biaised news network. It is very
And I say this not implying that I do not like
Indymedia. This is just a question of principle and of
public perception. We should not make collaboration
with our pet websites, just because many of use
Sorry if I appear harsh.
As many here may be aware, I did not support the
creation of wikinews as an individual editor. I chose
not to oppose though on the board level because
wikinews was largely supported by the community.
However, I think there are several risks in the
wikinews project, which might hurt our global project.
I see official collaboration between Indymedia and
Wikinews as one of these risks, as it could decrease
the public perception of us as a neutral source of
jeff a �crit:
>Jama Poulsen wrote:
>>On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 07:05:46PM -0800, Jimmy
>>Has anyone been thinking about
how Wikinews could
with the Independent Media Center (IMC) project
I'm skeptical about this idea. What is the political
orientation of Wikinews?
My guess is that it would have the "Neutral Point of
been impressed at how well wikipedia has been able
this goal on controversial subjects.
>Indymedia exists as an alternative
>media space for the political left (broadly
>Wikinews apolitical, left-leaning, or friendly
That's a bit harsh. Can you point to a single
that has been friendly to neo-fascists?
Indymedia is "left-leaning" but could certainly be
automated/semi-automated contributor to wikinews
even if there
are viewpoints on there that are generally not on
Wikinews could have both, like news.google. Wikinews
probably more sympathetic to Indymedia than google
See the wikipedia entry on Indymedia--it's current
Or take a look at their entry on Anarchism (which
to Chuck's infoshop.org
>I've been told that Wikipedia is run by right
>wing libertarians, so hwo do we know that the
>put into a joint project won't be exploited by
>capitalists when they try to turn Wikipedia into an
wikipedia is a non-profit and the articles are under
the GFDL. I
doubt it will ever go IPO... For more info, see:
database and set up your own wikipedia and do
whatever you want
with the articles as long as you comply with the
I wish Indymedia database dumps were publicly
>I'm opposed to this partnership until it can be
>how Indymedia would benefit from any partnership
with a newly
It could benefit by wider distribution of Indymedia
Wikipedia has a huge audience, and deservedly so. In
I'm in favor of collaboration between wikinews
Chuck, stop dissing one of my favorite Internet
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!