The issue isn't so much the majority of our articles where we rewrite from multiple sources in much the same manner as Wikipedia. I don't expect that cited. Yet, Wikinews allows original research - meaning it has material that will be unavailable anywhere else. Forgive me for thinking it is a bit of a slap in the face to the project if hard work on this is labelled "not credible".
Brian McNeil
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Dalton Sent: 25 November 2007 20:50 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL and relicensing
Nobody from Wikinews is bothered whether or not Wikipedia will lift
material
verbatim or rewrite due to license issues. The key issue is a lot of contributors feel that Wikipedia does not see us as a credible source.
Yet,
some random online source that is a popular glorified blog will happily be cited. (Eg Slashdot).
Slashdot is not some random online source, it is one of the largest and oldest sites of its type. Nevertheless, I would never cite it for anything other than information about Slashdot, since it only reports existing news stories and links to them, so you can just cite that story.
As for citing Wikinews - we're always telling people not to cite Wikipedia, why is Wikinews any more reliable? I know you have a system of "publishing" articles, which certainly helps, but is it enough?
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l