On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 6:04 AM, Phil Nash <phnash(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Sue Gardner wrote:
On 12 September 2011 18:15, geni
<geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 12 September 2011 23:45, Samuel Klein
<meta.sj(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Now: what do we need to do to make Wikinews
better and more useful?
What are the costs and technical or other work involved?
Very little. Mostly wikinews is misstargeted. Yet another website
rewriting AP reports is never going to draw crowds. Wikinews needed
original research and never really had very much of it. It is also
operating in an extremely crowded market where as wikipedia had the
field pretty much to itself when it started.
Jimmy said once that part of the reason Wikipedia works so well is
because everybody knows what an encyclopedia article is supposed to
look like.
Practical experience on a day-to-day basis would suggest that this is unduly
optimistic. We are failing to attract new editors who can be, or wish to be,
educated into "what an encyclopedia article is supposed to look like", and
are discarding those experienced editors who do. Even those who remain but
are becoming increasingly disillusioned with all the nonsense that goes on
will eventually leave, or create a fork of Wikipedia, and to be honest, if I
had the money right now, I'd do it myself, and cast ArbCom in its present
form into the bottomless pit.
I used to care about Wikipedia, as did others, but it's becoming
increasingly difficult to do so.
If money is the problem, I can solve that. I recently came into an inheritance.
--
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]