It's an excellent point. I thought about it a few months ago and considered proposing a new policy banning anything under a week old from being included in Wikipedia articles (actually, it was a little more complicated than that, but that's the gist of it). It would help Wikinews, and would also reduce the number of articles which are a succession of "As June 2006 ..." paragraphs. Current events are not encyclopaedic and it's impossible to write a good encyclopaedia article as soon as something happens, since all the required sources haven't been written yet (you have a handful of newspaper articles which you can simply rewrite and that's it). I ended up not proposing it because I didn't think I was enthusiastic enough about it to survive the torture of trying to get it approved. Anyone think it's worth a shot?

It's an excellent point. I thought about it a few months ago and considered proposing a new policy banning anything under a week old from being included in Wikipedia articles (actually, it was a little more complicated than that, but that's the gist of it). It would help Wikinews, and would also reduce the number of articles which are a succession of "As June 2006 ..." paragraphs. Current events are not encyclopaedic and it's impossible to write a good encyclopaedia article as soon as something happens, since all the required sources haven't been written yet (you have a handful of newspaper articles which you can simply rewrite and that's it). I ended up not proposing it because I didn't think I was enthusiastic enough about it to survive the torture of trying to get it approved. Anyone think it's worth a shot?

Thomas Dalton wrote: First off, this sounds like an excellent idea for all language variants of Wikipedia to consider and perhaps adopt. Obvious exceptions would be things like deaths where you don't wait to put the appropriate date in the Wikipedia article - but you don't turn it into an obituary either. You do the obit. on Wikinews, and *you can prepare that in advance* on Wikinews. [This may sound gruesome, but in reality someone could start a prepared story for Terry Pratchett's obit today as he's announced he has early-onset Alzheimer's. The media reports and quotes from the man made today will be relevant to the final article when he does pass on.] Scaling back to something less ambitious would be linking directly from the Wikipedia main page's in the news section to appropriate Wikinews articles. At the moment, at least on en., Wikinews has one link in the in the news section which leads to the main page. This simple step might encourage more Wikipedians to dip their toe in the Wikinews waters and see that it can be a little different contributing on a sister project, perhaps even what some may have experienced when Wikipedia was much smaller and there was more uncharted territory to explore. I'd be delighted to see anything done that raises the profile of Wikinews on Wikipedia and encourages people to try another project. A Wikipedian-specific introduction would be a start as citation methods differ and there needs to be a big warning that everything published appears on the main page (this may change if we're getting 50 articles a day). So, if you want to progress on this my first suggestion is to find some victims, er... Wikipedians :) who can be persuaded to give Wikinews a shot. Then a structure and set of messages can be developed to make it easier for Wikipedians to transition to writing news and later incorporating it into Wikipedia when things have calmed down and the event can be considered historical. If you raise anything on Wikipedia about this, please let at least myself know - or bring it up on the Wikinews-l list. I'd like to encourage some of our editors who are more frequent Wikipedia editors than myself to give input. Brian McNeil _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Wikinews had better than adequate coverage of the Asian Tsunami, and if you dig up our interview with Sue Gardner you'll see she cites our coverage of events like the Virginia shooting as an influence on her decision to want to work for WMF. I may be mistaken, but it appears you are saying "Don't do it on Wikinews because less people will see it", or you are endorsing that principle which Wikinewsies would likely agree is already done by Wikipedia, just not written down anywhere. Brian McNeil -----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of GerardM Sent: 17 December 2007 12:25 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Is popularity a good thing for us? Hoi, One of the moments when Wikipedia shines is when a major news item breaks. A thing where the news is the instigator and where the background articles of Wikipedia make the difference. Good examples were the tsunami, the death of the old, and the coronation of the new pope among others. They resulted in a massive amount of traffic for the Wikipedias. This is exactly where Wikipedia makes a difference, it is also what our "colleagues" cannot do. There are philosophical reasons to exclude news material from Wikipedia, but doing so is clearly detrimental to Wikipedia. Wikinews does not have the exposure that Wikipedia has. It will not get people searching for newsupdates as it happens on Wikipedia. Wikinews has policies that are unknown and unfamiliar to Wikipedians. In a perfect world the news would be in Wikinews, animals and plants in Wikispecies ... but that is not the reality of things in reality you find them in Wikipedia as well. Thanks, GerardM On Dec 17, 2007 12:03 PM, Brian McNeil <brian.mcneil(a)wikinewsie.org> wrote: of do Wikinews. be be some Wikinews you into myself _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

What differences in methodology are you referring to? I think the Wikinews methodology is the one that should be used for writing about current events, since that's what it's designed for.

Very true. Wikinews will have a new article as each bit of info comes out, whereas Wikipedia will have on article on the whole story. That's as it should be. You say that the Wikipedia version would be useful even just a couple of days into the story, but that doesn't take into account that fact that the Wikipedia article at that stage will, most likely, just be a series of "As of..." paragraphs, so is little different to the Wikinews coverage.

There is also an entire section set out as a timeline. It is a fairly well written timeline though, so it is quite encyclopaedic, it doesn't look like people have just been adding things on the end.

Being such a big story and having so many people working on it, however, means it probably isn't representative of how Wikipedia handles most current events.

That somehow directing "breaking news" traffic to wikinews would hurt Wikipedia is nonsensical.

On Dec 17, 2007 6:25 AM, GerardM <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote: but would be This is precisely the aspect of Wikipedia that is most infuriating to members of the sister projects. The unwillingness to "share", the refusal to help the sister projects, the arrogance to think that somehow you can just do it all without having to respect boundaries. That somehow directing "breaking news" traffic to wikinews would hurt Wikipedia is nonsensical. If you allow projects to focus on their specialties, you create a series of projects that are definitive examples of their particular niche (encyclopedia, news agency, etc). The name recognition of all projects increase because the purpose of each becomes more well defined. In the end, being known as a "great encyclopedia" is more important then being known as an "adequate information pile". Admitting that Wikipedia's specialty is in being an encyclopedia (and not a news agency, species repository, book library, etc) is a milestone in growth, stability, and maturity that many people (myself included) are anxiously waiting for Wikipedia to pass. The "We can do whatever we want because we are Wikipedia and we aren't like traditional encyclopedias" crap is an admission that you have no focus, no specialty, and no understanding of your own core competencies. --Andrew Whitworth _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 17/12/2007, GerardM <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote: a an Why should Wikinews have to give Wikipedia something in return for the news articles? We should be working together here, not competing...

Someone dies? The facts (date/time/cause) go on Wikipedia. The obit goes on Wikinews.

-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Robert Rohde Sent: 17 December 2007 18:43 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Is popularity a good thing for us? On Dec 17, 2007 8:53 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: anything battling take At the risk of being blunt, I believe Wikipedia coverage of current events is often intrinsically superior to Wikinews. This is a side effect of the fact that Wikinews "publishes" and locks articles, so Wikinews often lacks comprehensive coverage of news events which unfold over several days. In the best cases there is a series of overlapping articles, but Wikipedia provides a single, comprehensive article that I often find much more useful in understanding current events. Not to mention that I've seen Wikinewsies fight to protect "published" material that contained serious material errors or lacked meaningful objectivity. The publish and protect process at Wikinews eliminates one of the best aspects of the wiki in my opinion. I have no objection to Wikinews doing what it is doing as long as it does not interfere with other projects. However, if it were presented as a choice of either Wikinews covers current events OR Wikipedia covers current events, then I would happily eliminate Wikinews entirely rather than remove current events from Wikipedia. So, you can take that as a very strong statement that I am opposed to removing current events from Wikipedia (as some in this thread suggested). Much better that we keep doing as we are now and try for a happy coexistence. ---- I will be blunt, no risk about it. Wikipedia coverage is better because of people having the attitude you exhibit here and saying "Why have sister projects"? Wikipedia is not, and should not attempt to be, a news source. If you can't accept that news coverage is incomplete and *not encyclopaedic* then you don't understand the differences between the projects. I don't want to get dragged into a prolonged flame war on the subject, but I agree wholeheartedly with the philosophy that Wikipedia should not try to act as a news source. Someone dies? The facts (date/time/cause) go on Wikipedia. The obit goes on Wikinews. Some politician is embroiled in a scandal? Wikipedia should not speculate but defer coverage until closer to consensus. If these two examples seem unreasonable, then I think people are viewing Wikipedia as the be-all-and-end-all of online references and, whether they mean to or not, disparaging the efforts of Wikinews contributors who - from my experience - often set themselves near-unreachable goals of impartiality. As an aside, I am disgusted that Wikinews can interview figures such as Al Sharpton and be dismissed by Wikimedians who could use the sister project's original reporting as a source. Brian McNeil _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l