The second point is this one.
A lot of the opposition on the wikinews project is related to
* dividing community forces (stretching human resources)
* reduced number of editors will mean less chance for npov
* breaking news-pressure will push editors to publish quickly, while nearly 4 years of experience show us only time and number of editors allow us to approach npov. As best said by Maha_ts ''Establishing NPOV within the short time span required for news reporting will almost be impossible, to any degree of fairness and accuracy''
* fear of legal issues (consider setting up a legal team at the same time than wikinews)
* and mostly, concerns on original reporting.
So, overall, though I think the idea of wikinews is great, and should become a major hit, I think that we need
- that rules be collectively worked on, so that concerns voiced by non-supporters are taken into account. For this, I hope that many editors join the future project so that we all work on it.
- possibly to get some journalists involved in the project, so that we get more (or different) perspective. There are some journalists interested in wikipedia, and who would feel ready to discuss the project with us. Or even to join it.
For this reason, and after several discussions here and there, given the controversial nature of the project and its likelyhood to get in the sunlights of media immediately upon its creation (contrarywise to wikipedia, which had time to polish before it become known), I would suggest that we try to contact some interested journalists and possibly have them join a sort of advisory board. What do you think ?
Anthere
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now. http://messenger.yahoo.com
Anthere-
- that rules be collectively worked on, so that
concerns voiced by non-supporters are taken into account. For this, I hope that many editors join the future project so that we all work on it.
Obviously; however, many of the objections were not "actionable", that is, they did not refer to any specific policy, but to the project as a whole as being undesirable. Any actionable objections shall be discussed in the usual wiki manner.
I would suggest that we try to contact some interested journalists and possibly have them join a sort of advisory board. What do you think ?
Advisory as in giving advice - absolutely. But not in setting the policy or being called upon to arbitrate matters of user conduct.
Regards,
Erik
Erik Moeller a écrit:
Anthere-
- that rules be collectively worked on, so that
concerns voiced by non-supporters are taken into account. For this, I hope that many editors join the future project so that we all work on it.
Obviously; however, many of the objections were not "actionable", that is, they did not refer to any specific policy, but to the project as a whole as being undesirable. Any actionable objections shall be discussed in the usual wiki manner.
I would suggest that we try to contact some interested journalists and possibly have them join a sort of advisory board. What do you think ?
Advisory as in giving advice - absolutely. But not in setting the policy or being called upon to arbitrate matters of user conduct.
Absolutely. As I wrote "advisory". Deciding policies is community matter and arbitrating is something totally uncalled for anyone but a collective knowing community life and rules very well.
That would be a bit like when Jimbo discuss with those defining licences. They know licenses issues very well, and can both teach us relevant things, as well as be influenced on how to work on free licenses issues.
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 02:27:38 -0800 (PST), Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
For this reason, and after several discussions here and there, given the controversial nature of the project and its likelyhood to get in the sunlights of media immediately upon its creation (contrarywise to wikipedia, which had time to polish before it become known), I would suggest that we try to contact some interested journalists and possibly have them join a sort of advisory board. What do you think ?
Sounds sensible to me.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org