Message: 1
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 12:30:08 +0000
From: "Andrew Gray" <shimgray(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Seeking clarification
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
<foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID:
<f3fedb0d0801230430l47db917fq5b6398a63c60c5ad(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 23/01/2008, Jason Safoutin <jason.safoutin(a)wikinewsie.org> wrote:
It is realistic. Plain and simple: Wikipedia is
an encyclopedia. If you
want news on an encyclopedis, change it to "Wikipedia and news". Until
thin, this creates a competition between Wikinews and Wikipedia, *not*
collaboration.
We've had this discussion a hundred times before and still haven't
reached a satisfactory conclusion :-)
Decreeing "Wikipedia doesn't do news" hasn't, on the whole, *worked*,
because it still gets news, at least "big-ticket" news. It still gets
used, actively and enthusiastically, and very, very effectively. It's
still where people run to for big unexpected stories, for air crashes
and hurricanes and revolutions.
We have three options - gently encourage people to move this over;
take drastic measures to encourage people to move this over; or accept
the status quo. And, somehow, we need to do this without lessening the
overall utility.
Well I can say a few things Wikinews is famous for that WP could not
even dream of achieving: One we broke the story on Chris Benoit edit on
WP. 2) London Bombings 3) Israeli President Peres 4) Scientology website
being attacked....and that's just a short list because there are SOOOOO
many.
The thing it should be is that anyone who wants to write a *news*
article should be directed to WN. The news section of WP should contain
more WN stories other than just a link. And yes it has to be forced
over. Projects have to change. And WP needs to accept change. AS I
stated in a thread just before this reply, WP is not the only WMF project.
Right. The ones *not* in competition are the ones
that are not the same
projects or similar to projects of WMF Wikieducator = Wikiverity and
Encyclopedia of Life = Wikispecies. Those IMHO are *direct* competition
and both of which receive an endorsement by WMF. Again, WMF needs to
endorse and think about their projects first and foremost. Period.
Perfectly serious question: *Why*?
Let's imagine that EoL gets up and running properly, and makes
Wikispecies look like a school project - it's got $50m, high-level
backing, some Actual Professional Management, and all sorts of useful
back-end stuff that we simply can't offer, not to mention a very good
way of tapping into a highly skilled author pool and getting focused
press attention if it so wants.
I'm not saying this *is* going to be the case - EoL barely exists just
now - but it's certainly got the potential to happen... why shouldn't
we endorse it, in that case? Why shouldn't we encourage people to use
it and contribute to it, why shouldn't we offer them assistance where
we can?
The WMF's goals are not "set up some websites and protect their
interests aggressively". They are to get the content out there, to get
more of it created, and the sites and the hosting are a means to that
end.
Assuming that because we have started a project we must see it through
to the bitter end, we must keep clinging to it and pushing it even if
something better comes along, is really not a very productive
standpoint. It skirts close to a rather uncomfortable arrogance that
we are the best possible people to handle any "central" collaborative
project, and everyone else needs to find their own little niches
around the territory we have staked out...
Because they need to endorse and provide for and help improve their own
projects first. We have Wikispecies...help them first...help the WMF
projects first and foremost.
Jason Safoutin (DagonFire1024)