I just want to say that I see a significant difference between the Wikipedia: In the news section and our front page.

It is not just the interviews. Wikipedia is restricted to those events that merit an encyclopedic entry for posterity, while we can cover event that are more temporal in nature. Sure, there is a great deal of overlap, especially while Wikinews is small. Earthquakes, wars, elections all get their own Wikipedia pages.

In recent news, however, we have had a series of articles, that I have not seen on "Wikipedia: In the news" and that would be the stories on Daniel Hauser and the court-ordered chemotherapy.

Daniel Hauser does not have a Wikipedia entry, but we have at least three stories on his case:
  1. Minnesota boy with cancer and mother return to abide by court rulings

  2. Mother and son disappear after court orders cancer treatment

  3. Court rules teen must take chemotherapy

Wikipedia barely mentions this case in Hodgkin's lymphoma: Notable_cases.

As we grow, these differences will grow.

Cheers, SVTCobra

----- Original Message -----
From: Brion Vibber
Date: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 7:23 pm
Subject: Re: [Wikinews-l] Wikipedia's 'In the news'
To: fredbaud@fairpoint.net, Wikinews mailing list
Cc: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

> El 5/26/09 4:28 AM, Fred Bauder escribió:
> > Wikipedia needs to do what is good for Wikipedia, and some
> news coverage
> > is good for Wikipedia. Detailed original reporting is outside
> Wikipedia's> mission, as is a sophisticated presentation of the
> significance of news.
> > As things happen, information about them is added to the
> corpus of human
> > knowledge and thus added to Wikipedia.
> Wikinews does relatively little to really support firsthand
> reporting
> either. I'll admit I'm not a hardcore Wikinewsie, but what I've
> seen
> over the last years has generally been either:
> * Original interviews
> or
> * Re-reporting of news stories in other media
> Look at today's top stories:
> http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Trial_against_Church_of_Scientology_begins_in_France
> http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/North_Korea_conducts_test_of_nuclear_weapon
> http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Obama_nominates_Sonia_Sotomayor_to_U.S._Supreme_Court
> http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Cyclone_in_Bay_of_Bengal_kills_at_least_17
> All four are just rehashes of information found at other news
> sites --
> the sources are all media news outlets: CNN, BBC, Al-Jazeera,
> Reuters, etc.
> There is an original reporting section:
> http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Portal:Original_reporting
> but the stories are relatively rare, and even many of those seem
> to be
> basically "a public event happened, here's a description" or "a
> press
> conference happened, here's some info".
> Wikinews lacks a local angle (there's no locality) or a unifying
> political angle (we're supposed to be neutral), either of which
> could
> make it much easier to organize original reporting. Compare with
> say
> Indynews, which has a strong political angle and has been much
> more
> active about providing infrastructure. Editorial quality
> sometimes
> suffers, but I at least feel like they've got a mission...
> -- brion
> _______________________________________________
> Wikinews-l mailing list
> Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l