All I am saying is Wikipedia is not a news site. And if we have to have
a policy on why we are not Wikipedia, then they should have one on why
they are not Wikinews.
--
Jason Safoutin
Wikinews accredited reporter and administrator
jason.safoutin@wikinewsie.org
Brian McNeil wrote:
> Do we want the Wikipedia news people? They'd need to put in a lot more
> effort - at the moment they just make 2-3 sentences from an item that is
> being included in Wikipedia, and their work appears on the 8th most popular
> site on the Internet.
>
> Wikinews does okay having a link above the crease on WP's main page. Selling
> a link like that on the main page would probably be worth six figures, we're
> not capitalising on that. And we cannot order people from Wikipedia to work
> on Wikinews to do so. It is like the meta discussion on a global BLP, we
> don't want told what we can and can't write, let alone even risk it. WP
> people involved with their news section would not take kindly to being told
> to do a full report on Wikinews.
>
>
> Brian.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikinews-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:wikinews-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jason Safoutin
> Sent: 25 May 2009 21:53
> To: Wikinews mailing list
> Subject: Re: [Wikinews-l] Wikipedia's 'In the news'
>
> That can already be done easily as it is now. Those who write the news
> on WP can write the news on WP. It should not be a matter of popularity,
> but a matter of getting out the most information, the easiest, quickest
> way possible, with as much *collaboration *as possible. As it is, with
> the contributions on WP for the news, we are not collaborating we are
> competing. It may or may not be an intentional competition but is its
> one. It seems the only time we get any contributors from WP is when they
> do something to piss everyone else off. When the incident is settled,
> they go back to writing news on WP...the same news that they were just
> writing on WN. So I am just lost as to what exactly the point of all
> this would be? Its like taking what WMF stands for and ignoring it
> because something may or may not be as popular as it was before.
>
>