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_F…
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…
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