- you make a judgment call as to whether the change is
controversial, - you are prepared to accept a revert and face
discussion.
These are two elements which were clearly missing from your changes,
and the attempts at discussion after.
There are
currently 5 people supporting the creation of an Open
English edition of Wikinews, which is obviously not entirely due
to the recent differences regarding the DPL. Like any community
at en.wikinews there are different opinions as to what the goals
of the project may be, and some members of the community feel it
is not going someplace they wish to continue to support.
People leave the English Wikipedia all the time. We don't set up an
"Open English Wikipedia" because of that. I will not enumerate the
many, many reasons why doing so in the case of Wikinews would be a
bad idea. My suggestion is this: If you do not want to work with
the existing Wikinews community, then please do set up your Open
Newswiki as a separate site. I provide wiki hosting at reasonable
rates, if you are interested ;-). So does Gabriel Wicke.
I thank you for your offer, but I choose my hosting based on support.
As you have so eloquently argued in the past, Wikinews is not
Wikipedia. What qualifies for inclusion as current events should be
more broad, because the focus is *now*. Like the media sources which
preceded it, en.Wikinews is developing an approach or personality on
the news which restricts what it will cover and determines how it will
cover those events. This is not necessarily a bad development, but it
should give rise to the corrollary: the option for another media
source to cover the events which are not being written about, with a
different approach to news.
I have already joined the Wikinews Future Talk. I have begun the
discussion on the talk page. It seems no one else is interested in
writing about the topics in the wiki.
Amgine