OK, Jacque,
Now I understand your concern, thankyou for elaborating.
I don't have the solution :(
But I will point out something.
If you say we are no different to other large publishers, well other
large
publishers have their articles subject to lawyer scrutiny if any
chance they
would be controversial. They have teams of lawyers defending lawsuits
all the
time.
Phone up New York Times and ask them how many lawsuits they are
defending right
now.
Large newspapers see this as a professional hazard. Reporters are
indemnified by
the fact that the articles are passed to an editor. The editor takes
the blame.
And the editor has a very very expensive lawyer who knows how to win -
by
stalling, by bullshitting, by every trick in the book.
Do you want this also for wikinews?
As a contributor to wikinews, I am scared not only that wikinews might
be
censored at some imaginary time in the future, but that I may be
censored in
realtime, by real lawyers.
Thew presence or absence of a notice like this, will affect what
contributions I
make. Already. I don't have to wait for some fictional church group to
lobby the
education system.
As I said, wording I suggested is only a suggestion. I would like just
a tiny
little notice, but which cannot be ignored.
The reason is that people come to the front of wikinews, they see a
big sign
saying 'you can edit'. They can't ignore that.
When wikinews was very young, everyone who visited it came in through
the front
door, where this notice is. There was no problem.
Now we are being returned as a result by Google and maybe also Yahoo,
and other
sites which come up in google use our content and link straight to the
articles.
So now, we have people coming to the site from somewhere, straight to
an
article. They may look at that one article, and then go away. You see,
they
have no interest in developing a new way of communicating. They just
want news.
And when they see our article, it looks just like the good old
fashioned
'authoritative' news press they are used to. So they may actually
believe it.
I'm not saying that is rational or sensible. But it may happen.
To prevent that, I want the warning.
I think the best thing about wiki is that it can't be taken as
authoritative. If
that means universities won't use it, it is their loss. People would
then learn
that universities are stupid, and lobby them to improve their
attitude, if you
like the philisophical side debated. I don't care what the outcome is,
we
should do what is right. ****** the other news sources who pretend to
have the
one, certain truth. They can all rot. That is why I am here. (only
partly
joking!)
Yes, they should all have a disclaimer. But instead, they have $$$ and
$$$lawyers.
And by the way, they print retractions and corrections. When we make a
correction, we don't print 'this is a correction'. If we did that, we
would be
the same as them. But that would be stupid, because we make
corrections all the
time.
But thankyou for your interesting point. :)
Simeon
Quoting "jacques.divol" <jacques.divol(a)laposte.net>et>:
Le 8 avr. 05, à 15:13, shevek(a)bur.st a écrit :
Quoting "jacques.divol"
<jacques.divol(a)laposte.net>et>:
Le 8 avr. 05, à 13:35, shevek(a)bur.st a écrit :
> Quoting "jacques.divol" <jacques.divol(a)laposte.net>et>:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Anyway, you can't, as standard user, trash or completly undo
>> article
>> into wiki. (except if you are a Power Being, i am not :)
>
> I am not worried about what users may do to stories, I am worried
> about what the
> next person to read the story might believe after someone may do
> something.
> Sure, the something may be fixed up quickly, but mr or ms naive may
> read the
> story in the meantime.
>
> A simple addition to the page template would give them all the
> information they
> need to put our site into it's correct context.
>
>> Anyway, i think that your source ask for MORE security, fiability
>> and
>> quality on wikinews than in Real Reality newspapers, don't he/she
>> ?
>> (ok, it's the goal but need time and willing peoples)
>
> No, my source simply wants to know if people can alter the story
> willy
> nilly
> after I quote them. I will have to reply yes, they can, but I would
> like to be
> able to say 'but our readers are warned of this'.
>
> Right now, I can say that our readers may know it, they probably
> will,
> but they
> may not.
>
>> it's my POV ... :)
>
> Thankyou for it. I hope I will hear more of them ;)
>
>> Jacques,with a twisted humour sense for a very serious case.
>>
>
> Simeon
hi, me again sorry..
Naive people,
but also :
kids,
simple minded people
low education people,
low english/French level (foreigners,...)
Amish (science fiction ok, it's just to point)
the list is infinite I think.
Everyone is able to misunderstood Knowledge for any possible reason.
In the past, and still in some countries Knowledge is reserved to
"accredited" people or scolars.
Do you want that ?
Why exaggerate what I asked so much? No, I don't want that. I want to
add about
three words, maybe an extra line if it was convenient, which helps
someone who
visits wikinews for a single page to understand that the site is not
the same
as other news sites they would visit.
Perhaps you don't even understand the difference yourself.
Simeon
why ?
because i rode articles about teacher forbidding wikipedia
because i know How scientists write articles as i am working into a
Research Lab
because many argue about wiki**** fiability, but no one argue about
> Frankly real world is not "Disney" movie, even naive people (i hope)
> could understand that.
>
> i have NEVER see a newspaper with warnings about "novelty or to
> early
> tag"...
> i do not think that real time news tv chanel warned people ....
>
> they should ???
> is your source asked the same question to them ???
>
>
> ../.. i stop i have job to do .... ::)
>
> ho, One last thing :
>
> How do you trust Source when your on wiki, difficult...
> Did he/she got a little sticker uppon his/her forehead saying "TRUST
> IN
> ME !"?
> An id Card maybe ???
>
> don't tell me it's an Official from some gouvernment or firm...
>
> tssss
>
> :)
> jacques
>
>
i put here your teeling
Why exaggerate what I asked so much? No, I
don't want that. I want to
add about
three words, maybe an extra line if it was convenient, which helps
someone who
visits wikinews for a single page to understand that the site is not
the same
as other news sites they would visit.
Perhaps you don't even understand the difference yourself.
Simeon
why Simeon?
because.
because this is the place to do so
because i rode articles about teacher forbidding wikipedia to their
alumni
because i know How scientists write articles as i am working into a
Research Lab, and how long is the process.
because many argue about wiki**** fiability, but no one argue about
fiability of others, even scientific...
because some will soon fight wikipedia with all their power, and it
would be sad.
I don't see the difference yes, you are true.
what's the difference, enlight me ? (i do not joke)
It's just 3 words or so () but this little words could give censors
some ideas.
i hope, i'll never see a '18 years old warning' on wiki because some
don't want courses about sexuality or Darwin.
i hope, i'll never see a 'forbiden, content for ******* warning' on
wiki..., where ******* could be age, nationnality, religionality, ...
you could add them yourself if you want.
and it's still my POV
best wisheds :)
a book? : Histoire de la lecture - History of reading (Alberto
Manguel)
jacques
_______________________________________________
Wikinews-l mailing list
Wikinews-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
_______________________________________________
Wikinews-l mailing list
Wikinews-l(a)Wikimedia.org