Wikinews can take interviews how it wants, I wish I could read the sr. interview. We're already known for saying, "Wikinews is not paper" - that in itself is an invitation to have lengthy interviews, and to not cut off or cut short answers. This is in stark contrast to mainstream media, and their approach with subject experts is equally dreadful. All they want is the 20 second soundbite to paste into the evening news bulletin. We can't pay experts, so we can't get really notable people talking to us. I can understand then that final year students, or those working towards a PhD would make ideal 'near-experts'. I wouldn't let them drive the process as it could become too dry and technical, it needs the non-expert input to keep the content grounded where a majority of people can understand it. I'd certainly be interested in a geneticist's take on H1N1 Swine Flu. We never get told how likely it is to mutate before the next northern hemisphere flu season - and even if mutation is likely to make it more deadly. Of course, you'd want a geneticist who was well-read on virus geneaology. Brian. -----Original Message----- From: wikinews-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikinews-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Milos Rancic Sent: 23 July 2009 20:41 To: Wikinews mailing list Subject: [Wikinews-l] Reporter-expert A couple of days ago, Mile, the most active sr.Wikinewsian, made an interview about Djavolja Varos. (To bi honest, last two years I was sick of mentioning that place for the so called "new seven wonders of the world".) He tried to find someone from the organization, but when he didn't succeed in that, he interviewed Ana, a Wikipedian and a student of geology. [1] The interview became a real success. Mile asked "popular questions" and Ana gave very hard scientific answers. Interview on sr.wn became, probably, the only journalist article on the Net in Serbian with so rational answers on ordinary questions. I realized one more thing: We (not just sr.wn) have a very strong background in many professionals and students in many areas (from Wikipedia). A geologist is especially interesting because she may give a short analysis of every tectonic movement, volcano or similar. But, we have a geneticist, too, which may give some rational answers about pig flu; and so on and so on. I don't think that it is necessary to keep the form of interview. Instead of that, we may ask such experts to write journalistic articles about relevant events. And, this is not original reporting. This is analytic text about some event. So, my question is: How do you see that kind of journalism? Of course, NPOV should be followed, but what more? Is something like that already defined on some Wikinews edition? If not, is there any specific reason for that? If yes, how did you do that? [1] - http://sr.wikinews.org/wiki/Vikivesti_intervju:_Djavolja_varos_-_prirodni_fe nomen_Srbije _______________________________________________ Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Phoenix Rose<inspiral(a)riseup.net> wrote: Thanks for the explanation! I am not a journalist and my connections to journalism are through linguistics and my Wikimedian work. It seems that I've mistranslated "original reporting" as clearly "[original] reporting from some event". BTW, I think that, in that case, all Wikinews should use that. To say again: We have a number of experts in Wikimedia community.