Creating the possibility of posting something, like my boss is prone to saying, that may well go "over like a fart in church".... April Fools-type stunts have many problems - but the basic problem is this: They do endanger hard-fought-for credibility of Wikimedia projects and do nothing to further the goals of the foundation. This type of behavior is counter to the mission of Wikinews and the parameters as to why the Wikimedia Foundation approved the project. Basically: Wikinews is not in the business of publishing fiction. Furthermore, there are several logic errors in justifying "April Fools'-type temporary lapses in any of the *.Wikinews projects, in particular by comparing the project to newspapers, tabloids, magazines, etc.: Wikinews is not a commercial media newspaper: (Newspapers have opinion pages, gossip columns, editorial cartoons, want ads, etc.) -- David Speakman http://www.DavidSpeakman.com 501 Moorpark Way #83 Mountain View CA 94041

==Who/what gets mocked?== Let's say we say go for it and allow the creation of spoof news on April 1. I honestly cannot imagine the depth of the flame wars when someone attempts to spoof such news stories as Iraq, Bush, same-sex marriage, Christianity, Islam, the execution of Saddam Hussein, sex crimes, tsunamis, 9/11, fake obituaries, illegal immigration, female circumcision... Of course the community would have to decide was is appropriate and was is inappropriate humor - and why.. I'd rather somersault blindfolded through mine fields while juggling hand live grenades than participate in any of those messes. ==Wiki-myopia== In my near 2-decades as a professional journalist, one of the main problems news teams had was of being too myopic in that they forgot that they were creating product for use by others who didn't understand - or even disagreed with - the prevailing opinions and attitudes within the newsroom community. I think we need to remind ourselves that as Wikinewsies and Wikipedians we are making something to be used by other people more so than by ourselves. Are people really coming to Wiki* to read original fiction by amateur humorists? I wouldn't bet money on it. ==Building vs. unnecessary strife== In addition, I am not sure that the end result will be community-building more than community harming inasmuch as "foolery" requires that there be intentional mockery, insult or disrespect to some established cultural norm. In my experience with writing humor, unless *all* of the participants are of a similar culture/nationality or have similar socioeconomic/political experiences, there will be negative conflict and much in-fighting and fragmentation. We've seen all-out wars among on high-profile entries when there is fact against opinion. Imagine the battles of opinion against opinion when we endorse the mockery of others. -- David Speakman http://www.DavidSpeakman.com 501 Moorpark Way #83 Mountain View CA 94041

Oldak Quill wrote: What I always propose for Wikipedia, but we have never actually done it, is this: Let's have an absolutely 100% true front page, but filled for the day with things that SEEM impossible or outrageous. We get extra points if we manage to fool any journalists into thinking that we were running an April Fool's day joke front page. What I love about this: 1. It stays true to our commitment to sharing knowledge and being NPOV and truthful with the world 2. It can be really interesting and quirky 3. It is a meta-joke of far more intelligence than what most outlets would do... I mean, any moronic publication can make up fake stories for a day to try to fool people... only the absurdly clever wikimedians could add a new twist on top of it. Perhaps something like this could be planned for wikinews? Or perhaps, given that wikinews is NEWS, it would be inappropriate as compared to Wikipedia. What I mean is: at Wikipedia, the front page is mostly varied each day anyway... the featured article *could be* just about anything. --Jimbo

On 04/01/07, Benjamin Massey &lt;me(a)benmassey.ca&gt; wrote: No. Because others hold wikimedia projects to higher standards than traditional media. If the NYT or britanica gets something wrong, then that just shows that no one's perfect. If we get something wrong it proves that this damned new-fangled wiki stuff shouldn't be trusted. paz, -rjs. -- Hit me: <http://robin.shannon.id.au> Jab me: &lt;FIRSTNAME(a)LASTNAME.id.au&gt; "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." --- George Bush

Robin Shannon wrote: And there is an epidemic of people writing "Wiki[blank] carried an April Fool's Day joke, ergo, Wiki[blank] is hopelessly unreliable"? While I don't pretend to have my finger on the pulse of the Internet, the scuttlebutt does not seem to head in that direction to my knowledge. While our errors are certainly overcriticised from time to time (and our inclusions more so!), our jokes are, to my knowledge, not. Reversing the bad rap Wikinews and its ilk get is a good thing, but this seems to be barking up the wrong tree to me.