Hello gopher65, unknown location, and everyone else,
Thanks for a detailed and great reply! However, of course not good
enough :-) Of course I have more comments and questions! Note that
I am _not_ flaming anyone here in my text. Though that might come later!
Note that this message is intended for anyone to reply to. It is not
personal, in any formulation.
our current problems are twofold: 1) quality issues
often sneak in,
and 2) we don't produce enough content. The answer to both issues is
the same: we need more users.
Yes, I agree fully to that. However, how to get more writers/users,
when the conditions are as follows:
- Story about how to make raspberry jam or raspberry
pie, with the
fresh berries, focusing much on recipes
Ok, so aunt Mary can't write a story about what she knows, got it.
- Review of say new I-phone, or other gadget
Ok, so the computer types writing/reading wikipedia can't write a
hands-on review of say new I-phone, or Win 7, or new Flash, or new
Ubuntu version. Got it, the user/reader base can't write about what
they might know something about.
reprinting press releases is not allowed.
Ok got it, instead of slightle re-phrasing the (fictious) Safeway
relese that they will open superstores in 20 new cities and publishing
a story, we will have to wait for somebody to re-write the story after
CNN and BBC has pubished the same, then quoting them as sources.
I think it says somewhere "Wikinews is written by people like you!".
"created by everyday people... around the globe". Got it, maybe like
you, but not like me and my aunt.
I saw somewhere something like "provide an alternative to proprietary
news agencies". Got it, so Wikinews is now going to make the interviews
with Obama and Putin that AP and Reuters never made. Should I hold my
breath until I see those stories?
Now for my next question, do you think the result matches the mission
statement, the master plan? If not, what is the plan how it will be
achieved? Or might it be reasonable that the goal is set just a few
inches lower? Or that the 'ok' filter is made just an inch wider?
I have re-read the following, and I understand the words, but I do not
get the idea. I took the liberty to edit slightly, this is what I
thought was most important.
Because of this you shouldn't try and be
"fair and balanced",
unlike the major national and international media organizations; after
all, who decides what is "fair" and what constitutes "balance"?
Any story that deals with the facts of a case doesn't have two sides,
it just has the facts.
What are facts or not depends on culture and faith (and religion!). If
you don't accept that (fact), then it will be extremely difficult to
agree on what facts or non-facts we have in front of us. Even
mathematical facts develop during time.
Burnout rate is very high on Wikinews.
Has anyone made a work-place safety study on that? Is it necessary
to have it that way? Does it contribute to Wikinews to have a high
burnout rate? Please give examples of how Wikinews have/will become
better by having a high burnout rate. If there are no examples, could
that maybe possibly suggest that high burnout is not something to strive
Not allowed stories:
> - Review of say wines
Oh shit, then I will not get any review samples this summer :-)
Best Regards from a non-flaming (yet)
Jan wiki foto
by the way, how is my (non-spell-checked) english? Can people understand?