hi, I am forwarding this mail to the foundation,
because I think it is an important one.
--- David Speakman <david(a)speakman.com> wrote:
Hello.
I tend to categorize things so I'll do it here too.
I see three main points
of concern:
1. Wikinews as a Wikimedia Foundation project.
2. Wikinews as a wiki.
3. Wikinews is a new form of journalism.
==As a wikimedia Foundation project==
It needs to be clarified in every Wikinews project
that as a Wikimedia
Foundation project, each wikinews must adhere to the
minimum standard
adopted by the foundation. It also must be stressed
that these standards are
open to interpretation in many areas, but may not be
overruled or ignored by
an individual project. Some Wikimedia Foundation
principles are mandates
that are not debatable. These include:
1. All content on the name namespace of a project
must strive for an
unbiased NPOV.
2. The creation of all content is to be
collaborative in nature.
3. Use of and access to the content is to be as
unrestricted as possible.
It is clear to me that "editorials" are a clear
violation of Foundation
mandates since they are clearly biased in nature. I
also have doubts that
any opinion-type of writing can truly be
collaborative.
Right, I totally agree with you.
We had an irc discussion today and some said it was
mostly problematic as the community is small. They
claim it would not be such a problem with a big
community. I do not agree with this opinion. An
editorial is by definition pov. Big community will not
change this fact.
Another argument was that we could balance by
providing many editorials, with several orientation.
Again, I do not agree. NPOV is not about listing major
opinions, but also about representativity of all
opinions.
Finally, it was suggested that we could possibly write
in describing editorials made by other people
(important journalists for example). But I think the
main interest of a wikinewsie writing an editorial is
not about reporting another person personal opinion...
but about reporting *his*, so I doubt that would make
it.
==As a wiki==
Wikis content is open for modification. An editorial
on a wiki needs to be
open for editing by anyone. This means that a person
with an opposing POV
should have as much access to the editorial as the
original writer(s). ON a
wiki, an editorial - unless protected - will most
likely devolve into an
edit war.
It also runs the risk of having that project, all
wikinews project, or even
the foundation taint as a biased organization where
a given topic is
concerned. On a legal level, I have concerns about
liability issues for the
foundation in regard to views expressed in the
editorials.
Correct
==As a new form of journalism==
It seems that among the Wikinews projects there is a
common identity crisis
when it comes to what is and what is not allowed in
regard to content.
The issue comes in 2 flavors: newspapers and blogs.
===Newspapers===
I believe this stems from the fact that wikis are
mostly text based. When it
comes to text-based news, lowest common denominator
that most people have
deep familiarity with are newspapers. Many folk
assume a newspaper-oriented
outlook when developing an idea for where a wikinews
project is going. This
is strengthened by the fact that wikinews is
internet based and currently
most Internet-based news is controlled by media and
news sources originally
developed for newsprint. But, there are inherent
flaws in this viewpoint
since the business model and "raison d'etra" for a
newspaper differs from
that of a Wikimedia Foundation project. And the
limitations of a newsprint
mentality when applied to the Internet is astounding
when one considers the
complexity and opportunity of collaborative
journalism, which may be
thwarted.
In wikinews project policy votes and community
discussion, you will often
see something like, "We should do it because
[all/most/some/many] newspapers
do it." Aside from not being a cogent argument on
its face, a newspaper is
more than just a news source. It contains other
content which is not
translatable to wiki or foundation goals. Some
newspaper staples such as
classified ads, horoscopes, editorials, advice
columns, product reviews,
games (crossword, trivia quizzes) are fun parts of a
newspaper's business
model - but are not news per se. And they really do
not fit in the NPOV or
collaborative fold.
You have it right ! Maybe there are new other types of
content which could be added in wikinews ?
===Blogs===
Some tend to confuse collaborative journalism with
the other new form of
Internet journalism. As someone who has been
involved in wikinews for quite
some time, the difference between a blog and
wikinews is obvious. In fact
they are almost diametrically opposite. A blog
revels in its biased POV and
the fact that it is the work of a single person (or
small group of people
acting as one mind). It is clear that blog-type
content really has no place
in a wikinews project under current wikimedia
foundation principles.
Totally agree with you.
Thankfully, for those who do wish to write blog-type
opinion columns, there
are many free Internet alternatives to wikinews.
==Conclusion==
Since editorials on a wikinews project declare a
specific point of view on
an issue in controversy, they are incompatible with
Wikimedia Foundation
goals.
Dan seems to imply german wikinews adopted editorials,
but Elian said they seem to have stopped. I would be
interested in knowing current situation :-)
In addition, they may open the foundation to legal
and/or image related
problems since the foundation is ultimately
responsible for defending all
content on each of the Wikimedia projects.
Furthermore, individual project participants may not
overrule or ignore
basic Wikimedia Foundation minimum standards for
content. This means the
basic principles of Wikimedia may not be put up to a
popular vote on any of
the individual projects, it must be a Foundation
decision for both
stability/uniformity among projects and legal
reasons.
One of the major issue here is simply that many
wikinewsies have never been wikipedians before, so are
not familiar with certain mandatory rules... not with
general habits build over experience and consensus
over the past 4 years. Reinventing the wheel :-)
--
David Speakman
http://www.DavidSpeakman.com
501 Moorpark Way #83
Mountain View CA 94041
Phone: 408-382-1459
Thanks for your answer
anthere
-----Original Message-----
From: wikinews-l-bounces(a)Wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikinews-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On
Behalf Of Anthere
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 4:15 AM
To: Foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
Cc: wikinews-l(a)wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikinews-l] Editorials
Hi all,
Recently, I have decided that it was time I adopt
a
new project. A small one :-)
So, I started participating to wikinews in french.
It is quite a challenge I must say, because there
are
a handful of very nice participants... but most
of
them are not participants to wikipedia, so quite
newbies on some issues. On the other hand, plenty
of
motivation and ideas which is good :-)
Still, today, I have something disturbing me a
little
bit. A new main page was set up this morning;
Looking
at it, I realised the html was probably not
standard
(some wrong columns size or locations) and saw
that
some areas were just empty (for example, it did
not
mention other projects or other languages).
So it appeared to me to be a working stage, and it
did
not seem a good idea to make changes live; So I
reverted the page to yesterday version and moved
the
new version to a temp page :
http://fr.wikinews.org/wiki/Discuter:Accueil/temp
I then was told this version had been approved and
the
vote ended yesterday. So, it should be the main
page
in any cases.
Then, to list the problems of the html, I looked
more
precisely at it. And I discovered 3 new
sections.
One is the "Analysis section". There is one
example of
it, the link being a user sub page. So, first,
it
means it is very likely a non editable page (since
it
is a user sub page). Second, there is a mention
below,
stating "the section can be ambiguous in
terms of
NPOV, as it is only partially submitted to it"
Two other sections are "Editorial" and "carte
blanche"
(I am not sure I really see the difference).
These
sections are empty for now, and a note indicates
"These two sections do not respect NPOV and have
not
been adopted by the community".
I then commented in saying that these sections
should
probably not be here in any cases, since NOT
adopted
by the community. I was answered they actually
were
adopted, so the little text should be modified,
but
they should be on the main page.
I looked for a discussion, and found this
http://fr.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews%3ASalle_caf%C3%A9#PDV_.21.21
So, to me, a site with
1) articles submitted to NPOV,
2) personal analyses only partially submitted to
NPOV
and not editable, and
3) editorials not submitted to NPVO
has a name, Indymedia.
Not wikinews :-)
And I do not agree. I think all wikimedia projects
should adhere to NPOV. Strictly. As much as we
can.
But I then thought I had no idea what other
wikinews
have been doing on this issue and that possibly
some
of them have adopted editorials (which will
quite
naturally report a pov).
Is this the case ?
If so, how did you organise yourself to explain
readers the difference between the neutral parts
of
the site and the non neutral parts ?
And do you try to maintain an overall neutrality
within editorials ?
Or do you limit the topics concerned by editorials
?
Thanks in advance for your comments.
anthere
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home
page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
_______________________________________________
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
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs