Gerrit- The demo will become en:. For reasons of simplicity, it's single language right now. Even if English is approved, it's not yet clear what other languages will be and at which time. Regards, Erik

Chuck0 wrote: Wales wrote: My guess is that it would have the "Neutral Point of View". I've been impressed at how well wikipedia has been able to maintain this goal on controversial subjects. That's a bit harsh. Can you point to a single wikipedia article that has been friendly to neo-fascists? Indymedia is "left-leaning" but could certainly be an automated/semi-automated contributor to wikinews even if there are viewpoints on there that are generally not on Indymedia. Wikinews could have both, like news.google. Wikinews is probably more sympathetic to Indymedia than google as well. See the wikipedia entry on Indymedia--it's current & good: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indymedia Or take a look at their entry on Anarchism (which nicely links to Chuck's infoshop.org): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism wikipedia is a non-profit and the articles are under the GFDL. I doubt it will ever go IPO... For more info, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Overview_FAQ#Who_owns_Wikipedia.3F http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home If it ever does turn commercial, you can download the /entire/ database and set up your own wikipedia and do whatever you want with the articles as long as you comply with the GFDL. See: http://download.wikimedia.org/ I wish Indymedia database dumps were publicly available! It could benefit by wider distribution of Indymedia content. Wikipedia has a huge audience, and deservedly so. In general, I'm in favor of collaboration between wikinews & indymedia. Chuck, stop dissing one of my favorite Internet projects. ;) Thanks, -Jeff

Chuck0 wrote: "*Allowed* to post"? Maybe you're not quite as much of an anarchist as you thought. :-) Stan

Dmitry Borodaenko wrote: Wikipedia promotes the idea that individual entries are the collective wisdom and writing of many smart individuals. Wikipedia claims that, more or less, articles get more accurate with more eyes (and edits). The problem is that contentious topics are not just the target of mischief, but are battlegrounds for partisans with differing opinions. Traditional reference materials addressed this problem with something called "authority," which is related to the concept of "neutral point of view." Wikipedia has no effective mechanism to draw a line in disputes on contentious topics, which is why I find it hard to fully support. Frankly, I think Indymedia needs to develop its political principles before it undertakes big partnerships with other projects. Right now across the network, there is this problemmatic liberal belief that our newswires should be total free speech zones. Right wingers are allowed to attack leftists, activists, and independent media people. This doesn't just alienate potential participants in Indymedias, but we are providing our enemies with the rope to hang us. These fucking bastards control the media, yet we allow them to crap all over the little media that we've fought hard to establish. Indymedia really needs to get its own shit together before it undertakes new partnerships. Shit, we can't even keep our servers online after minor attacks by right wing attacks. We've got lots of basic shit to take care of right now. Chuck

With a softer opinion of Indymedia than Jimbo, I would however say that I support him here. I do not think we should develop particular strong relationship and collaboration with Indymedia. Indymedia is clearly biaised. It does not matter that many of us appreciate Indymedia, or even that some of us participate to it. What is important is that we are different, and we must stay different, not only in concept but in our readers view. We both occupy the same ecological niche in the news ecosystem, but we do not have the same roles. Both roles are important and must be preserved separate. Our role will be to offer neutral news. Their role is much more to counter balance other biaised news network, which will keep on existing (and which MUST keep on existing). In a diverse world, neutral and biais is important. However, not only do we want to be neutral, but we want to be **seen** neutral by our readers. It is even more important for a wikinews project, where news will be published in 4 hours. I deeply believe neutrality is a goal which can only be approached after hundreds of careful contributions by many many editors. Neutrality needs time to happen. In wikinews, articles will be published in less than a day. Most are likely to be written by a limited number of editors. This is why, it is even MORE critical for wikinews, to appear INDEPENDANT and UNBIAISED. If we want to be seen neutral by our readers, we must NOT show in any way that we are linked or collaborating with a biaised news network. It is very very important. And I say this not implying that I do not like Indymedia. This is just a question of principle and of public perception. We should not make collaboration with our pet websites, just because many of use approve them. Anthere Sorry if I appear harsh. As many here may be aware, I did not support the creation of wikinews as an individual editor. I chose not to oppose though on the board level because wikinews was largely supported by the community. However, I think there are several risks in the wikinews project, which might hurt our global project. I see official collaboration between Indymedia and Wikinews as one of these risks, as it could decrease the public perception of us as a neutral source of information. jeff a écrit:

Jimmy- I certainly would like us to cooperate wherever reasonably possible. Indymedia explicitly does not want to follow a neutral point of view, and that is good -- otherwise they'd be competing with us and we'd have to destroy them ;-). They can take Wikinews content and develop it from a lefty POV, if they want. I for one would be interested in some of their video and picture material. It's perfectly legitimate for Wikinews to cover the same protests Indymedia does, for example, but from an NPOV. I'll be talking to some of the Indymedia folks in the coming weeks WRT license compatibility. They have already expressed some interest. Regards, Erik