What do the people on the list think of articles like [[Stock market downturn of 2002]] and [[United States invasion of Iraq]]? Much previous discussion is at the pages linked from [[Talk:Stock market downturn of 2002]] and [[Talk:Main Page]]. See also the The Cunctator's Aug 11 00:34 PDT change to [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]].
-- Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia-l@math.ucr.edu
At 04:18 AM 8/12/02 -0700, Toby Bartels wrote:
What do the people on the list think of articles like [[Stock market downturn of 2002]] and [[United States invasion of Iraq]]? Much previous discussion is at the pages linked from [[Talk:Stock market downturn of 2002]] and [[Talk:Main Page]]. See also the The Cunctator's Aug 11 00:34 PDT change to [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]].
At 07:05 AM 8/12/02 -0600, Fred Bauder wrote:
"Current events is not a news page. We shouldn't be in the business of writing articles about breaking news stories, unless indeed we can be very confident, as in the case of the September 11 attacks, that in the future there will be a significant call for an encyclopedia article on that topic. One very significant danger is that news articles must be kept current in order to remain accurate. Wikipedians might begin a news article and then simply lose interest in the topic, whereupon the article becomes inaccurate. In short, we aren't set up to be an amateur news organization, and we shouldn't try to compete with professional news organizations."
In this case the significance of the stock market downturn is not yet determined; the invasion may not happen at all but is sure to be significant when it does. It is pretty clear that an article that does doesn't attract participation is a loser. If an article does attact significant participation it provides a record of contemporary views of the event.
I think any event might be mentioned in current events with links to existing or proposed background articles. The event itself might not be a worthy article.
Indeed. This is why I put a note in Current events about the Colombian state of emergency, but made the links to Colombia and the president (who doesn't yet have an article).
On 8/12/02 9:05 AM, "Fred Bauder" fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
"Current events is not a news page. We shouldn't be in the business of writing articles about breaking news stories, unless indeed we can be very confident, as in the case of the September 11 attacks, that in the future there will be a significant call for an encyclopedia article on that topic. One very significant danger is that news articles must be kept current in order to remain accurate. Wikipedians might begin a news article and then simply lose interest in the topic, whereupon the article becomes inaccurate. In short, we aren't set up to be an amateur news organization, and we shouldn't try to compete with professional news organizations."
In this case the significance of the stock market downturn is not yet determined; the invasion may not happen at all but is sure to be significant when it does. It is pretty clear that an article that does doesn't attract participation is a loser. If an article does attact significant participation it provides a record of contemporary views of the event.
That's one opinion. Mine is different.
Fred Bauder wrote:
Information on contributing to the current events page [...] In this case the significance of the stock market downturn is not yet determined; the invasion may not happen at all but is sure to be
Would it be wrong to write this under [[2002]] right away? Even if the invasion of Iraq in October doesn't happen, it is a fact that during July and August many worried that it would, and this could be worth noting anyway. Besides "births", "deaths", and "events", the year-in-review pages could have a new headline for "media reporting". Or is that the same as "events"?
Toby Bartels wrote:
What do the people on the list think of articles like [[Stock market downturn of 2002]] and [[United States invasion of Iraq]]? Much previous discussion is at the pages linked from [[Talk:Stock market downturn of 2002]] and [[Talk:Main Page]]. See also the The Cunctator's Aug 11 00:34 PDT change to [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]].
Since these issues have not yet played themselves out, I would consider them pre-historic. Though the Iraq item is a tad speculative. The facts are continuing to evolve, and much of what is written is based on incomplete information. But Wikipedian collaboration can overcome that.
I would put these dogs on a long leash, but still watch that they don't bite.
Eclecticology
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org