[Foundation-l] Editorials

[Dan Grey]

--- Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> 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 :-)

That's almost word for word what I say (I also often
say "if you want to tell the world what you think, get
a blog").

> 
> 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 ?

We recently discussed this on en:

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Water_cooler#Wikinews_Editorials

It's a bit long but probably worth a read if you're
interested. I won't summarise - it's best if you have
a read yourself.

It also looks like I didn't contribute there, but
personally I see no reason why we should have them.
Wikinews provides a fully-npov and well fact-checked
news service, and not a lot more. If you want more
biased and sloppy fare, go to Indymedia (as Anthere
suggests). Indymedia gets around four times our
traffic, btw, although it has been going since '99 or
thereabouts.

However, I understand that de.wikinews runs or did run
editorials. Hopefully Erik or someone else can explain
more...


Dan


		
___________________________________________________________ 
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday 
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com