[Foundation-l] Is popularity a good thing for us?

[Thomas Dalton]

>  This thread is about popularity and it was suggested for Wikipedia NOT to
> do news anymore. My argument is that Wikipedia proves its worth by providing
> background information to the news and when important things happen, it does
> mention and adapt the concerning articles when things happen. For instance
> there was an article on cardinal Reitzinger before he became pope. There was
> an article about tsunamis before it struck the Asian and African coasts. By
> having news articles readable from within Wikipedia, articles that links to
> the relevant background articles we do what we do best. Theoretically these
> articles could be Wikinews articles, the issue would be how to square the
> Wikipedia metholody with the Wikinews methodology for such articles.

Background information is exactly what Wikipedia is good for. An
article about Reitzinger is great, but when he was newly announced
pope, it should have been about his past life and the stuff about him
becoming pope should have been on Wikinews (and linked to from the
Wikipedia article). It is, of course, important for Wikinews to link
back to Wikipedia for people to get the background info (I think they
do this already).

What differences in methodology are you referring to? I think the
Wikinews methodology is the one that should be used for writing about
current events, since that's what it's designed for.