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

[Anthony]

On Dec 17, 2007 11:52 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
I won't speak for Gerard, but what he said made me think of something
(which may or may not be what he was referring to).

Wikinews articles for stories that develop over a long period of time
(with 2 or 3 days or maybe even shorter constituting a long period of
time) tend to be incomplete and broken up compared to Wikipedia
articles on those stories.  Take for example the Virginia Tech
massacre.  Maybe someone can point me to the main article for that,
but what I see is:

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/33_dead%2C_15_injured_in_Virginia_Tech_shootings
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_shooter_identified%2C_witness_reports_emerge
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Manhunt_underway_for_2_murders_in_Virginia%3B_Virginia_Tech_closed
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_gunman_sent_package_to_NBC

That's actually not as bad as I expected, but it's still a different
style, and I don't see one as clearly better than the other.  Both are
useful, and both would be useful on, say, April 18, two days after the
event happened.  Even longer developing stories would probably have
even more of a differing style.