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

[geni]

On 17/12/2007, Brian McNeil <brian.mcneil at wikinewsie.org> wrote:
> I will be blunt, no risk about it. Wikipedia coverage is better because of
> people having the attitude you exhibit here and saying "Why have sister
> projects"?

Mostly because the galleries on cat would otherwise be unreasonably
large and full books and legal documents don't fit too well into
wikipedia.

> Wikipedia is not, and should not attempt to be, a news source. If you can't
> accept that news coverage is incomplete and *not encyclopaedic* then you
> don't understand the differences between the projects.
>

That recent report from Germany suggests that people now expect
encyclopedias to be up to date. For rolling news wikinews is never
going to be able to match wikipedia.

> I don't want to get dragged into a prolonged flame war on the subject, but I
> agree wholeheartedly with the philosophy that Wikipedia should not try to
> act as a news source.
>
> Someone dies? The facts (date/time/cause) go on Wikipedia. The obit goes on
> Wikinews.

Wikipedia articles should be pretty close to being obits in any case.

> Some politician is embroiled in a scandal? Wikipedia should not speculate
> but defer coverage until closer to consensus.

Why do you think that people are going to [[Tommy Sheridan]] at the
moment? Oh and the issue began in July 2006. What is the statute of
limitations here?

-- 
geni