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

geni geniice at gmail.com
Mon Dec 17 19:01:15 UTC 2007

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 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?


More information about the foundation-l mailing list