[Foundation-l] GFDL and relicensing

[Brian McNeil]

The issue isn't so much the majority of our articles where we rewrite from
multiple sources in much the same manner as Wikipedia. I don't expect that
cited. Yet, Wikinews allows original research - meaning it has material that
will be unavailable anywhere else. Forgive me for thinking it is a bit of a
slap in the face to the project if hard work on this is labelled "not
credible".


Brian McNeil

-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Dalton
Sent: 25 November 2007 20:50
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL and relicensing

> Nobody from Wikinews is bothered whether or not Wikipedia will lift
material
> verbatim or rewrite due to license issues. The key issue is a lot of
> contributors feel that Wikipedia does not see us as a credible source.
Yet,
> some random online source that is a popular glorified blog will happily be
> cited. (Eg Slashdot).

Slashdot is not some random online source, it is one of the largest
and oldest sites of its type. Nevertheless, I would never cite it for
anything other than information about Slashdot, since it only reports
existing news stories and links to them, so you can just cite that
story.

As for citing Wikinews - we're always telling people not to cite
Wikipedia, why is Wikinews any more reliable? I know you have a system
of "publishing" articles, which certainly helps, but is it enough?

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l