--- Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Brown, Darin wrote:
I can't agree. If wikinews really is a form of
"alternative media", then how
is wikinews any different than various alternative
media with a clear
leftist, rightist, libertarian, conservative,
populist, etc., etc., slant?
Just because we say we don't have a bias? Fox News
says they don't have a
bias, either. And look at them.
And then we are taking money from people for
Wikimedia, under the guise that
we are using to present a neutral relaying of
information. If this is okay
for us, again, Fox News or the New York Post could
just as well do the exact
same thing. But people who pay money to watch Fox
News or the New York Post
*know* it's biased.
What? Since when are people *paying* for Wikimedia content???
Where is the comparison here?
The comparison is in reality. As I wrote at wikinews:purpose , there are some inherent contradictions between a newsgathering organization operates and how a wiki operates. Someone once said that 'wikipedia will eventually just become a wiki' (rather than an encyclopedia). WP has so far proven that inasfar as anonymous contribution and organization of facts toward creating what we call an "encyclopedia" the wiki software model works quite well.
Wikinews on the other hand, has largely remained just an experiment in 'throwing wiki software at the news org idea'. It was bound to fail without some sincere rethinking of the software and how it works, andmany had commented a long time ago that some other I.e newsorgs need secrecy/privacy and trustworthiness in its source referencing and fact gathering. WP:CITE doesnt work if the source is complete background, and the only way that BG sources can be used in a story is if the story is written by credentialled people, and published in a newspaper with some trust an accountablity. Of course, when even the NYT (oogle "Sulzberger lucky sperm club" ) and others before it can seriously cross the line into Yellow Journalism, we can at least hold to an idealistic notion that 'we cant be any worse.' But that notion is unfortunately always predicated on the upstart model - the notion that someday we will get there even if we dont have even the foundation of a newsorg set up.
Wikinews just will not work. Journalism requires journalists and journalists cost money, use up a lot of airfare and quite regularly get shot at. ('Alaskan crab fishing' -- my ass). Beyond that, journalists want the perks and credentials of journalism, as well as the support of editors and publishers, whos professional reputations are also on the line.
The real point is: Wikimedia's purpose itself has fundamental contradictions with the purposes of a real newsorg. Even lucky shot videographers want to call around to see what they can get for their video. Its amazing Wikipedia has worked so well so far, but thats largely because commercial newsorgs and publishers have done the real work for us. And because theres no time value urgency, so the information is free to use for historian purposes, such as Wikipedia's.
SV
__________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com