On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 14:49:52 -0500, you wrote:
>I don't see it being banished, I see Jimbo
saying let's all walk away
>and come back if anyone still cares in a year. What's the rush? My
>view is that no topic should be added until at least a year after it
>happens, in order to allow formation of a proper perspective, there is
>no rush to scoop anyone. Wikinews is that way ----->
No articles on any topic for a year until it happens?
Don't you think
that's going a bit far?
Not a firm policy, just a rule of thumb. How many times have you seen
the interpretation of current events change as fuller information
becomes available?
Here's some articles that'd have to be deleted,
just scanning through
Current Events
* [[European Institute of Technology]] -- was just proposed this week;
hasn't even opened
So no article required. It's a footnote in the article on the
European Commission until it at least exists.
* [[Grbavica (film)]] -- just released this month
But has been over a year in the conception and making; not really a
current event (we are documenting the film, not the release event).
* [[Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy]] --
the cartoons were
first published 5 months ago, and just got famous a month or so ago
Yep. Remember how it came out that the most offensive ones had never
been published by the paper?
* [[2006 Southern Leyte mudslide]] -- happened five
days ago
Indeed. No details of root cause yet, death toll unknown, news still
arriving of what has been going on on the ground. Wikinews is
thataway ---->
I shouldn't think there's anything so
inherently wrong with an
encyclopedia having up-to-date coverage to merit such a rule.
It's not about a problem with being up-to-date, it's about lacking the
perspective which time provides.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG