On 9/20/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster(a)davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Peter Jacobi wrote:
"Andrew Lih"
<andrew.lih(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Yep, but this was before "forking" WikiNews or at the very
beginning of that project. Shouldn't we draw a line now and
leave the news to WikiNews, only remerging into Wikipedia once
importance is clearer and deeper analysis is available from
secondardy sources?
[[User:Pjacobi]]
Just because something happened recently doesn't mean it *shouldn't* be
included in Wikipedia. Granted, Wikipedia will generally have less
information on a current event than Wikinews (given WP's greater
emphasis on verifiability) but that doesn't mean that no article is
better than a short article.
Typically a Wikipedia article has much *more* information than a
Wikinews article, since the editing "workforce" on Wikipedia is
larger, and there is no "deadline" in Wikipedia and is constantly
morphing. Verifiability doesn't mean the WP article will be shorter
either. If you provide an external link to a new source, then - boom,
it's verified. And it can be included in the article.
Besides which, these sorts of articles are
generally plastered with WN links to provide the more up-to-date, less
verifiable information.
Yes, there will be often be a WN article linked to from the relevant
WP article. But the WP article will also have tons of links to
external news sources, which are tough for Wikinews to keep up with.
FYI, German Wikipedia is more in line with the idea that "not every
news event deserves an article." They are much more selective and are
not shy in telling you so. :)
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)