On 9/20/06, David Alexander Russell webmaster@davidarussell.co.uk wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Peter Jacobi wrote:
"Andrew Lih" andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
It's been this way for a while
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11_March_2004_Madrid_train_bombings
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)