In this (http://www.nabble.com/FW%3A-Wikinews-reporting-on-WMF-and-projects-to1717095...) thread relating to a WMF ordered removal of content from Wikinews, Mike Godwin wrote:
"The idea that you can post an incomplete or inadequate or false news story up on the site and then wait for people who happen by to fix it is a recipe for lawsuits -- the expensive kind, that the Foundation and Wikinews can't afford to defend.
What probably needs to happen is some kind of process in which initial versions of news stories are vetted before they're made publicly available for further editing."
Personally, I would expect to hold a news source to a lower expectation of accuracy than any encyclopedia because news, by its nature, is subject to the pressure and distortion of immediacy.
I generally support the notion of increasing the distance between the general public and new unchecked material, though certainly not everyone does... but to whatever extent the position is valid, wouldn't it be extra-true for Wikipedia with its encyclopedia aspirations and enormous viewership? Thoughts?