They are the same and that is why I strongly opposed that wiki.
My comment four months ago:
"I am against a private OR Wiki for the following reasons
1. .Wikinews should be open to the public not closed to the public.
2. .Collaboration should be encouraged
3. . We are a news source, we should want other news sites to copy news,
even pre-publication.
4. . We want the news to be easily copied by others.
--User:Anonymous101<http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/User:Anonymous101>
Talk <http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/User_talk:Anonymous101> 12:05, 27
January 2008 (UTC)"
Thanks,
Anon101
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 11:50 PM, bawolff
<bawolff+wn@gmail.com<bawolff%2Bwn@gmail.com>>
wrote:
To me "...the need for a non-public space for
Wikinews to develop
stories..." == embargo wiki, which was proposed and voted on etc (with
concencuss to create), and than not created. (see wc)
-bawolff
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Wikinewsie: Anonymous101 <
wikinewsie.anonymous101(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
Quote from previous email on mailing list:
"...the need for a non-public
space for Wikinews to develop stories..."
Isn't this going completely against the idea of a wiki? Should we really
stop people from seeing the development process for the majority of our
users. To me this just seems like a way to allow us to censor articles
without anyone noticing.
I am concerned that Wikimedia is going to start censoring all our
articles. This sort of thing, along with Wikinews:WMF Reports is what is
going to stop us being unbiased.
Thanks,
Anon101
_______________________________________________
Wikinews-l mailing list
Wikinews-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
_______________________________________________
Wikinews-l mailing list
Wikinews-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
--
Jonathan Winterfield - Journalist - Wikinews editor - Wikinews Administrator