I have a question: the news about pending Chinese "supply-side structural
reforms" is almost all about matching supply to demand; for example see
But if you look at pp. 42 and 63 here, you see the proposaled legislative
reforms are actually about replacing a progressive income tax with a flat
Does the Wikitribune model have a way to make sure that the truth is being
told? How would it work in this particular instance?
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 6:56 AM David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 25 April 2017 at 22:59, Jimmy Wales <jimmywa...@wikia-inc.com> wrote:
> > Today I announced a new initiative, outside of my Wikimedia activities,
> > to combat fake news. It is important to me that I share directly with
> > all of you information about this new initiative early on.
> I was one of the Wikipedians at the hackathon days for this, a few
> weeks ago. (And now it's gone live and I can speak of it in good
> The obvious comparison is Wikinews. Now, Wikinews contributors are
> determined that WikiNews is a good project that deserves to live, and
> they also resent Wikipedia for doing news more effectively as a
> sideline than they do as their main thing and the WMF is unfair and so
> forth. But from the outside view, it's important to note that
> approximately nobody cares about Wikinews and it's a failure in
> impact. Or: if WikiTribune turns out to have the content,
> participation and readership of Wikinews, it will have failed.
> The question is why Wikinews didn't take off. There's a sort of myth
> that it's too process-heavy - but the rough WikiTribune rules on the
> day (which may or may not be the ones they go live with) were *pretty
> much the Wikinews process*. (I looked them up on the day.) So that
> isn't the missing magic ingredient.
> I suspect one big problem is that journalism anyone's interested in
> reading involves gathering dubious information and assessing how true
> it is likely to be. It's pretty much a process of turning bad sources
> into good ones. Actual reporting tends to work like "I talked to these
> three separate sources, none of whose names I can print, but I'll tell
> you my editor." "Yep, looks likely enough to run." Bam, scoop. It's
> hard to do that in a fully transparent manner (put up the recordings,
> etc) without outing your sources. I spoke to one journalist on the day
> and they concurred.
> And that's before you get into there being no such thing as neutral
> news, just news that pretends to be. It's not clear that NPOV is even
> a good idea - selection of stories to cover is a huge bias.
> There's also the danger of the other failure mode of citizen
> journalism. The example I brought up on the day was BeforeItsNews.com
> - I won't spoil it for you, go there and see what sort of stories it
> covers and what sort of advertising it runs. It turns out you need
> sane editorial control at some level.
> It's possible the missing magical ingredient that will let it take off
> will be paid professional journalists - that this will produce a news
> site that's exciting enough, and not just "me too" stories everyone is
> already running, to get subscribers. But again, it'll need some way
> for them to say "This is the story, I'm not revealing my sources, but
> me and x editor concur it's a news story we'd stand by running."
> WordPress is probably the least-worst option for a CMS. MediaWiki is a
> horrible CMS for anything that isn't a reference work. You can do
> almost anything with WordPress if you throw enough money at extension
> development. (Which may or may not be a good idea.)
> Anyway, I'll be watching closely and probably diving in at least slightly.
> - d.
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com