Andrew It seems to me that you're saying that, on the one hand, the policies that make Wikipedia work well as an encyclopaedia (NOR, RS, V, NORUSH) are a poor fit for a news-gathering operation and on the other hand, Wikipedia is a success as a news-gathering operation. These seem inconsistent to me. However, I conclude from what you're saying that the best way forward is to fold the Wikinews operation into Wikipedia. Is that right?
JPS On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 8:15 PM Andrew Lih <andrew....@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:27 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers < > jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Wikinews may not be doing too well, but (English-language) Wikipedia > seems > > to have taken up a news-gathering role not entirely consistent with its > > encyclopediac mission: perhaps that's the reason. Maybe the WMF should > > sort out the demarcation issues. > > > > Jennifer, > > This has been a topic of discussion for more than a decade and the vast > majority of the community has converged on the conclusion that Wikinews > hasn't and won't ever work at any scale given its fundamental properties. > > News is often described as "the best obtainable version of the truth given > the constraints of a deadline." News depends on memorializing direct > observation at a point in time. Therefore, the following policies that make > Wikipedia work are a bad fit for original, deadline reporting: > > Wikipedia:NOR - no original research > Wikipedia:RS - requirement for reliable sources > Wikipedia:V - verifiability > Wikipedia:NORUSH - there is no deadline/eventualism > > Most anyone who tries Wikinews first hand will experience this mismatch and > realize it is a poor fit. > > However, rather than lament why Wikinews doesn't work, we should celebrate > the fact that we have found a better mode: entries that evolve minute to > minute (oftentimes second to second) to best reflect the world as we know > it. Embrace that new, live, constantly updated snapshot of reality – the > Wikipedia article. > > If you want to see some of the earlier debates about the origins of > Wikinews, October 2004 is a good place to look: > [1] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2004-October/thread.html > [2] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2004-October/061017.html > > -Andrew > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
