Jennifer -- as you say, there is a contradiction here in the self-image and
internal narrative of the projects and movement.  A classic branding issue
;)
* On the one hand, we lack clear, consistent language to talk about topical
subprojects (what do you call 'the Current Events specialists on the major
language Wikpiedias'?  some obvious names have already been taken)
* On the other, for the few Names that we assign to Projects, we
overspecify what they mean ('Wikinews is original news reporting or
synthesis, done on a wikinews.org site').

We propagate this confusion of identity to those outside the projects
trying to understand them; which in turn leads to misunderstanding in the
world at large, and fewer potential collaborators joining the projects:
     I was recently at a gathering of international fact-checkers.   They
all prized Wikipedia as a model for what rapid collective editing can
accomplish; assumed wikinews and wikitribune were the best efforts to date
of applying that to current events; and began an enthusiastic discussion
about how to do it better.  When I pointed out that Wikipedias did exactly
what they were discussing, for the most popular news, this was startling
and satisfying to them.  However as there is no central cafe or village
pump for current events editors, and what portals do exist are impossible
to find for all but the most persistent, it is not obvious how to engage
with them...

This is a challenge of naming + identity that really holds us back: ways
for people to form groups, projects, message streams; and channel,
advertise, amplify, polish them; use them for flash projects and
coalescence, for awareness and thanks.  We have tried many small steps in
this direction but have never made groups or hashtags work as simple,
functional tools of alignment.

SJ

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 4:23 PM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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>



-- 
Samuel Klein          @metasj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266
_______________________________________________
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>

Reply via email to