El 5/26/09 4:28 AM, Fred Bauder escribió: > Wikipedia needs to do what is good for Wikipedia, and some news coverage > is good for Wikipedia. Detailed original reporting is outside Wikipedia's > mission, as is a sophisticated presentation of the significance of news. > As things happen, information about them is added to the corpus of human > knowledge and thus added to Wikipedia.
Wikinews does relatively little to really support firsthand reporting either. I'll admit I'm not a hardcore Wikinewsie, but what I've seen over the last years has generally been either: * Original interviews or * Re-reporting of news stories in other media Look at today's top stories: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Trial_against_Church_of_Scientology_begins_in_France http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/North_Korea_conducts_test_of_nuclear_weapon http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Obama_nominates_Sonia_Sotomayor_to_U.S._Supreme_Court http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Cyclone_in_Bay_of_Bengal_kills_at_least_17 All four are just rehashes of information found at other news sites -- the sources are all media news outlets: CNN, BBC, Al-Jazeera, Reuters, etc. There is an original reporting section: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Portal:Original_reporting but the stories are relatively rare, and even many of those seem to be basically "a public event happened, here's a description" or "a press conference happened, here's some info". Wikinews lacks a local angle (there's no locality) or a unifying political angle (we're supposed to be neutral), either of which could make it much easier to organize original reporting. Compare with say Indynews, which has a strong political angle and has been much more active about providing infrastructure. Editorial quality sometimes suffers, but I at least feel like they've got a mission... -- brion _______________________________________________ Wikinews-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
