Discussion on task force mandate

This is moved from the project page, just for the sake of keeping it consistent:

Discussion on each point in the task force mandate

1. What role does expansion into content beyond core encylopedic information have in advancing Wikimedia's vision of "the sum of all knowledge"? and
(part of) 4. Are there other types of content that Wikimedia should expand into?

Task force discussion of this point:
Here are some thoughts about the idea of "the sum of all knowledge": Different cultures have different ways to approach, store, update, and manage knowledge. An encyclopedia is one way of storing and managing knowledge, based on the idea that a group of people can arrive at a consensus on what that group "knows" about certain things. Encyclopedic knowledge is explicit and generally verbal, but there are kinds of knowledge that are neither explicit nor verbal. Knowledge can also be contained in, say, dance or painting, but someone who does not have specific training in a certain type of dance or painting would not be able to "decode" the implicit knowledge conveyed through the dance or painting. How-to knowledge is generally implicit and based on personal experience, though people try to turn it into explicit verbal content (e.g., in how-to books or on ehow.com). Many traditional cultures rely on elders to be "storehouses" of expertise and how-to knowledge .
How do implicit types of knowledge get represented in something like Wikipedia?

Wikipedia enacts the ideal that anyone on the planet could potentially be able to contribute to the storing and managing of knowledge, provided they abide by certain guidelines for quality control, and most importantly, that knowledge on Wikipedia should be freely available to anyone on the planet. Not all systems of knowledge share the ideal that all knowledge can or should be available to anybody. In many scientific specializations, for instance, some knowledge is not considered accessible until some previous level of knowledge has been mastered, or until some ethical proficiency has been demonstrated. E.g., physics students learn classical mechanics before quantum mechanics; organic chemistry doesn't make sense until one has mastered basic chemistry; psychology students are not allowed to gather knowledge by direct research with human participants until they have some training in ethical standards for research with people. Some systems of indigenous knowledge have similar restrictions, where not all knowledge is immediately available to a beginner/outsider/newcomer.

If Wikimedians want to develop something that is "the sum of all knowledge", we will have to deal with questions of how different groups of people manage knowledge: who is considered an expert? what is considered a reliable basis for calling something a fact? (E.g., some languages don’t just have one word for "knowledge", but different words for, say, knowledge based on direct personal experience vs. knowledge based on what someone you trust told you vs. knowledge based on what a stranger told you.) Are there kinds of knowledge that cannot or should not be freely accessible to any and all? Who are "elders" in certain kinds of knowledge? Who are gatekeepers for certain kinds of knowledge? How can digital media represent implicit, nonverbal types of knowledge? If not all types of knowledge are encyclopedia-like, which types of knowledge should Wikipedia expand into? Drvestone 22:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I will be doing some interviews to address these questions.Drvestone 14:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

3. Does Wikimedia have a role to play in providing content in areas where it already has established projects (beyond Wikipedia)? Specifically: Topical information (Wikinews): Given that Wikipedia already provides topical content, does its presence precludes the need for Wikinews? If not why not? If so, what should be done with Wikinews?

Task force discussion of this point:
I would be interested in others' thoughts about how different Wikipedia and Wikinews really are. Both news and encyclopedic content are explicit, verbal, fact-based, and require citation of sources to be considered reliable. I've always thought Wikinews was sort of like "new knowledge", on its way to becoming part of encyclopedia entries ("old knowledge") on that topic. Drvestone 13:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

One of the differences for me between Wikipedia and Wikinews is the way we present information, both timewise and in terms of audience.

Wikipedia is the "sum of all knowledge", that is, an aggregation of information as it is built up over time. It will by necessity include historical information, and in order to be relevant, be up to date. Wikinews, on the other hand, gives a snapshot in time, hopefully as close to real time as possible.

If one takes the example of the newly elected President of the European Union, then Wikipedia will contain all of the background information of what the role represents, who currently holds the position, and in the future, will include past presidents and the current president. Wikipedia is there to give the full background, for those with time to read the subject thoroughly. There is, however, no need for information about who was "the front runner for the position" at a given point in time.

Wikinews should fufill this role with an article about the selection. Given that the average news reader does not want to digest X pages of background information, but needs short, pertinent, consise information that is relevant at that moment in time, the Wikinews article(s) should be about the event (the selection).

What we should look at is the way to optimise editors' efforts between the two media. We need to avoid duplication of effort. An example is linking back from the Wikinews article (current practice) to the Wikipedia article for background information, with similarly, the Wikipedia article linking to the latest news on Wikinews.

This is true with regards to other sister projects—if one takes the example of Wiktionary there is no need to define the word neither in Wikipedia nor Wikinews, but intelligent use of technology will take the reader who is so inclined as to learn more to the appropriate venue.

Great ideas! I would encourage everyone reading this discussion to make other specific suggestions about how to avoid duplication of effort and optimise editors' efforts who want to contribute to both Wikinews and Wikipedia. 71.211.240.226 19:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, thought I was logged in - that was me asking for more ideas. Valerie Stone Drvestone 19:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps some time would be saved if it were possible to include some background material from pedia without actually having to re-type or copy+paste it into news. You're all familiar how templates work? Well, for example if you would be able to bring in the introduction from pedia article in the same way to news article, it could save some time.

Example new wikinews article

• Template "{{w:en:XX/Intro}}" would display the first few lines of the wikipedia article about XX (no need to copy/paste or write again) in the wikinews article
• Template "{{w:en:Miles Davis/Infobox}}" would display the infobox from the wikipedia article, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_Davis (wouldn't that box with Miles' picture be great in wikinews article?)

Just noting that the current licencing would need to be changed. As it stands, per Wikipedia:Wikinews "Moving pages to Wikinews is not possible, for legal reasons. Copying material to Wikinews would relicense it under the CC-BY license, which is incompatible with CC-By-SA and GFDL. However Wikinews articles can be moved to Wikipedia."