Wikinews is useless, huh?

Jump to: navigation, search

"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?" That reads to me as "Since Wikipedia already covers news, Wikinews really serves no purpose". I might be taking that a little harshly, but you might want to consider how WRONG that is. w:WP:NOTNEWS, "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" and it says "News reports.". What about w:WP:BLP1E, where it says "Wikipedia is not a newspaper.". By their own policies they are neither news nor a newspaper.

22:45, 18 November 2009

It has — repeatedly — been said that Wikipedia is not the place for breaking news.

Forgive me for having little faith in the way things are being framed here; but, this is being framed as a "Wikinews is useless" meme. Yes, like more conventional media, such as CNN, Wikinews now has contributor-managed editorial control — Wacko Jacko's death probably made Wikinews around the same time as Wikipedia.

Again. Wikipedia is not the place to write the obituary (or as is more common, the wikt:hagiography) for the recently deceased.

There is a, shall we say, possessiveness contributors have about readers on Wikipedia. Attempts to cross-link the two projects, such as encouraging readers to contribute to the Wikinews obituary for Ted Kennedy, have been reverted out, and discussed into a ditch.

The draw between contributing to a top-10 website versus something down around 20-30k is obvious; the 'attitude' that accompanies apparently not wanting anyone else to be offered the choice is... not nice.

I'd say anyone working on this particular part of strategy should take the time to try and write an article on Wikinews. Then, come back 2-3 months later. It will still be the same. Wikipedia is the online successor to Britannica; Wikinews would like to be the successor to the archives of the New York Times and the Associated Press. --Brian McNeil 22:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

22:54, 18 November 2009

I agree with Brian. Too many people don't understand the difference between Wikipedia and Wikinews. While the two arguably share more in common between each other than with any other two wikimedia projects, they are still entirely different entities. I disagree with the notion that Wikinews serves a limited purpose due to the existence of Wikipedia. (p.s.: Brian, I thought we were somewhere in the top 14-15ks visited sites, not 20-30k?) Cheers.

23:20, 18 November 2009

Tempo. I was guessing conservatively. IIRC en.wn is around 14k; not for visits, but the alexa most-popular list. Comscore — which has a deal with the WMF — doesn't break down Wikinews in their public stats. Everything is lumped under the WMF umbrella thus Wikinews - in a small way - contributes to everyone saying "Wikipiedia is a top-10 website".

"wiki-wiki" means "quick-quick"? Wikipedia is that less, and less; flagged revisions will creep out from BLPs to increase and solidify the project's credibility. Wikinews has already done it; we're credible enough for Google News, but it's a major accomplishment to get the wikinews link-to-article to stick more than a day on Wikipedia. --Brian McNeil 23:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

23:29, 18 November 2009

Yes Wikipedia does indeed cover some topical content, but often resulting in huge debates about its value on an encyclopedia. I invite anyone interested in researching a little further the reaction to a news story on Wikipedia (which was developed with no issues whatsoever on Wikinews) at this Article for Deletion discussion which had to be closed as no consensus with a lengthy explanation a long time before the usual seven days were up as it was generating endless arguments from both sides of the camp and was going nowhere extremely fast. This is not the first, nor will it be the last, painful and drama-infested debate of this kind on Wikipedia about news stories there.

23:18, 18 November 2009

Wow...where to start. For one. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Period. There is no need for news on an encyclopedia. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the whole idea of Wikimedia to collaborate with each other? I don't recall reading anywhere that Wikipedia and Wikinews, or any other project are here to compete with each other. And with Wikipedia having news (on an encyclopedia) is competing with Wikinews. Heck Wikinews cannot even get anything more than a single link on the Wikipedia main page to Wikinews. Aside from that there is no real mention of us on Wikipedia (we cannot even get sourced for wikipedia articles). So if anything, Wikinews is being forced into this position/discussion because of that and nothing more. But to sit here and call us useless is an insult to me and every other contributor on the project. And to be honest, I cannot even believe this conversation is taking place. If i could, I would say that Wikinews is due an apology.

05:55, 19 November 2009

Wikipedia is a portmanteau of wiki and encyclopedia and Wikinews wiki and news.

Where in Wikipedia is there a reason for news? I fail to find that. Like Dragon said, WMF projects should not compete. Period. This is in all honesty a disgrace to the project.

06:05, 19 November 2009

Eh, not an official action, so apology is probably overkill. That being said maybe our raging will prove a point to someone and they might consider leaning on Wikipedia a bit, maybe get them to actually enforce their own policies a bit. I know there is a template for 'words' on Wikipedia that reads something like "There is no article by this name on Wikipedia, but you might want to try Wiktionary", which is, of course, a link to the Wiktionary entry for that word. Why not do the same for news items, like...oh... the next "Balloon boy" type fiasco. Oh, and before the Wikipedians go "Wikinews is too slow", get your asses over to our playground and help out... it really doesn't take that long.

06:44, 19 November 2009
Edited by 0 users.
Last edit: 07:26, 19 November 2009

I didn't read that anyone suggested Wikinews was useless. While I find the topic curious, and lacking in some knowledge about how both projects work, I think it's merely being a topic of discussion. "Let's talk about what Wikinews does that Wikipedia doesn't" might have been a better way to rephrase it, but I don't think anyone meant anything negative toward Wikinews for it. And it certainly got discussion going!

07:26, 19 November 2009

That was me, mkay?

07:29, 19 November 2009

I'm trying to organize discussion in a more list-related way to each point in the Task Force Mandate, above. So I suggest that general discussion of Mandate Item #3 should take place above in "Discussion on each point in the task force mandate", and this thread should contain only arguments about whether "Wikinews is useless". I've put some general thoughts about Wikinews and expanding content above. Drvestone 17:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

17:58, 21 November 2009

Well since ya'll didn't do it, I fixed the problem.

21:05, 29 November 2009

I've reverted you.

Obviously this is a difficult and emotionally charged discussion, but we shouldn't run from those. The mandate questions are not indicative of anything but that: they're questions to be discussed. We shouldn't close off the hard questions.

02:03, 30 November 2009

There is a difference between being "difficult and emotionally charged" and being an asshole. This, is the later of the two. We've proven, with a multiplicity of links, how WRONG this assertion is. So how about you re-write it? Or I will, and I'm sure you wont like what I say.

17:07, 30 November 2009

I'm open to a rewrite, but I'd like to see it proposed here before the mandate is changed. For the record, calling anyone an asshole is unacceptable, and won't be tolerated here. I appreciate that you're frustrated, but you simply can't engage in that manner. So let's back up, calm down, and talk through a suggested rewrite, okay?

17:15, 30 November 2009