On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 6:35 PM, private musings <thepmaccount(a)gmail.com> wrote: I don't see any issue in Wikipedia working with "news" type events when they clearly will be of encyclopedic notability, and of course Wikinews should do so as well, each one in its own style. The London bombings were of this nature. It's the more "passing" items that are of unclear notability that should be initially on Wikinews only, and covered on Wikipedia only later on if a body of coverage really does become established over time. -- Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

I'd say news ought to be kept on Wikinews. Wikipedia reporting on current affairs tends to result in timeline articles and new bits keep getting added to the end. Major events tend to get enough attention that someone sooner or later refactors them into decent articles, but lesser (but still notable) events get left as "As of 17th April, ... . As of 18th April, ... . As of the afternoon of 18th April, ... . etc". Reporting the news on Wikinews and then writing a quality article after the fact would result in Wikinews getting the attention it deserves and Wikipedia getting good encyclopaedic articles. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

I would see nothing wrong, in that instance, with a soft-redirect page saying something to the effect of "Please see the news article for this event on Wikinews (insert link here)", if that really is the appropriate thing to redirect to. Other times, it may have to be mentioned on a disambiguation page or the like. And if we do wind up with an article on a "flash in the pan" event that turns out not to be appropriate for an encyclopedia article, we could always redirect it to the Wikinews archive in the same way. Benefits Wikinews (by making sure it gets eyeballs), benefits us (by making sure we -don't- get those types of articles and that news stays on the project designed to work with it).

Also, when new information comes out which supercedes the old information, the old story doesn't get updated to reflect this new information.

On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Joe Szilagyi <szilagyi(a)gmail.com> wrote: Yes, which is exactly why I said that the "Wikipedia model of news story development is a refreshing change to the status quo" and that "Wikipedia offers something that is [...] unavailable anywhere else on the Internet." When a big story happens and there are 80,000 stories about it on Google News with varying levels of redundancy and timeliness, it's nice to check out the Wikipedia article which invariably gets started, at least as a starting point. I don't think Wikipedia does a particularly great job at it, but then again, neither do the traditional news outlets. In particular, I remember during the early days after the Menezes shooting the Wikipedia article was repeating the same untruths as the news media, *without attribution*. But I really like the concept of writing an encyclopedic article about a recent news story. And I think if the very people who are arguing against these articles would instead work toward making sure they remain encyclopedic, they'd be especially useful. Yes, there are examples of newsworthy events being covered in Wikipedia which are written poorly. But I don't see how that's an excuse not to write about any of them at all. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l