[Foundation-l] Re: Chinese Wikinews: board action required

Sun Apr 17 18:04:52 UTC 2005

Erik Moeller a écrit:
 > Jimmy-
 >
 >> Yes, this is what I had in mind.  The French Wikinews was started
 >> according to existing policy, but clearly that policy is inadequate to
 >> ensure a proper launch with solid community support.  When we were in
 >> Brussels a while back Delphine/notafish was making a valiant effort to
 >> get it going/get it organized/make it work, but to my knowledge this
 >> hasn't been successful.
 >
 >
 > it is important to note that Wikinews is currently the *only* project
 > that follows a strict language creation policy. There are:
 > * 12 Wikinews editions
 > * 87 Wikiquote editions
 > * 121 Wikibooks editions
 > * 173 Wiktionary editions
 > * ~200 Wikipedia editions
 >
 > Suffice it to say that a very large number of these Wikiquote,
 > Wikibooks, Wiktionary and Wikipedia editions are dead or, worse, spam
 > magnets. :-(
 >
 > The elaborate processes for Wikinews as well as the nature of the
 > project have certainly put it in the spotlight of community attention.
 > But the situation with Wikinews is much better. Of all the editions,
 > only one (Bulgarian) is completely dead. It was launched according to
 > the old, minimal policy. If nothing happens within the next couple of
 > months, or if it starts attracting spam, I'd recommend locking it down.
 >
 > The French Wikinews is now in a somewhat strange state; it is being
 > updated regularly, but not in the way Wikinews should be. Instead of
 > writing full-length stories, contributors are writing in "Current
 > events" summary style right on the Main Page:

(cut)

You are correct in everything you say here...

Just one point. I could not help think that the "it is being
 > updated regularly, but not in the way Wikinews should be" is possibly 
something to avoid saying.

I do not like how the french wikipedia is developing. However, I do not 
think we should necessarily force it to develop in a certain way. And I 
certainly do not think we should claim the current english way of doing 
wikinews is "what it should be" while others are not doing the proper way.

Only point. I otherwise agree with you.

ant