Hello.
I tend to categorize things so I'll do it here too. I see three main points
of concern:
1. Wikinews as a Wikimedia Foundation project.
2. Wikinews as a wiki.
3. Wikinews is a new form of journalism.
==As a wikimedia Foundation project==
It needs to be clarified in every Wikinews project that as a Wikimedia
Foundation project, each wikinews must adhere to the minimum standard
adopted by the foundation. It also must be stressed that these standards are
open to interpretation in many areas, but may not be overruled or ignored by
an individual project. Some Wikimedia Foundation principles are mandates
that are not debatable. These include:
1. All content on the name namespace of a project must strive for an
unbiased NPOV.
2. The creation of all content is to be collaborative in nature.
3. Use of and access to the content is to be as unrestricted as possible.
It is clear to me that "editorials" are a clear violation of Foundation
mandates since they are clearly biased in nature. I also have doubts that
any opinion-type of writing can truly be collaborative.
==As a wiki==
Wikis content is open for modification. An editorial on a wiki needs to be
open for editing by anyone. This means that a person with an opposing POV
should have as much access to the editorial as the original writer(s). ON a
wiki, an editorial - unless protected - will most likely devolve into an
edit war.
It also runs the risk of having that project, all wikinews project, or even
the foundation taint as a biased organization where a given topic is
concerned. On a legal level, I have concerns about liability issues for the
foundation in regard to views expressed in the editorials.
==As a new form of journalism==
It seems that among the Wikinews projects there is a common identity crisis
when it comes to what is and what is not allowed in regard to content.
The issue comes in 2 flavors: newspapers and blogs.
===Newspapers===
I believe this stems from the fact that wikis are mostly text based. When it
comes to text-based news, lowest common denominator that most people have
deep familiarity with are newspapers. Many folk assume a newspaper-oriented
outlook when developing an idea for where a wikinews project is going. This
is strengthened by the fact that wikinews is internet based and currently
most Internet-based news is controlled by media and news sources originally
developed for newsprint. But, there are inherent flaws in this viewpoint
since the business model and "raison d'etra" for a newspaper differs from
that of a Wikimedia Foundation project. And the limitations of a newsprint
mentality when applied to the Internet is astounding when one considers the
complexity and opportunity of collaborative journalism, which may be
thwarted.
In wikinews project policy votes and community discussion, you will often
see something like, "We should do it because [all/most/some/many] newspapers
do it." Aside from not being a cogent argument on its face, a newspaper is
more than just a news source. It contains other content which is not
translatable to wiki or foundation goals. Some newspaper staples such as
classified ads, horoscopes, editorials, advice columns, product reviews,
games (crossword, trivia quizzes) are fun parts of a newspaper's business
model - but are not news per se. And they really do not fit in the NPOV or
collaborative fold.
===Blogs===
Some tend to confuse collaborative journalism with the other new form of
Internet journalism. As someone who has been involved in wikinews for quite
some time, the difference between a blog and wikinews is obvious. In fact
they are almost diametrically opposite. A blog revels in its biased POV and
the fact that it is the work of a single person (or small group of people
acting as one mind). It is clear that blog-type content really has no place
in a wikinews project under current wikimedia foundation principles.
Thankfully, for those who do wish to write blog-type opinion columns, there
are many free Internet alternatives to wikinews.
==Conclusion==
Since editorials on a wikinews project declare a specific point of view on
an issue in controversy, they are incompatible with Wikimedia Foundation
goals.
In addition, they may open the foundation to legal and/or image related
problems since the foundation is ultimately responsible for defending all
content on each of the Wikimedia projects.
Furthermore, individual project participants may not overrule or ignore
basic Wikimedia Foundation minimum standards for content. This means the
basic principles of Wikimedia may not be put up to a popular vote on any of
the individual projects, it must be a Foundation decision for both
stability/uniformity among projects and legal reasons.
--
David Speakman
http://www.DavidSpeakman.com
501 Moorpark Way #83
Mountain View CA 94041
Phone: 408-382-1459
-----Original Message-----
From: wikinews-l-bounces(a)Wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikinews-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthere
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 4:15 AM
To: Foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
Cc: wikinews-l(a)wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikinews-l] Editorials
Hi all,
Recently, I have decided that it was time I adopt a
new project. A small one :-)
So, I started participating to wikinews in french.
It is quite a challenge I must say, because there are
a handful of very nice participants... but most of
them are not participants to wikipedia, so quite
newbies on some issues. On the other hand, plenty of
motivation and ideas which is good :-)
Still, today, I have something disturbing me a little
bit. A new main page was set up this morning; Looking
at it, I realised the html was probably not standard
(some wrong columns size or locations) and saw that
some areas were just empty (for example, it did not
mention other projects or other languages).
So it appeared to me to be a working stage, and it did
not seem a good idea to make changes live; So I
reverted the page to yesterday version and moved the
new version to a temp page :
http://fr.wikinews.org/wiki/Discuter:Accueil/temp
I then was told this version had been approved and the
vote ended yesterday. So, it should be the main page
in any cases.
Then, to list the problems of the html, I looked more
precisely at it. And I discovered 3 new sections.
One is the "Analysis section". There is one example of
it, the link being a user sub page. So, first, it
means it is very likely a non editable page (since it
is a user sub page). Second, there is a mention below,
stating "the section can be ambiguous in terms of
NPOV, as it is only partially submitted to it"
Two other sections are "Editorial" and "carte blanche"
(I am not sure I really see the difference). These
sections are empty for now, and a note indicates
"These two sections do not respect NPOV and have not
been adopted by the community".
I then commented in saying that these sections should
probably not be here in any cases, since NOT adopted
by the community. I was answered they actually were
adopted, so the little text should be modified, but
they should be on the main page.
I looked for a discussion, and found this
http://fr.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews%3ASalle_caf%C3%A9#PDV_.21.21
So, to me, a site with
1) articles submitted to NPOV,
2) personal analyses only partially submitted to NPOV
and not editable, and
3) editorials not submitted to NPVO
has a name, Indymedia.
Not wikinews :-)
And I do not agree. I think all wikimedia projects
should adhere to NPOV. Strictly. As much as we can.
But I then thought I had no idea what other wikinews
have been doing on this issue and that possibly some
of them have adopted editorials (which will quite
naturally report a pov).
Is this the case ?
If so, how did you organise yourself to explain
readers the difference between the neutral parts of
the site and the non neutral parts ?
And do you try to maintain an overall neutrality
within editorials ?
Or do you limit the topics concerned by editorials ?
Thanks in advance for your comments.
anthere
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
_______________________________________________
Wikinews-l mailing list
Wikinews-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l