I'm tempted to answer that with never. Too much room for
abuse, which the BP may or may not solve. We wouldn't know
until the BP document is made and tested to prove it works.
Until then, and after, a better option may be to limit it
to the wikinews articles that are first cited by other
reliable sources. Until then, it may as well be the White
House encyclopedia citing White House press releases.
--- Cool Hand Luke <failure.to.communicate(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
A particular dispute over a Wikinews reporter citing
quotes from his own
interview has turned into a generalized debate about when
Wikinews should be
an acceptable source. See this RS/N
thread.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticebo…
Jimbo has suggested that Wikinews create a best practices
document.
BP-compliant articles would be verifiable and thus should
be available to
Wikipedia editors as a reliable source. See this
Wikinews water cooler
thread<http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Water_cooler/miscellaneous#I…
.
I think that this is a great solution, which would answer
the continual
objections that Wikinews faces on our project. However,
more editors should weigh in.
~~Pro-Lick
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick
http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (Wikia supported site since 2006)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping