[Foundation-l] Re: Wikinews

Sun Oct 31 12:58:00 UTC 2004

Fred-
> Significant flaws have been pointed out. Legal exposure

You fail to recognize all efforts that have been made to address this very  
problem. The issue has been discussed in much detail, both on this mailing  
list and on the wiki. A legal vetting process is part of the basic  
requirements of the Wikinews proposal. Legal counsel will be sought on  
controversial issues.

What is and isn't a flaw is often a matter of opinion. I simply disagree  
with you on the level of risk and the potential remedies.

> On controversial issues Wikipedia itself is
> often unable to realize in NPOV in practice. In the news context it is dead
> certain we will not; experienced news organizations employing trained
> journalists don't and there is no rational basis for supposing we will.

NPOV is an ideal, it is not a binary. Meeting certain formal requirements,  
such as all opinions being attributed, is relatively easy. The issue of  
balance is much trickier. It is not desirable for us to add off-topic  
"fluff" to a story simply to make it appear more balanced. More so than  
the internal factual balance of an article we will have to keep an eye on  
the overall balance of the site, and the visibility of the stories.

"Experience" in the context of traditional news organizations increasingly  
means "experience at concealing propaganda" as investigative journalism  
becomes a rarity and many news organizations deliberately instruct their  
employees to violate neutrality. The Iraq war was a good example for this  
violation of neutrality as "embedded journalists" spread their verbal  
ejaculate all over the papers and TV screens, repeating Pentagon  
propaganda like the priests in the Middle Ages repeated the Church  
position on the pulpit.

Wikinews is truly indepedent, the process is egalitarian, neutrality is  
non-negotiable, and the contributors come from many more different  
backgrounds than those to standard news media. Thus, there is very much a  
"rational basis" for supposing we can do a better job than mainstream  
media on this point.

Regards,

Erik