[Foundation-l] RE: [Wikinews-l] Editorials

Fri Jul 22 18:55:20 UTC 2005

hi, I am forwarding this mail to the foundation,
because I think it is an important one.

--- David Speakman <david at speakman.com> wrote:

> 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.

Right, I totally agree with you.

We had an irc discussion today and some said it was
mostly problematic as the community is small. They
claim it would not be such a problem with a big
community. I do not agree with this opinion. An
editorial is by definition pov. Big community will not
change this fact.

Another argument was that we could balance by
providing many editorials, with several orientation.
Again, I do not agree. NPOV is not about listing major
opinions, but also about representativity of all
opinions.

Finally, it was suggested that we could possibly write
in describing editorials made by other people
(important journalists for example). But I think the
main interest of a wikinewsie writing an editorial is
not about reporting another person personal opinion...
but about reporting *his*, so I doubt that would make
it.

> ==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.

Correct

> ==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.

You have it right ! Maybe there are new other types of
content which could be added in wikinews ?

> ===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.

Totally agree with you.

> 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.

Dan seems to imply german wikinews adopted editorials,
but Elian said they seem to have stopped. I would be
interested in knowing current situation :-)

> 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.

One of the major issue here is simply that many
wikinewsies have never been wikipedians before, so are
not familiar with certain mandatory rules... not with
general habits build over experience and consensus
over the past 4 years. Reinventing the wheel :-)

> --
> David Speakman
> http://www.DavidSpeakman.com
> 501 Moorpark Way #83
> Mountain View CA 94041
> Phone: 408-382-1459

Thanks for your answer

anthere

> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: wikinews-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org 
> > [mailto:wikinews-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Anthere
> > Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 4:15 AM
> > To: Foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > Cc: wikinews-l at 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 at Wikimedia.org 
> >
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Wikinews-l mailing list
> Wikinews-l at Wikimedia.org
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
> 

____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 