[Foundation-l] [Wikinews-l] The systematic and codified bias against non-Western articles on Wikinews

Wed Sep 7 13:55:17 UTC 2011

The projects will always have some crossover (or grey areas if you 
prefer) because they present the same information, just in different 
ways. For example, a textbook (Wikibooks) presents the same information 
as an encyclopedia but in a more inclusive way. That is, it tries to 
present all the information on a subject, not link out to other books in 
the WP style. It is also worded in a more "conversational" style. The 
Wikinews / Wikipedia crossover is obvious. A news event is reported by 
Wikinews, usually as a synergy of other news sources and it evolved as 
difering source speculation turns to consensual fact. Eventually the 
story becomes static and if it remains noteworthy it should then form 
the solid basis for a Wikipedia article.

This of course relates only to "events" not places or people. By that I 
mean if Osama is killed then of course the article about Osama is 
updated with the news of his death. But the news report itself is better 
started in Wikinews until it "stabilises" and only then becomes an 
article in itself in WP assuming it has the relevant significance.

In an ideal world all news events would start on Wikinews this way, but 
that'll never happen so it's more a question of encouraging that kind of 
behaviour while accepting the world isn't perfect, isn't it?

On 07/09/2011 14:05, Bod Notbod wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Thomas Morton
>
>>> Does anyone want to argue for a policy that says "Wikipedia does not
>>> record events until they are x days/months old"?
>> Yes, this would solve a large number of problems (not least resolving the
>> "historical significance" issue).
> I think we'd lose something valuable. As I say, we often get positive
> news coverage for our articles on recent events. Osama was one, the
> death of Michael Jackson was one, I think we got good reviews for the
> New Orleans hurricane too.
>
>> Even then; during this period they are not good "news", they are a quickly
>> changing record - often inaccurate and usually poorly written. WN is better
>> set up to cope with this process.
> Well, I haven't done any type of survey of our articles that fall into
> the area we're discussing, so I'll defer to you on your points.
>
> It wouldn't surprise me if it were the case that the articles are
> poor, that seems quite likely to me.
>
> Nevertheless I think it's like Samuel Johnson's comment, to misquote:
>
> "Sir, an encyclopedia reporting on news events is like a dog’s walking
> on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find
> it done at all."
>
> I find news events covered in Wikipedia exciting. And it marks us out
> from the competition.
>
> Just out of interest, and I assure you I don't ask this as a way of
> trying to trip you up - I genuinely ask out of curiosity: let's say a
> celebrity dies of old age (and that there's not a great deal of
> interesting things to say about the death), would you apply the "no
> news for x days/months" rule to an edit to their dates? I'm presuming
> not.
>
> The question raises a thought for me, though. I think if we decide
> that we are not going to capture things because they are not far
> enough in the past, we may not capture them at all. People are
> invigorated by things that have just happened. If we say "no, you must
> wait three months" I'm sure that person isn't going to place a red
> cross on their calendar and come back to record it. It will simply not
> get written, I would suggest.
>
> Perhaps it will take a decade before the ultimate article on the Iraq
> War is written. But I'm glad we have *something* there now.
>
> Bodnotbod
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l