My comments are geared toward the current Wikimedia model of the way Wikipedia, Wikinews and Wikimedia Commons function together, albeit dysfunctionally.
In a prior article I argued that Wikipedia suffers when it ignores Wikinews and writes new articles that are not properly suited for the “encyclopedia.” In this article I argue that the Wikinews model itself is unworkable because it is too limited in scope.
The crux of the prior article was that there is a need for original research to be conducted by Wikimedians, for use on Wikipedia. I gave the example of a notable individual whose last name we had wrong but was cited, who had supplied three levels of identification to us, only to find arguments that the man’s own birth certificate could not be used as “original research” (even though we had an image of it that I took).
Equally problematic is the limited scope of Wikinews. It is hobbled by some of its editors use of the NPOV policy to cripple the site’s material to what you find there today. In reality, Wikinews should not attempt to be a wire service, but a news magazine. An NPOV policy is only applicable in that it needs an editorial staff, and there should be no problem with creating one. Wikipedia creates these governance systems all the time to review Biography of Living Person issues, Arbitration issues, Conflict of Interest issues. It is only logical that Wikinews create an editorial system.
This system would oversee a Wikinews that combines National Geographic (Wikipedians travel), People Magazine (already present), Newsweek, Sports Illustrated, CNN and Politico.
The second tranche of Wikinews would be the original research articles, some which may only be suitable for Wikipedia (such as a celebrity’s correct name), and some which might be fascinating publishing for the Wikinews site. That system, as I advocated previously, would have Wikipedia editors conducting research for topics they are most interested in. Conduct an interview with Matt Groening to clear up a Simpsons-related issue. Or submit a thesis paper you wrote for review for possible use. Let the community decide. We have certainly proved ourselves capable.
The third tranche would be to move the Wikipedia Signpost over to Wikinews. The Signpost, which reports about news on Wikipedia, belongs on the news site. I have long advocated for Wikinews to become the primary news source for Wikimedia news, both Foundational and project. It perplexes me this is not a no-brainer; it was actually met with resistance.
Because of the limited Wikinews model, few find it interesting to work on or feel the traffic too small compared with when they wrote on Wikipedia. This will never change until the community changes, on both sites. Commons will continue to serve as the photojournalism arm of the entire machine.
It’s such a more dynamic, exciting and inspiring vision, that it perplexes me why it is not immediately undertaken with broad support. Otherwise, citizen journalism is just not going to work for Wikimedia. The New York Times will prove prophetic.








Wikipedia photos to be deleted
NYC Wedding March – September 26, 2010
Joaquin Phoenix is a poser
Flushing Meadow Corona Park skate park
East Village Park and Williamsburg Bridge photos
100 People I Photographed for the Creative Commons
Pakistan flood devastation statistics
Cordoba House / Ground Zero mosque protest photos
The void in my blogging (and some photos)
Rihanna video with Eminem about Chris Brown?



Recent Comments