Talk:Wikinews/Worst cases

I'm looking at Tom-'s and Anthere's scenarios 1 to 6. Things like "editorial hell" and "too much argument" are bad for those involved, and slightly bad for visitors expecting to find interesting news. They are very far from worst cases.

Look better before giving authorship to someone. This cast light on your credibility Merriam Anthere 10:24, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I watched you discuss the subject and the writing of the page on #wikimedia with Tom-. I noticed that you edited the page thirteen minutes after Tom- created it. I guessed that you shared at least some of the concerns described by Tom-. I looked carefully, but I guessed and said too much. Sorry. -- Merriam 12:26, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

De nada :-) Anthere

Or perhaps I'm missing something. What's so bad about them? Are they reasons not to go ahead with Wikinews at Wikimedia? That something might not work is a poor reason not to try it. Are you afraid of being associated with failure and with naive Wikipedians?

See

• Dan Gillmor's comment and
• Rebecca MacKinnon's objections.

Now would someone like to discuss some "worst cases" that are actually bad?

The legal dangers? Confiscation of servers? High server load, including peaks due to certain stories and attacks, which the Wikimedia servers might not be ready for yet?

I can't see how Wikinews will work as proposed. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be tried. I don't know about worst cases, except that none have been listed yet on this content page. Merriam 23:35, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. The scenarios described are relatively mild.--Eloquence

I put all my objections here : http://anthere.shaihome.net/index.php

You may answer over there.

Anthere 10:05, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

By the way Merriam , on which wiki project are you an editor please ? Anthere

Mu. -- Merriam 12:26, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You do not appear in the history of this page. You have no account on en:wiktionary. I was not aware there was a project in romanji japanese. Could you add a link to your user page please Merriam ? You appear to speak up as a long standing contributor, I would be interested in seeing which field you contribute to ? Thanks Anthere 13:39, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

re: too localized

Perhaps Wikinews should be divided by country. What is the top story in Brazil is probably not what matters most to those who live in Australia. While both stories may be relevant, I believe that the realities of country and region apply to news eminently. Perhaps the Wikinews entry page is a confluence of the top stories from all regions, and then a user continues on to their region-of-interest. Each user should select their preferred languages if possible, which would then filter stories of other languages, and then if a story is so incredibly important that it must reach someone regardless of their language preferences, it could be "forced."

-- prell (Wikipedia user)

Agree with this, there should definitely be different regions. I don't care about what is going on in Brazil. However perhaps later I might like to look at say Gemany's top stories, because I'm going to visit my German Grandmother. Or Denmark's top stories because I'll be seeing my Danish gf etc.. So there are also many other reasons outside simply seeing your own region's news that it should be spilt up into regions.

Oh, and I also agree with the prell's other viewpoint on sponsorship. Just don't. Costs would also be going way too high up by that means. I don't see that as a fundemental strength of wiki, it's strength is it has people nearly everywhere and hence there shouldn't be a need to go to places.

-- mathmo (also a wikipeida username...)

re: lack of access

I don't believe that people should be "sponsored" as Wikinews reporters. The more offical, sanctioned and sponsored Wikinews becomes, the less trustworthy it becomes.

-- prell