Wikinews Project Launched

Eloquence writes "The Wikimedia Foundation, which operates Wikipedia and other wiki-based projects, has just launched the English and German editions of Wikinews, a free news-source created collaboratively by volunteers around the planet. See my article Wikinews and the Growing Wikimedia Empire for more on this and other recent developments in the Wikimedia world."

Comments

Wired Article

[KamuZ]

I submitted this story like 5 days ago but it was rejected, nothing personal, yeah right. Anyway, there's a Wired article talking about this with the creators, here's the link:

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,65819,00. html?tw=wn_story_top5

No Thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

The project just looks like Google News rehashed by unaccountable writers whose identity is unknown.

Sounds like a perfect forum for people to push their news thru their own agendas and slants.

Bias?

[halter-da-man]

I have read numorous reports about the credibility (or lack thereof) and about the bias of some of Wikipedia's articles. If Wikipedia launches a news service, I think there is an even greater opportunity for individuals to interject their personal opinions into things that many people believe as the truth. If anyone can submit a news story, there will be many biased or one sided stories. Wikipedia tries to avoid this in its main encyclopedia by hoping that other users will correct any biases in the articles. With news however, it is often not enough time to go through and check each fact. I don't think that Wiki can rely on user editing to insure "fair and balanced" stories.

I love the peer-reviewed content, but...

[falloutboy]

Will this incite editing wars on controversial topics? The open nature of wikipedia is great because historical events have already been scrutinized and understood. Distance lends perspective. Current events are much more subject to an author's personal bias, and the individuals most motivated to put their opinion out there often have the most radical viewpoint.

still no atributions

[lawpoop]

C'mon folks. With wikipedia, it's at least tolerable. However, part of modern journalism is the credibility of the reporter. I just checked out several articles, and they appear to either be written by no one or God itself.

I can understand that there's not much need to recognize authorship in something like a science textbook, but for a news site, it is essential.

What I think wikinews needs, and indeed all wikis, is authorship so we can see who said what. If we implement something with PGP signatures, people can build reputations over time, and newcomers can filter out information from authors with no rep.

Imagine freelance journalists posting credible, signed reports to wikimedia outlets from warzones, political protests, etc. No editors, no goverment censors. It would be great!