Wikipedia is top online news site, but what about Wikinews?

The Wikinews New Zealand logoSince May, 2006, Wikipedia has experienced at 72% jump in online visitors, according to Neilson NetRatings. This makes Wikipedia the top online news and information site, which outshines sister project, Wikinews.

Sure Wikipedia deserves the top place, which it also gained for every month of this year, for an information site but Wikinews is entirely devoted to current affairs and news, unlike Wikipedia which focuses on mainly historical, encyclopaedic type entries.

Wikinews did well in ‘scooping’ the story about the edits to the Wikipedia page about Chris Benoit regarding the murder-suicide he was involved in.

Although this achievement in itself is something to be very proud of, considering the amount of criticism Wikipedia receives, especially from the academic community. It is a wonder that Wikipedia still gets the visitors and editors it has considering the widespread view that I have experienced that Wikipedia cannot be trusted as a source for information. Maybe we in New Zealand are better educated with the Internet…?

Advertisements

11 Responses to “Wikipedia is top online news site, but what about Wikinews?”


  1. 1 John Schmidt July 10, 2007 at 3.25 am

    “What about Wikinews?” Maybe it is time to make a new rule saying that nothing should be allowed in Wikipedia that is less than one day old. We can define everything that happened in the last 24 hours as “news” and tell people that if they want to write about they can go to Wikinews.

  2. 2 Judson July 10, 2007 at 9.59 am

    Why, just to artificially help wikinews? It would be impossible anyway, and a pain. You would have to protect a ton of pages on wikipedia every time something happened, which would only confuse and irritate people. I have a better idea: accept that wikinews will never be as successful as wikipedia. The future of news is in aggregation, not centrality.

  3. 3 Brian July 11, 2007 at 10.06 am

    “accept that wikinews will never be as successful as wikipedia” that is unfair

  4. 4 Gabriel Pollard July 11, 2007 at 11.09 am

    Unfair is an understatement. Perhaps we really should leave the Wikimedia Foundation, which I have been opposed to before, as some people have suggested, this could perhaps increase our freedom.

  5. 5 John Schmidt July 12, 2007 at 5.56 am

    “artificially help wikinews?”

  6. 6 John Schmidt July 12, 2007 at 5.58 am

    Sorry about having to post two times in a row. This blog software apparently interprets certain character combinations as the end of a page. How about a “preview” button?

    “artificially help wikinews?” What is artificial? Wikipedia has always been guided by ideas such as, “Wikipedia properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events”. When people scurry to insert breaking news into Wikipedia they do not have sources available that allow them to properly consider the long-term historical notability of events and they are doing original reporting/research in deciding what to report on.

    “You would have to protect a ton of pages on wikipedia every time something happened, which would only confuse and irritate people.” It would be trivial to modify the existing Wikipedia templates that say “this page is in the news” so as to direct people to a corresponding page at Wikinews. There would be no need to protect Wikipedia pages from editing.

    “I have a better idea: accept that wikinews will never be as successful as wikipedia.” What do you mean by “successful”? I suspect you mean the wiki with the most pages or page edits is the most successful. That is irrelevant to the idea of keeping news reporting out of Wikipedia.

    “The future of news is in aggregation, not centrality” I do not see what this has to do with the idea of keeping news reporting out of Wikipedia. News reporting does not belong in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is for encyclopedia articles. Wikipedia is damaged by allowing news reporting in Wikipedia. It would be better for everyone to move all news reporting to Wikinews.

  7. 7 Gabriel Pollard July 12, 2007 at 8.53 am

    I wouldn’t go as far to agree with you John that Wikipedia is damaged by the news reporting done on it. But everything else I agree with, Wikinews was made for exactly what it’s name suggests, news. Wikipedia was made for encyclopaedic content. Not the other way around.

  8. 8 KJ July 13, 2007 at 8.48 pm

    I am not totally agree to write new or xxx incident that happened “right now”. I try to move and translate current event of zh and en wikipedia to zh.wikinews.
    Do you thing that will be a way to active wikinews?

  9. 9 Gabriel Pollard July 14, 2007 at 1.38 pm

    KJ, that’s a good idea. Wikinews just needs more notice and editors and the project can succeed, most of the editors from Wikipedia would suit.


  1. 1 IPO - Initial Public Offering Blog » Blog Archive » Wikipedia is top online news site, but what about Wikinews? Trackback on July 9, 2007 at 4.43 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




About me

I write at Wikinews, and Practical eCommerce. I thoroughly enjoy writing about news and current affairs. I also have a TV related blog at Throng.

Support free media, donate to Wikinews!

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 New Zealand License.

The Ubuntu Counter Project - user number # 14890

Archives

My Flickr photographs

Wide-eyed seal pup

Seal pup

Seal pup playing in water

Seal pups playing together

More Photos

%d bloggers like this: