On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 12:32, Thomas Dalton <[email protected]> wrote: > While I agree this isn't a good situation to be in, I'm not sure what > the alternative is. The reviewers need to be able to understand the > sources and there probably aren't many (any?) reviewers on the English > Wikinews that speak Japanese. They could do away with the review > system entirely (what purpose does it serve? Wikipedia doesn't require > things to be reviewed before being published and it seems to be doing > rather better...),
Wikipedia does review In The News submissions before they go on the homepage. Wikinews articles get syndicated out to Google News and posted on Twitter, Facebook and other social media sites. There's something of a responsibility to make sure they are good before doing so. That said, there are ways to fix the problems: mainly by having a more lightweight review process before publication. Have it so that the story only has to be newsworthy and not have blatant sourcing/copyvio problems, then modify the story after publication as new facts come out for the next day or so. Basically, this is how sites like BBC News operate: they'll often get the story out within five minutes of getting it off the wire, then rewrite it as they get more information. We may prefer to have a slightly slower approach for sourcing reasons, but ideally it'd be closer to half an hour than 72 hours. English Wikinews' problems can be fixed with more reviewers. To get more reviewers, we need more editors. To get more editors, we actually have to publish their stories relatively quickly so they don't get disenchanted and frustrated with the whole process. And to do that, we need more reviewers. Chicken and egg problem... -- Tom Morris <http://tommorris.org/> _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
