>> While I agree this isn't a good situation to be in, I'm not sure what
> 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... Can not you just introduce a flag of a "trusted editor", similar to an autoreviewer? I mean, if the news creator is a en.wp administrator most probably he/she is not a vandal trying to post junk in the Google News. Why this message should have been reviewed at all? Cheers Yaroslav _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
