On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 6:04 AM, Phil Nash <phn...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > Sue Gardner wrote: >> On 12 September 2011 18:15, geni <geni...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 12 September 2011 23:45, Samuel Klein <meta...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Now: what do we need to do to make Wikinews better and more useful? >>>> What are the costs and technical or other work involved? >>> >>> Very little. Mostly wikinews is misstargeted. Yet another website >>> rewriting AP reports is never going to draw crowds. Wikinews needed >>> original research and never really had very much of it. It is also >>> operating in an extremely crowded market where as wikipedia had the >>> field pretty much to itself when it started. >> >> Jimmy said once that part of the reason Wikipedia works so well is >> because everybody knows what an encyclopedia article is supposed to >> look like. > > Practical experience on a day-to-day basis would suggest that this is unduly > optimistic. We are failing to attract new editors who can be, or wish to be, > educated into "what an encyclopedia article is supposed to look like", and > are discarding those experienced editors who do. Even those who remain but > are becoming increasingly disillusioned with all the nonsense that goes on > will eventually leave, or create a fork of Wikipedia, and to be honest, if I > had the money right now, I'd do it myself, and cast ArbCom in its present > form into the bottomless pit. > > I used to care about Wikipedia, as did others, but it's becoming > increasingly difficult to do so. > >
If money is the problem, I can solve that. I recently came into an inheritance. -- -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]] _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
