When I joined Wikimedia in 2009 I also tried WikiNews, which looked yet another fantastic Wikimedia project. I soon realized, however, that it was just a repeater of CC-BY sources of news, with very residual (if any) proper production. When an handcrafted news-piece I've made was merged with one of those automatic repeaters, I left that project and never looked back. As far as I now it never was attractive, it never managed to congregate any proper community worth of that name (at least the Portuguese version) - It was kind of a failed project already 10 years ago. And that was one of the reasons and motivations for Jimbo trying to reshuffle the thing as his new child WikiTribune. Personally, I do not need that project at all. When some news is notable enough (like the tragic Notre-Dame fire yesterday) I create the article for it and build it as an encyclopedic article, which is much more motivating and permanent than whatever is made in WikiNews.
Personally, I see this branding project as a two headed beast: In one head, WMF trying to take undue credit from the Wikipedia brand; on another head, some incipient Wikipedia dream of colonization towards other projects. As many, I started my contributions in the Wikimedia projects in Wikipedia, but very soon found Commons and the whole Wikipedia-free oasis that thrives there. I always looked at Commons as a kind of small paradise, precisely for not being necessarily associated with Wikipedia. So, 10 years ago, I would be as against the idea of placing Commons under the Wikipedia umbrella as I am today. (no opinion about WikiCommons, though, as we can continue shortnaming it to Commons anyway) On the whole, I very much agree with what Phoebe wrote about it. Wikicolonizations/WMFappropriations apart, it's very difficult to foresee how such a move would advance the goals of our Movement. What problem is solved by it? If anything, it seems to bring even more confusion between Wikipedia and the other sister projects. Best, Paulo Jennifer Pryor-Summers <[email protected]> escreveu no dia terça, 16/04/2019 à(s) 07:52: > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 3:49 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > I wouldn't describe Wikinews as a success case, though. > > > > Paulo > > > > Compared to Wikitribune it is! But more importantly, if Wikinews is not > thriving, then why not? Does it lack resources? What could or should the > WMF do to revive it? Perhaps some of the money spent on rebranding would > be better spent on the projects that are not doing so well as the big > Wikipedias -- or perhaps the WMF should cut its losses and close them down, > on the principle of reinforcing success instead. These are the big > questions it should be asking itself. > > JPS > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
