SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
His goal is for Wikitribune to offer "factual and neutral" articles that help combat the problem of "fake news".
The service is intended to be both ad-free and free-to-read, so will rely on supporters making regular donations.
One expert said it had the potential to become a trusted site, but suggested its influence might be limited.
Wikitribune shares many of the features already found in Mr Wales's online encyclopaedia, including the need for writers to detail the source of each fact and a reliance on the public to edit articles to keep them accurate.
However, while anybody can make changes to a page, they will only go live if a staff member or trusted community volunteer approves them.
The other big difference is that the core team of writers will be paid, although there may also be instances in which a volunteer writes the initial draft and then a staff member edits it.
Wikipedia has built a trustworthy reputation. Can it be transferred to journalism?
takyon: A SoylentNews expert asked, "Whatever happened to Wikinews?"
[Ed. Note: updated at 19:20 with more information]
More coverage: (compiled by butthurt)
Fortune
Daily Mail
Nieman Foundation
The Atlantic
The Guardian
Silicon UK
Press Association 2017 via Clydebank Post
AFP via The Peninsula
(Score: 5, Informative) by VLM on Wednesday April 26 2017, @06:56PM (6 children)
Wikipedia has built a trustworthy reputation. Can it be transferred to journalism?
wikipedia has built a reputation of superiority defined as who can delete the most articles that people want to read, so WRT transferring reputations, there's already a lot of prior art in Soviet censorship.
Here's a link to the wikitribune article and North Korea :
Oh ha ha ha I deleted it you suck for wanting to see it ha ha ha and I destroyed someone's hours of work ha ha ha now back to kicking over little kids sandcastles on the beach ha ha ha I am such a big and powerful man because I can trash useful stuff and make people feel bad ha ha ha.
Personally I think wiki deletionists are compensating for a lack of you know, uh, male length (this is a G rated website, right?), so if they can't have a big one then they'll delete everything they can until everyone feels as sad as they feel sad about their tiny, tiny microscopic little ...
Every time I see a deleted wiki article I sigh and think to myself, I can't read about WTF because some wikipedia editor pulled down his pants and a girl laughed in his face, so somehow that gave him the right to delete this cool WTF article in his anguish. What a jerk. On the other hand, can't girls just stop laughing at, you know, more shall we say petite guys, like many wikipedia editors? I just want to read a freaking WTF article not know way more than I want to know about some editors masculinity crisis.
I'm quite comfortable with my lady-slayer, but even if I were not, I like to think I would be civilized enough not go out trashing the world to somehow "get even".
And thats how its gonna be a wiki-trib. Teeny tiny little guys, deleting all the good news articles.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday April 26 2017, @07:52PM (3 children)
I...... that was one impressive rant bordering on old man rambling of the highest caliber. I'm glad that we have you to defend us from the tiny pee pees, VLM. God bless you. Although, you do seem to have some sort of weird fascination with it.....
Reminds me of old gay men explaining to me the vast homospiracy in Hollywood and how John Wayne entertained young men in Catalina. You just to try to sit there and not break out laughing.
Thank you for informing of me of the vast Wiki-delete conspiracy involving thousands of sad men with tiny penises.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 4, Informative) by kaszz on Wednesday April 26 2017, @08:07PM (2 children)
Wiki deletism is a problem however. It seems to usually come from people that think their perspective is the only one. Especially since they know gene splicing and theoretical physics by heart. No one needs to write any article about it because it's self evident....
Oh and of course if an article isn't perfect within 30 minutes it must be deleted instantly. Because wikipedia is a one man job!
But the penis conspiracy seems however self evident as unsubstantiated :P
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @05:28AM (1 child)
Yeah, gotta love those theoretical physics nazis. Let's write an encyclopedia article so that we can explain all this physics stuff we know, but ya know, hey, let's not actually explain anything in the process, and just assume the reader already gets it. Wonder how well that would have gone over with my middle school teachers...
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday April 28 2017, @02:00AM
It's also possible to have articles that bridge the gap all the way with different prerequisites in knowledge. Sometimes you have to get to the dirty details.
It's like being a surgeon that's afraid for knifes. It won't work.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @08:17PM
Only deleting articles does not make them feel manly enough anymore so they replace them with articles that deliberately malign the subject. They go out searching the partisan blogs for the most slanted language they can find that paints the subject in the most unflattering light, put that in the lede, and then they ban anyone who calls for neutral coverage. Then they ban anyone who asks why they are banning people for asking for Wikipedia to follow its own rules. WikiInAction [reddit.com] and Gamergate [8ch.net] have several examples.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday April 27 2017, @12:08AM
The first and last article I wrote for Wikipedia was the experience you described.
The worst part about it was that I looked at the person who deleted it and it was some Berkeley cunt with Islamic garbage in her profile -- and something makes me believe she's never even been to an Islamic country in the Middle-East.
* Note: the article I wrote was not offensive and had nothing to do with Islam or the Middle-East.