Comments on: The potential for WikiNews: Collaborative news by all

By: L k Tucker

L k Tucker — Tue, 31 May 2005 18:26:17 +0000

The problem with news posted on Wickipedia is that it is, as mentioned repeats of other’s work.

When original information is posted, in Wikipedia articles, someone will little knowledge of the subject edits the material out.

By: Yirmeyahu Ben-David, Paqid 16, The Netzarim, Ra'anana, Israel

Yirmeyahu Ben-David, Paqid 16, The Netzarim, Ra'anana, Israel — Sun, 08 May 2005 04:02:16 +0000

It’s interesting that some have already commented on the influence an invasion of outsiders can have. Wikipedia, after months of complaints, still continues to publish the most blatant lie about me and the Netzarim. Just look up the entry “Netzarim” and you’ll find that Wikipedia claims that we believe in “Jesus.” We don’t! And since we believe, and prominently declare in all of our books and website (www.netzarim.co.il) that “Jesus” is the arch-antithesis of the actual historical first-century Pharisee Ribi named Yehoshua, Wikipedia’s entry diametrically misrepresents what we believe. Their entry is unsourced slander by exactly such “invaders” controlling public opinion.

By: Alex Martinette

Alex Martinette — Fri, 15 Apr 2005 20:31:24 +0000

I find my chief concern with WikiNews is that it is quite possible that even with Peer Review that submissiones may be misleading or used to control public opinion.

I have noticed that in some ecommunities that they can be invaded by outsiders, it seems possible that outsiders wishing to influence the public opinion could veto each others work and input and thereby minimise the impact of breaking news or change it strategically in order to control public opinion.

In terms of anonymous input then it becomes difficult to ascertain what is and isn’t coming from a truly independent source.

By: Martinette

Martinette — Fri, 15 Apr 2005 20:30:32 +0000

I find my chief concern with WikiNews is that it is quite possible that even with Peer Review that submissiones may be misleading or used to control public opinion.
I have noticed that in some e-communities that they can be invaded by outsiders- it seems possible that outsiders wishing to influence the public opinion could veto each others work and input and thereby minimise the impact of breaking news or change it strategically in order to control public opinion.

In terms of anonymous input then it becomes difficult to ascertain what is and isn’t coming from a truly independent source.

By: roblog

roblog — Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:20:20 +0000

Timely recap: What is citizen journalism?

Web-centric circularity, or double plagarism? Let me restate JD Lasica’s identification of the definition of “citizen journalism” in Wikipedia:- Citizen journalism, also known as “participatory journalism” is the act of citizens “playing an active role…

By: Center for Media and Democracy

Center for Media and Democracy — Wed, 15 Dec 2004 23:57:47 +0000

Mo' Better News?

Wikipedia, the successful open source encyclopedia, is launching a daily news website called Wikinews. Its goal is to "create a diverse environme