35 ms·

Arbitrary decisions are a huge problem in Wikipedia. We get round this problem at Newslines by replacing notability with newsworthiness. If someone has news wri

Arbitrary decisions are a huge problem in Wikipedia. We get round this problem at Newslines by replacing notability with newsworthiness. If someone has news written about them then it is suitable for inclusion.

ghaff 12y ago
Does replacing the word really make it less arbitrary though? What's the threshold for something being considered news? An "official" news outlet? A blog? Does being quoted in a couple of news stories count? How about, say, a blogger who is reasonably well-known within a specific community--and may even be quoted by other bloggers--but doesn't write about things that would necessarily be picked up by news outlets?
- sparkzilla 12y ago
  Yes, it does actually because it avoids situations where links from entire news sources are declared invalid because the mob doesn't think they are reliable. For example, The Daily Mail is counted as an unreliable source on Wikipedia. "Good" news sources can be wrong (Rathergate), while "bad" sources like the National Enquirer can break stories (John Edward's affair and child). The problem arises on Wikipeida because its editors act as fact checkers. But your idea of what a fact is can be quite different from mine. On Newslines we create the archive and let the reader decide what is true, by marking claims as claims. Very few bloggers break original news. If they do we can add it as a source.
NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
The trouble is, of course, that people will game that system to be included in Wikipedia. What is news? 20 years ago that meant being written about in some regional city's newspaper. Now? It's some half-assed blog. Anyone can finagle that trick if they're motivated enough. And getting into Wikipedia has some obscure benefits that make it worthwhile.
presumeaway 12y ago
That's far too easy to game, though, and even works on Wikipedia. Just the other day, I searched for a particular boutique marketing firm, and found they had a Wikipedia entry, complete with 20-30 references. All of which were basically from the same small, inexpensive PR campaign. Wikipedia runs a serious risk of becoming a commercial echo chamber (if it hasn't already). What're you guys doing at Newslines to prevent it from turning into a vehicle for self-promotion?
- sparkzilla 12y ago
  It's only a problem on an encyclopedia because it's not relevant to its mission. As primarily a news archive we don't care as much about PR (Almost all company news is PR anyway), and if it became a problem we would flag it so it could be seen by those who are interested in it (There's value in having a PR archive too), and hidden by those who don't want to see it. The user should be in control. One man's PR is another man's news.

ghaff 12y ago

Does replacing the word really make it less arbitrary though? What's the threshold for something being considered news? An "official" news outlet? A blog? Does being quoted in a couple of news stories count? How about, say, a blogger who is reasonably well-known within a specific community--and may even be quoted by other bloggers--but doesn't write about things that would necessarily be picked up by news outlets?

sparkzilla 12y ago
Yes, it does actually because it avoids situations where links from entire news sources are declared invalid because the mob doesn't think they are reliable. For example, The Daily Mail is counted as an unreliable source on Wikipedia. "Good" news sources can be wrong (Rathergate), while "bad" sources like the National Enquirer can break stories (John Edward's affair and child). The problem arises on Wikipeida because its editors act as fact checkers. But your idea of what a fact is can be quite different from mine. On Newslines we create the archive and let the reader decide what is true, by marking claims as claims. Very few bloggers break original news. If they do we can add it as a source.

NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago

The trouble is, of course, that people will game that system to be included in Wikipedia. What is news? 20 years ago that meant being written about in some regional city's newspaper. Now? It's some half-assed blog. Anyone can finagle that trick if they're motivated enough. And getting into Wikipedia has some obscure benefits that make it worthwhile.

presumeaway 12y ago

That's far too easy to game, though, and even works on Wikipedia. Just the other day, I searched for a particular boutique marketing firm, and found they had a Wikipedia entry, complete with 20-30 references. All of which were basically from the same small, inexpensive PR campaign. Wikipedia runs a serious risk of becoming a commercial echo chamber (if it hasn't already). What're you guys doing at Newslines to prevent it from turning into a vehicle for self-promotion?

sparkzilla 12y ago
It's only a problem on an encyclopedia because it's not relevant to its mission. As primarily a news archive we don't care as much about PR (Almost all company news is PR anyway), and if it became a problem we would flag it so it could be seen by those who are interested in it (There's value in having a PR archive too), and hidden by those who don't want to see it. The user should be in control. One man's PR is another man's news.