3 ms·
Actually I prefer it to many news formats. If there is a big story (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Eng
by crdoconnor 12y ago
Actually I prefer it to many news formats. If there is a big story (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots ) and you turn on the news or go to the front page of reuters.com in the middle of it they are usually focused on some up-to-the-second minutiae or the latest sub-story to have occurred in the larger story.
This is fine if you have been paying attention to everything up until that point.
This is not so great if you came in a bit late and want an overview of everything about the story.
- lsanger 12y agoI actually agree. This is one area in which Wikipedia shines. But when it comes to breaking news, or tracking the actual order of events as they were reported, not so much.
- sparkzilla 12y agoWe handle this problem by creating the page as a news stream, based on each individual news event. We don't have UK riots yet, but here's an equivalent. http://newslines.org/michael-brown/ http://newslines.org/michael-brown/ Unlike Wikipedia's static page-based format, because each news item is discrete, readers can sort the line from oldest news to first, or vice versa. We also use video and other embedded media to tell the story of events, unlike Wikipedia's textbook-like pages.