Talk:Wikipedia features Encyclopædia Britannica on its main page

''' This page and its corresponding article fall under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. Taking material from this page requires attribution to Wikinews.''' 

Original reporting
My original reporting comes from Wikipedia's own article about the Encyclopædia Britannica, and the page on featured articles. ISD 07:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

problems
i feel this is more Signpost material than Wikinews. the event itself - what's today's Wikipedia FA is a very minor one, and the pro-con analysis is mildly skewed towards WP (surprise, surprise!) - specifically, "team of identified contributors" instead of "19 full-time editors and over 4,000 expert contributors", "attacked" and "claims" are not neutral words, the "However" is not justified unless Britannica made a claim not only of more accuracy, but qualified it as much or enormously more - something which would be contradicted by the 160-120 tally. also Wikinews does not find things ironic - we don't editorialise. the title, "Britannica reaches", sounds like B. did something to get there. something along "Wikipedia features B." is better (the world may not be familiar with main page business). –Doldrums(talk) 07:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This is hardly news. The news content here is something like "A mild irony (or not) occurred"; otherwise it's plain routine that articles get featured. Suggest removing. 213.243.151.237 09:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't even ironic; featured articles become such, as has been stated time and time again by Wikipedia itself, because of the quality of the article and not the subject of the article. It's not an accolade to Britannica in the slightest. I also support removing this self-important wankery. --84.65.21.21 12:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

suggestion
wikinews should have a daily article reporting what the featured article on wikipedia is.--216.75.93.110 17:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought it would make an interesting article because of the recent criticism made by Encyclopædia Britannica against Wikipedia. I thought it was interesting that such a major rival should appear in such as a way. ISD 20:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * and i appreciate the intent and the effort. my comment above was an attempt to point out that Wikinews has to try and avoid giving disproportionate and/or friendly coverage of WP news. and this is not just a matter of fixing one article or one contributor working at it. it's something that we all have to keep in mind when looking at such an an article. –Doldrums(talk) 20:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Speaking of the "recent criticism" by Britannica, can you find something newer than 2005? Admittedly, I only barely skimmed the Nature article, but in it seemed Britannica declined to comment, rather than levy criticisms. --SVTCobra 21:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)