Wikipedia Guru Launches News Site, 'Wikitribune'

The man behind Wikipedia is to launch a news service based around the goals of being factual and neutral. Wikitribune will combine elements of Wikipedia and traditional news reporting.

Jimmy Wales says the key to the site is that it will neither charge a subscription fee nor chase advertising. With the majority of ad revenues based on page views, Wales believes the the big problem now is that reporters deliberately skimp on accuracy for the sake of sensationalism, or provoke readers with inflammatory headlines as they "chase clicks," which in turn creates more page views. (Source: bbc.co.uk)

The site will be free to use, but readers will be able to sign up as monthly supporters for a donation. Wales says this money will pay for journalists, but there needs to be enough money for at least 10 in order for the project to go ahead.

Full Interview Transcripts Available

Reporters on the site will be required to back up every fact stated in an article with a link to a relevant and reliable source. If they carry out interviews for a story, they will need to make the full transcript and recordings available to readers. (Source: wikitribune.com)

One possible downside is that this means reporters may not be able to use information that is genuine but provided by inside sources who are unwilling or unable to speak on the record.

As with Wikipedia and similar sites, readers will be able to use 'wiki' software to make edits, corrections and clarifications to articles, as well as changing the wording to make it more neutral and remove bias or opinion. However, unlike Wikipedia, these changes won't take immediate effect. Instead, staff will review the suggested changes before deciding whether to apply them.

Readers Can Nominate Topics For Specialist Reporter

The decision of which stories to cover will be left to the staff. However, monthly supporters will be able to list topics that particularly interest them. If enough people mention the same topic, Wikitribune will hire a reporter who will then be dedicated to covering that topic.

Part of the logic behind the move is to bridge the gap between traditional media and social media sites. The idea is to combine the editorial and writing skills of professional reporters with the "wisdom of crowds" by which the public can bring additional facts, perspectives or context to a story.

What's Your Opinion?

Do you think such a news site will be more reliable than traditional media? Can it succeed financially when relying on reader donations? Is there a risk that while the content of individual stories is accurate and fair, the overall selection of which stories to cover creates or reflects a bias?