I’m a little disheartened at the interpretation editorialized in this blog entry. It represents the opposite of my own position, and not at all what the story attempted to communicate. First, this story was not an editorial — my personal opinion about Wikinews (which the story was about, not Wikipedia except for a brief background note) was not the focus. The focus was to present to the reader a clear view of what Wikinews is, how it operates, and the goals of its creators. It is up to the reader to draw conclusions about whether the project is worthwhile or not given the facts.

Including the opposing voice of Mr. McHenry formerly of Encyclopedia Brittanica was no strawman. It was included for the very purpose of giving air to his strong critique, which represents the array of criticisms expressed about the Wikimedia projects.

I happen to agree with his arguments against Wikinews and, most likely, yours. I have strong reservations about the ability of Wikinews (and Wikipedia) to achieve its stated goals given its existing procedures. If anything I worried that people might take my article as an attack on Wikinews, when in fact my job as reporter was to present the project fairly with the facts, and let readers draw their own opinions.

Thanks for listening…Aaron