Talk:OhmyNews
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
WikiProject Korea invites you to join in improving Wikipedia articles related to Korea.
|
 |
The article seems pretty POV, but if all the POV was removed, there wouldn't be much left. How to deal with articles like this? -- Khym Chanur
- One reason I think it's not too POV, is that there are few who dispute that Ohmynews has had a big impact in the election of the Korean President. It would be similar to saying, "The Washington Post played a significant role in Richard Nixon's downfall" or "BBC had a major role in the of David Kelly." Also, the other comments are quotes, but feel free to include comments to balance it out. Fuzheado 06:57, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)
-
- Ah. Thing is, to someone who knows little about Korea, statements about Ohmynews having a large impact on the election seem rather boastful and likely to be POV. I guess the article should be expanded to explain *how* Ohmynews had a large impact, but then again, this *is* just a stub as of now. -- Khym Chanur
On an unrelated aside, in this Newsweek article it says "On a more organized scale, About.com offers how-to advice from hundreds of self-posting experts around the nation, and Wikipedia.com is a self-posting encyclopedia where more than 6,000 active contributors have submitted 600,000 articles on countless topics." Its good to see Wikipedia being commonly refered to. But I just thought it was funny that they said Wikipedia had 600,000 articles, but countless topics. Aren't the articles topics? :)
Ohmynews sounds like a very successful Wikinews (albeit with a different structure). --Eean 04:59, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] OhmyNews vs. Wikipedia
Eean mentioned this, and I was thinking maybe it should be clarified: just what are the differences between Wikinews and OhmyNews? The first major difference I've noticed is that Wikipedia is a bit more radical in the definition of "collaborative news", allowing anyone to edit an article. OhmyNews takes one step back by allowing anyone to submit their own article, which is then vetted and edited by paid staff editors. As far as I can tell, once the article is published, it is fairly static, while Wikinews articles are continually edited by anyone. And Eean's right; OhmyNews does seem to be significantly more successful right now. - McCart42 (talk) 01:57, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
[edit] OhmyNews vs. Indymedia
I don't understand how it can claim to be the first "online newspaper" with "citizen journalists." Indymedias were started in dozens of cities in 1999 that did just that. Some of them (New York, for example) basically do the same thing that OMN does -- accept stories online, print them in a weekly paper which then gets distributed. Indymedia is certainly much smaller in each individual city than OhMyNews (and doesn't have deals with banks) but I don't think OMN can claim pioneering citizen journalism quite so discretely. (Even before Indymedia, after all, there were people blogging -- Justin Hall at links.net, Rebecca Blood, etc.)
[edit] what's with the name?
Does anyone know where the name comes from? It seems very odd.
[edit] Citizen reporting
If this site can be featured without anyone deleting it why is Wikipedia being discriminatory and removing similar sites that educates the reader to the concept of citizen journalism and citizen reporting.
Why give Korea an importance and ignore other countries like India? where it's only e-newspaper whitedrums.com is established that is neither commercial or private in any form or manner.
