Craig Spurrier wrote:
As long as WMF does not issue press passes there is no
way that the WMF
could be considered the to be the editor or the publisher due to the
issuing of press passes. As long as the WMF is not the editor or the
publisher, and are merely providing a place for others to post they are
for the most part legally protected from responsibility for the content.
Issuing press passes could potentially change their status and a court
could rule they are responsible for the content. It is unlikely, but is
still a very serious risk. A separate organization completely eliminates
this risk for the foundation and still allows us to have press passes.
-Craig Spurrier
*This is slightly oversimplified, but I believe pretty much accurate.
Sounds like a good question for the lawyers. What you say may have some
merit.
On the other hand, press passes issued by some completely separate
organization sound fishy to me. If someone called the Wikimedia
Foundation, we would have to tell them "Oh, yes, that is our website.
Oh, no, actually we did not issue that press pass. That's this other
organization that has nothing to do with us, just a club of users on the
site."
Doesn't sound so impressive.
I think if we have realistic requirements for who gets a press pass, our
"libel" risk should be no different from that of a traditional
newspaper. I mean, our house style is the opposite of the muckraking
nonsense popular on OhMyNews, etc., so we are already pretty careful.
--Jimbo