On 4/30/07, Guillaume Paumier <guillom.pom(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/23/07, Delphine Ménard <notafishz(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Please remember that as soon as the organisation "endorses" any person
to contribute content to the projects, it puts itself in a "publisher"
kind of position, which we need to avoid at all costs, since the
organisation is *not* a publisher.
I don't see how endorsement leads to publisher statute. One of the
missions of the foundation and of the local chapters is to help users from
Wikimedia projects to develop and create free content. Taking advantage of
Wikimedia / Wikipedia popularity to get accreditations that will allow users
to create free content doesn't mean this content will be published on
Wikimedia websites, nor it will be published on Wikimedia websites on behalf
of Wikimedia.
--
Guillaume Paumier
[[m:User:guillom]]
"Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the life you have
imagined." Henry David Thoreau
But why do people have to be "endorsed" to develop and create free content?
I am rather proud of Wikipedia's celebrity photographer, who politely takes
pictures for Wikipedia articles without any endorsement, just like the best
of Wikipedia's editors, politely creating accurate content on
encyclopedia-worthy topics, without any endorsement from Wikipedia. Isn't
this what Wikipedia is?
KP