On 4/30/07, Guillaume Paumier guillom.pom@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/23/07, Delphine Ménard notafishz@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