-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Brown, Darin wrote:
Message: 4 Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 08:39:31 -0500 From: "Chip Berlet" c.berlet@publiceye.org Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Re: Press badges To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Message-ID: 477C2A7D4CCE994B8CF296DA69A31D3D39BDE1@server.publiceye.local Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Wikinews, however, is a form of alternative media, and should fee free to issue press credentials to members of the Wikinews community who have a track record of regular and substantive contributions, and a willingness to recognize that they are carrying the reputation of Wikinews with them; and thus should behave in appropriate ways given local country/city media standards--even if they disagree with those standards.
I can't agree. If wikinews really is a form of "alternative media", then how is wikinews any different than various alternative media with a clear leftist, rightist, libertarian, conservative, populist, etc., etc., slant? Just because we say we don't have a bias? Fox News says they don't have a bias, either. And look at them.
And then we are taking money from people for Wikimedia, under the guise that we are using to present a neutral relaying of information. If this is okay for us, again, Fox News or the New York Post could just as well do the exact same thing. But people who pay money to watch Fox News or the New York Post *know* it's biased.
What? Since when are people *paying* for Wikimedia content???
Where is the comparison here?
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \