Hi,
As a former board member of the Underground Press Syndicate in the U.S. I certainly agree that Wiki could issue press credentials, but it is a bit more complicated. We used to issue our own press cards to member journalists.
In the U.S., press credentials that allow access to situations controlled by police, fire, and other government agencies are photo ID's issued by a state agency, even though journalists are not licensed.
Self-generated press credentials can (and have) been abused by people just trying to get into concerts and other entertainment venues, so many venues only accept the state-issued credentials, or credentials from media outlets they recognize as major.
Covering breaking news with a press credential is, by definition, original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia, and thus I am not sure that Wikipedia should be issuing press credentials. That would seem to be done more appropriately by alternative media on the political left, center, and right; then published in print or online, and then brought onto Wikipedia as a published report.
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.
Also, in some circumstances and some states/countries, issuing press credentials entails certifying someone as an agent, and may create an issue of liability in terms of defamation or other legal issue.
Cberlet
(aka Chip Berlet)
________________________________
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org on behalf of Peter Mackay Sent: Fri 11/4/2005 6:27 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Re: Press badges
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of steve v
--- Nathan Reed nathanreed@gmail.com wrote:
We've had this discussion quite a bit on Wikinews -- accreditation does you little good unless a press pass is also issued by whatever event/organization/governmental agency you wish to cover. Some have discussed a meta press corps -- would the bar be higher
there than on
Wikinews? Our concept of an accredited wikinewsie is still citizen journalist. This is a radical concept, of course, and I'm
not sure the
world is ready to deal with it. -N.
A news organization, by definition, is an organized newsgathering entity with some degree of accountability. Press passes offer people some degree of authority and access, and likewise suggest that individuals have demonstrated professional credentials.
Just throwing this out there: I dont see how any anti-credentialist organization can be in the business of giving out credentials.
In the same wiki-way that everything else works here. The community decides who, based on their contributions, is able to present a professional face to the real world and a useful contribution to Wikipedia/WikiNews. I use "professional" here in the sense of "adhering to industry standards", rather than "being paid for".
I don't know how it is in other countries, but in Australia journalists aren't licensed. Anyone can be a journalist. Freelancers are common.
As noted previously, Wikipedia is gaining a certain measure of respect and exposure in the general community. We don't need to sell our encyclopaedic credentials, just our audience. Nobody considers tabloid newspapers to hold to high standards of journalistic integrity, but they command wide readerships, and their journalists find little difficulty in gaining access to events. All we really need do is say "Google such-and such a subject" and Wikipedia is generally in the first ten entries, so we've got that sort of leverage to use with people who are after media exposure.
And realistically, it's a win-win situation. We get information and (most importantly) free-use photographs, and the organisation or event gets web exposure that they just can't buy.
Peter (Skyring)
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 11/7/05, Chip Berlet c.berlet@publiceye.org wrote:
Covering breaking news with a press credential is, by definition, original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia, and thus I am not sure that Wikipedia should be issuing press credentials.
The original mail in this thread was asking about press cards for Wikipedian photographers rather than editors. I see nothing against policy for people to take photos of current events which can be added to articles as soon as the press starts reporting on them. Also, photographs of people to accompany the existing Wikipedia articles about those people wouldn't be original research, and will often be the only way to get a freely licensed image.
Angela.
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Chip Berlet Sent: Tuesday, 8 November 2005 00:40 To: English Wikipedia Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Re: Press badges
Hi,
As a former board member of the Underground Press Syndicate in the U.S. I certainly agree that Wiki could issue press credentials, but it is a bit more complicated. We used to issue our own press cards to member journalists.
Thanks, Chip!
Your experience, your *practical* experience and knowledge, is extremely useful in this discussion.
In the U.S., press credentials that allow access to situations controlled by police, fire, and other government agencies are photo ID's issued by a state agency, even though journalists are not licensed.
Self-generated press credentials can (and have) been abused by people just trying to get into concerts and other entertainment venues, so many venues only accept the state-issued credentials, or credentials from media outlets they recognize as major.
These are vital points. I think that the last thing we want are Wikifolk making a nuisance of themselves. That cannot help our reputation.
Covering breaking news with a press credential is, by definition, original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia, and thus I am not sure that Wikipedia should be issuing press credentials. That would seem to be done more appropriately by alternative media on the political left, center, and right; then published in print or online, and then brought onto Wikipedia as a published report.
I agree entirely. However, the original poster raised the issue of photographs, and this is something where better access could improve Wikipedia. Images of movie stars, for example, would seem to be particularly hard to get without some form of restriction. We don't allow original research, (though on reading Wikipedia one might not immediately gain that impression), but original photography is allowed and is extremely useful because of the licensing benefits.
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'm not entirely happy with original reporting - yet. Some of the articles I've seen run perilously close to POV propaganda.
Also, in some circumstances and some states/countries, issuing press credentials entails certifying someone as an agent, and may create an issue of liability in terms of defamation or other legal issue.
This is probably your most important point. I'm in two minds about it. In litigation-happy America, do we want to expose ourselves to lawsuits? Win or lose, these things are expensive to fight.
But at what point do we stand up and take responsibility for our actions? If an accredited WikiNews photographer comes up with nude photographs of Hillary Clinton (say). Who goofed? The wikicommunity in issuing the credentials that allowed access to the private fund-raiser, or the photographer in an apalling lapse of judgement?
To my mind, this is an area where wikimanagement with access to proper legal advice and the wider wikicommunity are going to have to work together to find the best solution, not just one that feels good.
Peter (Skyring)
(And I'm only joking about Hillary Clinton. No offence intended. Feel free to substitute the Queen, the Duchess of Cornwall, Chelsea Clinton or the Pope according to personal taste or lack thereof.)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Peter Mackay wrote: <snip>
But at what point do we stand up and take responsibility for our actions? If an accredited WikiNews photographer comes up with nude photographs of Hillary Clinton (say). Who goofed? The wikicommunity in issuing the credentials that allowed access to the private fund-raiser, or the photographer in an apalling lapse of judgement?
Well, some people would be quite happy with nude photos of (whoever), freely licensed and all :)
(Not that I'm one of them)
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \