What? Since when are people *paying* for Wikimedia
Where is the comparison here?
Wikimedia accepts donations, if not for the people doing the groundwork,
then to run the servers and the administrative costs. Part of the agreement
(as I understand) with regard to the donations is that it is going to
support endeavors with a NPOV policy. Of course, people aren't paying
directly, but I think it would be disingenuous to solicit donations, even
for running costs (and these costs are growing day by day) under the guise
of NPOV and then adopt first-person reporting equivalent to other media.
But the issue of whether someone is paying or not is moot, I think.
First-person reporting (beyond photography, which BTW seems perfectly
acceptable to me) just seems incongruent with the aims of the project. If it
would be okay to introduce POV via first-person reporting into wikinews
simply because "no on is paying for it", what's the problem with allowing
POV in wikipedia? I don't see how money has any bearing on it.
Again, I did not know that the original intent was simply to get
photographs. I see no inherent problem with this.