--- Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
But you could also say "encyclopedias are written by organizations - not by just some people on the Internet (which is all any Wikimedia project is by itself). Using that term - in the real world where it has a specific meaning - to describe that process is very misleading."
Comparing the way the content is created with the use of marks outside of the community are very different things.
I trust the content of Wikipedia because I trust the community behind it. I don't expect the Board to have approved the people editing it, or to have approved the content itself, and yet I'm still happy for it to be called an "encyclopedia", even though that term has meaning in the "real world" which implies a traditional process of peer review and publishing that Wikipedia doesn't have. I don't see the difference between this and Wikinews.
Again you are comparing development of content with the use of marks. That is an invalid comparison.
"Press credentials" have no more or less meaning than "encyclopedia".
Saying what we have created an encyclopedia is *very* different than saying that you have Wikinews credentials in order to gain access to events youd otherwise not be able to.
If we're challenging the "traditional" model of an encyclopedia by letting a community write it, why would we not do exactly the same for press credentials?
It would be nice if you read my proposal before attacking it. :) All I want is for the current accreditation system to get the official blessing of the foundation and for some (mostly theoretical) safeguards to be put in place. This would allow those people who get accredited to use the Wikinews name and logo on press badges. The community would decide who get accredited and reaccredited in every case and would decide in almost every case who gets their credentials revoked. The foundation would only get involved in really bad cases that require immediate action.
This new type of user status is VERY different than anything the community has created before because the whole point of the status is to gain some type of authority in the outside world. It is therefore imperative for the foundation to create reasonable safeguards to project its good name and the name of its projects.
Challenge this model of a higher authority and let the people involved work out who can be trusted. It's the only scalable approach, and the only one that will work across all 15 language editions.
Why are you mentioning that? That is a strawman due to the fact that I strongly support the scalable approach.
-- mav
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com