Andrew-
Erik, I'm intrigued by the idea, of course, as it's my area of study. However, with the Wikinews project having to source original content, identify individuals, institute a reputation system and the establish a workflow, I questioin how apt the title "wiki" is to this project.
The Wikipedia project has to do the same things: * identify individuals - that's what we do when we figure out sources for factual claims in an article * institute a reputation system - [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship]] * establish workflow - [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates]], [[Wikipedia:Peer review]], [[m:Article validation]]
Just because we try to improve upon the tools which we use to do our jobs we're not suddenly becoming "less of a wiki". Wiki is a philosophy of ease of use and openness, and that philosophy is maintained to the maximum extent allowable for a project that specializes in news reporting, hence the name Wikinews is entirely appropriate.
It has more similarity to [[OhMyNews]], [[Indymedia]] and other citizen reporter efforts.
I don't know OhMyNews, but Indymedia is largely non-collaborative. Individual reporters write individual stories. They don't use a wiki model of open editing.
Regards,
Erik