Daniel Mayer wrote:
--- Jean-Baptiste Soufron <jbsoufron(a)gmail.com> wrote:
…
And this leads to my third and more important point. Accreditating
people will transform the Foundation from being a publisher to becoming
an editor... which means that we will now be liable for any content
written on the website by anyone else.
Are you sure that the Foundation is ready to become liable for anything
written on Wikinews ?
If yes, I think this would be a major change of the Foundation policy.
Let me be clear. The foundation *would not* be accrediting anybody. Period. All
the foundation would do is give permission for those people who have gone
through a *community run* and accreditation process to use the Wikinews name
and logo on press badges.
Let me be clear. Press unions, officials and plaintiffs will defend the
idea that giving "permission for those people who have gone through a
community run and accreditation process to use the wikinews name and
logo on press badges" is exactly the same thing than accreditating these
people... period.
The means of this accreditation has nothing to do with it : a press
accreditation is a press accreditation. Whether it is community-based or
centralized. The Foundation will be described as a press editor
accreditating its members, with all the implied obligations within !
The Foundation could argue against it, but I don't know whose story a
judge would buy !
And from my legal point of view there is much opportunity that the
Foundation would be found liable.
Are you sure that's what we want as of today ?
And as I said... that would mean that the Foundation would now be liable
for all of the Wikinews content !
Jean-Baptiste Soufron, Legal Officer