Erik Moeller wrote:
Therefore, my proposal suggests that we DO allow this type of consensus- based reporting from anonymous or unaccredited sources (called "witness reports" in the proposal), but IN ADDITION TO IT, we also allow Wikinews reporters to use their reputation as currency for publishing original reports, and to act as relays for people who want to stay anonymous.
I certainly hope it can be done in a reasonable way, but I'm wondering if there's been any thought as to how to differentiate this from Indymedia? From what I can tell, Indymedia does use bylined reporters for many of its articles, but they still end up generally being, well, not very neutral. Hopefully Wikinews would end up rather more credible than Indymedia, but how to ensure that? I could definitely see a potential for highly biased stories---probably not outright fabricated ones, but certainly ones with the facts selectively reported and a large dose of opinion thrown in. I envision there would be some hardcore reporter types working on the project---people who have no vested interest in what they're reporting on, but just want information out. But somehow it seems like it'll naturally attract more of the other sort of people---activists who are reporting with a particular agenda in mind. That tends to lead to the facts being arranged to fit the pre-held agenda, rather than the other way around...
-Mark