How is Wikinews different than this situation? The
problem with
Wikinews in this sense is that there are no "leaders" or
editors-in-chief who can take the legal arrows, so to say. In this case
I think it would be more the administrators who are maintaining and
verifying the credentials of Wikinews reporters who would have the legal
liability.
Not necessarily something pleasant to think about for that matter, and
dangerous in a volunteer organization. Certainly something to
discourage you from becoming an admin on Wikinews. Having the Wikimedia
Foundation take the heat instead would help insulate the admins and
others on Wikinews but opens up other issues as you have suggested. The
real question then is who has the certifying authority and who has the
liability for the problems? The two go together.
There is a need for accredited reporters, as there are some news media
events that can clearly be covered only by accredited press members. In
the USA in particular, the government has no role in the accreditation
process and instead it is from the authority of the news agency they are
working for. This is the real meat of this issue, and to decide on how
the accreditation will happen.
BTW, I was turned down from one media event already where I tried to
cover the event as a Wikinews reporter but lacked credentials. There
will be other opportunities in the future, but this is a real situation.
Maybe one solution would be to become some kind of Non-Governemental
Organisation, or to create local comitees. Anyway, we need to think
about it !