Anthere-
"A Wikinews project in a language will be started under two conditions: a) that the language is accepted as one of the Wikimedia project languages, b) that there is at least one person who expresses an interest in working on that language edition."
I wish that this requirement is modified. One person interested is not enough if only for one single reason : if only one person is editor, he will also have to be the one person making all policies, and the one doing the validation and publication. There will be no feedback and no control. No discussion either. This is not a wiki, but a blog. This mean that any pov pusher can ask for a wikinews, announced himself big chief, and go wild.
That's a legitimate concern. However, I seem to recall that the "one person, get started" policy is what we used for Wikipedia in the past? Often it will just be one person who does the work of promoting the project initially.
One person without sysop access can't do anything that other people cannot undo. Anything he "publishes" can be edited by anyone else. It's quite possible that he won't be able to satisfy the four Wikinews requirements without sysop access.
My suggestion would therefore be as follows: 1) That there will be no sysops until there are at least 10 genuine registered users. 2) That the project will not be considered an official Wikinews language until it satisfies the requirements defined in the proposal. The consequence of this is that it will be listed separately on the Wikinews language list, as "work in progress".
I believe this allows individuals or small groups to use their wikinews.org domain to promote the project effectively and develop some of the required pages, while minimizing the potential for harm to the Wikimedia Foundation. Of course any clear abuse would be punished in any case.
What do you think about this approach?
The second point has to do with liability. If an article contains an error, but may not be corrected after a week, we will be liable. And this time, we wont be able to say "there is a incorrect statement ? Please, do correct it".
I have added the text
"Corrections and updates can still be linked to, but the article text itself may not be changed."
to the "archival" stage. Does this address your concerns?
Regards,
Erik