Significant flaws have been pointed out. Legal
You fail to recognize all efforts that have been made to address this very
problem. The issue has been discussed in much detail, both on this mailing
list and on the wiki. A legal vetting process is part of the basic
requirements of the Wikinews proposal. Legal counsel will be sought on
What is and isn't a flaw is often a matter of opinion. I simply disagree
with you on the level of risk and the potential remedies.
On controversial issues Wikipedia itself is
often unable to realize in NPOV in practice. In the news context it is dead
certain we will not; experienced news organizations employing trained
journalists don't and there is no rational basis for supposing we will.
NPOV is an ideal, it is not a binary. Meeting certain formal requirements,
such as all opinions being attributed, is relatively easy. The issue of
balance is much trickier. It is not desirable for us to add off-topic
"fluff" to a story simply to make it appear more balanced. More so than
the internal factual balance of an article we will have to keep an eye on
the overall balance of the site, and the visibility of the stories.
"Experience" in the context of traditional news organizations increasingly
means "experience at concealing propaganda" as investigative journalism
becomes a rarity and many news organizations deliberately instruct their
employees to violate neutrality. The Iraq war was a good example for this
violation of neutrality as "embedded journalists" spread their verbal
ejaculate all over the papers and TV screens, repeating Pentagon
propaganda like the priests in the Middle Ages repeated the Church
position on the pulpit.
Wikinews is truly indepedent, the process is egalitarian, neutrality is
non-negotiable, and the contributors come from many more different
backgrounds than those to standard news media. Thus, there is very much a
"rational basis" for supposing we can do a better job than mainstream
media on this point.