On 8/26/07, Ed Brown ed.brown@wikinewsie.org wrote:
notafishz raises the question of whether WikiMedia/Wikinews should "fork" into several different directions, or try to retain some central edit consistency and a focal point on the Main. I am totally against "forking" and splintering off. Focus under those circumstances would be lost, and with that, the impact that a central place for reporting accords.
Accommodation of the special interests seems to me to best route, and by that I mean pages that are not NPOV. The good stuff makes Main Page. The other stuff hasn't found a place yet.... that's the challenge for Wikinews.
Yes, we understand how participation improves an article. Lacking participation, we also understand how the lack of it does not diminish the news value of it. The trouble is how to deal with it in an inclusive manner.
It is interesting how my email has been interpreted. I never meant to say or even hint at the fact that Wikinews should lose any kind of focus, or any kind of principles (that of NPOV etc.). Never ever. I meant to say that Wikinewsies may find out there in the wide wide world people who are like minded and share the same kind of values, and that those could make good people to partner with.
In the end, I must say that I am a bit disappointed at the reactions about "finding" other people to partner with. Too many answers, to my liking, were along the lines "but we are the only ones like that". Well, guess what? I don't think so.
I am sure that there are journalists out there who would love to work on a wiki. Or who wold love to be bound by a NPOV rile. Or even both. They just never came across either of these tools/principles. A reaching-out organisation would, in my opinion, be of greater benefit than one that's navel gazing and working only towards its own good (and I know, this is a bit caricatural, and not what has been expressed by "everyone"). And for example, its goal could then be "bring NPOV to the news!", which is far broader to start with than "let's work on Wikinews". At least, I think.
In short, I was not trying to change Wikinews, but rather trying to explore possibilities of it bringing its principles out in the world.
Delphine
-----Original Message----- From: wikinews-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikinews-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Delphine Ménard Sent: 29 August 2007 11:19 To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org; Wikinews mailing list Subject: Re: [Wikinews-l] Proposal for the creation of a Wikinews foundation
It is interesting how my email has been interpreted. I never meant to say or even hint at the fact that Wikinews should lose any kind of focus, or any kind of principles (that of NPOV etc.). Never ever. I meant to say that Wikinewsies may find out there in the wide wide world people who are like minded and share the same kind of values, and that those could make good people to partner with.
Ed has an issue that we can't do editorial content outside the user name space. We've introduced a comments system for people to rant on, and have templates like {{haveyoursay}} to try and encourage feedback. One can hope that it is a small step from saying something about the news to writing the next story that you want to see other people comment on.
In the end, I must say that I am a bit disappointed at the reactions about "finding" other people to partner with. Too many answers, to my liking, were along the lines "but we are the only ones like that". Well, guess what? I don't think so.
Okay, so there perhaps are other people out there who would follow NPOV. I don't know where to find them. All we can do is work on getting good stories that attract readers who turn into contributors. I'm open to how suggestions on widening the pool of participants can be done. Can we get any colleges or universities to follow our style book, or do their reporting assignments on Wikinews?
I am sure that there are journalists out there who would love to work on a wiki. Or who wold love to be bound by a NPOV rile. Or even both. They just never came across either of these tools/principles. A reaching-out organisation would, in my opinion, be of greater benefit than one that's navel gazing and working only towards its own good (and I know, this is a bit caricatural, and not what has been expressed by "everyone"). And for example, its goal could then be "bring NPOV to the news!", which is far broader to start with than "let's work on Wikinews". At least, I think.
This is a good principle, and a formulation of a question that vexes the Wikinews regulars, how can we get and retain more contributors? From our point of view there are several ways this can happen. One is the introduction of stable versions. Correctly done and with an editorial board of accredited reporters, this will get us in Google news.
In short, I was not trying to change Wikinews, but rather trying to explore possibilities of it bringing its principles out in the world.
I'd love to have a budget to set up adwords for Wikinews, or some other way of promoting it. At one point in the past Amgine had people writing ad copy, but we never took that anywhere. We do make use of sites such as digg to try and promote some of our stories, but except for things like the Benoit story we don't get constant high traffic.
I am sure there are people on this list who could also help with promotion of Wikinews. Does your school have a journalism course? Can you leave copies of our Print Edition in high visibility areas? Stick on noticeboards?
As an aside, there have been quite a few changes to the Wikinews main page recently. We now run a news ticker, and have pictures/image maps used for the lead article. What do people think of the new look?
Brian McNeil
Is there any progress on what we're going to end up doing for this issue? I'm not totally clear on the situation, one of the ideas bandied about was that we fundraise for a member of staff to handle Wikinews-related issues such as accreditation and credential verification.
I've also not seen anything totally clear yet about the issuing of press passes by the office. Has it been cleared up that this can be done without serious liability issues?
Brian McNeil
Brian McNeil wrote:
Is there any progress on what we're going to end up doing for this issue? I'm not totally clear on the situation, one of the ideas bandied about was that we fundraise for a member of staff to handle Wikinews-related issues such as accreditation and credential verification.
I've also not seen anything totally clear yet about the issuing of press passes by the office. Has it been cleared up that this can be done without serious liability issues?
My impression is that widespread support for these measures does not exist. That may also explain why the thread has fallen silent.
Ec
Hoi, The arguments why it would be a good thing to have a Wikinews organisation have not been refuted. There are some issues that make the issue complicated. The notion that people who are NOT working on Wikinews could also get an "accreditation" is what makes me uncomfortable about the whole issue.
When you need "widespread" support to get things done/organised to get things done it will mean that things do not happen. There are always people who only know to see why not other people are not involved and consequently are not heard. What is needed is people championing the cause who invests time and effort in it.
It is also not necessarily by continuously talking on a list that you make things happen .. :)
Thanks, GerardM
PS I do appreciate the reason for a Wikinews organisation. :)
On 9/2/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Brian McNeil wrote:
Is there any progress on what we're going to end up doing for this
issue?
I'm not totally clear on the situation, one of the ideas bandied about
was
that we fundraise for a member of staff to handle Wikinews-related
issues
such as accreditation and credential verification.
I've also not seen anything totally clear yet about the issuing of press passes by the office. Has it been cleared up that this can be done
without
serious liability issues?
My impression is that widespread support for these measures does not exist. That may also explain why the thread has fallen silent.
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Giving non-Wikinewsies accreditation is something that would only be done with great care. The situations I can see it happening in are very limited. Perhaps for users of other Wikimedia projects (especially Commons) who have an opportunity to cover a news event, we could give them temporary accreditation. Giving outside people accreditation would not be done without a great deal of community discussion first and only then to people who we can clearly trust and whose work will benefit Wikinews.
-Craig Spurrier [[n:Craig Spurrier]]
GerardM wrote:
Hoi, The arguments why it would be a good thing to have a Wikinews organisation have not been refuted. There are some issues that make the issue complicated. The notion that people who are NOT working on Wikinews could also get an "accreditation" is what makes me uncomfortable about the whole issue.
When you need "widespread" support to get things done/organised to get things done it will mean that things do not happen. There are always people who only know to see why not other people are not involved and consequently are not heard. What is needed is people championing the cause who invests time and effort in it.
It is also not necessarily by continuously talking on a list that you make things happen .. :)
Thanks, GerardM
PS I do appreciate the reason for a Wikinews organisation. :)
On 9/2/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
PS I do appreciate the reason for a Wikinews organisation. :)
I am somewhat confused by this sentence. Is it not you, Gerard Meijssen, who just a few weeks (perhaps months) ago suggested that wikimedia fold *in* other organisations under its umbrella; rather than spinning them off?
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
Hoi, What you will hear me say is that we should cooperate with other organisations. This may lead to us merging with other organisations. I am extremely unlikely to say that other organisations are to fold into the Wikimedia Foundation. Cooperation, partnership is something that you do when there is a mutual respect and when there are benefits to both organisations. Asking other organisations to fold into the WMF does not show respect for what these other organisations are, do and have done.
Merging creates one new organisation where more than one organisation used to exist before.
Thanks, GerardM
On 9/2/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/2/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
PS I do appreciate the reason for a Wikinews organisation. :)
I am somewhat confused by this sentence. Is it not you, Gerard Meijssen, who just a few weeks (perhaps months) ago suggested that wikimedia fold *in* other organisations under its umbrella; rather than spinning them off?
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 9/2/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, What you will hear me say is that we should cooperate with other organisations. This may lead to us merging with other organisations. I am extremely unlikely to say that other organisations are to fold into the Wikimedia Foundation. Cooperation, partnership is something that you do when there is a mutual respect and when there are benefits to both organisations. Asking other organisations to fold into the WMF does not show respect for what these other organisations are, do and have done.
Merging creates one new organisation where more than one organisation used to exist before.
I don't quite see how all this fits up with creating more than one organisation where only one used to exist before, which would be the case, if wikinews went its separate way.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
The last we heard about it Jimbo was going to ask Mike to look at it. If Mike says the WMF can do it, Jimbo says we could "fundraise on wikinews itself to get the money for the Foundation to hire a "Wikinews community liason"" (a job I would be very much interested in :) ). If the WMF can not do it then we need a separate org. Wikinews needs proper press accreditation. One recentish example of this need is we had a reporter covering a protest whose WN press badge saved him from getting arrested and worse. The fact that it worked may very well due to the fact that the police were rushed and had no idea what Wikipedia is. If they had taken the time to really read the card and saw the big disclaimer that says the person is not really affiliated with anything or if they knew about Wikipedia only from one of the anti-Wikipedia articles, there is no telling what could have happened, we could have had our first reporter in jail.
Until we hear back from Mike, there is nothing we can really do, but the need is still very much present.
At the present there is fairly mixed support from the Wikimedia community, but very strong support from the Wikinews community.
-Craig Spurrier [[n:Craig Spurrier]]
Ray Saintonge wrote:
My impression is that widespread support for these measures does not exist. That may also explain why the thread has fallen silent.
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Craig Spurrier wrote:
The last we heard about it Jimbo was going to ask Mike to look at it. If Mike says the WMF can do it, Jimbo says we could "fundraise on wikinews itself to get the money for the Foundation to hire a "Wikinews community liason"" (a job I would be very much interested in :) ). If the WMF can not do it then we need a separate org. Wikinews needs proper press accreditation. One recentish example of this need is we had a reporter covering a protest whose WN press badge saved him from getting arrested and worse. The fact that it worked may very well due to the fact that the police were rushed and had no idea what Wikipedia is. If they had taken the time to really read the card and saw the big disclaimer that says the person is not really affiliated with anything or if they knew about Wikipedia only from one of the anti-Wikipedia articles, there is no telling what could have happened, we could have had our first reporter in jail.
Until we hear back from Mike, there is nothing we can really do, but the need is still very much present.
At the present there is fairly mixed support from the Wikimedia community, but very strong support from the Wikinews community.
-Craig Spurrier [[n:Craig Spurrier]]
Mike gave us a feedback, which basically contains what is below
" I think that if Wikinews (or some renamed entity) wanted to embark on the project of setting up, say, an open-source version of Associated Press or Reuters, the best course of action would be to to spin it off, and out of the Foundation entirely. (I'd suggest some rebranding as well to avoid confusion, but that's not a high priority.)
Administering press accreditation and acquiring it and keeping track of what different national governments required strikes me as a huge project. I don't think we have the manpower for it. But because Wikinews is already "going its own way" in a lot of respects (there's already lots of duplication of function between Wikipedia current event coverage and Wikinews press coverage), the logical thing it seems to me is to spin Wikinews off. Give it the associated trademarks as a sign of good will. Donate server space even (although I'd prefer someone like Wikia or Google to do that.)
There are search engines that are notably deficient when it comes to generating original content. Google and Yahoo! come to mind. What it would take to make this work is someone with the vision of building a Wikinews-type project and seeking funding or other financial support from a company like Google that already has a hole in its product lineup.
I actually think it would be a sign of health of WMF if it showed a willingness to launch an independent child project into the world.
--Mike "
Then he also added
"In nations that focus on accreditation, there's typically a class of journalists or a journalistic organization that officially takes responsibility for content. In the U.S., any journalist or organization (e.g., the New York Times) that takes responsibility for content *expressly exempts itself* from the Sec. 230 safe harbor that protects Wikipedia and most other WMF projects from liability (for, e.g., defamation).
So, in that sense, there's legal-liability divergence from other WMF projects, at least potentially."
Which kinda answer the issue of legal risk. Would there be a legal risk if WMF was handling accredition ? Yup.
The three main solutions left are consequently 1) full spin off 2) a separate organization, part of a more global network. And with shared values with WMF 3) working with chapters
I am not sure chapters are to be considered good solutions really due to all the comments previously made (partial coverage in particular), though I believe they are part of the story.
As for the full spin-off being the best solution, I do not share Mike's opinion on this, nor does Erik. Other board members did not give a feedback.
I hope that help :-)
Anthere
As much as I would love to be an employee of Google, I'm also going to disagree with the spin-off of Wikinews from the rest of the Wikimedia Foundation. I don't think Wikinews would be able to survive without Wikimedia, I don't even think we could be fostered under Google and still be any better (we'll probably be worse) than what we are today.
That said, I guess we're back on the track toward making a separate organization.
Florence Devouard wrote:
Craig Spurrier wrote:
The last we heard about it Jimbo was going to ask Mike to look at it. If Mike says the WMF can do it, Jimbo says we could "fundraise on wikinews itself to get the money for the Foundation to hire a "Wikinews community liason"" (a job I would be very much interested in :) ). If the WMF can not do it then we need a separate org. Wikinews needs proper press accreditation. One recentish example of this need is we had a reporter covering a protest whose WN press badge saved him from getting arrested and worse. The fact that it worked may very well due to the fact that the police were rushed and had no idea what Wikipedia is. If they had taken the time to really read the card and saw the big disclaimer that says the person is not really affiliated with anything or if they knew about Wikipedia only from one of the anti-Wikipedia articles, there is no telling what could have happened, we could have had our first reporter in jail.
Until we hear back from Mike, there is nothing we can really do, but the need is still very much present.
At the present there is fairly mixed support from the Wikimedia community, but very strong support from the Wikinews community.
-Craig Spurrier [[n:Craig Spurrier]]
Mike gave us a feedback, which basically contains what is below
" I think that if Wikinews (or some renamed entity) wanted to embark on the project of setting up, say, an open-source version of Associated Press or Reuters, the best course of action would be to to spin it off, and out of the Foundation entirely. (I'd suggest some rebranding as well to avoid confusion, but that's not a high priority.)
Administering press accreditation and acquiring it and keeping track of what different national governments required strikes me as a huge project. I don't think we have the manpower for it. But because Wikinews is already "going its own way" in a lot of respects (there's already lots of duplication of function between Wikipedia current event coverage and Wikinews press coverage), the logical thing it seems to me is to spin Wikinews off. Give it the associated trademarks as a sign of good will. Donate server space even (although I'd prefer someone like Wikia or Google to do that.)
There are search engines that are notably deficient when it comes to generating original content. Google and Yahoo! come to mind. What it would take to make this work is someone with the vision of building a Wikinews-type project and seeking funding or other financial support from a company like Google that already has a hole in its product lineup.
I actually think it would be a sign of health of WMF if it showed a willingness to launch an independent child project into the world.
--Mike "
Then he also added
"In nations that focus on accreditation, there's typically a class of journalists or a journalistic organization that officially takes responsibility for content. In the U.S., any journalist or organization (e.g., the New York Times) that takes responsibility for content *expressly exempts itself* from the Sec. 230 safe harbor that protects Wikipedia and most other WMF projects from liability (for, e.g., defamation).
So, in that sense, there's legal-liability divergence from other WMF projects, at least potentially."
Which kinda answer the issue of legal risk. Would there be a legal risk if WMF was handling accredition ? Yup.
The three main solutions left are consequently
- full spin off
- a separate organization, part of a more global network. And with
shared values with WMF 3) working with chapters
I am not sure chapters are to be considered good solutions really due to all the comments previously made (partial coverage in particular), though I believe they are part of the story.
As for the full spin-off being the best solution, I do not share Mike's opinion on this, nor does Erik. Other board members did not give a feedback.
I hope that help :-)
Anthere
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Florence Devouard wrote:
Mike gave us a feedback, which basically contains what is below
"Administering press accreditation and acquiring it and keeping track of what different national governments required strikes me as a huge project. I don't think we have the manpower for it. But because Wikinews is already "going its own way" in a lot of respects (there's already lots of duplication of function between Wikipedia current event coverage and Wikinews press coverage), the logical thing it seems to me is to spin Wikinews off. Give it the associated trademarks as a sign of good will. Donate server space even (although I'd prefer someone like Wikia or Google to do that.)"
A spin off I believe would do more harm then good. Other then this one big issue, the foundation has served us very well, better then I think we could do on our own or even as part of another org. If we were to become independent we lose one of our most valuable things, the ability to use the brand recognition Wikipedia gives us as being a sister project. The duplication of function between Wikipedia current event coverage and Wikinews press coverage is something that we need to absolutely work on, but I believe the solution is closer cooperation rather then forcing duplication. There is a lot we can do to help this. Some ideas: -A recruiting campaign to convince current events editors to also edit on WN -Dual licensing the current events page allowing us to copy content, -Moving the Current Events page to WN - With SUL this would become doable with out much inconvenience and get news where it belongs -Delete the Current Events page altogether - Wikinews is for news, Wikipedia is a Encyclopedia -More visible link to WN on the Current events page -Copying Wikinews summaries to the Current events page
Then he also added
"In nations that focus on accreditation, there's typically a class of journalists or a journalistic organization that officially takes responsibility for content. In the U.S., any journalist or organization (e.g., the New York Times) that takes responsibility for content *expressly exempts itself* from the Sec. 230 safe harbor that protects Wikipedia and most other WMF projects from liability (for, e.g., defamation).
So, in that sense, there's legal-liability divergence from other WMF projects, at least potentially."
This has been the main concern, it would be an unacceptable risk to have the WMF handle accreditation.
Which kinda answer the issue of legal risk. Would there be a legal risk if WMF was handling accredition ? Yup.
The three main solutions left are consequently
- full spin off
- a separate organization, part of a more global network. And with
shared values with WMF 3) working with chapters
A separate organization looks to be our best option.
I am not sure chapters are to be considered good solutions really due to all the comments previously made (partial coverage in particular), though I believe they are part of the story.
In countries with chapters we would work closely with them, but there a a lot of countries that do not have chapters. Also, some of the chapters are starting to build enough assets that this could be more of a risk then they are willing to take.
As for the full spin-off being the best solution, I do not share Mike's opinion on this, nor does Erik. Other board members did not give a feedback.
I am glad to hear that at least yourself and Erik want to keep us :P. WE like being a part of the foundation, but we need accreditation.
If we can get an "official" opinion on the likelihood of getting a trademark license, I will start working on drafting what we need to start an organization (bylaws, mission stament, etc).
-Craig Spurrier [[n:Craig Spurrier]]
Craig Spurrier wrote:
Florence Devouard wrote:
Mike gave us a feedback, which basically contains what is below
"Administering press accreditation and acquiring it and keeping track of what different national governments required strikes me as a huge project. I don't think we have the manpower for it. But because Wikinews is already "going its own way" in a lot of respects (there's already lots of duplication of function between Wikipedia current event coverage and Wikinews press coverage), the logical thing it seems to me is to spin Wikinews off. Give it the associated trademarks as a sign of good will. Donate server space even (although I'd prefer someone like Wikia or Google to do that.)"
Part of what makes Wikinews worthwhile is the lack of advertisements and the adherence to core Foundation values such as NPOV. Were Google involved they would likely fulfil Ed's desire for an editorial space, and to my way of thinking that would kill the project I enjoy contributing to.
A spin off I believe would do more harm then good. Other then this one big issue, the foundation has served us very well, better then I think we could do on our own or even as part of another org. If we were to become independent we lose one of our most valuable things, the ability to use the brand recognition Wikipedia gives us as being a sister project. The duplication of function between Wikipedia current event coverage and Wikinews press coverage is something that we need to absolutely work on, but I believe the solution is closer cooperation rather then forcing duplication. There is a lot we can do to help this. Some ideas: -A recruiting campaign to convince current events editors to also edit on WN -Dual licensing the current events page allowing us to copy content, -Moving the Current Events page to WN - With SUL this would become doable with out much inconvenience and get news where it belongs -Delete the Current Events page altogether - Wikinews is for news, Wikipedia is a Encyclopedia -More visible link to WN on the Current events page -Copying Wikinews summaries to the Current events page
The duplication of effort between the two projects is frustrating; news should be written on Wikinews and linked to from the "in the news" section. Sure, the summaries remain for people who don't want to visit Wikinews - we can probably have something coded up that puts a "Return to Wikipedia" link up. We do have an unwritten policy on Wikinews of trying to make the site "sticky". By that I mean we want visitors to read several articles, browse around the site a bit, and perhaps get involved.
Wikipedians could help a lot with that. If you check my contributions on WP you'll see lots of edits to add the {{Wikinews}} template. That's just one task, but when it comes to actually working on Wikinews there is a disconnect because where WP has a policy of citing references so that people can easily go to an original source or fact-check, WN has a policy of trying to avoid having people need to check sources. News is new information, something you want to absorb on the spot, and something that must be arranged to permit that. It also needs done in a timely fashion, facts don't cease to be facts, but news ceases to be news.
Then he also added
"In nations that focus on accreditation, there's typically a class of journalists or a journalistic organization that officially takes responsibility for content. In the U.S., any journalist or organization (e.g., the New York Times) that takes responsibility for content *expressly exempts itself* from the Sec. 230 safe harbor that protects Wikipedia and most other WMF projects from liability (for, e.g., defamation).
Here in Belgium the "most official" press pass comes from the Ministry of the Interior (You even get a pretty blue plaque for your car that makes the police think twice about ticketing or towing - my neighbour's wife says it is great for doing the shopping. :P). As far as I am aware there are stipulations that you must make the majority of your income from journalistic work to qualify for this. Yet, it was in this country that a Wikinews press pass saved a reporter from a police beating and arrest. So, for some countries a Wikinews organisation would actually have to campaign to have the law changed and citizen journalism recognised. I think that would be a noble goal, but the lobbying would be beyond the resources that Wikinews could muster.
So, in that sense, there's legal-liability divergence from other WMF projects, at least potentially."
This has been the main concern, it would be an unacceptable risk to have the WMF handle accreditation.
The can is open... The worms are everywhere. :) What we have at the moment got someone access to the G8 conference. Protestor disruption of transport and so messed up Sean's ability to report, but there will be other things we can get access to.
Which kinda answer the issue of legal risk. Would there be a legal risk if WMF was handling accredition ? Yup.
The three main solutions left are consequently
- full spin off
- a separate organization, part of a more global network. And with
shared values with WMF 3) working with chapters
A separate organization looks to be our best option.
I am not sure chapters are to be considered good solutions really due to all the comments previously made (partial coverage in particular), though I believe they are part of the story.
In countries with chapters we would work closely with them, but there a a lot of countries that do not have chapters. Also, some of the chapters are starting to build enough assets that this could be more of a risk then they are willing to take.
As for the full spin-off being the best solution, I do not share Mike's opinion on this, nor does Erik. Other board members did not give a feedback.
I am glad to hear that at least yourself and Erik want to keep us :P. WE like being a part of the foundation, but we need accreditation.
I too prefer to be part of the Foundation, we share so much in common and it is this one issue that gives us headaches. I have not received a reply to the email I sent to the journalist's union office in Brussels, I will investigate contact details for the UK's National Union of Journalists; perhaps they'd be prepared to discuss what they know about our options.
If we can get an "official" opinion on the likelihood of getting a trademark license, I will start working on drafting what we need to start an organization (bylaws, mission stament, etc).
I honestly prefer the option of having a member of staff who is a "Wikinews volunteer manager" or such. I'm not even sure we could - with a Wikinews Fundraiser - make the cash to pay for someone. I'm not even sure I'll have enough spare to donate a decent amount in the next fundraiser; I spent a lot setting up http://www.wikinewsie.org, and a lot of our other contributors are in the 14-25 schoolkid/student category - not prime candidates for donations.
Brian McNeil
Brian McNeil wrote:
The duplication of effort between the two projects is frustrating; news should be written on Wikinews and linked to from the "in the news" section. Sure, the summaries remain for people who don't want to visit Wikinews - we can probably have something coded up that puts a "Return to Wikipedia" link up. We do have an unwritten policy on Wikinews of trying to make the site "sticky". By that I mean we want visitors to read several articles, browse around the site a bit, and perhaps get involved.
I'm not too clear here on what you think Wikipedia is doing that it shouldn't be. The current events page itself contains only very short summaries, and the only other thing I can think of is a tendency to add excessive detail on recent events into Wikipedia articles (sometimes called "recentism"), which eventually gets purged once the hubbub dies down and calmer hands return to editing the article. If there's some way of redirecting that energy to Wikinews, then I'm all for that.
In a lot of cases, though, the news summaries that get written on Wikipedia *should* be there, because a summary of a notable event is encyclopedic. For example, [[2007 Peru earthquake]] deserves an encyclopedia article, and not just because it happened recently---we have similar articles on earthquakes from decades and centuries ago.
The "in the news" section is really intended for that---a way of highlighting encyclopedia articles that contain information of timely relevance (but are still real encyclopedia articles that will still exist 25 years from now), not a way of distributing a news feed.
-Mark
--- Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Which kinda answer the issue of legal risk. Would there be a legal risk if WMF was handling accredition ? Yup.
The three main solutions left are consequently
- full spin off
- a separate organization, part of a more global network. And with
shared values with WMF 3) working with chapters
I am not sure chapters are to be considered good solutions really due to all the comments previously made (partial coverage in particular), though I believe they are part of the story.
The big issue with using chapters is, as you say, partial coverage. But the solution to that is to create more chapters. :) Once several chapters start to accredit people, then the processes developed can be copied much more easily (esp to and from nations with similar legal frameworks in this area).
Also, I don't think there is anything preventing a chapter in one nation from accrediting a person in another nation in many cases (as a temporary solution until that second nation gets a chapter). Of course, IANAL.
As for the full spin-off being the best solution, I do not share Mike's opinion on this, nor does Erik. Other board members did not give a feedback.
I don't agree with having a full spin-off either since Commons photographers also would greatly benefit from accreditation. Wikinews has done well with its association with Wikim/pedia and vice versa.
Having a separately-funded (from Wikinews and maybe the chapters) liaison work in the office may also help. That person would help chapters set-up accreditation programs and he/she would identify what chapters could confer accreditation to citizens of nations that don't yet have chapters.
Of course, the lawyer folk need to see if this would still adequately protect the foundation's interests (the liaison may need to work from home or from a chapter office to create more separation, for example).
-- mav
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469
On 9/3/07, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Which kinda answer the issue of legal risk. Would there be a legal risk if WMF was handling accredition ? Yup.
The three main solutions left are consequently
- full spin off
- a separate organization, part of a more global network. And with
shared values with WMF 3) working with chapters
I am not sure chapters are to be considered good solutions really due to all the comments previously made (partial coverage in particular), though I believe they are part of the story.
The big issue with using chapters is, as you say, partial coverage. But the solution to that is to create more chapters. :) Once several chapters start to accredit people, then the processes developed can be copied much more easily (esp to and from nations with similar legal frameworks in this area).
Rahhhhhhhhh.
No, no, no and no again, I have said this about a million times already. The big issue with using chapters is exactly the same as the big issue with the Foundation. It's dangerous for exactly the same reasons.
If chapters start to provide *official accreditation* [1] not only do they, in a number of countries, violate the law concerning journalistic accreditation, but they also endanger the safety of Wikimedia Projects in regard to their local laws altogether (same stuff, liability etc.).
So, can we please forget about this?
Delphine [1] and for those who might want to object, no, what Wikimedia France does is *not exactly* provide *official accreditation* but rather use its influence to allow individuals to get into the press room. Not to say that this practice might one day lead to a problem with journalists anyway.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org