Anthere- Actually, it doesn't. French Wikinews would have passed the edit count requirements (haven't checked user duration); as you yourself said, Greudin is a very active user on fr.wikipedia and has pledged support for the French Wikinews, yet he has only made a handful of edits there. Translating/creating policies seems to be a much better test of actual interest in doing work. Once you do that, that shows a commitment to the project. What better test could there be for people understanding a policy like NPOV than requiring them to translate it? I don't see it that way. Just because someone has been on Wikipedia for months doesn't mean that they respect policies at all. Quantity is not quality, and measuring quality is almost impossible while keeping the process scalable and fair. One could even argue that malicious trolls or otherwise harmful users who know how to manipulate policies in their interest are more likely to come from our existing user base. In fact, Wikinews will especially attract people who are fed up with Wikipedia and want to work on another wiki. This is more likely if key policies like NPOV are *not* translated. If we can agree on which parts of our policies are not negotiable, we can make sure that they are in place. One of these policies can even include instructions on what to do if your wiki doesn't follow the Wikimedia spirit (contact stewards etc.). Future projects don't necessarily match our current userbase. To tie the process for creating new language editions directly to that userbase seems needlessly restrictive. Building a small community on Meta and writing key pages before launching the project is also simply good planning -- exactly the kind of thing that could have helped to prevent the current fr.wikinews.org situation, much more so than algorithmic requirements whose actual predictive value is very low, as that experience has shown. Regards, Erik

I am kind of torn between several things here. I do agree with Erik, new people coming to a new project can be pretty good, it gives different insight, and wikinews is definitely not like wikipedia. Also I agree that some people, not active on Wikipédia, might be interested in Wikinews and strengthen the community. I also agree that translating the project rules or creating original ones is very important (I have started translating policies in fr, and it is quite a challenge). I also agree with Anthere though, a basic knowledge of how "life on a wiki" works is important, very important. We need people who are likely to become admins very quickly, if only to change system messages... And Ryo makes a good point, what if the policies drawn on meta are just rubbish and we can't check because we don't speak the language? To me the existing policy addresses only one of the issues, 3 users that know the wikimedia projects. I would actually *add* Erik's proposal to the launching of a new Wikinews, for I believe people on the fr wikinews have been quickly overcome by the enormous task of putting together policies. Basically, the French Wikinews was started with people who had a rough idea of what it is all about, but don't have the first clue of how to address it. Asking people to actually look at the other wikinews and try to understand the project is a very good way to measure interest. Of course, if one of the interested users has been participating in any other language wikinews, (s)he should count for both requirements (see Carlosar for exemple) So I would say 5 signatures, among which 2 people knowing how to work a wikimedia project, 2 people willing to work in advance in setting up rules. Those can be the same of course. This said, I think for the launching of the wikinews for which people have already signed up, I would not change the rules. My two cents (of a euro). Delphine

Nicolas Weeger- How do I know the "regular" is not actually a troll without speaking the language? How do I know that the only reason he wants to start a Wikinews isn't that he hates Wikipedia after having spent several months there? How do I know his intentions are good? You could require one of the people to be a sysop, but that seems like an onerous requirement. An algorithmic contribution check is *not* a quality check. Let's be realistic here. What kind of person would intentionally manipulate policies and get away with it under the auspices of other users: a random person who's never been involved in our projects, or someone who is intimately familiar with them? Furthermore, remember that there would still be a requirement of *multiple users* participating. How likely is it that a malicious person would get away with deliberately falsely translating something like NPOV when working with 4 others? And let's not forget about http://usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?AssumeGoodFaith - the very idea of a wiki is to be open and welcoming to newcomers, rather than requiring people to be members of an existing "clique". If the risk of malicious people ruining the project was so big, then Wikipedia itself could never have been started. Yes, Wikinews is different -- but a Wikinews edition which is likely to attract attention from the outside is also likely to attract attention from the inside, allowing us to deal with malicious users. Yes, Wikinews is different -- and that's why we should be welcoming to *people* who are different and not yet part of our community. Regards, Erik