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
> 1) full spin off
> 2) 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]]