Craig Spurrier wrote:
As long as WMF does not issue press passes there is no way that the WMF could be considered the to be the editor or the publisher due to the issuing of press passes. As long as the WMF is not the editor or the publisher, and are merely providing a place for others to post they are for the most part legally protected from responsibility for the content. Issuing press passes could potentially change their status and a court could rule they are responsible for the content. It is unlikely, but is still a very serious risk. A separate organization completely eliminates this risk for the foundation and still allows us to have press passes. -Craig Spurrier *This is slightly oversimplified, but I believe pretty much accurate.
Sounds like a good question for the lawyers. What you say may have some merit.
On the other hand, press passes issued by some completely separate organization sound fishy to me. If someone called the Wikimedia Foundation, we would have to tell them "Oh, yes, that is our website. Oh, no, actually we did not issue that press pass. That's this other organization that has nothing to do with us, just a club of users on the site."
Doesn't sound so impressive.
I think if we have realistic requirements for who gets a press pass, our "libel" risk should be no different from that of a traditional newspaper. I mean, our house style is the opposite of the muckraking nonsense popular on OhMyNews, etc., so we are already pretty careful.
--Jimbo