Delphine Ménard wrote:
Well, here is an interesting subject if any. I am answering your email Craig, because it seems to be the most thorough in describing the issue at hand. But I will try and take into account the different reactions to it.
I remember an informal talk a few months ago with Andrew Lih, Arne Klempert and Michael Snow about "chapters" and what this "name" really meant. We started with "local chapters" and actually, they are still called that on the Foundation website, but we came to the conclusion that at some point we might be running into interest groups wanting to be formally recognized in some way or others by the Foundation as "chapters".
We thought then of left-handed wikimedians, or maybe blind wikimedians, or why not, wikimedians who speak English as a second language, whatever. In short, we realized that the number of interest groups that could spring out of the community is enormous and that there would probably come a time when the Wikimedia Foundation, which probably cannot address all of those specific issues (for whatever reason, be it legal or else) would have to take them into account, one way or the other. Learning curve...
So now, about a Wikinews "organisation" (I'll call it organisation at this stage in order to avoid the confusion brought about by the word "foundation").
Well, we're exactly there. Here is an interest group, with specific interests, requirements and demands, potentially international, which says "we want to get together". Like Christophe and Florence, I am French so I understand their concerns. I even have been one of the strong advocates of "The Foundation - or the chapters - should *not* issue those accreditations".
But on the contrary to those who have expressed scepticism, I find the idea definitely worth exploring. Because I think that we won't be able to avoid this question of "interest groups" much longer, and I'd rather see the Foundation address it now than have those form outside of any kind of "partnership" or "recognition scheme" and lead to potential disagreements.
There is one thing that bothers me here though. It is that we're talking about starting an organisation to address one (1) problem. It may be a serious problem and an issue that actually impeeds the growth of Wikinews, but my experience has proven that an organisation should not be founded to solve *one* problem, but rather with a real goal. What would a "Wikinews organisation" really do?
I mean, is there a greater goal? Or will we have as a mission statement "The goal of the Wikinews organisation is to issue credential to wikinewsies"? That sounds a little meager to me to go ahead and go through the hassle of forming an organisation altogether.
I would expect we would have a mission statement along the lines of "The goal of the Wikinews organisation is to provide support for Wikinews users in the pursuit of citizen journalism". Not a perfect mission statement :) , but I think that echos my intentions for the organisation. At the moment our number one need is proper handling of accreditation. There are however many other tasks that a Wikinews organisation could handle. Most of these are best handled by a chapter or the WM foundation so as to avoid duplication of labour., but I am sure that if we so desired we could find lots of work for a Wikinews organisation .
I'll go back to Brian's proposed names, which have the merit of asking further questions Wikinews Reporters' Association Wikinews Reporters' Union
I talked about this in my reply of a few minutes ago to Brian, But to quickly summarize the problem with either of these two names is that they will not help us much when we try to get into an event, as they are very clearly reporter membership groups. They also exclude photojournalists :).
Does the organisation *have* to be only centered on Wikinews? Can't it be called "wiki journalists of the world"? Can't it then have an agreement with the Wikimedia Foundation which allows it to issue accreditations with the Wikinews logo on them to Wikinewsies who have gone through the community process? Can't we invite other people who do citizen journalism to join and work in this organisation to change the rules about "what" makes one a journalist (going back to the legal issues pointed out by Europeans)?
I think keeping it mostly focused on Wikinews but supporting other project that share our values would be good. The problem is that we have the need for an official sounding organisation who can issue official looking accreditations. The WM foundation already provides us with a nice platform for community building and many of the other functions a reporters organisation could provide. There is no reason that if done very carefully we could not issue Wikinews press passes to non-Wikinewsies who fit our values and whose work will be reusable on Wikinews. The idea is to build the Wikinews organisation into a group whose press passes are respected and whose reporters are seen as "real reporters". Setting up a trade group cqan only do a very small part of this goal.
Can it be a Union? Should it be?
Maybe, though we do face problems trying to make it international. No :)
Is it US-centric? English-speaking only? International? If it is, how do we make sure that all Wikinewsies, across the world and languages, are going to benefit from it? (Because frankly, if we have to do this every other month with a new country/language, we might as well start having local chapters all over again)
Like the Wikimedia foundation I would expect the Wikinews organisation to be multilingual. At the moment only English speakers can get credentials from Wikinews. This is something that should be changed and something for a organisation willing to provide the logistacal support something that can be changed.
An organisation that has asked itself all of these questions and came out with a "plan" as to what it can be, would definitely be an organisation that I would like the Wikimedia Foundation to support.
Not so much one that says "we've got one problem, we've solved it by now having an organisation, sign here to say you're ok".
What happens when the next problem arises? We all go and start a *new* organisation that addresses that new problem? We've failed from the beginning if we have to do this.
I would hoe if we get this set up correctly that it would be able to scale to new problems, or the foundation or a chapter would be able to handle it. I see starting a new organisation as a last resort. The chapters and the WM foundation are unable to solve the problem so we have to do something else.
Also, aren't there other existing organisations which already have solved the issue of accreditation and with which the Foundation could partner in order to get wikinewsies accreditations? Rather than start our organisation from scratch?
None that I am aware of. Most CJ projects are so set on the idea of breaking down the traditional obstacles to what a journalist is, ignore the immediate needs of press credentials. Indymedia is one of the few exceptions to this and due issue press passes. However any involvement with them would probably compromise our neutrality. -Craig Spurrier [[n:Craig Spurrier]]