How about the following:
1. We create an en-embargo.wikinews.org or something similar 2. The wiki is only accessible by users with WMF accounts
In an environment where every reader is also potentially a writer and is also potentially an editor, we can easily say that someone who explicitly requested access to the embargo wiki (i.e. logged in) will be able to participate in editing the story.
This accomplishes the following goals:
- Removes the editing process from the main wiki before the embargo lifts, ensuring that there aren't casual readers observing the article being created - Allows access to anyone who expresses an interest in it, and has bothered creating an account on WMF (i.e. has decided to be pseudonymous at the very least).
Obviously, this is not a true embargo where the news organization knows exactly who has access to the info, but it's closer than not having any process.
Alternative proposals:
1. Allow access to accredited journalists only 2. Allow access to accredited journalists, and all admins 3. Allow access to people who apply and justify need for access (i.e. separate process to apply, much like accreditation) 4. Allow access to people who verify their real names and agree to a certain set of rules (i.e. a very strict accreditation-like process)
I would still prefer giving access to all, but certainly we can explore these other options as well.
Thoughts?
-ilya
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Jason Safoutin jason.safoutin@wikinewsie.org wrote:
That's the thing, FOX News DIDN'T give us credit. And when you go look back on the recent coverage such as the LDS copyright notice, you will see that agencies picked that up themselves. How else would they have gotten the stories if we are not sending out press releases? They watch us. Though it may not look like it in contributions, the people that read us are in the hundreds of thousands maybe more...I don't know. But of those people about 2% or less actually contribute to the site. If you can imagine the Chris Benoit story we broke, or London Bombings, or LDS and Scientology and such...I would want people to take our stories...if they provide credit. But in my experience, they don't.
Jason
Wikinewsie: Anonymous101 wrote:
I want someone to steal our reports (as long as they give Wikinews credit), that is how we promote Wikinews. And do you really think Fox News have people monitoring RC? If you have to stop people reading your article before its published, prepare on a word processor. the WMF shouldn't support restrictions like this. In addition, if we had this wiki, I don; thtink stories like http://www.neoseeker.com/news/8044-wikimedia-foundation-board-censoring-wiki... would be revealed.
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 9:37 PM, Jason Safoutin <jason.safoutin@wikinewsie.org mailto:jason.safoutin@wikinewsie.org> wrote:
Wikinewsie: Anonymous101 wrote: > Sure embargo's can be useful, but I think creating a private wiki will > result in many problems including: > > 1. A two tier system where some editors can access the private wiki > 2. No transparency > > If you have to agree not to publish a quote, leave the space blank and > create the article in Wikinews:Story Preparation. That way Wikinews > will have the transparency that Wikimedia was founded on > > From the Wikimedia values : > > "All the legal freedom to modify or distribute educational content is > useless if users cannot get access to it." > > And people cannot access it if it is in this private wiki. > > Thanks, > > Anon101 > > Well let me clarify something...if this were to happen, which in my opinion would be great...I think in RE to your concerns: 1) Would be accessed by accredited reporters only. The Wiki would and should be used only for stories that are OR and that HAVE to be embargoed. 2) Transpanrency can be fixed. There can be admins there and crats and such like on WN. Its not a replacement Wiki just something to do our OR work, without someone stealing it or what not. Preparation does't work because people can still see the articles in recent changes. If something can be done to remove those articles from popping in RC then that would be good, though I doubt its possible. Wikinews is a news agency...and we have to be the only news agency that reveals our material before its even ready to be published. I for one would love somewhere to post my OR work and get it formatted and such without worrying if someone from FOX News (no pun intended because they really did steal stuff from us in the past...we have proof!! :-}) steals our material. Jason Safoutin (DragonFire1024) _______________________________________________ Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l--
Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l