On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 12:52:13 -0400, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> 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.

It would be great if we could get a lawyer to review this, if there is no legal reason why the WMF could not issue press passes then there is no reason to form a separate foundation.

My statement about the potential legal issues comes mostly from IRC, a skim of 47 USC § 230 and the replies of Eloquence and Kat Walsh to the Q/A part of the last election. I am not a lawyer so it is entirely possible that I have misinterpreted the issue.

The two quotes of relevance from the election are:

“The Wikimedia Foundation considers itself to be a provider of an interactive computer service, rather than a publisher. This is what provides us the liability protection of 47 USC § 230 ("Section 230"). Preserving this legal status is not just something we consider important or useful. It may be the single most important factor for the future survival of the Wikimedia Foundation. At the same time, accreditation processes are often designed to expect exactly the opposite: that the reporter works for an organization or company that edits and approves the content before it is published (which is the tipping point where Section 230 no longer applies). This creates a tension. “--Eloquence

 
“There's a lot of commitment and thorny questions involved in sending someone out into an event bearing our name and saying "this person is accredited by Wikimedia" and not simply by the project community, both in terms of our reputation and in terms of whether this makes Wikimedia responsible for what they write.” - Kat Walsh

 
> 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.

A separate organization is not ideal, but if the WMF can not do it we must come up with something. Nearly all of the event organizers will never contact anybody to verify to the credentials. Of the very few who will bother only an infinitesimally small number will bother to lookup Wikinews online, then find the about page, then go to the WMF site and then call WMF. I would suggest calls to the WMF about our press cards be referred to a Wikinews foundation or we come up with a better way to phrase the response. For the most part though if they are calling the WMF they are not going to let us in anyways after they find we are not MSM.

Most if they bother to verify it at all will use the phone number on the press card, which will be a Wikinews foundation one.  

Most times when we need to use our press card the most checking they will do is request a letter from the press card issuer. With a few exceptions like White House press conferences, we really do not need to impress them much just look official (our press badges look better and realer then many local traditional media already) enough and have someone willing to back us up.

-Craig Spurrier

[[n:Craig Spurrier]]