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.
in my opinion it wouldnt just be for issuing accreditations but the whole support package to go with it - contacts, email adresses and off wiki web space for stuff such as calanders etc. if its just for issueing credentials then i agree it seems kinda pointless.
I'll go back to Brian's proposed names, which have the merit of asking
further questions
Wikinews Reporters' Association
Wikinews Reporters' Union
Does the organisation *have* to be only centered on Wikinews? Can't it
be called "wiki journalists of the world"?
how many wiki news sites are you aware of?? i'm afraid i only know of the one :-)
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)?
Can it be a Union? Should it be?
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)
the accreditation process atm is mostly for english speakers although passes have been issued to others. the main reason its only eng atm is because its the only process to have acheived approval from the foundation.
opening it up to non wiki users would also go against the requirements for accreditation, mainly - must be a trusted user with X many contribs, so i dont agree with this atm.
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.
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?
I think Brian's writing to the IFJ is a very good first step.
So, to sum up:
- Let us think about how a wikimedia-based interest group can be heard
and exist independantly from the Wikimedia Foundation
- Let us think what this interest group *really* brings to the table
-Let us THEN think what is the best "organisational" scheme for it.
And most important, let us not try and solve problems with
disporportioned(ate?) solutions.
Delphine
PS.(although this is a personal opinion, it may be worth mentionning
that I am also chapters coordinator for the Wikimedia Foundation)
--
~notafish
La critique, art aisé, se doit d'être constructive. -- Boris Vian in
*Chroniques du menteur*
NB. This address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to
this address will probably get lost.
_______________________________________________
Wikinews-l mailing list
Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l