Jimmy-
First, it needs to be harder to start, and it needs to be demonstrated that the existing wikipedia community supports it.
I'm currently moving towards supporting a combined requirement approach:
1) 2-3 Wikimedia (not Wikipedia) regulars in that language supporting it 2) certain key documents being created / translated on Meta (mission statement, Wikinews-NPOV, FAQ, Main Page etc.)
I'm not sure what you mean with "demonstrated that the existing Wikipedia community supports it". Would you like local polls for each language? I'd personally not want to use that approach, because I'm worried about it leading to a loss of coherence within the Wikimedia community over time, just because of some localized statistical fluctuations in such polls.
Regardless of what approach we use, it will always be difficult to predict the success of a new language edition before it is set up. It really depends on the passion and dedication of the handful of people who start working on it. A single highly motivated volunteer can run a very successful Wikinews edition all by himself. I want to see this happening as well, and not put the burden so high that good people will be deterred. That's why I think a policy based on people doing work on Meta first, rather than on some poll or vote, might lead to better results.
Second, it needs to be made clear that if a site falls inactive, it will be closed.
We need to distinguish between temporary inactivity and long-term inactivity though. Temporary inactivity will happen on any wiki, it's just much more visible on Wikinews with its chronological Main Page. Which length of inactivity would you suggest before the wiki be shut down? Would it be just read-only? How exactly is inactivity defined? No new stories, or just no changes?
Separate issue: the logo *really* needs to say BETA on it, ASAP.
As we discussed on IRC, I'd prefer not to deface the logo to do this, but to put it in the place where Wikipedia says "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". All Wikinewses can edit this at MediaWiki:Tagline. On the English one, I'm now changing it to:
"Wikinews - the free news source (BETA)"
It needs to be in beta for probably 2 years.
I think with regard to the Beta, treating all the Wikinews editions the same is not desirable. I'd like to have a set of criteria which a Wikinews edition must meet to be considered non-Beta, such as:
* large (e.g. 25) average output of stories per day on a wide variety of topics * RSS feeds * regular original reporting and associated policies * solid fact-checking, review and archival process
The problem with just saying "We'll be Beta for two years" is that it's a very top-down approach. A lot of people have complained to me about Wikinews being in Beta and them not knowing what to do about it and who decides that and why. As with the policy for creating new editions, I'd like to follow an approach which gives people goals to work towards, rather than letting them wait for something which they cannot influence.
This would also necessarily mean that, for example, the English Wikinews might move out of Beta before the Bulgarian one, which I think is the right thing to do.
What do you think?
Peace,
Erik