Perhaps "Wikinews Community Union", or perhaps on a wider scale, we could have a "Wikimedia Volunteer Union". Both of these emphasize that the community is involved with the accredidation, while showing that there is a level of authority that oversees the accredidations, and can write letters (in a sense of authority) for the reporters if nessesary (like previously mentioned with Sean at G8).
Of course, we could always go with "Wikinewsie Editors' Service Association", which implies that we only help Wikinewsies, and that we don't really control the Wikinews domain (or have corporate authority over Wikinews). Plus we've already got the domain ;-)
-- Thunderhead
As it has been stated, referring to it as a 'union' is problematic as, at least in the US, there is a stigma on unions. Our goal here is to sound like an actual news service, and the best way to do that is to have a name like Wikinews Service or Wikinews Wire.
On 8/22/07, Thunderhead wm-thunderhead@charter.net wrote:
Perhaps "Wikinews Community Union", or perhaps on a wider scale, we could have a "Wikimedia Volunteer Union". Both of these emphasize that the community is involved with the accredidation, while showing that there is a level of authority that oversees the accredidations, and can write letters (in a sense of authority) for the reporters if nessesary (like previously mentioned with Sean at G8).
Of course, we could always go with "Wikinewsie Editors' Service Association", which implies that we only help Wikinewsies, and that we don't really control the Wikinews domain (or have corporate authority over Wikinews). Plus we've already got the domain ;-)
-- Thunderhead
Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
Calling it a union have a few problems. A union (at least in US usage) refers to a collection of employees who unite for collective bargaining and to provide its members with benefits such as unemployment insurance. The other problem with this is that it is not really what we are trying to accomplish. We need something that provide us with an organization who users can claim membership with, who will confirm the claim as well as provide support services for the users. Unions are also for the most part thought of poorly in the US. -Craig Spurrier [[n:Craig Spurrier]] Thunderhead wrote:
Perhaps "Wikinews Community Union", or perhaps on a wider scale, we could have a "Wikimedia Volunteer Union". Both of these emphasize that the community is involved with the accredidation, while showing that there is a level of authority that oversees the accredidations, and can write letters (in a sense of authority) for the reporters if nessesary (like previously mentioned with Sean at G8).
Of course, we could always go with "Wikinewsie Editors' Service Association", which implies that we only help Wikinewsies, and that we don't really control the Wikinews domain (or have corporate authority over Wikinews). Plus we've already got the domain ;-)
-- Thunderhead
Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
I would like to point out that in the UK the situation is not one where the NUJ is stigmatised for the word "union". Within the UK if you wish to operate as an independent journalist submitting freelance work membership is effectively a requirement. It is your "press pass".
That is the basis upon which I have based the introduction of the word union, as well as the fact that I believe the organisation is more important in representing its members' interests. Credential verification becomes "yes, so-and-so is a member in good standing", and it means more than they've just paid their dues.
Whilst disputing the name may well be counting angels on a pinhead, we do need to look at who we will be associated with. WMF is a given, but should we be linking up with the IFJ? Should - as an example - UK members look for dual membership with the NUJ? Will other press groups even take us seriously?
Brian.
-----Original Message----- From: wikinews-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikinews-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Craig Spurrier Sent: 23 August 2007 00:05 To: Wikinews mailing list Subject: Re: [Wikinews-l] [Foundation-l] Proposal for the creation of a Wikinews foundation
Calling it a union have a few problems. A union (at least in US usage) refers to a collection of employees who unite for collective bargaining and to provide its members with benefits such as unemployment insurance. The other problem with this is that it is not really what we are trying to accomplish. We need something that provide us with an organization who users can claim membership with, who will confirm the claim as well as provide support services for the users. Unions are also for the most part thought of poorly in the US. -Craig Spurrier [[n:Craig Spurrier]] Thunderhead wrote:
Perhaps "Wikinews Community Union", or perhaps on a wider scale, we could
have a "Wikimedia Volunteer Union". Both of these emphasize that the community is involved with the accredidation, while showing that there is a level of authority that oversees the accredidations, and can write letters (in a sense of authority) for the reporters if nessesary (like previously mentioned with Sean at G8).
Of course, we could always go with "Wikinewsie Editors' Service
Association", which implies that we only help Wikinewsies, and that we don't really control the Wikinews domain (or have corporate authority over Wikinews). Plus we've already got the domain ;-)
-- Thunderhead
Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
_______________________________________________ Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org