Hello, I am proposing the creation of a separate organization that would allow Wikinews to properly handle press accreditation. The Wikimedia foundation has been unable to do this due to concerns over being seen as the editor and the legal consequences that go with that. Proper press accreditation is however very necessary for Wikinews.
A separate organization with a trademark license would be able to properly handle press accreditation and have very minimal assets at risk. This organization would not handle anything beyond accreditation and tools to provide support for accreditation. I am in no way proposing splitting Wikinews from the foundation or anything like that. We are overall very happy with the foundation, but we have a need that the foundation is unable to provide for.
The problem: The English language Wikinews has an accreditation policy [1]. This allows us to receive press credentials at events and also assists us in getting recognition as media for interviews and the like. The press pass usually allows free access to an event or, priority access to normally off-limits areas.
At the present we have a rather awkward arrangement for accrediting users. Users who have gone through our accreditation process are considered community accredited. The lack of any sort of organization behind creates a problem when the events require a letter from the organization before issuing the press pass (the G8 being the most recent), and we have been unable to get the board/foundation to do this or officially approve the accreditation program. The problem with this is in order to obtain press badges and other press benefits a user must either confuse the person (risking the request being denied) with an explanation of how they are not really representing Wikinews but rather the Wikinews Community or they must mislead the person into thinking they really do represent Wikinews.
There are several other resources the foundation has been unable to provide that are very helpful to us such as official e-mail addresses. Brian McNeil has the wikinewsie.org domain and has offered e-mail addresses with it. The response rate with these addresses has greatly increased. Once again there are legitimate concerns that prevent the foundation from being able to do this, but a separate foundation would be able to.
-Craig Spurrier [[n:Craig Spurrier]]
1. http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Accreditation_policy
Craig Spurrier wrote:
Hello, I am proposing the creation of a separate organization that would allow Wikinews to properly handle press accreditation. The Wikimedia foundation has been unable to do this due to concerns over being seen as the editor and the legal consequences that go with that. Proper press accreditation is however very necessary for Wikinews.
A separate organization with a trademark license would be able to properly handle press accreditation and have very minimal assets at risk. This organization would not handle anything beyond accreditation and tools to provide support for accreditation. I am in no way proposing splitting Wikinews from the foundation or anything like that. We are overall very happy with the foundation, but we have a need that the foundation is unable to provide for.
The problem: The English language Wikinews has an accreditation policy [1]. This allows us to receive press credentials at events and also assists us in getting recognition as media for interviews and the like. The press pass usually allows free access to an event or, priority access to normally off-limits areas.
At the present we have a rather awkward arrangement for accrediting users. Users who have gone through our accreditation process are considered community accredited. The lack of any sort of organization behind creates a problem when the events require a letter from the organization before issuing the press pass (the G8 being the most recent), and we have been unable to get the board/foundation to do this or officially approve the accreditation program. The problem with this is in order to obtain press badges and other press benefits a user must either confuse the person (risking the request being denied) with an explanation of how they are not really representing Wikinews but rather the Wikinews Community or they must mislead the person into thinking they really do represent Wikinews.
There are several other resources the foundation has been unable to provide that are very helpful to us such as official e-mail addresses. Brian McNeil has the wikinewsie.org domain and has offered e-mail addresses with it. The response rate with these addresses has greatly increased. Once again there are legitimate concerns that prevent the foundation from being able to do this, but a separate foundation would be able to.
-Craig Spurrier [[n:Craig Spurrier]]
Let me thank you for the words of appreciation of the Foundation :-)
I fully understand your need of an organization to help "make contacts", maybe because I saw several french wikipedians negociate pretty well to get press access to political meetings during our elections in France. It was done through the french chapter, and I am pretty sure it largely helped them to refer to the association and to be able to show a nice business card referring to the association, with an appropriate email address.
Regarding your suggestion, I tend to share the same level of thinking than Schiste. Wondering how it would work on an international scale. Wondering how chapters could help here. Wondering who would govern that Foundation. How would needs of non english wikinews be taken into account. Etc...
I wait for more feedback to make a more formed opinion.
Ant
Craig Spurrier wrote:
Hello, I am proposing the creation of a separate organization that would allow Wikinews to properly handle press accreditation. The Wikimedia foundation has been unable to do this due to concerns over being seen as the editor and the legal consequences that go with that. Proper press accreditation is however very necessary for Wikinews.
A separate organization with a trademark license would be able to properly handle press accreditation and have very minimal assets at risk. This organization would not handle anything beyond accreditation and tools to provide support for accreditation. I am in no way proposing splitting Wikinews from the foundation or anything like that. We are overall very happy with the foundation, but we have a need that the foundation is unable to provide for.
The problem: The English language Wikinews has an accreditation policy [1]. This allows us to receive press credentials at events and also assists us in getting recognition as media for interviews and the like. The press pass usually allows free access to an event or, priority access to normally off-limits areas.
At the present we have a rather awkward arrangement for accrediting users. Users who have gone through our accreditation process are considered community accredited. The lack of any sort of organization behind creates a problem when the events require a letter from the organization before issuing the press pass (the G8 being the most recent), and we have been unable to get the board/foundation to do this or officially approve the accreditation program. The problem with this is in order to obtain press badges and other press benefits a user must either confuse the person (risking the request being denied) with an explanation of how they are not really representing Wikinews but rather the Wikinews Community or they must mislead the person into thinking they really do represent Wikinews.
There are several other resources the foundation has been unable to provide that are very helpful to us such as official e-mail addresses. Brian McNeil has the wikinewsie.org domain and has offered e-mail addresses with it. The response rate with these addresses has greatly increased. Once again there are legitimate concerns that prevent the foundation from being able to do this, but a separate foundation would be able to.
-Craig Spurrier [[n:Craig Spurrier]]
Let me thank you for the words of appreciation of the Foundation :-)
I fully understand your need of an organization to help "make contacts", maybe because I saw several french wikipedians negociate pretty well to get press access to political meetings during our elections in France. It was done through the french chapter, and I am pretty sure it largely helped them to refer to the association and to be able to show a nice business card referring to the association, with an appropriate email address.
Regarding your suggestion, I tend to share the same level of thinking than Schiste. Wondering how it would work on an international scale. Wondering how chapters could help here. Wondering who would govern that Foundation. How would needs of non english wikinews be taken into account. Etc...
I wait for more feedback to make a more formed opinion.
Ant
Florence Devouard wrote:
Let me thank you for the words of appreciation of the Foundation :-)
I fully understand your need of an organization to help "make contacts", maybe because I saw several french wikipedians negociate pretty well to get press access to political meetings during our elections in France. It was done through the french chapter, and I am pretty sure it largely helped them to refer to the association and to be able to show a nice business card referring to the association, with an appropriate email address.
Being able to officially use the logo on business cards and being able to claim some level of officialness would greatly help us. The @wikinewsie.org e-mail address has already greatly improved responses. Even silly things like wearing a Wikinews polo shirt have improved response. These are all however effective solely because they convey a false sense of officialness, except in the places lucky enough to have chapters where even then they must make a very clear separation between the press activities and the association.
Regarding your suggestion, I tend to share the same level of thinking than Schiste. Wondering how it would work on an international scale. Wondering how chapters could help here. Wondering who would govern that Foundation. How would needs of non english wikinews be taken into account. Etc...
There is no reason why this foundation could not support non-english Wikinews. We actually already have several people with accreditation from non-english Wikinews editions. This puts the English language Wikinews in an awkward spot of denying many request for credentials because the people are to represent the English language Wikinews. At the moment if you do not speak and write English you can not get accreditation. This is a problem a foundation could resolve. There is no reason this foundation like the Wikimedia could not be multilingual.
Governance of a foundation would probably be in the style of an elected board elected either from/by the members of the Wikinews communities or by the community selected accredited reporters. For practical reasons it would probably be set up as a South Carolina based nonprofit(though if we can get someone else to establish it in a better location all the better :) ). South Carolina has a low fee for nonprofits, the legal benefits of being in the United States and is very convenient for me being where I currently live :) . The foundation location is only of concern for setup and basic legal requirements. All of the day to day actions of this foundation would be handled online or for stuff like verifying accreditation via mail and phone.
-Craig Spurrier [[n:Craig Spurrier]]
On 8/21/07, Craig Spurrier craig@craigweb.net wrote:
I am proposing the creation of a separate organization that would allow Wikinews to properly handle press accreditation. The Wikimedia foundation has been unable to do this due to concerns over being seen as the editor and the legal consequences that go with that. Proper press accreditation is however very necessary for Wikinews.
A separate organization with a trademark license would be able to properly handle press accreditation and have very minimal assets at risk. This organization would not handle anything beyond accreditation and tools to provide support for accreditation. I am in no way proposing splitting Wikinews from the foundation or anything like that. We are overall very happy with the foundation, but we have a need that the foundation is unable to provide for.
[snip]
There are several other resources the foundation has been unable to provide that are very helpful to us such as official e-mail addresses. Brian McNeil has the wikinewsie.org domain and has offered e-mail addresses with it. The response rate with these addresses has greatly increased. Once again there are legitimate concerns that prevent the foundation from being able to do this, but a separate foundation would be able to.
Well, here is an interesting subject if any. I am answering your email Craig, because it seems to be the most thorough in describing the issue at hand. But I will try and take into account the different reactions to it.
I remember an informal talk a few months ago with Andrew Lih, Arne Klempert and Michael Snow about "chapters" and what this "name" really meant. We started with "local chapters" and actually, they are still called that on the Foundation website, but we came to the conclusion that at some point we might be running into interest groups wanting to be formally recognized in some way or others by the Foundation as "chapters".
We thought then of left-handed wikimedians, or maybe blind wikimedians, or why not, wikimedians who speak English as a second language, whatever. In short, we realized that the number of interest groups that could spring out of the community is enormous and that there would probably come a time when the Wikimedia Foundation, which probably cannot address all of those specific issues (for whatever reason, be it legal or else) would have to take them into account, one way or the other. Learning curve...
So now, about a Wikinews "organisation" (I'll call it organisation at this stage in order to avoid the confusion brought about by the word "foundation").
Well, we're exactly there. Here is an interest group, with specific interests, requirements and demands, potentially international, which says "we want to get together". Like Christophe and Florence, I am French so I understand their concerns. I even have been one of the strong advocates of "The Foundation - or the chapters - should *not* issue those accreditations".
But on the contrary to those who have expressed scepticism, I find the idea definitely worth exploring. Because I think that we won't be able to avoid this question of "interest groups" much longer, and I'd rather see the Foundation address it now than have those form outside of any kind of "partnership" or "recognition scheme" and lead to potential disagreements.
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.
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"? 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)
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)
I think we have a long way to go to firm up what we're actually doing here, and what the organization should have as a remit. However, what may - to my thinking - exclude non-wikinews journalists is NPOV. I believe that any organization that is set up should adopt that as a core tenet.
I am not aware of the detailed technical differences between a union and a non-profit, but to me it appears that a union's objective is to represent its members' interests, a non-profit is to represent its goals. So, whilst you could set up a non-profit with the goal of representing its members that is putting the non-profit goals on shifting sands.
So, to consider the idea of including citizen journalists outside the Wikinews community, I believe the association with WMF should require an adherence to NPOV. This *will* exclude a lot of excellent reporters who write good editorial and opinion pieces. Is there any way we can be inclusive of these people if they clearly label online work as opinion or editorial when it doesn't meet NPOV? A key issue for me would be getting bloggers to work within the WN NPOV framework to produce an article then doing their opinion/editorial introduction to the "neutral" story.
Going back to what we call this, I tried all the http://www.wju.org (Wikinews Journalists' Union) acronyms I could think of at short notice. Only free one was http://www.upj.org - Union of Pajama Journalists. :)
Brian.
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
On 22/08/07, Wikinews Markie newsmarkie@googlemail.com wrote:
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 :-)
Is the wiki aspect a significant part of Wikinews? I would not have thought so. There are many tools you could use to collaboratively write news.
Is the "citizen journalism" part an important part? -there are many colleagues there. Is the free/libre part an important part? IIRC this was a strong argument when Wikinews began, that many people offer limited free/gratis news, but no one free/libre news. Is the 'neutral' part an important part? I would guess so.
cheers, Brianna commons:user:pfctdayelise
On 8/22/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/08/07, Wikinews Markie newsmarkie@googlemail.com wrote:
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 :-)
Is the wiki aspect a significant part of Wikinews? I would not have thought so. There are many tools you could use to collaboratively write news.
Is the "citizen journalism" part an important part? -there are many
colleagues there. Is the free/libre part an important part? IIRC this was a strong argument when Wikinews began, that many people offer limited free/gratis news, but no one free/libre news. Is the 'neutral' part an important part? I would guess so.
cheers, Brianna commons:user:pfctdayelise
the wiki part IMO is not important on it's own its the things that go with wikinews. the NPOV which (generally) other citizen journalists or bloggers dont abide by.
also the process of accreditation relies on trust. trust that the person will not give wikinews a bad rep and the trust we can put in people is limited if their not invloved in the wikinews community. also giving passes to other (non -wiki) users would kinda be pointless if they dont contribute to wikinews and therfore wont know what is needed for the story and how to present and balance it at the end.
just my thoughts though.
mark
First of all, I had always thought it was a good idea that an association of accredited Wikinews editors would stay away from the Wikinews trademark, and officially be unrelated to Wikinews, as this avoids the process of being licensed to use the trademark and it allows for it to branch out in many more directions.
I probably was the first Wikinewsie to come up with the idea of a Wiki Journalism Foundation (at least I was the first to pitch it to Erik Moeller), which would exist for the sake of accrediting reporters and giving grants for reporters to, for example, travel to an area devastated by a hurricane so they can report on it. I am pretty sure grants are out of the question unless the organization receives a large grant. In any case, the Wiki Journalism Foundation -- at least per my brainstorms -- would be a member-based organization, with its members being the accredited reporters (and serial donors would be considered 'auxiliary members').
However, it appears that Wikinewsies have decided that it would be best to officially associate an accrediting body with Wikinews itself; I am fine with that. After all, if the Foundation was cool with the idea, there would be very minimal headache in establishing the organization.
Sadly I probably won't be able to become a member of such an organzation, and I'll probably lose accreditation once the accrediting body changes from the vaguely defined "Wikinews community" to a non-profit corporation established with a state's government. However I think this would greatly improve Wikinews's image as a news organization.
On 8/22/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/08/07, Wikinews Markie newsmarkie@googlemail.com wrote:
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 :-)
Is the wiki aspect a significant part of Wikinews? I would not have thought so. There are many tools you could use to collaboratively write news.
Is the "citizen journalism" part an important part? -there are many colleagues there. Is the free/libre part an important part? IIRC this was a strong argument when Wikinews began, that many people offer limited free/gratis news, but no one free/libre news. Is the 'neutral' part an important part? I would guess so.
cheers, Brianna commons:user:pfctdayelise
-- They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment: http://modernthings.org/
Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
On 8/22/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Is the wiki aspect a significant part of Wikinews? I would not have thought so. There are many tools you could use to collaboratively write news.
The wiki nature of Wikinews is core to its advantage for two reasons: first, it allows for a lot of collaboration -- on average every article is edited 18 times. Second, it allows for communally-authored articles instead of individually-attributed ones. To my knowledge we are one of the only citizen journalism / community news organizations that allow this degree of collaboration and do not have by-lines on articles.
Is the "citizen journalism" part an important part? -there are many colleagues there.
Citizen journalism and original content have been important parts for our mission within the Wikimedia family. As the only project on which original research is explicitly allowed and encouraged, Wikinews provides a way for Wikimedians to contribute content they cannot otherwise post anywhere on Wikipedia or other projects.
We have not, however, been able to establish a serious presence in any community with our citizen journalism efforts. The vast majority of our articles are synthetic in nature as opposed to original, and even a good deal of original content is "I was watching Event X on TV, here's a summary".
Citizen journalism works best when it is tied to locales: cities, neighborhoods, etc. It's what keeps it relevant. We have not succeeded at setting up a good structure to make this happen, even if we've had some success at more disparate bits and pieces of the puzzle with some truly outstanding articles.
Is the free/libre part an important part? IIRC this was a strong argument when Wikinews began, that many people offer limited free/gratis news, but no one free/libre news.
The open-content nature of Wikinews is the second most unique aspect of our project (the first is being a wiki and having no by-lines). I would say that the benefit comes in two parts:
a) For synthetic content (i.e. retelling of news from other news sources) we are the only serious newswire-style project that licenses its news content under an Attribution-only license. Other projects are either not newswire-style and instead publish editorials, or allow a lot of their content to be cc-by-nc or cc-by-nd licensed. An argument that Erik Moeller has made frequently in the past is that just the notion of having an archive of news that is completely open will be valuable to those seeking to look back at a point in time and not have to rely on paid, closed newspaper archives. While we have seen some republishing of our stories in the past due to our permissive license, but by and large the online community has not appreciated the wealth of historical articles. I believe that this day will come.
b) For original reporting the open nature of the license is valuable as it allows for a quicker spread of exclusively-obtaining content. Again, this has not been as widely appreciated as I would wish, but the value seems more clear since we're talking about content that is just not available anywhere else.
Is the 'neutral' part an important part? I would guess so.
The desire to maintain NPOV separates us from long-established efforts like Indymedia. It is both a blessing and a curse: there are a lot of individuals who love to write from a strong point of view, and already do so on other community news sites -- we are unable to satisfy these kinds of users and end up rejecting their work thus limiting our growth. On the other hand, we are nearly unique in being able to provide a single high-quality news feed from a unified editorial voice (i.e. news-feed compatible content rather than blog-style editorial content).
-ilya haykinson
Wikinews Markie wrote:
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.
Issuing accreditation is a major part of it, but providing the support services is a major thing that a Wikinews foundation could and should handle.
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.
It was never actually approved by the foundation, nor can they ever safely approve it, hence the need for a separate organization.
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.
The biggest problem is that we do not know for the most part if we can trust someone who is not a Wikinewsie. If we could come up with an appropriate system for determining this and the people were acting in the best interests of Wikinews we could perhaps issue them with credentials. -Craig Spurrier [[n:Craig Spurrier]]
Delphine Ménard wrote:
Well, here is an interesting subject if any. I am answering your email Craig, because it seems to be the most thorough in describing the issue at hand. But I will try and take into account the different reactions to it.
I remember an informal talk a few months ago with Andrew Lih, Arne Klempert and Michael Snow about "chapters" and what this "name" really meant. We started with "local chapters" and actually, they are still called that on the Foundation website, but we came to the conclusion that at some point we might be running into interest groups wanting to be formally recognized in some way or others by the Foundation as "chapters".
We thought then of left-handed wikimedians, or maybe blind wikimedians, or why not, wikimedians who speak English as a second language, whatever. In short, we realized that the number of interest groups that could spring out of the community is enormous and that there would probably come a time when the Wikimedia Foundation, which probably cannot address all of those specific issues (for whatever reason, be it legal or else) would have to take them into account, one way or the other. Learning curve...
So now, about a Wikinews "organisation" (I'll call it organisation at this stage in order to avoid the confusion brought about by the word "foundation").
Well, we're exactly there. Here is an interest group, with specific interests, requirements and demands, potentially international, which says "we want to get together". Like Christophe and Florence, I am French so I understand their concerns. I even have been one of the strong advocates of "The Foundation - or the chapters - should *not* issue those accreditations".
But on the contrary to those who have expressed scepticism, I find the idea definitely worth exploring. Because I think that we won't be able to avoid this question of "interest groups" much longer, and I'd rather see the Foundation address it now than have those form outside of any kind of "partnership" or "recognition scheme" and lead to potential disagreements.
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.
I would expect we would have a mission statement along the lines of "The goal of the Wikinews organisation is to provide support for Wikinews users in the pursuit of citizen journalism". Not a perfect mission statement :) , but I think that echos my intentions for the organisation. At the moment our number one need is proper handling of accreditation. There are however many other tasks that a Wikinews organisation could handle. Most of these are best handled by a chapter or the WM foundation so as to avoid duplication of labour., but I am sure that if we so desired we could find lots of work for a Wikinews organisation .
I'll go back to Brian's proposed names, which have the merit of asking further questions Wikinews Reporters' Association Wikinews Reporters' Union
I talked about this in my reply of a few minutes ago to Brian, But to quickly summarize the problem with either of these two names is that they will not help us much when we try to get into an event, as they are very clearly reporter membership groups. They also exclude photojournalists :).
Does the organisation *have* to be only centered on Wikinews? Can't it be called "wiki journalists of the world"? 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)?
I think keeping it mostly focused on Wikinews but supporting other project that share our values would be good. The problem is that we have the need for an official sounding organisation who can issue official looking accreditations. The WM foundation already provides us with a nice platform for community building and many of the other functions a reporters organisation could provide. There is no reason that if done very carefully we could not issue Wikinews press passes to non-Wikinewsies who fit our values and whose work will be reusable on Wikinews. The idea is to build the Wikinews organisation into a group whose press passes are respected and whose reporters are seen as "real reporters". Setting up a trade group cqan only do a very small part of this goal.
Can it be a Union? Should it be?
Maybe, though we do face problems trying to make it international. No :)
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)
Like the Wikimedia foundation I would expect the Wikinews organisation to be multilingual. At the moment only English speakers can get credentials from Wikinews. This is something that should be changed and something for a organisation willing to provide the logistacal support something that can be changed.
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.
I would hoe if we get this set up correctly that it would be able to scale to new problems, or the foundation or a chapter would be able to handle it. I see starting a new organisation as a last resort. The chapters and the WM foundation are unable to solve the problem so we have to do something else.
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?
None that I am aware of. Most CJ projects are so set on the idea of breaking down the traditional obstacles to what a journalist is, ignore the immediate needs of press credentials. Indymedia is one of the few exceptions to this and due issue press passes. However any involvement with them would probably compromise our neutrality. -Craig Spurrier [[n:Craig Spurrier]]
On 8/21/07, Craig Spurrier craig@craigweb.net wrote:
I am proposing the creation of a separate organization that would allow Wikinews to properly handle press accreditation. The Wikimedia
I strongly believe that the development of internal and external organizational structures that support our projects' interaction with other online and offline communities is critical to our long term abilities to sustain the projects. But as Erik, Delphine, and others point out there are some core questions that need to be answered:
- what does this organization do? is it just accreditation or is it more general support of Wikinews activities? - what is the nature of this organization's relationship with WMF? what is the governance structure of this organization? - where does the funding come from? who gets to set the budget? - how does this organization interact with local chapters and other WMF initiatives?
I believe that answering these questions for Wikinews will help create a solution for other projects' needs as well, both for very specific ideas like supporting accreditation as well as more general ideas like interest groups.
In the case of the problem Craig describes the issue of recognition needs to be addresses by a believably-named organization that has Wikinews in its name and is international in scope to reduce duplication of effort (and deal with the fact that we need recognition in many more geographical areas than those with established chapters).
I suggest the following as a set of answers to the questions from above that satisfies this goal:
1) Create a non-profit organization with an international scope whose goals are to provide material support for Wikinews community members for the purpose of content creation, issue press cards to any community member accredited by one of the projects, and represent the projects as a central point of contact in interactions with other news-making or news-reporting organizations.
2) name the organization something that sounds like a news credential granting organization: Wikinewswire, or Wikinews Press, or something along these lines. The problem with the "foundation" or "union" approach is that traditional foundations and unions are internally-focused and are not known to issue press cards in the "real world".
3) set the organization up as a standalone non-profit organization with its own governance structure, but create a strong set of requirements that the organization must adhere to if it wishes to retain a license to use a WMF-trademarked name. The requirements may be that the organization cannot pretend or be the publisher of core Wikinews material; must not encourage the creation of non-open content; must not represent itself as the WMF; must report on its activities to the WMF twice a year, etc.
4) have the organization be responsible for its own funding, but have the WMF provide the license for its trademarked names for free, and encourage the WMF to provide small funding opportunities to these kinds of interest groups.
5) by becoming a partner to the WMF with regards to a given project, this new organization also becomes a de-facto partner to the chapters. The organization may approach the chapters for help with bureaucracies in certain locales; the chapters on the other hand may use the organization to serve as the point of contact for all Wikinews-related inquiries.
By creating this sort of a structure the WMF retains some oversight over project-specific organizations, and reserves the right to help these kinds of organizations with funding etc, but at the same time allows them to live and die on their own. If the organization becomes a strong enabler of content creation, the WMF may even choose to internalize some of this organization's functions down the line.
-ilya haykinson
On 8/21/07, Craig Spurrier craig@craigweb.net wrote:
I am proposing the creation of a separate organization that would allow Wikinews to properly handle press accreditation. The Wikimedia
I strongly believe that the development of internal and external organizational structures that support our projects' interaction with other online and offline communities is critical to our long term abilities to sustain the projects. But as Erik, Delphine, and others point out there are some core questions that need to be answered:
- what does this organization do? is it just accreditation or is it more general support of Wikinews activities? - what is the nature of this organization's relationship with WMF? what is the governance structure of this organization? - where does the funding come from? who gets to set the budget? - how does this organization interact with local chapters and other WMF initiatives?
I believe that answering these questions for Wikinews will help create a solution for other projects' needs as well, both for very specific ideas like supporting accreditation as well as more general ideas like interest groups.
In the case of the problem Craig describes the issue of recognition needs to be addresses by a believably-named organization that has Wikinews in its name and is international in scope to reduce duplication of effort (and deal with the fact that we need recognition in many more geographical areas than those with established chapters).
I suggest the following as a set of answers to the questions from above that satisfies this goal:
1) Create a non-profit organization with an international scope whose goals are to provide material support for Wikinews community members for the purpose of content creation, issue press cards to any community member accredited by one of the projects, and represent the projects as a central point of contact in interactions with other news-making or news-reporting organizations.
2) name the organization something that sounds like a news credential granting organization: Wikinewswire, or Wikinews Press, or something along these lines. The problem with the "foundation" or "union" approach is that traditional foundations and unions are internally-focused and are not known to issue press cards in the "real world".
3) set the organization up as a standalone non-profit organization with its own governance structure, but create a strong set of requirements that the organization must adhere to if it wishes to retain a license to use a WMF-trademarked name. The requirements may be that the organization cannot pretend or be the publisher of core Wikinews material; must not encourage the creation of non-open content; must not represent itself as the WMF; must report on its activities to the WMF twice a year, etc.
4) have the organization be responsible for its own funding, but have the WMF provide the license for its trademarked names for free, and encourage the WMF to provide small funding opportunities to these kinds of interest groups.
5) by becoming a partner to the WMF with regards to a given project, this new organization also becomes a de-facto partner to the chapters. The organization may approach the chapters for help with bureaucracies in certain locales; the chapters on the other hand may use the organization to serve as the point of contact for all Wikinews-related inquiries.
By creating this sort of a structure the WMF retains some oversight over project-specific organizations, and reserves the right to help these kinds of organizations with funding etc, but at the same time allows them to live and die on their own. If the organization becomes a strong enabler of content creation, the WMF may even choose to internalize some of this organization's functions down the line.
-ilya haykinson
(crossposting to foundation-l)
Ilya Haykinson wrote:
organizational structures that support our projects' interaction with other online and offline communities is critical to our long term abilities to sustain the projects. But as Erik, Delphine, and others point out there are some core questions that need to be answered:
- what does this organization do? is it just accreditation or is it
more general support of Wikinews activities?
- what is the nature of this organization's relationship with WMF?
what is the governance structure of this organization?
- where does the funding come from? who gets to set the budget?
- how does this organization interact with local chapters and other
WMF initiatives?
I believe that answering these questions for Wikinews will help create a solution for other projects' needs as well, both for very specific ideas like supporting accreditation as well as more general ideas like interest groups.
In the case of the problem Craig describes the issue of recognition needs to be addresses by a believably-named organization that has Wikinews in its name and is international in scope to reduce duplication of effort (and deal with the fact that we need recognition in many more geographical areas than those with established chapters).
I suggest the following as a set of answers to the questions from above that satisfies this goal:
- Create a non-profit organization with an international scope whose
goals are to provide material support for Wikinews community members for the purpose of content creation, issue press cards to any community member accredited by one of the projects, and represent the projects as a central point of contact in interactions with other news-making or news-reporting organizations.
Sounds about right :)
- name the organization something that sounds like a news credential
granting organization: Wikinewswire, or Wikinews Press, or something along these lines. The problem with the "foundation" or "union" approach is that traditional foundations and unions are internally-focused and are not known to issue press cards in the "real world".
I rather like Wikinewswire. Foundation while not a traditional press card issuing name does at least call up the right sort of thoughts including at least some respect for the group. Name is important, but as long as it is one that conveys a sense of officialness and respect anything will work.
- set the organization up as a standalone non-profit organization
with its own governance structure, but create a strong set of requirements that the organization must adhere to if it wishes to retain a license to use a WMF-trademarked name. The requirements may be that the organization cannot pretend or be the publisher of core Wikinews material; must not encourage the creation of non-open content; must not represent itself as the WMF; must report on its activities to the WMF twice a year, etc.
I would fully expect a trademark license to include all of those conditions. The ability for the WMF to revoke the license with misuse is the best protection the foundation can have, since it allows the WMF to ensure we remain true to the mission without opneing them to legal responsibility for us.
- have the organization be responsible for its own funding, but have
the WMF provide the license for its trademarked names for free, and encourage the WMF to provide small funding opportunities to these kinds of interest groups.
We should be responsible for its own funding. Depending of course on what we seek to accomplish we could easily get by on a relatively low membership fee (waived for those who need it to be ?).
- by becoming a partner to the WMF with regards to a given project,
this new organization also becomes a de-facto partner to the chapters. The organization may approach the chapters for help with bureaucracies in certain locales; the chapters on the other hand may use the organization to serve as the point of contact for all Wikinews-related inquiries. By creating this sort of a structure the WMF retains some oversight
over project-specific organizations, and reserves the right to help these kinds of organizations with funding etc, but at the same time allows them to live and die on their own. If the organization becomes a strong enabler of content creation, the WMF may even choose to internalize some of this organization's functions down the line.
Working closely with the chapters and the foundation would be a requirement for this to be functionally, but formal connections should be minimal. Oversight is best kept to that which is controlled by the threat of trademark license revocation. To keep the WM foundation from becoming legally responsible for the Wikinews foundation, it must remain legally separate. -Craig Spurrier [[n:Craig Spurrier]]
On 8/22/07, Craig Spurrier craig@craigweb.net wrote:
Ilya Haykinson wrote:
organizational structures that support our projects' interaction with other online and offline communities is critical to our long term abilities to sustain the projects. But as Erik, Delphine, and others point out there are some core questions that need to be answered:
- what does this organization do? is it just accreditation or is it
more general support of Wikinews activities?
- what is the nature of this organization's relationship with WMF?
what is the governance structure of this organization?
- where does the funding come from? who gets to set the budget?
- how does this organization interact with local chapters and other
WMF initiatives?
I believe that answering these questions for Wikinews will help create a solution for other projects' needs as well, both for very specific ideas like supporting accreditation as well as more general ideas like interest groups.
In the case of the problem Craig describes the issue of recognition needs to be addresses by a believably-named organization that has Wikinews in its name and is international in scope to reduce duplication of effort (and deal with the fact that we need recognition in many more geographical areas than those with established chapters).
I suggest the following as a set of answers to the questions from above that satisfies this goal:
- Create a non-profit organization with an international scope whose
goals are to provide material support for Wikinews community members for the purpose of content creation, issue press cards to any community member accredited by one of the projects, and represent the projects as a central point of contact in interactions with other news-making or news-reporting organizations.
Sounds about right :)
- name the organization something that sounds like a news credential
granting organization: Wikinewswire, or Wikinews Press, or something along these lines. The problem with the "foundation" or "union" approach is that traditional foundations and unions are internally-focused and are not known to issue press cards in the "real world".
I rather like Wikinewswire. Foundation while not a traditional press card issuing name does at least call up the right sort of thoughts including at least some respect for the group. Name is important, but as long as it is one that conveys a sense of officialness and respect anything will work.
- set the organization up as a standalone non-profit organization
with its own governance structure, but create a strong set of requirements that the organization must adhere to if it wishes to retain a license to use a WMF-trademarked name. The requirements may be that the organization cannot pretend or be the publisher of core Wikinews material; must not encourage the creation of non-open content; must not represent itself as the WMF; must report on its activities to the WMF twice a year, etc.
I would fully expect a trademark license to include all of those conditions. The ability for the WMF to revoke the license with misuse is the best protection the foundation can have, since it allows the WMF to ensure we remain true to the mission without opneing them to legal responsibility for us.
- have the organization be responsible for its own funding, but have
the WMF provide the license for its trademarked names for free, and encourage the WMF to provide small funding opportunities to these kinds of interest groups.
We should be responsible for its own funding. Depending of course on what we seek to accomplish we could easily get by on a relatively low membership fee (waived for those who need it to be ?).
- by becoming a partner to the WMF with regards to a given project,
this new organization also becomes a de-facto partner to the chapters. The organization may approach the chapters for help with bureaucracies in certain locales; the chapters on the other hand may use the organization to serve as the point of contact for all Wikinews-related inquiries. By creating this sort of a structure the WMF retains some oversight
over project-specific organizations, and reserves the right to help these kinds of organizations with funding etc, but at the same time allows them to live and die on their own. If the organization becomes a strong enabler of content creation, the WMF may even choose to internalize some of this organization's functions down the line.
Working closely with the chapters and the foundation would be a requirement for this to be functionally, but formal connections should be minimal. Oversight is best kept to that which is controlled by the threat of trademark license revocation. To keep the WM foundation from becoming legally responsible for the Wikinews foundation, it must remain legally separate. -Craig Spurrier [[n:Craig Spurrier]]
Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
Personally, I'm fine with whatever we come up with. When I was down in DC, I made a business based on my accredited reporter template and picture of me. However, I felt kinda silly, if we had an official organization, it would have probably gone off better with folks then me running around with what could be consider "fake" credentials, especially in a highly secure place like DC. I think having a Wikinews Foundation/Chapter/Organization will greatly help in situations like this.
wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org