On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Wikinewsie: Anonymous101 < wikinewsie.anonymous101@googlemail.com> wrote:

They are the same and that is why I strongly opposed that wiki. My comment four months ago:

"I am against a private OR Wiki for the following reasons

1. .Wikinews should be open to the public not closed to the public.
2. .Collaboration should be encouraged
3. . We are a news source, we should want other news sites to copy

news, even pre-publication. 4. . We want the news to be easily copied by others. -- User:Anonymous101 http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/User:Anonymous101 Talkhttp://en.wikinews.org/wiki/User_talk:Anonymous101 12:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)"

Thanks,

Anon101 On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 11:50 PM, bawolff <bawolff+wn@gmail.combawolff%2Bwn@gmail.com> wrote:

...

To me "...the need for a non-public space for Wikinews to develop stories..." == embargo wiki, which was proposed and voted on etc (with concencuss to create), and than not created. (see wc) -bawolff

On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Wikinewsie: Anonymous101 < wikinewsie.anonymous101@googlemail.com> wrote:

...

Quote from previous email on mailing list: "...the need for a non-public space for Wikinews to develop stories..."

Isn't this going completely against the idea of a wiki? Should we really stop people from seeing the development process for the majority of our users. To me this just seems like a way to allow us to censor articles without anyone noticing. I am concerned that Wikimedia is going to start censoring all our articles. This sort of thing, along with Wikinews:WMF Reports is what is going to stop us being unbiased.

Thanks,

Anon101

---

Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l

---

Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l

-- Jonathan Winterfield - Journalist - Wikinews editor - Wikinews Administrator

---

Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l

The problem is that often we can be under an embargo or "media blackout" until a certain date - especially with sensitive stories. This seriously hampers our ability to develop these stories on-wiki with as much collaboration as possible.

~ Paul W

An embargo is actually simply a way for an organization with something newsworthy to ensure that multiple news organizations are able to cover the news. There are a lot of news publications now, and lots of places that have something newsworthy. It's not possible for everyone to organize press conferences where all the reporters show up at once and write down the story as they hear it.

So, instead, the embargo is just a practical method to allow a slightly slower release of news, without too much unfairness to different press organizations.

For example, a company may be about to release a new product. They want to contact about 30 news organizations to let them know about the product, show the product to them, etc. So the company rep gets on a plane, and flies to meet the different journalists over a course of a week or two. They show them the product, talk about it, etc, under the condition that the journalist doesn't publish anything until a certain date -- the same date as everybody else.

The journalist is free to not follow the embargo. Indeed, sometimes the news is so important that the journalist decides to break the embargo. However, remember -- they only got to learn the news early because the company shared it with them. If they didn't agree to the embargo in the first place, they would have found out about the product _after_ everyone else who was under the embargo already published their articles. Indeed, if a journalist breaks embargo, they sometimes get "blacklisted" by the company whose product it was -- next time, they won't be on the list of journalists the company talks to beforehand. Sometimes this is worth the risk for the journalist, but for most routine situations it's really not.

The embargo system isn't perfect. In the case of political events of high importance, embargo is simply unfair: a press conference makes more sense, so everybody learns about it at once. However, in the normal course of events, it solves the problem of having to inform many journalists at once, and letting them have a day or more to do their research and get their balanced articles going, without the fear that they'll be scooped by someone else.

-ilya

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 9:02 AM, divol jacques.divol@laposte.net wrote:

Le 19 mai 08 à 17:40, Paul Williams a écrit :

...

embargo or "media blackout"

are very bad.

I do not know who create this mechanism and why journalists'ld follow this rule.

I know "embargo" exists as i fall upon one time or two (i am not a professional journalist) and very surprised each time.

Franckly, i don't understand how "freedom of press" and embargo could exist both.

For exemple, in France, when there's a vote, no one should know the results before the end of the ballote, but journalists (and politics, friends and famillies) know, why ?, because "embargo"? (not good english i am sorry)

For me, Wikinews 'ld find his/her way outside this strange way to do press and news : embargo or "media blackout"

we already have "Flags", it's enought

no border for knowledge, please. no social or profesional border for Knowledge, please

jacques divol (i hope i am not off topic) _______________________________________________ Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l

Sure embargo's can be useful, but I think creating a private wiki will result in many problems including: 1. A two tier system where some editors can access the private wiki 2. No transparency

If you have to agree not to publish a quote, leave the space blank and create the article in Wikinews:Story Preparation. That way Wikinews will have the transparency that Wikimedia was founded on

From the Wikimedia values :

"All the legal freedom to modify or distribute educational content is useless if users cannot get access to it."

And people cannot access it if it is in this private wiki.

Thanks,

Anon101

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 9:08 PM, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org wrote:

Ilya Haykinson wrote:

...

An embargo is actually simply a way for an organization with something newsworthy to ensure that multiple news organizations are able to cover the news. There are a lot of news publications now, and lots of places that have something newsworthy. It's not possible for everyone to organize press conferences where all the reporters show up at once and write down the story as they hear it.

So, instead, the embargo is just a practical method to allow a slightly slower release of news, without too much unfairness to different press organizations.

For example, a company may be about to release a new product. They want to contact about 30 news organizations to let them know about the product, show the product to them, etc. So the company rep gets on a plane, and flies to meet the different journalists over a course of a week or two. They show them the product, talk about it, etc, under the condition that the journalist doesn't publish anything until a certain date -- the same date as everybody else.

The journalist is free to not follow the embargo. Indeed, sometimes the news is so important that the journalist decides to break the embargo. However, remember -- they only got to learn the news early because the company shared it with them. If they didn't agree to the embargo in the first place, they would have found out about the product _after_ everyone else who was under the embargo already published their articles. Indeed, if a journalist breaks embargo, they sometimes get "blacklisted" by the company whose product it was -- next time, they won't be on the list of journalists the company talks to beforehand. Sometimes this is worth the risk for the journalist, but for most routine situations it's really not.

The embargo system isn't perfect. In the case of political events of high importance, embargo is simply unfair: a press conference makes more sense, so everybody learns about it at once. However, in the normal course of events, it solves the problem of having to inform many journalists at once, and letting them have a day or more to do their research and get their balanced articles going, without the fear that they'll be scooped by someone else.

-ilya

Yes, that's all correct. The purpose of an embargo is generally to allow journalists to absorb material that's been released to them, without having to rush to publish. The embargo process is oft-misused (used when it's not necessary, or not very helpful), but that's what its intent is supposed to be. It's good in situations in which what's being announced is particularly complex, such that journalists should/would need time to absorb it. For example, in Canada the federal government's budget is always embargoed: the embargo is enforced via a lock-up of the participating journalists.

But what Anon101 was originally posting about, I think, was Mike's notion that Wikinews should have a non-public discussion space in which to develop stories. Which I think could be a good idea, for reasons that I outlined in a note to Brian, which he published (with my permission) in the thread [Wikinews-l] FW: Wikinews reporting on WMF and projects.

That was part of a pretty long note about guiding principles for news organizations covering themselves, based on my experience at the CBC. I feel like I've said my piece -in that note- already - I would love to know what the people on this list think.

Thanks, Sue

...

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 9:02 AM, divol jacques.divol@laposte.net

wrote:

...

...

Le 19 mai 08 à 17:40, Paul Williams a écrit :

...

embargo or "media blackout"

are very bad.

I do not know who create this mechanism and why journalists'ld follow this rule.

I know "embargo" exists as i fall upon one time or two (i am not a professional journalist) and very surprised each time.

Franckly, i don't understand how "freedom of press" and embargo could exist both.

For exemple, in France, when there's a vote, no one should know the results before the end of the ballote, but journalists (and politics, friends and famillies) know, why ?, because "embargo"? (not good english i am sorry)

For me, Wikinews 'ld find his/her way outside this strange way to do press and news : embargo or "media blackout"

we already have "Flags", it's enought

no border for knowledge, please. no social or profesional border for Knowledge, please

jacques divol (i hope i am not off topic) _______________________________________________ Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l

---

Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l

--

Sue Gardner Executive Director Wikimedia Foundation

Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

---

Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l

I want someone to steal our reports (as long as they give Wikinews credit), that is how we promote Wikinews. And do you really think Fox News have people monitoring RC? If you have to stop people reading your article before its published, prepare on a word processor. the WMF shouldn't support restrictions like this. In addition, if we had this wiki, I don; thtink stories like http://www.neoseeker.com/news/8044-wikimedia-foundation-board-censoring-wiki... be revealed.

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 9:37 PM, Jason Safoutin < jason.safoutin@wikinewsie.org> wrote:

Wikinewsie: Anonymous101 wrote:

...

Sure embargo's can be useful, but I think creating a private wiki will result in many problems including:

1. A two tier system where some editors can access the private wiki
2. No transparency

If you have to agree not to publish a quote, leave the space blank and create the article in Wikinews:Story Preparation. That way Wikinews will have the transparency that Wikimedia was founded on

From the Wikimedia values :

"All the legal freedom to modify or distribute educational content is useless if users cannot get access to it."

And people cannot access it if it is in this private wiki.

Thanks,

Anon101

Well let me clarify something...if this were to happen, which in my opinion would be great...I think in RE to your concerns: 1) Would be accessed by accredited reporters only. The Wiki would and should be used only for stories that are OR and that HAVE to be embargoed. 2) Transpanrency can be fixed. There can be admins there and crats and such like on WN. Its not a replacement Wiki just something to do our OR work, without someone stealing it or what not.

Preparation does't work because people can still see the articles in recent changes. If something can be done to remove those articles from popping in RC then that would be good, though I doubt its possible. Wikinews is a news agency...and we have to be the only news agency that reveals our material before its even ready to be published. I for one would love somewhere to post my OR work and get it formatted and such without worrying if someone from FOX News (no pun intended because they really did steal stuff from us in the past...we have proof!! :-}) steals our material.

Jason Safoutin (DragonFire1024)

---

Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l

--

How about the following:

1. We create an en-embargo.wikinews.org or something similar 2. The wiki is only accessible by users with WMF accounts

In an environment where every reader is also potentially a writer and is also potentially an editor, we can easily say that someone who explicitly requested access to the embargo wiki (i.e. logged in) will be able to participate in editing the story.

This accomplishes the following goals:

- Removes the editing process from the main wiki before the embargo lifts, ensuring that there aren't casual readers observing the article being created - Allows access to anyone who expresses an interest in it, and has bothered creating an account on WMF (i.e. has decided to be pseudonymous at the very least).

Obviously, this is not a true embargo where the news organization knows exactly who has access to the info, but it's closer than not having any process.

Alternative proposals:

1. Allow access to accredited journalists only 2. Allow access to accredited journalists, and all admins 3. Allow access to people who apply and justify need for access (i.e. separate process to apply, much like accreditation) 4. Allow access to people who verify their real names and agree to a certain set of rules (i.e. a very strict accreditation-like process)

I would still prefer giving access to all, but certainly we can explore these other options as well.

Thoughts?

-ilya

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Jason Safoutin jason.safoutin@wikinewsie.org wrote:

That's the thing, FOX News DIDN'T give us credit. And when you go look back on the recent coverage such as the LDS copyright notice, you will see that agencies picked that up themselves. How else would they have gotten the stories if we are not sending out press releases? They watch us. Though it may not look like it in contributions, the people that read us are in the hundreds of thousands maybe more...I don't know. But of those people about 2% or less actually contribute to the site. If you can imagine the Chris Benoit story we broke, or London Bombings, or LDS and Scientology and such...I would want people to take our stories...if they provide credit. But in my experience, they don't.

Jason

Wikinewsie: Anonymous101 wrote:

...

I want someone to steal our reports (as long as they give Wikinews credit), that is how we promote Wikinews. And do you really think Fox News have people monitoring RC? If you have to stop people reading your article before its published, prepare on a word processor. the WMF shouldn't support restrictions like this. In addition, if we had this wiki, I don; thtink stories like http://www.neoseeker.com/news/8044-wikimedia-foundation-board-censoring-wiki... would be revealed.

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 9:37 PM, Jason Safoutin <jason.safoutin@wikinewsie.org mailto:jason.safoutin@wikinewsie.org> wrote:

Wikinewsie: Anonymous101 wrote:
> Sure embargo's can be useful, but I think creating a private
wiki will
> result in many problems including:
>
> 1. A two tier system where some editors can access the private wiki
> 2. No transparency
>
> If you have to agree not to publish a quote, leave the space
blank and
> create the article in Wikinews:Story Preparation. That way Wikinews
> will have the transparency that Wikimedia was founded on
>
> From the Wikimedia values :
>
> "All the legal freedom to modify or distribute educational
content is
> useless if users cannot get access to it."
>
> And people cannot access it if it is in this private wiki.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Anon101
>
>
Well let me clarify something...if this were to happen, which in my
opinion would be great...I think in RE to your concerns: 1) Would be
accessed by accredited reporters only. The Wiki would and should
be used
only for stories that are OR and that HAVE to be embargoed. 2)
Transpanrency can be fixed. There can be admins there and crats
and such
like on WN. Its not a replacement Wiki just something to do our OR
work,
without someone stealing it or what not.

Preparation does't work because people can still see the articles in
recent changes. If something can be done to remove those articles from
popping in RC then that would be good, though I doubt its possible.
Wikinews is a news agency...and we have to be the only news agency
that
reveals our material before its even ready to be published. I for one
would love somewhere to post my OR work and get it formatted and such
without worrying if someone from FOX News (no pun intended because
they
really did steal stuff from us in the past...we have proof!! :-})
steals
our material.

Jason Safoutin (DragonFire1024)

_______________________________________________
Wikinews-l mailing list
Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l

--

---

Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l

---

Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l

Le 20 mai 08 à 01:54, Phoenix Rose a écrit :

On 20/05/2008, at 6:08 AM, Sue Gardner wrote:

...

Ilya Haykinson wrote:

...

The embargo system isn't perfect. In the case of political events of high importance, embargo is simply unfair: a press conference makes more sense, so everybody learns about it at once. However, in the normal course of events, it solves the problem of having to inform many journalists at once, and letting them have a day or more to do their research and get their balanced articles going, without the fear that they'll be scooped by someone else.

-ilya

...

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 9:02 AM, divol jacques.divol@laposte.net wrote:

...

For exemple, in France, when there's a vote, no one should know the results before the end of the ballote, but journalists (and politics, friends and famillies) know, why ?, because "embargo"? (not good english i am sorry)

The specific example of embargo for a vote also makes sense: it is to ensure that coverage of the voting shouldn't influence the way people vote. If one province or state votes in one way and the coverage shows this, people in other provinces that haven't finished voting may decide not to bother voting, because they are disillusioned that their candidate has already lost, or because they feel their candidate has already won and that their vote doesn't matter. I think it's important not to cover the vote until the ballot is closed, so that the media doesn't influence the political outcome and leaves the people as free as possible to vote the way they intend.

Hope that makes sense, Jacques. Here's my attempt to explain in French, just in case:

L'exemple spécifique de l'embargo pour un vote semble également raisonnable : ça assure que ce reportage n'influence pas le manière des votes. Si un province ou état vote dans l'un façon ou l'autre , et le reportage démontre ceci, les gens dans d'autres provinces qui n'ont pas encore voté peuves décider de ne pas prendre la peine de voter, parce qu'on les désillusionne que leur candidat a déjà perdu, ou parce qu'ils se sentent que leur candidat a déjà gagné et que leur voix ne comptent pas. Je pense que c'est important pour ne pas indiquer le vote jusqu'au vote est fermé, ainsi que la media n'influence pas les résultats politiques et laisse les gens aussi librement comme possible de voter dans la manière qu'ils prévoient.

phoenix

No, the law about vote in France is for EVERYONE, even journalists. Why the journalists, politics know the results before other citizens ? Because they are journalists (politics) ? Why not me, or every one else ? there's a bias i do not like. not very democratic (sorry, it's a bit politic, but not intended to flame this group)

jacques

Paul,

To get as much collaboration as possible we edit on wiki (real wiki not private wiki). Thats what Wikinews:Story Preparation is for. If it is so important that we don;t make this info available (which I doubt) than we might have t wrk of wiki, but as that has happened no times (to my knowledge). I don't think we should ignore the values of the WMF to do so.

Thanks,

Anon101 (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/User:Anonymous101)

The problem is that often we can be under an embargo or "media blackout" until a certain date - especially with sensitive stories. This seriously hampers our ability to develop these stories on-wiki with as much collaboration as possible.

~ Paul W

---

Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l

--