Florence Devouard wrote:
Mike gave us a feedback, which basically contains what is below
"Administering press accreditation and acquiring it and keeping track of what different national governments required strikes me as a huge project. I don't think we have the manpower for it. But because Wikinews is already "going its own way" in a lot of respects (there's already lots of duplication of function between Wikipedia current event coverage and Wikinews press coverage), the logical thing it seems to me is to spin Wikinews off. Give it the associated trademarks as a sign of good will. Donate server space even (although I'd prefer someone like Wikia or Google to do that.)"
A spin off I believe would do more harm then good. Other then this one big issue, the foundation has served us very well, better then I think we could do on our own or even as part of another org. If we were to become independent we lose one of our most valuable things, the ability to use the brand recognition Wikipedia gives us as being a sister project. The duplication of function between Wikipedia current event coverage and Wikinews press coverage is something that we need to absolutely work on, but I believe the solution is closer cooperation rather then forcing duplication. There is a lot we can do to help this. Some ideas: -A recruiting campaign to convince current events editors to also edit on WN -Dual licensing the current events page allowing us to copy content, -Moving the Current Events page to WN - With SUL this would become doable with out much inconvenience and get news where it belongs -Delete the Current Events page altogether - Wikinews is for news, Wikipedia is a Encyclopedia -More visible link to WN on the Current events page -Copying Wikinews summaries to the Current events page
Then he also added
"In nations that focus on accreditation, there's typically a class of journalists or a journalistic organization that officially takes responsibility for content. In the U.S., any journalist or organization (e.g., the New York Times) that takes responsibility for content *expressly exempts itself* from the Sec. 230 safe harbor that protects Wikipedia and most other WMF projects from liability (for, e.g., defamation).
So, in that sense, there's legal-liability divergence from other WMF projects, at least potentially."
This has been the main concern, it would be an unacceptable risk to have the WMF handle accreditation.
Which kinda answer the issue of legal risk. Would there be a legal risk if WMF was handling accredition ? Yup.
The three main solutions left are consequently
- full spin off
- a separate organization, part of a more global network. And with
shared values with WMF 3) working with chapters
A separate organization looks to be our best option.
I am not sure chapters are to be considered good solutions really due to all the comments previously made (partial coverage in particular), though I believe they are part of the story.
In countries with chapters we would work closely with them, but there a a lot of countries that do not have chapters. Also, some of the chapters are starting to build enough assets that this could be more of a risk then they are willing to take.
As for the full spin-off being the best solution, I do not share Mike's opinion on this, nor does Erik. Other board members did not give a feedback.
I am glad to hear that at least yourself and Erik want to keep us :P. WE like being a part of the foundation, but we need accreditation.
If we can get an "official" opinion on the likelihood of getting a trademark license, I will start working on drafting what we need to start an organization (bylaws, mission stament, etc).
-Craig Spurrier [[n:Craig Spurrier]]
Craig Spurrier wrote:
Florence Devouard wrote:
Mike gave us a feedback, which basically contains what is below
"Administering press accreditation and acquiring it and keeping track of what different national governments required strikes me as a huge project. I don't think we have the manpower for it. But because Wikinews is already "going its own way" in a lot of respects (there's already lots of duplication of function between Wikipedia current event coverage and Wikinews press coverage), the logical thing it seems to me is to spin Wikinews off. Give it the associated trademarks as a sign of good will. Donate server space even (although I'd prefer someone like Wikia or Google to do that.)"
Part of what makes Wikinews worthwhile is the lack of advertisements and the adherence to core Foundation values such as NPOV. Were Google involved they would likely fulfil Ed's desire for an editorial space, and to my way of thinking that would kill the project I enjoy contributing to.
A spin off I believe would do more harm then good. Other then this one big issue, the foundation has served us very well, better then I think we could do on our own or even as part of another org. If we were to become independent we lose one of our most valuable things, the ability to use the brand recognition Wikipedia gives us as being a sister project. The duplication of function between Wikipedia current event coverage and Wikinews press coverage is something that we need to absolutely work on, but I believe the solution is closer cooperation rather then forcing duplication. There is a lot we can do to help this. Some ideas: -A recruiting campaign to convince current events editors to also edit on WN -Dual licensing the current events page allowing us to copy content, -Moving the Current Events page to WN - With SUL this would become doable with out much inconvenience and get news where it belongs -Delete the Current Events page altogether - Wikinews is for news, Wikipedia is a Encyclopedia -More visible link to WN on the Current events page -Copying Wikinews summaries to the Current events page
The duplication of effort between the two projects is frustrating; news should be written on Wikinews and linked to from the "in the news" section. Sure, the summaries remain for people who don't want to visit Wikinews - we can probably have something coded up that puts a "Return to Wikipedia" link up. We do have an unwritten policy on Wikinews of trying to make the site "sticky". By that I mean we want visitors to read several articles, browse around the site a bit, and perhaps get involved.
Wikipedians could help a lot with that. If you check my contributions on WP you'll see lots of edits to add the {{Wikinews}} template. That's just one task, but when it comes to actually working on Wikinews there is a disconnect because where WP has a policy of citing references so that people can easily go to an original source or fact-check, WN has a policy of trying to avoid having people need to check sources. News is new information, something you want to absorb on the spot, and something that must be arranged to permit that. It also needs done in a timely fashion, facts don't cease to be facts, but news ceases to be news.
Then he also added
"In nations that focus on accreditation, there's typically a class of journalists or a journalistic organization that officially takes responsibility for content. In the U.S., any journalist or organization (e.g., the New York Times) that takes responsibility for content *expressly exempts itself* from the Sec. 230 safe harbor that protects Wikipedia and most other WMF projects from liability (for, e.g., defamation).
Here in Belgium the "most official" press pass comes from the Ministry of the Interior (You even get a pretty blue plaque for your car that makes the police think twice about ticketing or towing - my neighbour's wife says it is great for doing the shopping. :P). As far as I am aware there are stipulations that you must make the majority of your income from journalistic work to qualify for this. Yet, it was in this country that a Wikinews press pass saved a reporter from a police beating and arrest. So, for some countries a Wikinews organisation would actually have to campaign to have the law changed and citizen journalism recognised. I think that would be a noble goal, but the lobbying would be beyond the resources that Wikinews could muster.
So, in that sense, there's legal-liability divergence from other WMF projects, at least potentially."
This has been the main concern, it would be an unacceptable risk to have the WMF handle accreditation.
The can is open... The worms are everywhere. :) What we have at the moment got someone access to the G8 conference. Protestor disruption of transport and so messed up Sean's ability to report, but there will be other things we can get access to.
Which kinda answer the issue of legal risk. Would there be a legal risk if WMF was handling accredition ? Yup.
The three main solutions left are consequently
- full spin off
- a separate organization, part of a more global network. And with
shared values with WMF 3) working with chapters
A separate organization looks to be our best option.
I am not sure chapters are to be considered good solutions really due to all the comments previously made (partial coverage in particular), though I believe they are part of the story.
In countries with chapters we would work closely with them, but there a a lot of countries that do not have chapters. Also, some of the chapters are starting to build enough assets that this could be more of a risk then they are willing to take.
As for the full spin-off being the best solution, I do not share Mike's opinion on this, nor does Erik. Other board members did not give a feedback.
I am glad to hear that at least yourself and Erik want to keep us :P. WE like being a part of the foundation, but we need accreditation.
I too prefer to be part of the Foundation, we share so much in common and it is this one issue that gives us headaches. I have not received a reply to the email I sent to the journalist's union office in Brussels, I will investigate contact details for the UK's National Union of Journalists; perhaps they'd be prepared to discuss what they know about our options.
If we can get an "official" opinion on the likelihood of getting a trademark license, I will start working on drafting what we need to start an organization (bylaws, mission stament, etc).
I honestly prefer the option of having a member of staff who is a "Wikinews volunteer manager" or such. I'm not even sure we could - with a Wikinews Fundraiser - make the cash to pay for someone. I'm not even sure I'll have enough spare to donate a decent amount in the next fundraiser; I spent a lot setting up http://www.wikinewsie.org, and a lot of our other contributors are in the 14-25 schoolkid/student category - not prime candidates for donations.
Brian McNeil
wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org