NEWBIE QUESTION: Sorry for coming into the discussion a bit late, but I've been following this for the last couple of days and must have missed and am still failing to understand the legalities/conflicts of interest that would prevent WMF from being the issuer of press passes. What's up with that? Why the need for a separate organization? Chris
On Aug 22, 2007, at 10:29 AM, wikinews-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
Message: 6 Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:29:53 -0400 From: Craig Spurrier craig@craigweb.net Subject: Re: [Wikinews-l] Proposal for the creation of a Wikinews foundation To: Wikinews mailing list wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 46CC80A1.6000800@craigweb.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Wikinews Markie wrote:
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. -Craig Spurrier [[n:Craig Spurrier]]
As long as WMF does not issue press passes there is no way that the WMF could be considered the to be the editor or the publisher due to the issuing of press passes. As long as the WMF is not the editor or the publisher, and are merely providing a place for others to post they are for the most part legally protected from responsibility for the content. Issuing press passes could potentially change their status and a court could rule they are responsible for the content. It is unlikely, but is still a very serious risk. A separate organization completely eliminates this risk for the foundation and still allows us to have press passes. -Craig Spurrier *This is slightly oversimplified, but I believe pretty much accurate.
Chris Luth wrote:
NEWBIE QUESTION: Sorry for coming into the discussion a bit late, but I've been following this for the last couple of days and must have missed and am still failing to understand the legalities/conflicts of interest that would prevent WMF from being the issuer of press passes. What's up with that? Why the need for a separate organization? Chris
On Aug 22, 2007, at 10:29 AM, wikinews-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:wikinews-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
Message: 6 Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:29:53 -0400 From: Craig Spurrier <craig@craigweb.net mailto:craig@craigweb.net> Subject: Re: [Wikinews-l] Proposal for the creation of a Wikinews foundation To: Wikinews mailing list <wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Message-ID: <46CC80A1.6000800@craigweb.net mailto:46CC80A1.6000800@craigweb.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Wikinews Markie wrote:
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. -Craig Spurrier [[n:Craig Spurrier]]
Wikinews-l mailing list Wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikinews-l
Craig Spurrier wrote:
As long as WMF does not issue press passes there is no way that the WMF could be considered the to be the editor or the publisher due to the issuing of press passes. As long as the WMF is not the editor or the publisher, and are merely providing a place for others to post they are for the most part legally protected from responsibility for the content. Issuing press passes could potentially change their status and a court could rule they are responsible for the content. It is unlikely, but is still a very serious risk. A separate organization completely eliminates this risk for the foundation and still allows us to have press passes. -Craig Spurrier *This is slightly oversimplified, but I believe pretty much accurate.
Sounds like a good question for the lawyers. What you say may have some merit.
On the other hand, press passes issued by some completely separate organization sound fishy to me. If someone called the Wikimedia Foundation, we would have to tell them "Oh, yes, that is our website. Oh, no, actually we did not issue that press pass. That's this other organization that has nothing to do with us, just a club of users on the site."
Doesn't sound so impressive.
I think if we have realistic requirements for who gets a press pass, our "libel" risk should be no different from that of a traditional newspaper. I mean, our house style is the opposite of the muckraking nonsense popular on OhMyNews, etc., so we are already pretty careful.
--Jimbo
Chris Luth wrote:
NEWBIE QUESTION: Sorry for coming into the discussion a bit late, but I've been following this for the last couple of days and must have missed and am still failing to understand the legalities/conflicts of interest that would prevent WMF from being the issuer of press passes. What's up with that? Why the need for a separate organization? Chris
I believe that there are no overwhelming obstacles against it. There has been, traditionally, a severe infrastructure problem for the foundation -- i.e. not enough funds to have enough people to actually manage a process like this from the office. Without that infrastructure, it would be irresponsible for the Foundation to have a formal policy of issuing press credentials.
Also, note that in the US, a "press credential" is completely unofficial and something that could be accepted or rejected by any particular event. I suspect that if someone had a "press credential" from the Wikimedia Foundation on behalf of Wikinews (probably with some mention of Wikipedia so that some press people would know it is "us") it would work quite well.
In some other countries, a "press credential" is a more formal "license" issued I guess by the government or some other similar "official body", and so to help people in those languages, there could also be a need for some paperwork to get recognized or whatever.
I think we should bring Mike Godwin into the conversation.
What I would personally support, barring any compelling legal reasons to avoid it, would be to fundraise on wikinews itself to get the money for the Foundation to hire a "Wikinews community liason" - like what Cary does right now for everyone as a whole - who would be tasked fulltime with helping the community shape policy about who is accredited, and then carrying out that policy by, for example, checking IDs, reviewing references, etc. I don't know what level of strictness we would want to require.
--Jimbo
wikinews-l@lists.wikimedia.org