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:

Chris Luth wrote: 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