[Foundation-l] Wikinews - not so much a state of the wiki

[Brian McNeil]

David Gerard wrote:

I'll ask two questions about the other issue I raised, Flagged Revisions -
then move on to David's comment.

Assuming Wikinews implements flagged revisions, and the entire process to
select people with the powers is implemented by the community, would the
Foundation still retain it's independence from the editorial process? I.e.
we're liable, not the foundation. Mike?

Second, were the foundation to approve the procedures and processes we
defined for flagged revisions would that make them liable? I ask because I
want the policy to become as serious and official as NPOV if possible. I
want it emphasised that requesting this privilege could land you in court if
you promote something obviously defamatory and unverifiable.

On to David's comment...

>You may need something that allows Wikilike working together, but
>isn't MediaWiki - MW just doesn't allow access restriction more
>fine-grained than "can access this wiki" or not, so you wouldn't be
>able to compartmentalise stories very well. I think MoinMoin does, but
>MoinMoin is so annoying after using MW. Also, only MW uses MW
>wikitext. Annoying ...

I'd hate to use something something other than the standard MW syntax, and I
think it would throw a lot of our less-technical contributors on a curve. I
appreciate that fine-grained access controls might be unavailable but to my
thinking, if you're trusted enough to get in and work on something like
translating one story, you should get a crack at getting all of them into
your local language.

However, I think there should be a core who all have as a minimum
administrator access, say all accredited reporters. There should be several
bureaucrats - and I would be in favour of the wiki being invite only.

My idea of bureaucrats is they can invite trusted community members from
Wikinews who are not accredited to help with digging up sources, related
links, and research for the duration of a specific embargo. Ditto for
translators. Once that requirement for access has gone the account is
deleted after the release of the story and Original Reporting notes.

There will be information that will never leave the embargoed Wiki. For
example, a couple of us have contact addresses for some of the habeas corpus
lawyers working on the case before the Supreme Court, it would not be good
for this information (their emails and private musings) to fall into public
view.


Brian McNeil