No subject

> influence in the populations where Internet is a dominant source of
> informations. This means that some facts presented on Wikinews may
> lead to the victory/defeat of some political option... Or to much
> higher/lower market share of some multinational company. And those
> fields are dangerous and may lead to:


so how is this different from what the BBC or CNN  etc reports?

1) closure of Wikinews (and other projects?) or
> 2) making of Wikinews (and other projects?) a battlefield of different
> *real* interest groups (implicitly or explicitly) or
> 3) "pacifying" community and driving it into the stagnation and decline or
>
> 4) Wikimedian community as dominant global political force.


one of our key values is the widely know NPOV.  i cant see us becoming
politicians with this.  also the "closure of the project", you mean
suppresion of free speech?? cant see this being likely.

If not 1, the most possible is merging of the rest three.
>
> I don't want to say what is the good option and what is not (maybe all
> of them are good, maybe all of them are bad). The only fact is that it
> will be a real nightmare if we wouldn't be prepared.


well if anyone wants to join us at wikinews then there welcome and we look
forward to our predicted growth.

markie