[Foundation-l] Re: Formal request: Wikinews project

[Anthere]

I am embarassed by the rules proposed on meta.

I do not really support them as being okay in the spirit of Wikimedia as 
I perceived it.

And even if I agree that we could give a start to this project, and hack 
the rules later on, I also know that there will be rather few people 
involved at first, so that it is likely that the rules drafted here 
become the rules on the project anyway.

Requirement on real names are naturally bugging me. I understand that it 
might be a requirement for outsiders, however, I think Wikipedia has 
reached the success with thriving on openness, not requesting real 
identities.

If the requirement of real names for trust comes from outside, one name 
to certify the article will be enough, and no one needs to see the back 
kitchen. But if only real names must be displayed to prove the article 
may be trusted, I wonder how credit will be given to those who really 
wrote the article without giving their real name. Will Wikinews be under 
GFDL ?

If the requirement of real name for trust comes from inside, I think it 
is a blow in the face of what Wikipedia currently is

------
 >The process of accredition will therefore be similar to the process of 
 >applying for adminship on many Wikipedias, and it will in fact be 
 >directly tied to it: all sysops are Wikinews reporters and vice versa.

The notion that all wikinews reporters will be necessarily sysops, and 
all sysops necessarily wikinews reporter is problematic as well. Because 
in effect, some one trusted by the community, but not willing to give 
his real name, will not be able to fully participate as he could in 
every day management. In a press group, I doubt very much management is 
put in the  hand of all reporters.


 >Traditional media offer their audience editorials on current issues. 
 >Wikinews could offer editorials written from all points of view and 
 >retain its neutrality. In order to do this, there would have to be a 
 >period where the different groups can form and start working on their 
 >respective editorials.

Respective editorials ? You mean editorials can have a view point ? In 
short, Wikinews will be a big change, since we will not any more have to 
respect NPOV rule. But replace it with a collection of viewpoint. If one 
view point comittee is missing, then the viewpoint is missing ?

 >After a time limit has been reached, the editorials would then be 
 >copyedited one last time and published. In order to deal with trolls 
 >from the other side, a group could use standardized mechanisms of 
 >exclusion.

Trolls from the other side ? You mean when you belong to one editorial 
group and consider the other editorial group from another point of view ?

I may not well understand here. On one topic, will we have ONE article 
or several articles ?



Perhaps, what I fear the most, is that it will divide our forces. Hence 
resulting in a rather short reporter team. I am trying to figure out 
such a system for french language (the 4th largest group) and I fail to 
envision more than say 3 people interested. Hopefully some will be ready 
to contribute with real names.

How do we handle neutrality of edition and choice of editorial within a 
group of 3 ?
I several times battled to avoid having banner on the main page, such as 
"vote for Kerry" or "support Indymedia" (okay, just pushing a bit here, 
but hardly) and I believe reason won mostly thanks to the number of 
people following NPOV principle.
In truth, with only 3 accredited reporters, I do not think it will be so 
successful. NPOV comes from multiple influences. The requirements 
suggested for being an accredited reporter worry me that it will backfire.



Last, I am not sure that all languages have really heard of this 
project. So, I wish we advertise it a little bit more.


I have not exactly forgotten yet the huge thread in september, saying 
"the board has overstepped authority and blablabla" while we were only 
acting in good faith. With such a reaction, any step from me for 
agreeing for a new project will be *very* careful :-)

So... I would like to hear more about what people think, and how they 
feel like toward the licence (could you give more precision), the real 
name issue, the NPOV divided over several editorials and the 
accreditation system as proposed.

Anthere



Erik Moeller a écrit:
> I hereby formally request the creation of Wikinews, in all major Wikimedia  
> languages, under the domain
> 
>         wikinews.org
> 
> which I have registered and pointed to Wikimedia's nameservers.
> 
> The current Wikinews proposal ist at
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews
> 
> According to that proposal, we can immediately start working on Wikinews  
> as soon as the site is set up. Some software changes will be useful in the  
> long term, but are not immediately needed.
> 
> The details of the proposed policies can be worked out on the live site as  
> they currently are on the Wikimedia Commons. The question right now is if  
> there is a rough consensus to start a Wikimedia project whose goal is
> * to provide summaries of external news sources
> * to do original, neutral reporting around the world.
> 
> If there are no serious objections, I'd like to start ASAP.
> 
> I believe this project has the potential to be as relevant as Wikipedia,  
> if not more so.  I'd love it if we could prove to the world that, using  
> wiki principles, we can create a neutral, reliable news source for  
> everyone.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Erik