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

[Delirium]

Erik Moeller wrote:

>Therefore, my proposal suggests that we DO allow this type of consensus- 
>based reporting from anonymous or unaccredited sources (called "witness  
>reports" in the proposal), but IN ADDITION TO IT, we also allow Wikinews  
>reporters to use their reputation as currency for publishing original  
>reports, and to act as relays for people who want to stay anonymous.
>  
>
I certainly hope it can be done in a reasonable way, but I'm wondering 
if there's been any thought as to how to differentiate this from 
Indymedia?  From what I can tell, Indymedia does use bylined reporters 
for many of its articles, but they still end up generally being, well, 
not very neutral.  Hopefully Wikinews would end up rather more credible 
than Indymedia, but how to ensure that?  I could definitely see a 
potential for highly biased stories---probably not outright fabricated 
ones, but certainly ones with the facts selectively reported and a large 
dose of opinion thrown in.  I envision there would be some hardcore 
reporter types working on the project---people who have no vested 
interest in what they're reporting on, but just want information out.  
But somehow it seems like it'll naturally attract more of the other sort 
of people---activists who are reporting with a particular agenda in 
mind.  That tends to lead to the facts being arranged to fit the 
pre-held agenda, rather than the other way around...

-Mark