[Wikinews-l] Proposal for the creation of a Wikinews foundation

[Craig Spurrier]

  On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 12:52:13 -0400, Jimmy Wales  wrote:  > Craig
Spurrier wrote:  > > 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.  >  > Sounds like a good question for the lawyers. 
What you say may have some   > merit.    It would be great if
we could get a lawyer to review this, if there is no legal reason why
the WMF could not issue press passes then there is no reason to form
a separate foundation.      My statement about the potential legal
issues comes mostly from IRC, a skim of 47 USC § 230 and the
replies of Eloquence and Kat Walsh to the Q/A part of the last
election. I am not a lawyer so it is entirely possible that I have
misinterpreted the issue.     The two quotes of relevance from the
election are:     “The Wikimedia Foundation considers itself to
be a provider of an interactive computer service, rather than a
publisher. This is what provides us the liability protection of 47
USC § 230 ("Section 230"). Preserving this legal
status is not just something we consider important or useful. It may
be the single most important factor for the future survival of the
Wikimedia Foundation. At the same time, accreditation processes are
often designed to expect exactly the opposite: that the reporter
works for an organization or company that edits and approves the
content before it is published (which is the tipping point where
Section 230 no longer applies). This creates a tension.
“--Eloquence            “There's a lot of
commitment and thorny questions involved in sending someone out into
an event bearing our name and saying "this person is accredited
by Wikimedia" and not simply by the project community, both in
terms of our reputation and in terms of whether this makes Wikimedia
responsible for what they write.” - Kat Walsh   > On
the other hand, press passes issued by some completely separate  
> organization sound fishy to me.  If someone called the Wikimedia
  > Foundation, we would have to tell them "Oh, yes, that is
our website.   > Oh, no, actually we did not issue that press
pass.  That's this other   > organization that has nothing to
do with us, just a club of users on the   > site."  >  
> Doesn't sound so impressive.      A separate organization is
not ideal, but if the WMF can not do it we must come up with
something. Nearly all of the event organizers will never contact
anybody to verify to the credentials. Of the very few who will bother
only an infinitesimally small number will bother to lookup Wikinews
online, then find the about page, then go to the WMF site and then
call WMF. I would suggest calls to the WMF about our press cards be
referred to a Wikinews foundation or we come up with a better way to
phrase the response. For the most part though if they are calling the
WMF they are not going to let us in anyways after they find we are not
MSM.  Most if they bother to verify it at all will use the phone
number on the press card, which will be a Wikinews foundation one.
   Most times when we need to use our press card the most
checking they will do is request a letter from the press card issuer.
With a few exceptions like White House press conferences, we really do
not need to impress them much just look official (our press badges
look better and realer then many local traditional media already)
enough and have someone willing to back us up. -Craig Spurrier
[[n:Craig Spurrier]]  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikinews-l/attachments/20070823/0b13c515/attachment-0001.htm