Hoi,
The arguments why it would be a good thing to have a Wikinews organisation
have not been refuted. There are some issues that make the issue
complicated. The notion that people who are NOT working on Wikinews could
also get an "accreditation" is what makes me uncomfortable about the whole
issue.
When you need "widespread" support to get things done/organised to get
things done it will mean that things do not happen. There are always people
who only know to see why not other people are not involved and consequently
are not heard. What is needed is people championing the cause who invests
time and effort in it.
It is also not necessarily by continuously talking on a list that you make
things happen .. :)
Thanks,
GerardM
PS I do appreciate the reason for a Wikinews organisation. :)
On 9/2/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
Brian McNeil wrote:
Is there any progress on what we're going to
end up doing for this
issue?
I'm not totally clear on the situation, one
of the ideas bandied about
was
that we fundraise for a member of staff to handle
Wikinews-related
issues
such as accreditation and credential
verification.
I've also not seen anything totally clear yet about the issuing of press
passes by the office. Has it been cleared up that this can be done
without
serious liability issues?
My impression is
that widespread support for these measures does not
exist. That may also explain why the thread has fallen silent.
Ec
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l