Hello. I tend to categorize things so I'll do it here too. I see three main points of concern: 1. Wikinews as a Wikimedia Foundation project. 2. Wikinews as a wiki. 3. Wikinews is a new form of journalism. ==As a wikimedia Foundation project== It needs to be clarified in every Wikinews project that as a Wikimedia Foundation project, each wikinews must adhere to the minimum standard adopted by the foundation. It also must be stressed that these standards are open to interpretation in many areas, but may not be overruled or ignored by an individual project. Some Wikimedia Foundation principles are mandates that are not debatable. These include: 1. All content on the name namespace of a project must strive for an unbiased NPOV. 2. The creation of all content is to be collaborative in nature. 3. Use of and access to the content is to be as unrestricted as possible. It is clear to me that "editorials" are a clear violation of Foundation mandates since they are clearly biased in nature. I also have doubts that any opinion-type of writing can truly be collaborative. ==As a wiki== Wikis content is open for modification. An editorial on a wiki needs to be open for editing by anyone. This means that a person with an opposing POV should have as much access to the editorial as the original writer(s). ON a wiki, an editorial - unless protected - will most likely devolve into an edit war. It also runs the risk of having that project, all wikinews project, or even the foundation taint as a biased organization where a given topic is concerned. On a legal level, I have concerns about liability issues for the foundation in regard to views expressed in the editorials. ==As a new form of journalism== It seems that among the Wikinews projects there is a common identity crisis when it comes to what is and what is not allowed in regard to content. The issue comes in 2 flavors: newspapers and blogs. ===Newspapers=== I believe this stems from the fact that wikis are mostly text based. When it comes to text-based news, lowest common denominator that most people have deep familiarity with are newspapers. Many folk assume a newspaper-oriented outlook when developing an idea for where a wikinews project is going. This is strengthened by the fact that wikinews is internet based and currently most Internet-based news is controlled by media and news sources originally developed for newsprint. But, there are inherent flaws in this viewpoint since the business model and "raison d'etra" for a newspaper differs from that of a Wikimedia Foundation project. And the limitations of a newsprint mentality when applied to the Internet is astounding when one considers the complexity and opportunity of collaborative journalism, which may be thwarted. In wikinews project policy votes and community discussion, you will often see something like, "We should do it because [all/most/some/many] newspapers do it." Aside from not being a cogent argument on its face, a newspaper is more than just a news source. It contains other content which is not translatable to wiki or foundation goals. Some newspaper staples such as classified ads, horoscopes, editorials, advice columns, product reviews, games (crossword, trivia quizzes) are fun parts of a newspaper's business model - but are not news per se. And they really do not fit in the NPOV or collaborative fold. ===Blogs=== Some tend to confuse collaborative journalism with the other new form of Internet journalism. As someone who has been involved in wikinews for quite some time, the difference between a blog and wikinews is obvious. In fact they are almost diametrically opposite. A blog revels in its biased POV and the fact that it is the work of a single person (or small group of people acting as one mind). It is clear that blog-type content really has no place in a wikinews project under current wikimedia foundation principles. Thankfully, for those who do wish to write blog-type opinion columns, there are many free Internet alternatives to wikinews. ==Conclusion== Since editorials on a wikinews project declare a specific point of view on an issue in controversy, they are incompatible with Wikimedia Foundation goals. In addition, they may open the foundation to legal and/or image related problems since the foundation is ultimately responsible for defending all content on each of the Wikimedia projects. Furthermore, individual project participants may not overrule or ignore basic Wikimedia Foundation minimum standards for content. This means the basic principles of Wikimedia may not be put up to a popular vote on any of the individual projects, it must be a Foundation decision for both stability/uniformity among projects and legal reasons. -- David Speakman http://www.DavidSpeakman.com 501 Moorpark Way #83 Mountain View CA 94041 Phone: 408-382-1459