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

Wed Oct 13 01:40:30 UTC 2004


Erik Moeller a écrit:
> Anthere-
> 
>>Requirement on real names are naturally bugging me.
> 
> 
> With your objections to any such rule in mind, I have tried to make this  
> an option, rather than a requirement. There's a flip side to this and this  
> is that without such an option, Wikinews will actually become *more*  
> restrictive on what types of stories it allows.
> 
> I call it the Abu Ghraib test.
> 
> Let's say that our policy is that "any reported information can be allowed  
> in an article as long as there is consensus among editors to include it."  
> If we had a story like the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal before anyone  
> else, and some reporter tried to include it under this rule -- all backed  
> up both by good sources and by his credibility -- I am quite certain that  
> some people would try to block it through endless discussions from ever  
> being reported.
> 
> In many cases, where we would have some anonymous whistleblower (a person  
> telling secrets about a company, government etc.) willing to give us  
> information, I am also quite certain that under such a policy, this  
> information would be unlikely to be accepted on grounds of verifiability.   
> Again, it is quite likely - as unfortunate as this is - that people from  
> the opposite political point of view would try to block information that  
> does not suit them.
> 
> 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.
> 
> So there is no requirement for real names, but the additional credibility  
> offered by verified or verifiable identities guarantees that we can pick  
> up stories that we would otherwise probably ignore.
> 
> I hope that the proposal is clear enough on the point that original  
> reporting by non-accredited persons is allowed as long as there is  
> consensus to include their stories.
> 
> I would like to emphasize that Wikipedia allows no original reporting  
> whatsoever. Wikinews is therefore *much* more inclusive than Wikipedia,  
> not less.
> 
> 
>>The notion that all wikinews reporters will be necessarily sysops, and
>>all sysops necessarily wikinews reporter is problematic as well.
> 
> 
> I agree. However, initially, the functionality of "publishing" an article  
> will be linked to the tools that we currently have, such as page  
> protection. The potential for abuse of this privilege, and the associated  
> consequences, are larger than in Wikipedia: Imagine a Wikinews article  
> about a massacre in Israel being published without proper review and then  
> being distributed in other media. Such news articles can lead to fatal  
> consequences.
> 
> Therefore, I believe that initially, we need to limit the circle of sysops  
> who can publish stories to those we can identify and hold accountable. In  
> order to make the process more wiki-like, I am working on a workflow  
> system called "Wikiflow" that ensures an article can only flow from one  
> state (unpublished) to the other (published) if there is consensus, if a  
> certain amount of time has passed, and if it has come to the attention of  
> certain people who should see it (reviewers).
> 
> This Wikiflow system can also be the basis of peer review on Wikipedia, it  
> can replace the current sysop-centric VfD process, and so forth. So take  
> this early version of Wikinews like you take something like VfD: It kind  
> of works, but it's not open enough in the long term.
> 
> 
>>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 ?
> 
> 
> This was just an experimental aspect of the proposal: to, in addition to  
> news articles, have a daily editorial (commentary) about current events  
> written by different "factions". This was *never* supposed to apply to  
> regular news articles. While I still think it is a good idea to explore  
> this, given that this part of the proposal is the most controversial, I  
> have taken it out. We can still think about this in the Wikinews community  
> once it exists.
> 
> 
>>Last, I am not sure that all languages have really heard of this
>>project. So, I wish we advertise it a little bit more.
> 
> 
> What do you suggest?
> 
> 
>>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 :-)
> 
> 
> I understand. Of course I would like to start working on this project and  
> publicize its existence as soon as possible. So I would appreciate some  
> more concrete suggestions on how to move it from the proposal and  
> discussion phase into the implementation phase. Waiting another month now  
> when I actually have time to do some real work on this project would be  
> painful.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Erik