Wikinews:Proposal for Embargoed wiki/Vote Archive 1
This is an archive of past votes on the Wikinews:Proposal for Embargoed wiki. Do not edit this page.
This proposal was sent to the Wikimedia Foundation board in February 2008 and was rejected. Please start a new vote for any further submissions to WMF.
- Previous votes and discussions can also be found on the Water Cooler and the voting archive.
Please keep all discussion to the talk page.
- Support as creator. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 20:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support It is an absolute pain in the ass passing around emails to do reporting out of the public eye when a wiki would be the ideal platform to dissect them on and construct followup emails. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support —FellowWiki Newsie 20:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support Bengl 20:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support Cbrown1023 talk 21:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Support although think it is very important that such a Wiki is carefuly managed and would perhaps suggest that for each story written there a rationale is provided on the appropriate page(s) explaining why it is not appropriate to develop publicly. Adambro 21:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support per Adambro if access is given out rather easily (kind of like WP:RFR on the English Wikipedia, but not quite as easy). Greeves (talk • contribs) 22:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm afraid that having taken more time to consider this proposal I feel that I should oppose this for the reasons I note below:
- User access control Managing access to this Wiki will be very difficult. Balancing the necessity for it to remain private with the desire to be as open as possible will be a constant issue. The process for granting access to users from other language Wikinews project would also be a problem. Considering that the English Wikinews accreditation process has turned into the Wikinews accreditation process, I would worry that the same would happen here resulting in users requesting access on the English Wikinews where the community is not realistically able to judge their contributions adequately.
- Value For any such wiki to be of any value it has to be limited to users whom which the community has build up a good level of trust. This means it would have to be taken more seriously than requests for roll back on Wikipedia. As an example I'd note that the recent instance where I'd have found such a wiki useful. An organisation emailed me an embargoed press release. If this was released relatively casually and subsequently made public this could seriously damage relations with this organisation.
- Content Developing stories on wiki is always preferable but where would the line be drawn? I would fear that there would be constant disputes about whether a story can or cannot be public and such discussion would not really involve the wider community.
- User class This would create another class of user and in doing so further alienate new users and serve to deepen any impressions of a cabal.
- Bureaucracy Trying to manage a private wiki, handling the requests for access and the disputes about content, would further distract Wikinews participants from writing news.
- I would of course be happy to discuss any of these points but would ask that this is done on the talk page to maintain the clarity of the voting. Adambro 22:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose in current form. Based on the talk page it is unclear if the consensus is only granting access to users who are admins or accredited, or if access will pretty much be granted to anyone who has been registered for a month and simply puts there name down somewhere. --Remi - (talk) 02:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Wikimedia was founded on the principle of anyone can edit not anyone can edit if they meet the requirements. The fact that people can;t even see the pages unless they meets the requirement is entirely contradictory to the foundations mission. Anonymous101
:)05:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Adambro (talk · contribs) brings up some very good points, especially his last one. Cirt (talk) 06:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)