Wikinews:Accreditation requests

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Revision as of 14:25, 19 February 2008 by Mike Halterman (talk | contribs) (removing boricuaeddie, putting in archive)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

To file a request for credentials or for revocation, please read over the Accreditation policy first. You can also view the accredited users list.

If you would like to receive official Wikinews credentials, please file a request below in the form. After the posting, the user's entry will solicit Support/Object votes from Wikinews users for the duration of 7 days. At the expiration of this time period the user will either be granted accreditation, or the vote removed from this page and archived. 

===[[User:YourUsername|YourUsername]]===
:''Name'': Your real name
:''Location'': Your geographical location, for listing purposes
:''Areas of interest'': Areas of coverage you are interested in
:''Reason'': Some reasons why you would like to receive Wikinews credentials
:''Accomplishments'': Links to some articles you've written
:''Contact information'': What contact information you would like to have listed on the Credential verification page, 
please don't put an @wikinewsie email address. you will only get one if you have been approved accreditation.
:''User ID'': Can be found by clicking "Preferences"
:''Applied on'': ~~~~~
Votes:

Note: When archiving requests use {{closed-ar-box|successful or failed}} then type {{closed-ar-footer}}

Current requests

WikiBlue

Name: Sandra Ordonez
Location: St. Petersburg, Florida
Areas of interest: Pop culture and web 2.0, also marketing wikinews
Reason: To be able to accomplish tasks successfully. It opens doors to people and organizations.
Accomplishments: 'Top Model' winner Jaslene Gonzalez on her career and being a Latina role model
Contact information: SandraTordonez@hotmail.com
User ID:19450
Applied on: 00:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Sandra Ordonez was the Wikimedia Foundation's Communications Manager from January 2007 to January 2008, and has real-life experience in media and public relations. She was also my mentor when I interned there. TheCustomOfLife - (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WikiBlue's work here is minimal, are there other WMF accounts that might shed light on this user's Wiki contributions? --SVTCobra 00:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • She was kind of...busy working at the actual WMF office to do that sort of thing. But since she's been working in the office, she knows how things go on around here. One of my jobs under her was to help prepare tutorials on basic rules for newcomers. TheCustomOfLife - (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What some seem to be forgetting is that WikiBlue has been working behind the scenes as opposed to on-wiki. Her contributions to the Foundation are significant, she's likely drafted hundreds of press releases for the WMF and dealt with press enquiries - including The Register - for approximately a year. Most of that goes unseen unless you see her name mentioned in the press. We have Rico from Taiwan on the accredited user list, and his contributions always need copyedited due to weak English. I trust Sandy to become more accomplished at editing on-wiki over time and to conduct herself professionally when interviewing. Where people are opposed I'd like to see them outline specific goals for her to meet that would make them change their vote. It is my opinion that Sandy would be a valuable addition to the team and another contact that has the ear of people within WMF. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not meaning to be purposely offensive here, but why only those who Oppose? Sandy obviously has a wealth of experience to bring to the project. But everyone else has had to "climb the ladder" - so why should she be any different? I'd like to see some articles before I support it. It's not a personal attack on her or her intentions / experience, but rather I cannot see any current intentions for her to continue with Wikinews. Perhaps if she could outline a couple of her own personal targets it would help to sway me and the other opposers? But I'm not prepared to outline my own targets for her, Brian. That's demeaning to both me and her. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 11:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Skenmy on the whole. Despite her likely to become a useful addition to the Wikinews team, I see no real urgency with this request that would prompt me to ignore my desire to see a reasonable edit history here. From what I can see, there isn't a great deal of contributions elsewhere either. Whilst I'm sure she has benefited the project in her official capacity I would suggest that this might not fully indicate her ability as an editor, writing articles and dealing with the community in a different way to what she may be more accustomed. Anyway, I don't consider it appropriate to simply grant accreditation because someone is trustworthy, they might receive accreditation then go onto make few contributions to the project. At least if she gains experience here then she might be better position to consider whether she's interested in becoming a more permanent member of the community. This would also allow her to judge whether not having accreditation has been a barrier to any work and so consider whether or not accreditation is necessary.
    I think is particularly interesting to note the "welcome to Wikinews" in one of the support votes. Shouldn't this say it all? Some users might be familiar with this individual but I, and I'm sure many other WN users, aren't. Adambro - (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

How do you intend to apply your media experience to Wikinews? --Brian McNeil / talk 08:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, (at least in the USA) public relations and journalism go hand in hand. The PR background gives you the know how to tap into more resources, b/c you understand how media works. While I will be editing articles etc, I would actually like to dedicate myself to helping publicize and market Wikinews to the general public. Accreditation would help in this process. If I contact reporter X about Wikinews to pitch a story, for example, it would be very beneficial to have some type of official affiliation...(remember real world works on "credits")

There are many roles for volunteers and I think I should focus on the area that I'm best at. I have MANY outreach ideas and programs for wikinews....including hosting online seminars on journalism ethics with respected "guest" journalists, getting more people from the media involved in actually volunteering and providing support, reaching out to high school students, etc, mucho stuff :) I love Wikinews, and I would like to help it "grow and prosper."

As a potential accredited reporter you will need to understand Wikinews guidlines and policy. Do you underestand the Wikinews inerview guidelines, origial reporting guidlines and other relevnt policies like NPOV? --Anonymous101 Talk 13:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the basic core values and dynamic that govern all the projects. I also understand the PR guidelines that Foundation's communication committee try to promote in regards to promoting our projects. In regards to Wikinews, I had to explain to the project to the media, but particular during the benoit case and for David's recent interview - both which really put Wikinews on the map for the main stream press. In regards to using the Wiki, I had to use several to perform my job. Of course there are things that I am a bit weak in and I'm sure there might a bit of a learning curve, but I have both the resources and the foundation to get up to speed right away. As I mentioned to Brian, I completely understand the concerns that some individuals might have right now - and I don't mind waiting - I'm not going anywhere :) Like most projects, Wikinews has its own culture, and contributing is different just talking about it to the press. Sooo, /me is happy that I can just be part of this :)

Votes

She was the PR person at the head office. I think she knows how things are done since it was her job to let the press know how things are done. TheCustomOfLife - (talk) 07:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean I beleive she will use it to *harm* Wikinews - but the contribution level is very low at the moment and I can't see any ideaologies for continuing to contribute to Wikinews. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 10:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy has been talking about working on Wikinews since prior to finishing up as Communications Manager at WMF. She'd initially said she wanted to take a break before becoming involved - to do things like a house move. However TheCustomOfLife (Mike) persuaded her to take on an interview with one of the ANTM winners and whilst it needed copyedit work she'd professionally conducted the interview and - at least in my opinion - would not in any way abuse Wikinews credentials. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Too new. —FellowWiki Newsie 21:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per Custom and Brian. We have to take into consideration Wikimedia work. Sandy also has contacts as the Communications Manager, Sandy has invaluable experience and contacts to help us market ourselves, and that is sorely needed. Accreditation is a trust issue, not a contribution issue. Though the two are often interrelated, here full faith and credit for a Foundation person should come into play. --David Shankbone - (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good to see the response - that's what I needed to see. Welcome! --Skenmy(t•c•w) 10:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now; although I trust her, I'd like for her to spend a month or so to acquire and show basic on-wiki skills to ensure all the wonderful things she could do for us off-line go smoothly, and that she could contribute to articles sufficiently. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 11:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Sorry been busy with interviews. Of course support. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. To me it is quite clear. Sandy has my full trust, and the article she has published so far shows her to be a great writer. I'm confident that she is fully adept at using Wikis and familiar with policy, having worked in the WMF office and, undoubtedly, observing all of the projects and learning vast amounts about them, despite perhaps not having the time to participate A full support from me Martinp23 - (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Incredibly trustworthy, has been with Wikimedia for over a year and has a lot of experience that would help Wikinews. Cbrown1023 talk 02:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well let's see this demonstrated before starting granting accreditation. We know very little about this users ability to contribute to Wikinews or WMF projects in general as an editor. Her low activity in the last few days since requesting accreditation hardly demonstrate there is an real urgency to this. I'm sure she is capable of writing great news stories without accreditation, something which should only be granted to editors which the community are familiar with. Whilst some know this user from elsewhere, I don't think it can be said that the community as a whole does. It is very wrong to let this process turn into an popularity contest, rather it should be an assessment of their contributions to Wikinews of which this user has made very little. Adambro - (talk) 13:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But it isn't a popularity contest (and sorry for ranting at you in IRC the other day Adambro.) As David Shankbone pointed out it is a matter of trust coming before contributions. I C/E'd Sandy's article and the main changes needed were to merge short paragraphs and use synonyms for "stated". Not a big deal, and not as much work as doing one of Rico's articles can be. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Consensus has been reached on this Accreditation request, and the result is candidate withdraws at oppose 2/0. Please do not add further votes or comments to this request.

User:Chris Mann

Name: Chris Mann
Location: Canberra, Australia
Areas of interest: Australian topics - events, politics, perhaps pop culture
Reason: I am planning to solicit some interviews from various Australians (starting with my "boss", w:Brian Pink - and yes I know the WN:COI issues involved with that), but I would rather do so as an accredited Wikinews reporter than as a "freelancer" writing for Wikinews.
Accomplishments: The only two articles I have written here are Australian Liberal Party criticised over fake pamphlets and Two thirds of Queensland flooded; "disaster zone" declared, both synthesis articles. However, I hope that they (as well as the article I started on Wikipedia, w:Animania) demonstrate my ability to write in accordance with all relevant policies.
Contact information: E-mail
User ID: 8359
Applied on: 09:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Fair enough. But the accreditation still makes a difference, in my opinion. As to your oppose vote, can I assume that by "too new" you actually mean "not enough edits/articles written"? Because I've been registered here for a year and a half (although admittedly I only started really editing here about half a year ago), and I have a longer history on Wikipedia if you want to check that as well. Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 12:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never say "freelance citizen journalist accredited by the Wikinews community" and I never will. First, "Citizen Journalist" is a new term that has little meaning to anyone but us. Second, I think it is perfectly acceptable to simply state your purpose. The moment I approach a person with the idea I may give it to Wikinews, or I may shop it around to other venues, it when I will say I am a "freelance journalist". I say, "I am doing an interview for Wikinews, a sister project of Wikipedia." That's my introduction. We have all these "work around" and semantics we use to make what we think are important distinctions clear to people who really do not care. "I'm going to talk to you, where am I going to see it?" Answer: "Wikinews, and probably a link to it on Wikipedia." --David Shankbone - (talk) 13:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page). No further edits should be made to this page.


Consensus has been reached on this Accreditation request, and the result is no consensus S:4/O:2/N:1. Please do not add further votes or comments to this request.

Ragesoss

Name: Sage Ross
Location: West Hartford, Connecticut
Areas of interest: Politics, science, academia
Reason: With press credentials, I could take better pictures at political and other events. In addition to photography, I would also write stories (as I have done before) on events I attend. I would, for example, attempt to attend the Democratic National Convention in August (which will be a very newsworthy event if the Democratic primary is still undecided by convention time) to take pictures and report for Wikinews.
Accomplishments: On Wikinews: Half of life could go extinct by century's end, warn eminent biologists, Protesters demonstrate at US Coast Guard Academy. I've also written many articles on English Wikipedia, including most of several Featured Articles (Johannes Kepler, Rachel Carson, History of biology), and several articles for the Wikipedia Signpost, some of which involved original reporting. I'm an admin there as well. For more details on my involvement with Wikipedia and Commons, see my en-wiki user page and this gallery of notable people photos.
Contact information: ragesoss(plus)wikinews(at)gmail(dot)com
User ID: 14426
Applied on: 02:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Questions

Some of my patented though questions...

  • Which Wikimedia projects do you think were bad ideas ideas from the start, and what should be done with them?
    • Wikispecies is the main one that comes to mind. I imagine it will be closed down sooner or later, probably sometime after the Encyclopedia of Life really takes off. All of the projects fall short of their potential in various ways, but the only other one that is of dubious value is Wikiquote. The wiki format, at least without considerable changes, seems inappropriate for that project, and of course there's the fundamental problem of fair use that Wikiquote can't avoid. But at this point, I don't think it could be shut down without an unacceptable level of hurt feelings and damage to the communities of other projects.--ragesoss 16:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is your take on the relation between Wikinews and Wikipedia?
    • Will Wikipedia continue to overshadow Wikinews in terms of news coverage, and should there be changes?
      • I think it probably will continue to overshadow Wikinews, simply because news coverage on Wikipedia does something different from what news sites (including Wikinews) are trying to do. A continuously updated overview of a multifaceted news topic is a very different goal from a series of reports about the latest developments of a news topic. People want both at various times, but there's nowhere else to go for what Wikipedia does, while even if Wikinews becomes a comprehensive, high-volume news site there will still be many alternatives. I'm deeply disappointed that more Wikipedians don't cross over to Wikinews, and many small scale news articles on Wikipedia would probably be better off on Wikinews. But overall, the main change that should be made is just more participation in Wikinews. --ragesoss 16:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can Wikinews be seen as an "original reporting" extension of Wikipedia, a means to get photographs and interviews with notable people?
  • At this point, sort of. We all realize that Wikinews could be much more than it is, but until it really develops a core competency (either broad, consistent coverage of a particular topic, like internet/technology news, or a regular output of unique investigative journalism that brings people to the site just to see if there's anything new) Wikinews's most valuable content will be interviews and photographs. Calling that an "extension of Wikipedia" may not be fair, but photos and interviews will have lasting usefulness for Wikipedia in a way that some other kinds of original reporting won't. When Wikinews has a large enough independent readership, there will be more incentive to do reporting that can't also be used by Wikipedia.--ragesoss 16:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you add your own pictures (and maybe original reporting articles) to Wikipedia articles, or is that COI?
  • I do add my own pictures to Wikipedia. I take many pictures with Wikipedia in mind. I wouldn't feel comfortable adding my own original reporting for Wikinews to Wikipedia articles (possibly with the exception of interviews). Wikipedia articles are meant to reflect the balance of focus on a topic, and there's a problem with synthesizing that balanced version and at the same time tipping the balance one way or another in terms of whatever the original reporting focused on. There's not a problem with doing Wikinews reporting on topics you are interested in and think important. There is a problem with skewing Wikipedia articles toward the aspects of a topic that you are interested in and think important. So, yes, I think COI is a potential problem with users who work on the same topics in both Wikinews and Wikipedia, although I wouldn't say that it's automatically a problem.--ragesoss 16:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • How could the Signpost and Wikinews work together better?
    • Wikinews and the Signpost have very different intended audiences. Some of the Signpost reports about Wikipedia stories in the mainstream media might also be appropriate for Wikinews, but in general I think the area of overlap is small.--ragesoss 16:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Four questions from David Shankbone:

  • Question: What kinds of stories interest you?
    • Answer: I'm interested in all sorts of stories: politics, science, arts, culture, technology. I'm mainly interested in reporting on political events and academia-related topics.--ragesoss - (talk) 05:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: If you could have a recurring feature on Wikinews, what would it be?
    • Answer: That's not something I've thought about, so I'm shooting from the hip here... How about a feature that brings together (and translated, when necessary) the most relevant citizen-journalism and blogging for a particular current topic of interest? Being able to put a different angle on, e.g., a presidential campaign (local bloggers from an upcoming primary state or interviews with campaign volunteers), the writers' strike, or elections in Pakistan, using internet sources, would be a way to bring Wikinews to a higher level of relevancy while taking advantage of Wikimedians' strengths in online information gathering. Pointing people to nontraditional sources for ongoing news issues could be a major strength.--ragesoss - (talk) 05:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Do you think that to maintain accreditation a minimum number of OR stories should be produced per month?
    • Answer: No. At this point, Wikinews should be focused on growth, and should not shut out potential contributors who would only want to do original reporting occasionally. If a Wikimedian is a strong contributor another project and accreditation will allow him or her to occasionally do some original reporting for Wikinews, we should make that as easy as possible.--ragesoss - (talk) 05:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Wikinews is currently faced with some important issues about how to remain true to its policies while increasing readership and experimenting with content. Do you plan to participate in the discussion about these news directions?
    • Answer: I don't usually spend much time on policy discussions, but I think growth-focused changes to Wikinews policy are probably more significant decisions the vast majority of Wikipedia policy debates. So yes, I will pitch in to the discussion when I think I have something new to add.--ragesoss - (talk) 05:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--David Shankbone - (talk) 04:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: You state above, "If a Wikimedian is a strong contributor another project and accreditation will allow him or her to occasionally do some original reporting for Wikinews, we should make that as easy as possible." Does this mean that your primary motive for accreditation is non-Wikinews projects? What would you need accreditation for on Wikinews (or other Wikimedia projects)? --David Shankbone - (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer: No, I'm requesting accreditation for purposes of Wikinews reporting. I would, of course, also get photographs that would be used for Wikipedia and Commons. As I suggested above, the specific reporting assignment I have in mind that prompted me to request credentials is the Democratic National Convention. I can't think of any times when I would want to take advantage of accreditation except for Wikinews reporting or photo opportunities with notable people. It's just that, even if accredited, I only anticipate using the credentials when newsworthy happenings coincide with my schedule, which only happens occasionally.--ragesoss - (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Please use {{support}}, {{oppose}}, {{neutral}}, or {{comment}}

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page). No further edits should be made to this page.


Consensus has been reached on this Accreditation request, and the result is passed 6/0. Please do not add further votes or comments to this request.

NicholasTurnbull

Name: Nicholas J. Turnbull
Location: Brighton, East Sussex, United Kingdom
Areas of interest: General current affairs; specific areas Scientology, sciences, LGBT rights, and the arts
Reason: It may seem rather premature that I be asking for accreditation this early on in my Wikinews career (although I am, however, an administrator on the English Wikipedia -- see my user page). I am doing so because I would like to work on more first hand interviews and other original research and, to do so with sufficient credibility, it would be a great help to be able to show some kind of press credentials to interview candidates. I would like to do first-hand audio reporting as well as I feel this would make Audio Wikinews even more useful to potential listeners; perhaps I may even be able to do video interviews at some point. These are all things I would like to do which would be aided by accrediation.
Accomplishments: David S. Touretzky discusses Scientology, Anonymous and Tom Cruise; also see Wikinews:Audio Wikinews where I write and record the News Briefs, still intermittent alas
Contact information: nicholas (dot) turnbull (at) gmail (dot) com
User ID: 18733
Applied on: 08:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Questions

  • How much time do you think you will be having for Wikinews?
  • Are you first and foremost a Wikipedian or a Wikimedian?
  • What differences between Wikipedia and Wikinews have you experienced yet?
  • Would you add your own pictures and interviews to Wikipedia articles, or is that COI?
  • What do you mean by "perhaps I may even be able to do video interviews at some point"?

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Four questions from David Shankbone:

  • Question: What kinds of stories interest you?
  • Question: If you could have a recurring feature on Wikinews, what would it be?
  • Question: Do you think that to maintain accreditation a minimum number of OR stories should be produced per month?
  • Question: Wikinews is currently faced with some important issues about how to remain true to its policies while increasing readership and experimenting with content. Do you plan to participate in the discussion about these news directions?

--David Shankbone - (talk) 04:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to questions by User:Stevenfruitsmaak

((Wikinews (Michaël Laurent))) : How much time do you think you will be having for Wikinews?

Nicholas Turnbull: I fear this is one of those classic questions like "how long is a piece of string?". It is highly difficult for me to give a precise estimate, simply because my "real life" workload at university and in my paid work fluctuates wildly (as you can probably tell from the hesitant schedule of the News Briefs). However, my erratic contribution is something which I intend to work assiduously on changing, and I hope to be able to offer at least two hours' work per day in future. This would be about right for publishing one News Brief per evening; and during weekends I may (but cannot promise) to be able to work for much longer on Wikinews copy and interviews. The evasive answer to this question would be "ask me again in two weeks' time"; but, more seriously, I think the two hours' work a day is probably a good target. What would be really helpful would be for more people to assist me with things like scriptwriting for my spoken recordings, so I can maximise the use of my time here.
If you want a scriptwriter for audio wikinews, I could offer some help, although I noticed that you often correct a written text as your read it out loud. Secondly, I think you'll get burn-out very soon if you spend 2 hours per day: 1 hour might be a more realistic goal. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

((WN)) : Are you first and foremost a Wikipedian or a Wikimedian?

NT: I was solely a Wikipedian for a long time (since Sept '04, counting the start of my anon contributions); but I confess that I have veered away from Wikipedia lately simply because, bizarre as it sounds, I found a distinct lack of anything to actually write: on the English Wikipedia there is a lot of tweaking, changing, maintenance and mechanisms to be attended to, and it is very difficult to find an article topic these days that one can work solidly on in order to produce a well-written piece of work to one's own standards of quality. This is why, more recently, I have taken up work on Wikinews. I suppose I trend more towards being a Wikimedian than a Wikipedian, because I think I tend to integrate better with the Wikimedia-wide community than specifically the Wikipedian culture. Certainly, this is more in keeping with my philosophies on collaboration across projects publishing different types of media across different nationalities, but using the same wiki format.

((WN)) : Would you add your own pictures and interviews to Wikipedia articles, or is that COI?

NT: In general, I would add my own pictures if they were appropriate, but not my interviews: the reason for this is because I believe it to be of questionable journalistic and editorial ethics to use your own article as a tertiary source. I think that if one's interviews are worth inclusion on Wikipedia, someone will notice this, and add it themselves -- a far more honest way of working. I did have a brief stint in the "real" publishing world some time ago as a freelancer, which reminds me of Bismarck's observation that men should never have to know how either laws or sausages are made -- the same is true with much of the in-print media, where proper academic diligence and ethics relating to reporting is, in fact, widely ignored where it is not seen by the readership. I have witnessed "facts" being fabricated from mere imaginative speculation by editors looking to fill that lonely eight column-inches somewhere within the depths of a magazine due to impossibly tight deadlines to "pass for press", and newscopy "top-and-tailed", direct plagiarism in all but name, from point-of-view press releases and rival news sources without attribution. I do not believe Wikimedia operates in this manner; I believe this lack of mercenary fabrication to be one of its principal assets, and I vehemently oppose anyone doing this -- most of all myself.

((WN)) : What do you mean by "perhaps I may even be able to do video interviews at some point"?

NT: I have a dream of sorts which I would, at some indeterminate point in the future, like to pursue: do video recorded first-person news reports for breaking stories, in the manner of correspondents' reports such as used on television news. More realistically, audio interviews with witnesses of events, with notable individuals and experts would add a more multimedia aspect to Wikinews' original research reporting, as well as providing additional interest to readers of ours. I think this may have the potential also to expose Wikinews to a wider audience by providing a ready-made source of material for audio or video "podcasts" and downloadable news summaries, an extension of my existing work on Audio Wikinews. The audio interviews would certainly be possible at the present time; the video interviews would require the services of a friendly cameraman with equipment to video the event and my speech, which will obviously require more work in procuring. I believe, however, a brave new world stands before us in this direction, which would bring us into the league of a major newscaster as opposed to simply a newswire service.
NT: Thank you very much for your questions; I hope I have covered what you wanted to know adequately. With my best regards, --NicholasTurnbull 18:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your eloquent responses, I can discern that brevity is not a natural talent of yours :-). --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to questions by User:David Shankbone

((Wikinews (David Shankbone))) : What kinds of stories interest you?

NT: Well, as far as the News Briefs go, I admit that most of the summarising is extremely general, as one has to try and make a decent survey of all of the broad areas of interest where current news stories are available. I know this may sound ridiculously broad, but it is truly the case that anything which has an impact on a populace interests me with regards to original reporting. Specific interests within my fields of expertise are Scientology (because of my expertise as a former member), artificial intelligence/computer science (because I study that at university), literature and the arts (as a hoping-to-be-published writer and occasional actor) and LGBT rights (as a committee member of my university's LGBT Society, drag queen, and observer of Britain's gay scene). I imagine these latter fields will form the core of my OR at least from the outset; but in no way do I wish to limit myself to them: if I find a good story, I shall report on it.

((WN)) : If you could have a recurring feature on Wikinews, what would it be?

NT: In a regard, if the Audio Wikinews News Briefs were to be more frequent (which I think they will be from Saturday onwards), I could be said to already have my recurring feature in reporting published Wikinews copy in a radio-style newscasting format. I personally think that too little attention is paid on Wikinews to developments in the sciences and technology; we seem to have excellent coverage of terrorist attacks, elections, military action and dead United States governmental figures, but little emphasis on scientific discovery and academia. Perhaps a "Wikinews Scientific Bulletins" feature might be of value? The other one would be international LGBT rights, which haven't really been covered very well either on Wikinews, at least not directly.

((WN)) : Do you think that to maintain accreditation a minimum number of OR stories should be produced per month?

NT: It is difficult to quantify work in terms of published stories or number of edits made to Wikinews, because one particularly involved or difficult-to-obtain OR story may well be worth four weaker ones in terms of value to the Wikinews readership, and in aggregate time spent developing it. I don't think a minimum OR requirement should be set for a further issue of unfortunate circumstances: it may simply be a reporters' specific field did not yield a newsworthy story, or that reporter was particularly busy in their real-life commitments, and thus may not produce their quota. In a similar manner to the way that Wikipedia considers administrator rights to be "no big deal", I think we should consider accreditation "no big deal" unless evidence presents itself that shows that person is detrimental to the Wikinews reporting effort due to unprofessional or damaging conduct, in which case it should be withdrawn expeditiously. For users who do not contribute for very long periods of time, it may be reasonable to assume that accreditation expires.

((WN)) : Wikinews is currently faced with some important issues about how to remain true to its policies while increasing readership and experimenting with content. Do you plan to participate in the discussion about these news directions?

NT: If I may refer to my reply above to Steven Fruitsmaak's questions above, I have been considering using different forms of multimedia content for presenting Wikinews information, and perhaps in doing so including more first-hand recorded material that would otherwise have not had a place within the standard Wikinews publishing environment. Moreover, there is the existing question as to how NPOV should be implemented in news reporting, in that it may be more preferable to some readers to have point-of-view editorial commentary in addition to our neutrally-presented news. I intend, thus, to participate fully in this discussion, and assist in experimenting with these emerging formats.
NT: Thank you for your questions, David; please do let me know if there are any points I have made here that you would like me to clarify. Yours, --NicholasTurnbull - (talk) 04:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Please use {{support}}, {{oppose}}, {{neutral}}, or {{comment}}

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page). No further edits should be made to this page.


Revocations

Remember: For requests for revoking credentials, "support" or "revoke" means "remove accreditation," and "oppose" means "keep acreditation."

Please note that only accredited reporters who have misused their credentials granted to them (as can be proved through concrete evidence) may be listed here.

Meekel


This conversation has been marked for the community's attention. Please remove the {{flag}} when the discussion is complete or no longer important.


I wish for my accreditation to be revoked. After reading the IRC argument tonight, I no longer wish to be part of Wikinews due to the attitude of some members. -Meekel 23:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That convo is no reason to do that. It was a heated discussion but no hard feelings on my end. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 00:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Indeed. After you left Jason and I actually both calmed down and solved the problem. It was a case of tempers flaring and perhaps a case of PMS (!!). If you'd like to come back to IRC this afternoon (Eastern Standard Time) I'd be more than happy to talk to you as well. TheCustomOfLife 11:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (although that is meaningless). IRC is where you get the drama queen behaviour from people. If you can't be persuaded to have a relaxing chat in IRC and hopefully stick around then email me and I'll take you off scoop and delete the email. All that leaves to you is removing yourself from the list. We can't make you stay but we'd prefer you do. People lose their tempers all the time and what you saw was the worst side of IRC. Not sure if you caught me lecturing Jason but he is "highly strung" and gets overly emotionally attached to his stories here. If I understand correctly he sees his work here as a form of personal validation and thus the drama.
IRC is where the flaming and bitchiness is kept, we can all put up with that in IRC and if you're not regularly there then you won't see that 10 minutes later we're all joking again and glueing brown_cat to the ceiling or slapping him with the wet trout. Yes, it is anarchic but it helps build friendships where you can berate someone and give them a none-too-tactful character reading. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Accreditation_requests&oldid=583355"