Wikinews:Accreditation requests

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, 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 type your username after the slash in the box below, click "request", then follow the instructions. After you have posted, the user's entry will solicit Support/Object votes from Wikinews users for the duration of 7 days for accreditation and 14 for revocation. At the expiration of this time period the user will either be granted accreditation, or the vote removed from this page and archived. In the case of revocation a case may be closed early, but no earlier than 7 days, when there is overwhelming consensus.


Upon successful accreditation

Once accredited, you can get a personal email address on Wikinewsie. Please contact user Brian McNeil about this, your email address will be made up based on the details given when applying - if you have a middle name and you feel having this in the address (or its initial) is important, please say so. You must either provide an existing email address for the password to be sent to, or have enabled email from your en.wikinews account and specify this as the preferred contact method. For further information, contact an active, established, already-accredited user. Requests for an email address must be verifiable - either submit via 'email this user', or signed, and on Brian McNeil's talk page.

In addition to a wikinewsie.org email address, accredited reporters may – at their own expense – obtain a stock of business cards clearly indicating they are an accredited reporter. You can see a sample here. (Note, degraded to a quality that prevents use.)

Current requests[edit]

Lhcollins (talk)[edit]

Name: Lhcollins
Location: Maryland, New Jersey, & Pennsylvania, USA
Areas of interest: Emerging musical acts and the venues that support them. Other interests include Psychology and environmental issues.
Reason: To give me the access I need to contribute to Wikinews, Wikimedia Commons, and Wikipedia more effectively.
Accomplishments: Regarding venues, The Ottobar, Lucerna Music Bar, The Upstage Club, The Saint (music venue), Asbury Park Music Awards and numerous fixes to articles about other small venues (e.g., The Stone Pony, Hammerjacks, The Recher Theater). In terms of emerging artists (and one DJ), Charlie Mars, The Ries Brothers, Deal Casino, Aaron Lee Tasjan, Emily Grove, Holme (band), The Blind Owl Band, and Jeff Raspe. In real life I am a psychology professor whose hobbies include construction, home renovation, photography, web design, digital art, technology. I am a published author.

Here are the photographs I have contributed to Wikimedia: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Lhcollins

Contact information: lc AT chwd1 com
User ID:
Applied on: 13:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


I would also like to be able to apply for press passes. They require a letter from my editor. How is that handled? Thank you for your help.

Comments[edit]

You have never contributed to English Wikinews. Just because you wish to help Wikipedia and Commons (and hopefully this project too), we can not grant accreditation. You need to establish yourself as a trustworthy editor. Wikinews is not a place where one can get free press passes, you need to earn it.
acagastya PING ME! 16:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

  • It would have been more appropriate for me to ask for credentials from Wikipedia or Wikimedia since I already have a long history of contributions as a trustworthy editor with them (Wikimedia Commons & Wikipedia contributions for the music world alone), but I couldn't figure out what their process was to get press credentials, or even if there is one. Thanks anyway. You just saved me a lot of money! :-) Lhcollins (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Votes[edit]

Bubba73 (talk)[edit]

Name: Jud McCranie
Location: Brunswick, Georgia, US
Areas of interest: Now mostly photographing historic buildings, especially on the NRHP
Reason: I often am approached by people wondering what I'm doing - sometimes police or security people. I'd like to have photographer credentials. An additional reason is that I often have to shoot a house from a long distance away, through trees, because I don't feel comfortable going up to the house to ask for permission. Credentials would help.
Accomplishments: Many edits to the English Wikipedia (76,000 in 12 years) and many photos uploaded, and a very large number of photos uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Autopatrolled with rollback permission.
Contact information: j.mccranie AT comcast net
User ID: 218586 Bubba73 (across wiki projects)
Applied on: 05:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


Comments[edit]

  • Comment Now that you have mentioned "I often have to shoot a house from a long distance away, through trees, because I don't feel comfortable going up to the house to ask for permission.", Wikinews is not a medium to get away with photographing something or someone who were not permitting you to take photographs before. I don't know how it will help make you feel better taking the photos if you were never comfortable with it. It is possible accreditation might help, but it is more about photography ethics here, I feel. And at least for Wikinews, you must have their permission to interview and photograph, and disclose that you are going to report on Wikinews. I didn't know this when I first did it.
    acagastya 05:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Reply - I have never felt comfortable about walking up to a house and asking if I can take photos. Some people on the Wikipedia NRHP (National Register of Historic Places) project suggest that I do that (they have done it). I would feel more comfortable about doing that if I had some credientials on me. Bubba73 (talk) 04:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
That is the question of personal ethics. Besides, it will be good to point out how you are going to contribute to Wikinews if you want accreditation from Wikinews. Anyone can upload files on Commons. Most of the users that I know, or have met, or saw the userpage never hinted about working for this project. I think Commons should hand out accreditation for photographers who are going to contribute photos only.
acagastya 05:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I wish Commons would do that, but they don't, as far as I know. Bubba73 (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Reply Here is an example of where I could have gotten a better photo of a house if I had felt comfortable walking up and asking. Bubba73 (talk) 04:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment OK, tell you what: point us to some of your images at Commons.....how about that as a starting point? I think I get what you're going for here and that's no crime. We just have A LOT OF PEOPLE who breeze in here (with no efforts to establish their credibility -- as a person/journalist/or whatever -- and ask us to accredit them just-like-that. So, you can respect that we're a wee bit gun shy about that sometimes? --Bddpaux (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Reply This is a link to my uploads to Wikimedia Commons. A few of them are from recent events but the bulk of them are photos of historic buildings, almost all on the NRHP. I have 3,773 pages on my watchlist on Commons - almost all of them are photos. Some are ones that I improved with photoshop or from NASA, but the great majority are ones I've taken (must be well over 3,000 of them). Before 2010 I uploaded to en.wikipedia and a number of them have been transferred to commons. Bubba73 (talk) 04:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment When we photograph, we have a reason to. There is something we want to tell others, depict something which would be impossible to put up in the words, or provide some information (...and all of the photography philosophy). As far as that house is concerned, it can be useful for a news article if something happens in that house. But if you had a good reason to take that photo, you should go and take the photo, and if somebody questions, tell them, "Madam/Sir, I was taking pictures of the house because whatever your reason may be, tell them honestly. I hope you do not mind. But if you do, I will delete the photos." And you must delete it because this is the question of ethics.
    acagastya 05:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
    • That house is noteworthy because it is on th NRHP, but not in the news. Some people like to see architectural details, which I can't get from that distance. And yes, I'm too shy to just walk up and known on the door. And, for instance, a month or two ago I was walking down the street photographing the NRHP Twin Cities Historic District and someone came up to me and asked was I was doing. I said that I was taking pictures. They asked "what for?"
    • Sometimes historical buildings get destroyed and that makes the news. For instance, I had before and after photos here of a historical building being destroyed (it was in the local news). (Some of the other "places in peril" photos on that page are mine, too.) Bubba73 (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I did a search on Wikinews for Brunswick, Georgia and Glynn County, Georgia and there isn't much news here that makes it to Wikinews. But if someone wanted a photo of a news event here, or pretty close to here, I could go get it. Bubba73 (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
A couple of things: First; when I was taking photos of ATMs when I was writing this story India discontinues ₹500, ₹1000 denominations; releases ₹2000 and new ₹500 bills, security guard asked me why I was taking photos in Kannada. I tried to explain him that it was for news and he said I am not supposed to. It is possible that they said no for security reason, but I was a) not in a position to explain them what is Freedom of Panorama because of the language barrier and b) not accredited. You are in a better position than this. And Second; even if you have accreditation, people reserve the right to question you, say no to you or even tell a police official. You can tell about Freedom of Panorama and the police might help you there, but the accreditation would not stop others from questioning you.
As far a historically significant buildings are concerned, I don't think it should be a problem since you can always say: "I want a photo of this historical architecture."
acagastya 09:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, you've certainly contribute A LOT OF IMAGES at Commons, that's for sure. (A little aside here: I've gotten a lot of mileage simply saying, 'I'm a reporter working on a news story.') Non-Americans bring an interesting angle, because 'accredited' means a lot outside of the old US of A.......us, with our Freedom of the Press thing, and all.....but I digress. Well, at least we know you've cranked out a lot of output! Do you imagine yourself writing here much? --Bddpaux (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Ummmmmm, an answer to my question might be nice. --Bddpaux (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, but I didn't know that I had a message. No, I don't expect to write for WikiNews - there usually isn't much news other than local news here in Brunswick, Georgia. The Savannah and Jacksonville (exp Jax) newspapers cover some local news, and sometimes the Savannah and Jacksonville TV stations have something. The last big news here was the hurricane last fall, and it didn't hit us hard. Bubba73 (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Votes[edit]

Support You, my friend put your WORK where your mouth is! If ever there's been a person worthy of accreditation for photographic submissions to Commons, it'd be you! --Bddpaux (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Bddpaux: I don't think handing out accreditation for anyone with a camera is a good idea. They should have a history of contribution, and establish a trust before they can shield themselves with a press pass.
acagastya PING ME! 16:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, let me offer a few comments here. Yes, accreditation is about trust. Yes, its a serious thing and should be treated as such. We here at English WN are 'vouching' for that person and their credibility as a contributor. I own a camera and I'd bet you do too. LOADS AND LOADS of people come here, hang about for 6 minutes, then ask for accreditation. (You weren't one of them.) When they don't get it, they often tantrum and run away mad! Now, you use the term 'shield themselves'. I know that, in various parts of the world, the term 'Press Credentials' means different things and that's fine. I can walk out on a nearby sidewalk and do 85% of EVERYTHING a reporter with the Dallas Morning News can do right this second. It's not always like that in certain countries and I'm aware of that....okey-dokey....fine. This guy, though.....asked for it....and then HAS CONTINUED TO PHOTOGRAPH many historical homes in his geographic area. To also split some VERY fine hairs, each of us are still (technically) operating as "independent" journalists......even if we are 'accredited' here! The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't buy insurance for us. I'd be willing to bet if we were sued in light of a story, we wouldn't be able to get ANY of their lawyers to call us back! This guy is a WORKER.....go check out his stuff over at Commons. He's pretty much said he's not a writer....and that's fine....it is. But we've had enough TALKERS around here (no, I'm not insulting you, I promise I'm not).....we've had a devoted person come here, tell us he's a DOER and has followed thru on that promise. I'm good with the guy all the way around. We are currently vetting you as a reporter here (noticed I voted support). You've done what you said you'd do. Journalism isn't always 'clean' or 'pretty' or 'easy', but we're all (the few of us, I mean) in this together and I feel like the guy is legit. --Bddpaux (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
@Bddpaux: For the part "This guy is a WORKER [...] He's pretty much said he's not a writer" -- it is okay if they don't write articles. However, there is photo essay which they could do. Looking at the bigger picture, accreditation is not a way to get free passes to XYZ. If we use tell someone that we are accredited and wish to cover/report something, that is the real use of accreditation. And then there are journalistic ethics one needs to take care of. There are two school of thoughts when it comes to photography. A) Ask for permission. B) Don't wait for "the perfect moment". Until and unless it is not a sting operation, we must ask permission to photograph. When I attended Comic Con, before every single photo, I asked for the permission -- more than 200 times in the whole day. For the minors, I asked their legal guardians. However, I noticed some people who had media accreditation, did not ask for consent for cosplayers and took the photo. Bangalore ComicCon clearly stated that Cosplay is not consent and one must ask for permission -- those "professional" journalists were careless enough to violate the ethics. If this user gets accreditation, I would expect them to keep up with it (not that I am questioning about how they do -- besides they even spoke about it); and I would expect a photo essay when they get access to something which was possible just because of the accreditation. [FWIW -- I do not have my own camera, and I had not touched a camera for more than twelve months, before I went to Bangalore comic con.]
•–• 08:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


Recently closed requests[edit]








Revocations[edit]

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

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.