Wikinews:Accreditation requests/Bubba73

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search


The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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]
    • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I wish Commons would do that, but they don't, as far as I know. Bubba73 (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Ummmmmm, an answer to my question might be nice. --Bddpaux (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I encourage you to consider online original reporting or over the phone: email people and give phone calls to find information which is not currently available online. This is one quite useful form of original reporting. I myself did this to retrieve weather data to support claims with plots, and to query researchers about their research background and methodology. It works and with accreditation with the wikinewsie.org email address people seem more responsive! Original reporting does not have to be in person.
I am hoping that for your current activity the comment by SVTCobra above is useful. Cheers, --Gryllida (chat) 04:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It looks like I'm not going to get the pass, probably mainly because I only want to take photos and not contribute news items. There was a case a few months ago when I could have used it, though. I had tickets for a concert. I knew that cameras were not allowed inside, but I wanted to take a photo of the venue before I went in. I took a photo. Two security people came over and asked if I had credentials. Of course I don't. They said that I could not take photos of security (the security people checking the concert goers). I didn't want a hassle that would prevent me from seeing the concert, so I brought the photo up on my camera and showed them that I was deleting it. However, my camera has two cards, with photos going to both, and the delete button only removes it from the first card, so I still had the photo. I cropped it to take out the security people and uploaded it to commons: File:St. Augustine Amphitheatre, St. Augustine, Florida, U.S.jpg. Bubba73 (talk) 07:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the follow-up Bubba73. I would suggest to write several news stories and re-apply then -- writing "based on existing online sources" is a good exercise to practice the pillars, so that you know what notes are important to take for your original report. After gaining such practice, I personally encourage you to re-apply to accreditation indicating what kind of local events you would like to attend and report on in the future. --Gryllida (talk) 07:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
and before we get too deep here: 'We must ask permission to photograph'....um, yeah.....maybe and maybe not. I live in the US of A. When I attend (local) conventions/Maker Faires etc. there is a HUGE DISCLAIMER at the entrance telling people that just by entering, they're consenting to be photographed. We can chatter on adding all manner of bloviate to this topic all day, but the issue is: do we accredit the guy or don't we? --Bddpaux (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I really have no desire or motivation to argue anything you're saying here. It's all fundamentally correct...but to what end? Based upon all this...I think we owe the guy a decision in-the-least. --Bddpaux (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding consent, per photography ethics, we must ask for consent. Other thing is: consent to be photograph is not same as granting permission to be uploaded on the internet. Besides, we are also allowing anyone to use the photo, modify it, make money -- people did not sign up for it. That is the reason I decided to release my photos of ComicCon under ND license -- next time, I guess I would choose to use NC-ND because people did not sign up for them becoming face of a brand.
•–• 18:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, once again.....lets bring this long winded discussion back to our world here at Wikinews. Look at the policy on Accreditation. Please point out for me this 'photography ethics' policy. Sure, I'd bet you could find it in a college journalism text book.....fine. But this project (and the Wikimedia Foundation) have policies. Yes, Commons license(s) have some parameters about who can be photographed etc. .....all that is fine and great. I want anyone accredited by us to play by the rules.....super terrific! To loop back around here: I can't find any evidence that the guy has done anything bad/wrong/incorrect or whatever. In the end: just decide which way you want to vote and go that way, OK? It's time to make a decision......heck, the guy has probably vanished by now. --Bddpaux (talk) 23:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no mention of journalistic ethics on the policy pages. I could have lied and could have told the reviewer almost anything when I interviewed a shopkeeper who answered in Kannada [I bet you did not get a word of it]. Not everything is said, nor it has to be. Let's not get down to discussing what is missing from the project space pages. Accreditation is not only for photographing things or people, you know better than me. Things are pretty straightforward; if one has not contributed on this project, I am not going to say "yes". I know people who are good at photography, but do not follow photography ethics, let alone journalistic ethics. If they start uploading photos on Commons and ask for the rights on Wikinews, I would not be okay with that. We are supposed to tell the person whom we are going to photograph that their photograph would be uploaded on Wikinews, and if possible, we should explain them about the license we wish to use. Let me ask you one thing: do you agree consent of photograph does not mean the photographer can upload the photo anywhere?
Wikinews' reputation is at stake when the reporter does something problematic. And without knowing the basic journalism ethics, (which took me time to learn because of the time I spent on Wikinews) it is wrong. Think about this situation -- I tell someone I am from Wikinews, can I have a photo of yours? or I am taking someone's photo without permission, and if they question me, I say, Oh, I am from Wikinews but I never upload those photos for Wikinews' use. I end up selling those photos somewhere else [play all the permutations in your head with on what type of websites]. Think about the situation when that person comes to know their photos were used for a different purpose, and not what they had permitted to. When one contributes to the project, they would generally think good of the project and not indulge in any wrongdoings. I found out I can get free entry for ComicCon events if I ask for media accreditation, and I can just say I am from Wikinews, and avoid paying money for tickets. But I would not do that because I understand the ethics involved. Without actual contribution on the project, I can not trust anyone -- we have dealt with a lot of noobs, some learns from failure, some would go berserk. You never know what kind of editors they are, until they stay on the project of long enough. Speaking of the time, well, I had to wait for longer duration than this user had to (243 days in my case, 241, for this user's case) even though I had written about 250 news articles by then. Until I do not see contribution from this user on the project, let it be a photo essay, if they are not a writer, I am not saying a "yes".
Note: I am not accusing this user for the various scenarios I was discussing.
•–• 07:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not a terrible argument at all. --Bddpaux (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I would agree with Acagastya on this. Bubba73 is a major contributor to English Wikipedia and to Commons but their entire contribution to Wikinews is centred on this request page. I could list a bunch of things I do on other WM projects (see my userpage if you really want to find out), but they shouldn't have a bearing on a request like this. I may have misunderstood the initial reasoning but I can't see a difficulty in obtaining photos of historic buildings. As far as I know, in the US, you don't need permission to take photos of things that are viewable from a public place (apart from obvious cases like photographing through an open window or door). Particularly if the building is historic, I am sure that the owners will be aware that other people might be interested in their property. The major objection (at least as far as Wikimedia is concerned) is of course the publication of photos of copyright scultpures and other artworks in public places, but that is a different issue. Green Giant (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. I will support once there is a significant corpus of Bubba73's work here. Green Giant (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

not to forget FoP in the US.
223.237.228.203 (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. I added a link to the Commons page on this issue. Green Giant (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I suggest user:Bubba73 read w:Wikipedia:Press pass. Wikinews does not issue press credentials/passes for activities that are not related to news gathering. It is quite frankly unethical to present credentials as a news journalist, if ones activity is not for news purposes. --SVTCobra 18:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Apart from some concerns about Bubba's answers to questions, it's simply a fact that he has never contributed anything here (https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bubba73) and doesn't even promise that. This brazen request for undeserved credentials should have been closed with a negative vote a year ago, imho. Gray62 (talk) 08:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Accreditation_requests/Bubba73&oldid=4456915"