Wikinews:Water cooler/policy/Archive/3

Reporter Credentials
In association with Eloquence (and urging from Amgine) I've put together our reporter credentials program.

What does accreditation mean? It means that if you're a Wikinewsie, you can request to be officially recognized by Wikinews. You will be listed on the accredited reporters page, and Wikinews will affirm your credentials when asked by other organizations.

What can you do with Wikinews credentials? Well, you can request press passes to events and try to solicit interviews, cover real-world events, etc. Wikinews will vouch for your identity. A press pass may give you press access that you couldn't get as a "civillian".

This is meant to be a step in the direction of creating original reporting on Wikinews. It is not meant to replace a discussion about our editorial policy for original reporting: it serves however to be a way for us to place official recognition of users, for external purposes, however we manage the content they create. Basically, if Wikinews is to have any original reporting, this is one of the places to start dealing with that issue.

I really welcome everyone to apply for credentials (read that page &mdash; and specifically the Accreditation policy for more info). I also really urge people to start a separate discussion on the editorial policy for original reports. -- IlyaHaykinson 03:46, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Brilliant work, all. Dan100 (Talk) 20:13, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Credentializing and Accreditation simply buys into the information control scheme exemplified by Gannongate. To spell it out for you, the people who control the credentials,control the reporting; and hence, the information.Paulrevere2005


 * In order to report on things that are going on around the world, we need to have people who are accepted as part of the press, and given access to events. If that means that we have to buy into the "information control scheme" so be it &mdash; it's better than not having access to the information at all, in my view. -- IlyaHaykinson 22:02, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't believe user Paulrevere2005 quite understands that the credentialling process on Wikinews is a community support system where all users are involved in deciding who is credentialed, and who is not. - Amgine 04:41, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikinews provides a great potential venue for whistle blowers... corroborated eye-witness reporting by insiders ;e.g. if one of the pilots who whisked the bin-laden family out of the US after 9/11 had been able to write a story with some cellphone video showing the planes being loaded up and heading for Saudi Arabia at the time it was actually happening; to me that would have been a great story. Maybe this is exactly what some do NOT want to see ,perhaps for good reasons(privacy etc.), but I like the concept of "the whole world's an event and we're all reporters."

So, my question is; "Would credentializing interfere with a non-credentialed user posting stories??" i.e. make it more difficult for the non-credentialed reporter to post ?? Paulrevere2005 13:04, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * No. it is solely for Wikinewsies to get access to press kits, press passes or other press-only events. It has no internal significance in regard to posting. -- Davodd | Talk 22:20, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Digression away from POLICY discussion
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&ncid=693&e=4&u=/ap/20050305/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_drug_reportPaulrevere2005 I disagree with Amgine's "utterly different" description.Perhaps to a detail oriented reader the articles are somewhat different ,but to the average news consumer of today, who notice and retain few details, the "bottom line" of the info is the same;bringing up the question, who is our target market? average readers or discerning readers? and don't say "both"..a store that sells both armani and haggar is doomed to fail; which brings us back to the self destructiveness of having an "elite" among us on this site.Elites will be writing FOR elites and wikinews will be "niche".
 * I think we have a very good example of the harmful effects of having a hierarchy for reporters in the afghan opium piece which was put up for deletion a week ago. Today AP broke almost the exact story "Afghanistan near drug state status".aside;-Now if that's a NPOV headline, I'm a groundhog.So, while some of the Wiki leaders here wanted to kill it or "let it rot"..AP gets the story out for its readers.
 * AP broke an utterly different story, on the same basic topic. The article nominated for deletion was based on the UNODC report from November, released more than three months ago. The AP story is about a U.S. Presidential report released on Friday, which has even more dramatic findings than the UN report (brought to you by the same administration that determined there were WMD in Iraq.) Incidentally, this same report gives Mexico a sterling "excellent" report (while mentioning it is the largest supplier of marijuana and transships 90% of U.S. cocaine supplies) while Canada is raked over the coals as a marijuana producer and a significant drug consuming economy. - Amgine 04:41, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The MAIN point is that Gannon had the credentials and how many more,smoother,Gannons are out there, and some of the regular,honest mainstream reporters have been saying that "access" is used as a blackmail by government to control information.Do you want to be in that position?Paulrevere2005


 * Huh? That's like asking why Chewbacca lives on Endor? Or declaring that if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit. What the heck does the Gannon controversy have to do with Wikinews? Does anyone on Wikinews even live within a hundred miles of Washington DC?


 * Before we worry about getting reporters into White House press briefings, let's see if somebody can get their ass out from behind their desk and visit their local city hall or something in their own hometown.


 * I'm darn impressed with the recent article on the Swahili word processor, and the interview which asked questions of a real live person.


 * Let's praise and encourage homespun efforts that lend some authenticity to this site, instead of pretending that we're investigative reporters for Rolling Stone or the Washington Post, which is quite fraudulent and deceiving to our readers.


 * My first attempt at original reporting in the real world is likely to look into the controversies which involve the Las Vegas City council, or perhaps trying to figure out what happened to all of the redevelopment funds that seem to have disappeared into giant white elephants here in San Jose.


 * It may be fun to fantasize about exposing an international conspiracy, but it gets to be silly after a certain point, doesn't it? &mdash; DV 06:04, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Well,I'm just wondering whether wiki writers can get BETTER information(and even better access) by NOT being credentialized?
 * Exhibit A;I had a very lengthy and enlightening email discussion with a Pitkin County commissioner concerning the possibility of getting a CSI team in to Hunter Thompson's death room..just to exclude the always POSSIBLE intruder theory. She started pouring out multiple problems she was having in Aspen with numerous federal agencies and projects. I wasn't interested in those stories but if I was, I would have gotten lots of good info with no credentials at all. I don't think she would have opened up if I had presented myself as a reporter; hence, maybe NOT being an "official" reporter has some advantages.


 * Exhibit B;On the other hand; when people show up at a "news conference" or a credentialized reporter has a scheduled interview with someone; perhaps the product is automatically going to be sanitized, spun and worthless???.. Just some thoughts. Paulrevere2005 13:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Paulrevere2005, just some friendly words of advice - Jimbo Wales will come down on you like a ton of bricks if you start conducting interviews without formally informing the subject of your interview that you are acting as a reporter.


 * Jimbo and his adherents nearly shut this place down a while back, when someone (who will remain nameless, as he is no longer on Wikinews to defend himself) tried to post a log of an IRC conversation about Wikinews, which revealed some interesting aspects of Jimbo's personality and his opinion of this site, because the "interviewer" did not reveal up front that he was acting as a reporter, and failed to get permission to post the conversation on Wikinews.


 * The poor schlep was even accused of "federal copyright violation"!


 * It was later clarified by Jimbo's adherents that wannabe reporters can't even post a rewritten summary of a private conversation in their own words, which only conveys the substance of what was discussed, without committing a major "privacy" violation.


 * Later on, a Developer arrived on the scene to sanitize Wikinews of this violation by permanently deleting the article from the history logs, so I'm afraid I can't point you to a copy of the conversation so you can judge for yourself whether a major offense was committed.


 * Anyways, good luck if you try to do any "undercover" reporting on Wikinews - you'll need it!


 * Cautiously,


 * &mdash; DV 19:19, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks DV for the "heads up". I won't do anything stupid; I'm actually calming down now that I see NPOV as the antithesis to the orwellian media machine & I can see how much of a threat this site could become to manipulators; e.g. "the smarter the slaves,the more trouble for the slave-owners."


 * Just imagine if more people knew that NYMEX oil was $16. per barrel on Sep.10,2001 and is $52. per barrel today(not many average citizens have had a 300% income increase since 9/11)..and if more people knew that the first question Scotland Yard detectives ask is "Who gained the most financially from the crime?"


 * Just imagine; real news/information-without government propaganda- spreading all over the world. Imagine if people had known about the Gulf of Tonkin ruse when it actually happened; or about the special post 9/11 fast tracked getaways for the bin laden clan right when it was happening. I'm not surprised some people will want to keep this site on a tight leash...but I think they've made the same mistake I did.They think that NPOV will neutralize the energy of the facts; I'm coming to the opinion that TRUE  NPOV will UNLEASH the energy of the facts.

Just look at this comment by 67.80.8.96 on the discussion of the Peruvians vs Newmont story;

"Some people have a POV that is vaguely disturbed by certain truths... then accuse the truths of being POV."

isn't that beautiful?

Paulrevere2005 01:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wow, thanks. I was just going to chime in anyway. I just had a couple of points.
 * There has been no reference in this discussion to the very relevant court case I read about in NYT yesterday, Apple vs. bloggers. This is apparently expected to set a precedent to sort the reporters from everyone else, in the modern age. One possibility that seems to be coming out, is that EVERYONE is a potential reporter. It is very difficult to use logic to create a special class of rights or priveleges for people that publish, since (even before the web) anyone COULD--in the future, if they never have before--publish what they discover that might have interest to others.
 * Maybe I was the only one that saw the leader of the free world on TV right after 9/11 promising to track down whoever placed a huge bet that the stock market would drop, the day before. He specifically said, "these things are hard to get to the bottom of, but we can and will." At the time, and based on my experience as a trader, I thought there was some obfuscation going on. It is NOT that hard to track down who did a trade. I admit I have not followed up. Maybe it's my fault he's still president and no one trusts that we are any safer. 03:10, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)03:10, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)~


 * I am breaking into this digression to state I will move non-policy discussion to user's personal pages. Address the policy discussion here, please. - Amgine 05:12, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I find it rather convenient to label any discussion of matters related to this policy which don't fit into a certain world view, as "a digression". Moving all such conversations into user page ghettos, where they will likely go unnoticed by all but the most religious Recent changes devotees, smacks of censorship, and is just a small step shy of deleting this discussion outright.


 * If we can't discuss policy in broad terms, I'm afraid someone will have to clarify the permissible scope of conversation, as I see no bright lines on this page. The conversation has drifted a bit, but is still addressing topics that are closely related to the credentialing of reporters.


 * Is the only discussion of policy which is permissible concerned solely with logistical matters and not the substance of the policy itself?


 * No one is writing War and Peace on this page, so far, so please provide a little flexibility for contributors to say their peace. It's not as if this page sits within the outwardly facing article namespace, so if the concern is one of airing dirty laundry, I think we're safe for now. &mdash; DV 10:18, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * While I understand your interest in breaking Wikinews to make a point, David, hopelessly miring the water cooler pages in digressions is not likely to gain any sympathy to your position. This is a digression and does not directly discuss the policy of credentialling reporters.
 * I, and I'm sure others, welcome discussions related to the policy in appropriate venues. For example, a discussion about the Opium article as it relates to credentialling would be welcome here. But a broad mention that credentialling is connected to concept of hierarchy which led to (in the contributor's opinion) an article being listed on Dr even when a political appointee reported very similar findings to a political body does not quite qualify. Especially when the contributor then goes on to discuss proposed target audiences, retail marketing, and a throw-away sentence or two about an undescribed news event which is only conceptually related to the policy (as in - what happens when you circumvent a policy.)
 * This was followed by your own diatribe pointing out how irrelevant that digression was.
 * Followed by a rejoinder of speculative questions of whether it might be better to not be credentialed (utterly irrelevant to a credentialing policy, as no one would be required to be credentialed to do OR.) Responded to in kind by yourself, regarding the unfortunate breach of privacy which, while very interesting in and of its own right, would be difficult to define as relevant to the policy in question. Still, quite an event to interpret, considering I believe I have copies of every relevant document and can find only two comments from Mr. Wales. And I'm afraid I was the person to expunge the documents from the database.
 * The next comments discuss NPOV as related to a speculative question - how people would react to reporting about events such as the price of oil, Gulf of Tonkin, and bin Laden family members. This whipped into a quick digression about Apple vs. bloggers case and a politician's promises (and why he's president/"we" aren't safer).
 * At which point I broke in to say this has not been about the policy of credentialing reporters.
 * To which you responded with the straw man argument, which is frivolous and does not actually address whether or not the discussion is or has been related to the policy. If it is, and has been, please point it out to me with specificity. - Amgine 11:12, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * You sir are the one trying to break Wikinews to make a point. Dictating what can and cannot be discussed on a page called "The Watercooler" is the most surefire way to break this site and drive contributors away.


 * As for "straw man", I was waiting for someone to pull out that old chestnut. It's a favorite throw-away line to use whenever one has lost one's way in a discussion, but you forgot to use the complete form for full effect - I didn't make "a straw man argument", I made "an appallingly bad straw man argument". I'm not surprised you resort to labeling my ideas in this manner while trying to enforce conformity on a discussion page.


 * Go ahead and "refactor" discussions on Wikinews all you want, into the smallest ghetto you can devise. Watch what happens when Wikinews gets a reputation as a tightly controlled ship where one best not get too uppity, or raise too many questions on the wrong pages.


 * You'll only antagonize the more flamboyant contributors on this site by doing so.


 * I can't convince you that it is shortsighted to prevent folks from having their say where they feel the need to do so (and as long as it's not in the article space, here is as good a place as any), which let's these folks get on with their lives, because hindsight is 20/20.


 * So go ahead and accuse me (of all people) of "breaking Wikinews to make a point", ignore me if you like, or use whatever tired old tropes you can think of to marginalize my comments.


 * I make no claim of having any administrative skills, so you probably know what's best for us.


 * By the way, isn't it a privacy abuse to keep a copy of that IRC log? Wasn't it supposed to be permanently deleted? I find I'm rather at a disadvantage to evaluate your comments about who made how many comments in a discussion which officially never existed. (If that's too Orwellian, I apologize - I still find that whole episode rather bizarre and troubling.)


 * &mdash; DV 12:21, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * If a Wikinews reporter with credentials discovers his/her level of "access" is affected by his/her reporting; will there be a Wikinews ethical/moral "code" by which the reporter is to deal with the blackmail? Paulrevere2005 14:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Also; Wikinews provides a great venue for whistle blowers... corroborated eye-witness reporting by insiders ;e.g. if one of the pilots who whisked the bin-laden family out of the US after 9/11 had been able to write a story with some cellphone video showing the planes being loaded up and heading for Saudi Arabia at the time it was happening; to me that would be a great story. Maybe this is exactly what some do NOT want to see ,perhaps for good reasons(privacy etc.), but I like the concept of "the whole world's an event and we're all reporters." Would credentializing interfere with a non-credentialed user posting stories?? i.e. make it more difficult to post ?? Paulrevere2005 13:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The point of the accreditation process is to give legitimacy for our users to outsiders. Inside the wiki we already have well-established ways to deal with incoming stories, whoever they might be from. -- IlyaHaykinson 18:18, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is NPOV Being Mis-used as an Excuse to Neutralize and Censor News Facts Which "Big Brother"(western governments/businesses) Would Like to see Neutralized/Censored??
Note; If others can use the term "conspiracy theory" so liberally, then I can use the term "Big Brother"liberally.


 * This does not mean any of us are knowingly working for "Big Brother"; but perhaps we (myself included) are all becoming parts of "Big Brother". Hopefully I need not explain to the intelligent people here that brainwashed people rarely know (much less admit) when they are being brainwashed. The questions are whether its only human nature to protect the majority POV in any society and to what extent the constant onslaught of "Remember 9/11" and "Support Our Troops" programming has caused us to become robotic defenders of western government and business activities. Defenders in the sense that we may not personally agree with those activities but we feel a duty to "protect" our "big brother" and are hijacking concepts like NPOV to use as weapons to defend her?

To me the most obvious recent example was the insertion of our western POV into the initial reports of the killing of the Italian Intelligence Officer by American forces by reporting it on Day 1 as an "accident"or "mistake" with no associated information to that effect; the US wasn't even admitting their soldiers did it on Day 1. With true NPOV we could no more assume/report that event as a "mistake" than we can assume/report that an insurgent bomb that kills Iraqi policemen is a "mistake".


 * Another example; even though American companies are the overwhelming force in international mining, in the Peruvian/Newmont story about problems associated with international mining, the word "american" had to be removed. When the Afghan dope story first came in, it was labeled a "conspiracy theory" until Big Brother's Connie Rice gave it credibility by filing a similar report; thus exemplifying Big Brother's ability to put a "ready for general release" stamp of approval on any type of information.


 * Isn't the short-form of Condoleezza Rice's name "Condi"? Connie is a different name. All publicity is good publicity as long as you spell the name right. &mdash; DV 13:15, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is correct; its "Condi". Paulrevere2005 13:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * My point is, let's please think about our words and not turn NPOV into a selective censoring filter for use in protecting the images/reputations of our western governments and businesses. Paulrevere2005 12:57, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Excellent point! Thanks for keeping everyone on their toes. &mdash; DV 13:15, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Please remember that all Wikinews stories are the work of the entire community - not the original writer - and that straw man-type of arguments in writing will most likely-be targeted as extolling a particular POV. Every claim, opinion or statement of fact needs to be cited to an outside source or it will most likely be deleted as unverifiable or as POV. In addition,  a WN story should treat all sides fairly in representation - which also means we should probably avoid ad hominem-type labels and phraseology in our writing. -- Davodd | Talk  18:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that ad hominem arguments are weak. Paulrevere2005 22:59, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think I'll ever understand the word ad hominem, but thank you anyway for linking it Davodd.

I do not believe NPOV should be taken as a means of censure, it is a means of maintaining creditability. The point is this, would you rather read somebody's opinion on a news event, or read just a factual account?

Everybody has an opinion. Reporting just the facts lets readers make up their own mind.

edw 19:09, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd like to echo edw's comment there. Dan100 (Talk) 09:13, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wiki Links
We commonly link countries to the wikipedia article, e.g. United States, Romania etc. Why? Everyone knows a little about the USA already - at least what it is (a country in North America). So I propose that when we mention a country's name it should link to either the category page or the Local Portal e.g. United States, Romania. It would keep traffic at wikinews longer and it would probably be more useful for our readers. At the top of the category pages we could link to the wikipedia article. I'm going to start doing this myself soon if there's reasonably agreement. Any comments? -> CGorman (Talk)  18:14, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Fully support. I'll start doing this too. -- IlyaHaykinson 18:40, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The more I think about this the more it makes sense. I'm going to go back over my articles (the ones i've started) and make this change to them now. Its just crazy that we are making it so easy for readers to end up in Wikipedia! -> CGorman (Talk)  21:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - but I think that WP links to specific cities is still appropriate. -- Davodd | Talk 21:21, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, of course, im just saying we should stop linking in the case of countries. If the article is on Bill Gates and the annual Forbes list then undoubtably it should link to wikipedia to explain who gates is and what the rich list is all about. Im just trying to come up with ideas to retain traffic and promote the local news sections (e.g. UK, Ireland. Thanks for the support. -> CGorman (Talk)  21:49, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose It depends on the situation. If the article is about country x, background information on country x is more relevant than current news related to country x. - Amgine 22:06, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps in the case of smaller less well known countries such as Azerbaijan - but certainly not in the case of the US or Japan. Either way the category pages should link to the relevent wikipedia article in order to provide the background info. I think that a person having read about Yushchenko's Poisoning, would gain better background by having easy access to the other events going on in Ukraine and also having the option to see the wikipedia article, than just going straight to wikipedia. -> CGorman (Talk)  22:15, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * So if I have an article about Japan's governmental form, you are fully aware of the system by which it maintained? It all depends on the context. We would like Wikipedia to direct users to Wikinews for current events; similarly we should direct users to Wikipedia for factual citations. - Amgine 22:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - it should be the authors choice on a case by case scenario. But I would expect an article on the Japanese governemt to open with something like Today in Japan (link to our Japan page), the government (link to Japanese government entry at wikipedia) announced... Regardless we could argue out case by case examples all night... would you agree to a back this policy more as a guideline stating that the author should choose which is more relevent - but try to include both if possible? -> CGorman (Talk)  22:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Although I'm no longer writing articles regularly, I do think CGorman's idea is a good one. It's bugged me how wikilinks tend to take people away from the site - and when that happens, there's a good chance they don't return, and instead just start surfing Wikipedia! Dan100 (Talk) 09:16, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Support I really should spend more time at this watercooler. There are heaps of really great ideas like this that just pass me by. ~The bellman | Smile 12:17, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dates too
Forget to mention this one earlier. It is madness to link to wikipedia for dates after Nov 04'! Say for example we are writing an article on the recent eartquakes and mention the date of the first quake (back on St. Stephen's/Boxing day) we should link to December 26 in our archives/categorization scheme not December 26 at wikipedia! -> CGorman (Talk)  17:03, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Strong agreement. It's nice to have the article time stamp linking to the archive date, but unless the date has specific relevance to the article's subject matter (for example an article about 11 Sept. or another internationally important date event) there is no reason for the link.
 * Creeping over-wikification is something I am noticing, particularly with popular articles where everyone would like to add a small bit to the effort. Unless something is particularly relevant to the article, it should not be linked. (e.g. Wikipedia has articles on time stamp, date, September, archive... but they aren't linked here because they aren't specifically relevant.) - Amgine 17:25, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

April fool poll?
Is it worth creating a April fool poll to ask if such articles should be quick-deleted? It seems obvious to me that we should treat such jokes as vandalism. &mdash; Jeandré du Toit, 2005-03-29t10:30z


 * How about we add a link (for april 1 only) into the contents to an april fools page, and put anything there. I think it would be nice to make the site a little less serious with a couple of CLEARLY MARKED spoofs. ~The bellman | Smile  12:06, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * It's bad enough that we don't have a legal department to review our articles, but April fool stories are just tempting fate with a red cape. I'd recommend staying away from spoofs at all costs.


 * Also, long after April 1, those stories will still be in the history, lurking to cause trouble when we least expect it.


 * I like to joke around as much as the next guy, but some readers (and perhaps some contributors) have absolutely no sense of humor.


 * Please, let's keep the levity on the user talk and article discussion pages. &mdash; DV 16:02, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * April Fools stories, as hoaxes, should easily fall in the speedy delete category. The last thing Wikinews needs as it is building a reputation for being reliable is to endorse false news of any kind. -- Davodd | Talk 16:06, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * However, please don't confuse one of my "food safety" stories with a hoax if it sounds unbelievable. If I can't be on the scene to shoot photos, I'll be sure to add copious citations whenever there might be doubt! &mdash; DV 17:25, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * LOL. If a story can be verified, then it is not a hoax, no matter how strange the facts are. Wendy's anyone? I hear the chili is finger-licking good. -- Davodd | Talk 18:49, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This site takes itself too seriously. ~The bellman | Smile 00:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * If we don't take ourselves seriously, why would we expect anyone else to do so? -- Davodd | Talk 03:06, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can't trust w: for pictures then the whole thing is in trouble!
The picture of w:Pope John Paul II came right from Wikipedia. Any questions? Seems like someone made a big boooo boo. --Alan J. Franklin 22:37, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has different guidelines regarding images from those of commons. If there is a different license on the image (such as CC-sa or PD) than what is listed, then the commons image should be updated before it is deleted there. In the meantime, we'd rather not have a broken image link when commons decides to deleted the image from their library. - Amgine 22:46, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Kool. Live and learn... --Alan J. Franklin 22:56, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * It is one of the restrictions we're trying to learn to live with... Not that we necesarily like it. - Amgine 22:59, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Why do we have to live with that? As a news organisation, our use of some images easily fall under fair dealing/fair use such as logos and probably a promotional photo such as this one.  Why can wikipedia use fair use but not wikinews? DoubleBlue 23:57, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * There are a variety of reasons. The first is our licensure is Public Domain - while graphics are licensed separately, content re-users will likely simply violate image licensure if we host them here. Another is Wikinews is in beta in part to discover what are the major needs this project will have - we know fair use images is one of those needs so we have to create a process for managing graphics and then propose the change. - Amgine 00:06, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the speedy reply. The part about beta makes sense and I'm glad to hear that fair use will be forthcoming.
 * As for worrying that visitors to site will steal pics, there are plenty of better places on the internet where pics are already lifted every minute of the day. You can't police the use visitors make of the site other than to display copyright info.  The image tagging procedure set up for Wikimedia does that better than anywhere else I've seen. DoubleBlue 00:35, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)