Microgrants/Wikinews reporter IDs

Overview

The English-language Wikinews project has, for a number of years now, a running programme whereby some contributors are community-accredited. Of those granted that status, eleven are in the UK. What the process lacks, is professional-looking ID to match the other provided facilities (email, nonpublic wiki).

Laura Hale has submitted a microgrant application to WMau for funding to permit me to manage issuing of credentials for any existing accredited Australian Wikinewsies, and for those she hopes to recruit to cover the 2012 Paralympics. The amount available falls below a quote I obtained a few months back for a batch of 40 cards with built-in security features.

Budget

The quote I received from http://www.acb-ltd.com/ - for 40 cards, plus 100 card-holders and lanyards, came to a total just under £265. WMau is likely to grant 200 AUD (~£130 at current exchange rates), thus covering about half of this. Reviewing the quote, and looking at customised lanyards, I've the following figures breakdown:

1. 50xWikinews lanyards: circa £50 (I expect WMUK may have a supplier that can beat this, but these have to be durable, unlike many given out at conventions/conferences.)
2. 100 pack clear card holders £15
3. 40 cred-card style ID cards, with UV security features: £210 (£5.25/card)

I've dropped the £8.50 UPS delivery from the quote and the lanyard pricing is as-opposed to an offered pack of 100 plain lanyards at £29.95.

Delivery of cards would need to be by registered/recorded delivery to each accredited reporter. For those going to WMau, it's proposed to sent in one lot, and permit them to distribute in-country.

Timeline

This is expected to cover the issuing of cards to current, accredited reporters and to any new accredited reporters over the next 12 months.

Expected outcomes

This is expected/hoped to increase the volume of original reporting on Wikinews, and to allow accredited reporters better access to any event type or on-the-scene access for other reports.

Who I am

n:en:Brian McNeil on Wikinews; based in Edinburgh, also the current interim contact between WM-UK and Museums Galleries Scotland.

Additional remarks

The reason lanyards are listed within this request, is that to-date I've never seen Wikinews-specific ones. In printing them, and as this would likely end up covering several language variants of the project, I propose a style such as: "Wikinews [logo] Wikinoticias [logo] Wikinotizie [logo] Wikinotícias [logo] Wikinytt [logo]" and so on.

Discussion

Comment: This will include providing cards to accredited reporters outisde the UK. I would propose that, where there is a local chapter, such be asked to cover the costs - or otherwise add a microgrant to the budget for this project. Spanish Wikinews have just started an accreditation programme, and a review of the credential verification page on enWN will reveal several are spread across Europe/the Americas. The key problem with this is that a bulk order needs placed up-front. The amount for the 40 cards would be paid up-front, even if only 20 were initially printed off. I would have liked to include £5 per reporter to allow a batch of 250 business cards to be added to this, but feel that's pushing this a bit. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 11:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• I support this request, with some expectations:
  • Administration to go via the WM-UK office manager for reasons of confidentiality. The identification and verification of accredited reporters to be kept on-file by the UK Chapter, including verification of legal identity if writing under a pseudonym.
  • WM-UK may confirm the identity approved status of the reporter on request from a registered organization and a verifiable enquirer. Any records supporting identity verification will not themselves be shared.

--Fæ 13:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I certainly prefer the idea of any reporter's identifying information being retained in the office. Obviously, there would have to be a discussion with anyone actively seeking to work under a pseudonym. The process, to date, has everyone supposedly using their real name in association with their accreditation. There is one notable exception to that: David Shankbone is/was a pseudonym. Even when he interviewed Shimon Peres, they thought that was his real name (and apparently a fine Jewish one at that).

What actually goes on the issued card is something we should probably discuss just now. What if, an individual with a real name of Stephen Jones wished to work under the pseudonym John Smith, and is issued an email address to match - john.smith@wikinewsie.org; what should appear on the corresponding ID card? If "John Smith", would you suggest in any way marking this as a pseudonym? Unlikely though it may seem, being checked by the police and having a card with your photo, and a different name, could cause issues. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we cross that bridge when we come to it, especially as it does not appear an immediate concern for any requester. It may well be, that after discussion amongst the trustees and members, the consensus is that pseudonyms on IDs for "official" reporters are too problematic. However, it should be noted that a written piece may not require the author's legal identity as a byline, even if a legal identity happens to be on their press pass. --Fæ 16:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems a sensible compromise. I'm currently constructing a table on wikinewsie.org which will allow accredited reporters to control what data is publicly available. A point to add to the office confirming a reporter holds credentials may well be that WMau holds a duplicate of this information, thus allowing verification over a wider range of timezones without someone's mobile going off at dog-only-knows what hours.

To add to what you suggest may be the eventual outcome, I've had sources give me particularly useful information, but expressly request their name need not appear in the resulting article (See: ACLU, EFF challenging US 'secret' court orders seeking Twitter data). A similar situation for the actual reporters does not seem at-all unreasonable. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Question When we've previously talked about this, the issue of liability has been raised and I'm not sure it was resolved. For example: if WMUK produces these cards, and can confirm the "approved status" of the reporter, then would it have liability e.g. if the reporter damaged property (or worse) at a location that the card gave them access to, or produced a libelous report of an event? How can we put procedures in place to minimise the risk of this happening, and/or us assuming that liability? Thanks. Mike Peel 18:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

That, Mike, is where you'll likely have to defer to a lawyer. It's the Wikinews _community_ grants the credentials; thus, if anyone is responsible for the actions of a reporter it's ultimately those supporting their accreditation request. Accredited reporters are not working for the WMF, or for any chapter – even as a volunteer. - those points count in WM-UK's favour when declining to take responsibility for damages caused by an accredited reporter.

I'll point Iain at this, and ask for his father's considerered opinion - that of a barrister. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Just got pointed at this. (Hey, this is a new wiki for me. Don't even have a custom siggy iirc.) For the time being, I'll throw my own opinion as a vague guide but I'll follow that up with someone actually qualified (and who'll give you the right answer, as opposed to my educated guess). Something like an employer-employee relationship would create liability in most circumstances. I'd think of the relationship between WMUK and UK Wikimedians as something more comparable to membership in something like a club or political party - much looser, in other words. I might advise making sure the actual arranging was done by the volunteers and WMUK just doling out the cash, mind. However, I will get a proper opinion on this tomorrow. If I remember. (If I don't stab me.) Blood Red Sandman 22:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Tangentially related question: Acting on an optimistic basis that this goes through, there's a pretty serious issue for Wikinewsies in some countries – one I saw personally when based in Belgium. Certain countries, particularly those where their legal structure has a Napoleonic basis, do not recognise individuals as journalists unless they prove the majority of their income comes from that source. Yet, when you take citizen journalism into account that is utter nonsense. The UK, Australia, and USA don't have this problem; but, if accreditation is granted to someone in a country with the more-restrictive definition – and a practice of "real" press ID being only valid if issued from the interior ministry, would WM-UK board members be prepared to put their name to arguments supporting changes in the law on recognising journalists?

I consulted a lawyer on this when based in Belgium, and there were court rulings that recognised "citizen journalism"; but, what was lacking was the issuing of a press pass/ID from a government department. I don't think the value of such should be in any way underestimated for countries like France, Belgium, and Switzerland. What I see as a longer-term view regarding this is such countries recognising someone can engage in journalistic work without being paid.

To give an example, let's imagine the Louvre was hit by a large fire; the police and fire chiefs would only talk to people they could readily recognise as journalists. That recognition would come through an ID issued by a French Government Ministry. And, right now, they only issue such IDs on the basis that the individual makes their income from journalism. I'm effectively asking, would WM-UK help lobby for legislative changes allowing a Paris-based Wikinewsie to get on-the-scene and report? This may not be a situation we currently face, but being prepared to fight this particular corner could encourage a far wider use of credentials in obtaining content. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

One idea I thought of to remedy this is to put ARs on the payroll, but only pay them pennies. It's not the government's business as to how much we make when on a contract, but whether or not we are making income to make qualification. Though this might require a separate proposal. Phearson 01:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd probably be against it. WMUK are limited to supplying an identity verification service for established Wikimedia/Wikinews volunteers. If a volunteer goes postal, we don't want the Chapter to end up being responsible beyond being a character witness to say "they always kept themselves to themselves", "up until 'the incident' there was no problem" and we had no idea they had twelve cats in their small apartment. No offence intended for cat lovers. --Fæ 12:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Sadly Phearson, your suggestion does not solve the key problem I encountered in Belgium: The requirement is to make the majority of your income from journalism. And, Fæ's concern is quite valid too.

What is required is for more journalist unions, and similar organisations, to actually accept and recognise citizen journalism as valid. That is for me a far more long-term goal. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to give some accreditation. I believe people have (successfully) made their own in the past. Fifty does sound a loy but if the lanyards are multi-lingual then we could give some to other chapters. Victuallers 15:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I think funding this is a good idea, but I would strongly advise against the chapter having anything to do with it beyond writing a cheque. The potential issues with it are enormous and aren't worth trying to deal with. The Wikinews community can handle the accreditation themselves and have done so perfectly well up until now. Let them continue to do so, and we'll just give them money. --Tango 19:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll raise this microgrant for discussion at the board meeting this weekend (11-12 Feb) so that we can figure out the best way forward here. I'm still rather worried about the liability implications... Thanks. Mike Peel 20:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

After discussing this with the Board last weekend, we're in principle in support of giving this grant, with the office providing ongoing logistical support, but we'd like to ask you to put together a code of conduct that those holding such IDs would be subject to. Would you be able to write such a code? Thanks. Mike Peel 18:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we would. There are already a number of stern guidelines relating to Original Reporting — the most obvious of which being "you can either take part in a protest, or report on it. Not both".

I'll start working on a short draft, but there is an additional point to raise:

* Wikimedia Australia have also agreed to provide some funding. with economies of scale, can I point WM-AU at this discussion, and get all funds pooled in one place? Then, it's a matter of pulling together a list of reporters and getting photos. --77.100.209.249 15:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Great - look forward to seeing the guidelines. :-) In terms of pooling the funds: the only problem I see here is where the funds end up being pooled, and who keeps track of which data. E.g. would the WMUK office end up keeping track of who has IDs across the world, rather than just focusing on the UK? This needs a bit of discussion. ;-) Definitely point WMAU towards this discussion. :-) Thanks. Mike Peel 15:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course, Wikinews already has a draft code of ethics. I've left a message for Laura Hale that this discussion is coming to a close and may need WM-AU input. I'll point John Vandenberg at it too. Have also reminded Iain of his promise to seek a little freebie legal advice.

When I discussed costs and so on with a UK-based company last year, their remarks were the simplest solution was to pay for ~30-40 cards, even if only 20 are issued in one batch.

I also need to dig up the communications relating to Spanish Wikinewsies.

The last point to raise is business cards, and I'm sure we all know how useful those are. I would propose that be an optional component of a reporters' kit; one which they pay for. But even if they pay for it, I'm sure WM-UK has a decent deal for board and staff cards. Would it be possible to take advantage of such? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I've archived this microgrant since I think it's on hold for now, but please re-open it when appropriate. :-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)