Wikinews:Accreditation requests
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
- 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: [email protected]
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Questions
How do you intend to apply your media experience to Wikinews? --Brian McNeil / talk 08:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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
Support Full faith in her work, since I've seen it first-hand. Welcome, Sandy! TheCustomOfLife - (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Support Have worked with in the past and was very nice/easy/enjoyable to do so. Fully trust sandy in being a reporter and understanding the rules etc. Welcome to wikinews Sandy :-) --MarkTalk to me 00:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per this. First edit two days ago. Limited experience elsewhere contributing towards WMF projects by the looks of things. Adambro - (talk) 06:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
Support Sandy invited me to join the WMF Communications Committee and from what I saw there her experience may be more dealing with the press than as the press, but it is valid experience. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose unless I get some sort of reassurance that the pass will be used to better Wikinews. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 10:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
Oppose Too new. —FellowWiki Newsie 21:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
Support Good to see the response - that's what I needed to see. Welcome! --Skenmy(t•c•w) 10:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
Support - Sorry been busy with interviews. Of course support. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
Support I have full faith in Sandy's ability to contribute to Wikinews and no doubt about her trustworthiness. Cary Bass - (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
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.
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)
- 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)
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)
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)