Jump to content

Wikinews:Accreditation requests/Dennis Bratland

Add links
From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!


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.



Dennis Bratland (talk)

[edit]
Name: Dennis Bratland
Location: Seattle, Washington
Areas of interest: News and event photography, photos for Wikipedia biographies, National Register of Historic Places and other historic or significant places. Wikipedia article writing on motorcycles, photography, Seattle, Washington, and various topics.
Reason: Press credentials for improved access to special events, e.g. semi-annual Ballard Locks inspection
Accomplishments: Editor since 2004, 39,890 Wikipedia edits, 2 Good Articles, 28 DYKs. Many of my photos have been used by news media and blogs off Wikipedia. Photos: File:Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn at the Ballard Neighborhood Greenway Celebration.jpg, File:Carson Ellis and Colin Meloy signing Wildwood in Portland.jpg, File:Leaving courthouse on first day of gay marriage in Washington.JPG, File:David L. Hough at 2009 Seattle International Motorcycle Show.jpg, File:Leaving Seattle City Hall on first day of gay marriage in Washington.jpg, File:Ballard Locks cleaning 2012-03-16 01.jpg, File:Caitlin Doughty University Bookstore 2014-09-18 2.JPG
Contact information: dennis.bratland AT gmail ● com
User ID: Dennis Bratland
Applied on: 01:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments

[edit]
  • While we certainly do not require a Wikinews-accredited reporter do their primary wikimedian contribution to Wikinews, we do want someone who has shown willing and able to do some Wikinews writing, and demonstrated some regard for Wikinews. Accreditation is the Wikinews community vouching for the reporter, after all, and we need both to know how that person will conduct themself as our representative to the world and — realistically — what we get in return. Your writing credentials are on Wikipedia; writing for Wikinews is a very different experience — different writing styles, here there is a deadline, even our notion of neutrality is different (articles on each project can look non-neutral when seen through the lens of the other project's policies).

    Some pages you may find useful reading: Wikinews:For Wikipedians;  WN:Pillars of Wikinews writing;  WN:Writing a Photo essay. --Pi zero (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not a Wikinewsie, but as an outsider I find this an interesting question. When the creation of Wikinews was first debated, it seemed to me that there was a definite understanding that Wikinews wouldn't try to claim a monopoly on writing about current events—this being one of the chief concerns raised against it. Wikinews supporters argued that the opposite would be true, and the project would in fact support the other projects with all of the great material gained through better access. The "what [do] we get in return" argument is therefore a bit offputting to me, I have to admit. Since this person I don't know (but whose credentials as a Wikimedia contributor appear pretty solid) wants to contribute the other way around, uploading media of current events for the benefit of this project among others, I don't really see how deadlines and NPOV policy differences are factors as important as you make them (bold, italicized) in your comment. But—and please believe me when I say that I don't mean this sarcastically—were he to take a break from working toward his soon-approaching 40,000th Wikipedia edit, what would a reasonable number of Wikinews articles be for him to write? Austin (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Austin: This isn't about other projects covering current events; that's an entirely orthogonal issue. By accrediting someone, Wikinews is putting its own reputation at risk, and thereby its own ability to cover things. It's only fair for us to want to have some confidence in how that person will behave. If they don't care about Wikinews, they're definitely not a good risk, because they don't care whether they make Wikinews look bad. If they use Wikinews accreditation to gain access, then what they do with that access reflects on Wikinews, not just on whatever project they use the access for. By not conducting themselves with journalistic integrity they can do damage to Wikinewsies' ability to cover stories. On the other hand, if they use our accreditation to gain access and then comport themselves well, they can add to our reputation even if they don't contribute to Wikinews — but that's a delicate balance, because if they care about Wikinews enough to protect our reputation, why wouldn't they contribute some of the fruits of their labor to Wikinews? --Pi zero (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have neither the energy nor the desire to wade off too deeply into this, but this has been a long-running issue for us here. Wikinews is about news. When one asks for accreditation, they're asking us to vouch for them as a JOURNALIST who understands the fundamentals of journalistic integrity. No one (that I'm aware of) has ever claimed that we have any type of monopoly on current events. Someone can post a perfectly formidable article at WP on an event that occurred one hour ago, so long as it's properly sourced -- and the same applies for us here. There're just a few niggly differences between how we dip into sources, compared to how an encyclopedic article might do that. The bloke is probably a perfectly legit stand-up kinda guy, we just need to see some indication that'll he'll play nicely with others and will contribute here in a nice way. This project requires a VERY HIGH level of humility....and you can't take things personally. --Bddpaux (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikinews policy at Wikinews:Accreditation policy seems to be clear that intention to contribute to the Wikinews platform is not a prerequisite for getting Wikinews accreditation. Is this user being judged on the basis of his intention to contribute to Wikinews? Is it policy to give the accreditation to people with no intention at all to contribute to Wikinews?
This person raised the issue on a Wikimedia mailing list. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably it is better to discuss this part at Wikinews_talk:Accreditation_requests#Accreditation_for_Wikimedia_contributor. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had hoped for some of the following reactions to my comments:
  • attempt to justify expectation that the candidate would conduct themself with journalistic integrity, by means other than Wikinews contribution, along with explanation of why this expectation is consistent with absence of Wikinews contribution, and perhaps some justification of why contributing to Wikinews would be somehow an undue burden.
  • attempt to contribute to Wikinews (which frankly should not be all that difficult for a wikimedian photographer in good standing who starts by talking to us and learning how it's done).
Instead I perceive I'm being accused of exclusionism, which frankly I think is an unjustified accusation. From the first sentence I wrote here: "we certainly do not require a Wikinews-accredited reporter do their primary wikimedian contribution to Wikinews". I did not write those words casually. I meant them. I'll go further, and explicitly say that I believe Wikinews is happy to provide accreditation to persons who expect to almost never contribute to Wikinews. The accreditation being requested is for journalism, by Wikinews. I think it's only common sense to ask someone who wishes to be accredited by Wikinews to do some contribution to Wikinews as a preliminary to accreditation. --Pi zero (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Pi zero: I have no opinion about English Wikinews policy. The only opinion that I have is that press accreditation is useful in the context of the Wikimedia movement beyond English Wikinews. The English Wikinews community is among the smaller demographics which has a use for Wiki press accreditation. Probably the biggest need is at Wikimedia Commons, because photography goes there and because it is international in scope. Wikipedias in every language also have a need for press accreditation. I contribute to English Wikipedia and sometimes use the name of the magazine for which I work to get press entry to events, and it helps sometimes.
I am not accusing anyone here of anything. I am seeking information about consensus and best practice.
You say accreditation is offered to people who "almost never" contribute to Wikinews. What about to people who will never contribute to English Wikinews? I have no opinion about what is common sense - I am seeking an outlet for press accreditation for the Wikimedia community. If English Wikinews is that outlet, then great, and if not, then that is great too because it means that Wikimedians wanting accreditation should go somewhere else. I am asking what the community here wants. If English Wikinews were the hub for Wikimedia movement press accreditation, then that means that the entire Wikimedia community would converge here to go through the process, and maybe a small percentage of them would stay around and contribute. If there are barriers to this, and if the English Wikinews community prefers to preferentially accredit contributors who intend to make at least one contribution to English Wikinews, then I want to check options for assigning Wikimedia press passes somewhere else for people who either do not want to contribute to English Wikinews.
It is reasonable for you to ask for people endorsed by English Wikinews to attempt to contribute to this project. Likewise, I hope you think that it is reasonable to say that the Wikimedia community should go somewhere else if they need press accreditation for another Wikimedia project if that accreditation is not offered here. Because the English Wikinews press accreditation process is most developed in all Wikimedia projects so far as I know, though, I think it would be best to ask the community here what they want to happen. Perhaps people here would prefer to be more open just so that more attention and traffic can come through this project, or on the contrary, perhaps the community here agrees that remaining more exclusive is better for the brand name here and that sending non-participants elsewhere is best.
Thoughts? What do you want to happen here for people who expressly say that they will not contribute to English Wikinews? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerasberry: I agree that press credentials are of value for Commons as well as for Wikinews. (Whether it's relevant to Wikipedia is another question; Wikipedia makes a big deal out not allowing original research... but Wikipedian policy hypocrisy is a whole other can of worms.) I can tell you that press credentials is a difficult problem, and if you want to know about its challenges, Wikinews is the place to ask because we're the ones who have been struggling with it for years. In particular I recommend you would do well to speak to Brian McNeil. --Pi zero (talk) 16:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The number of photos I have of public events, such as the Mayor's ribbon cutting, the city council inauguration, the Wildwood book signing, the first same sex marriages at Seattle City Hall, etc., as linked to above, is evidence that I have been able to go out to an event and return with a photograph without besmirching the reputation of Wikimedia. At Caitlin Doughty's book signing, I didn't manage to get very good photos but I introduced myself to her and explained what Wikipedia needed for an author bio photo, so she released a head shot CC-by-SA via an OTRS ticket. So I can intereact with real humans in a way that benefits Wikimedia. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, there's been a lot of interesting dialogue brought up here and I think some important things have been discussed (although, maybe not properly resolved, but let's not slip down that slippery slope!) Let me ask you this, then: Noone is saying you have to contribute articles here to become accredited by us as a reporter, BUT would you be willing to commit to maintaining dialogue with some of our reporters here to keep them abreast of some of the photos you have taken/will be taking?? That way, we can boost our cooperation level in a way that one hand is washing the other, so-to-speak. That way, you can sort of function as a 'staff photographer' and our writers can benefit from your work. What do you think?? --Bddpaux (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed, that's something I can realistically commit to. And requests to document upcoming events or to provide background photos for stories are welcome. Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per talk page request, this search has photos I've done this year -- the top 60 or so are 2015. The exceptions are the ones without the edit summary User created page with UploadWizard. If it instead says something like {{Information |Description=Bellingham, Washington protest against Arctic drilling. See w:Seattle Arctic drilling protests |Source=[https://www.flickr.com/photos/theslowlane/17836715269/ " then it's just a file I transferred from Flickr. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What do you expect from Wikinews accreditation?
I do not mean in-terms of what content you expect to contribute — wherever such may prove of most-use — I refer to in-terms of what additional recognition, or credibility, you expect this to provide.
I've looked at your photos, they're certainly well-worth looking to get for use across all projects. What I'd add to, try and encourage an interest in contributing here, is that we allow images which might otherwise be deleted from Commons. Examples would be The EU Parliament in Strasbourg, or images where in-copyright artworks might be considered unacceptable. (Easiest to cite my own work, I can find examples thereof instantly as-compared to other people's work). Further to that, our presence over on Facebook is likely to exceed 90,000 by month-end, that's quite an organisational reach for such a small project; Wikivoyage, Wiktionary, and Commons, combined don't even come close to an order of magnitude less reach.
I'd like to address some of the other comments over on the (now-{{flag}}ged) discussion page, but not right now. I've been off-project for a considerable time due to utterly despairing over the WMF rejecting FDC recommendations to fund a workable accreditation programme, and a variety of — some quite serious — health problems. I need to ease myself back into on-project work over the Festive season, and properly plan the long wished-for migration of wikinewsie.org services to Iceland so we can finally take advantage of the IMMI.
I am inclined, on the basis of discussion here and supporting votes, to weak support. It's long past-due for the Wikinews vs Wikipedia hatchet to be buried. I know this is a somewhat old discussion now, but seeing the FDC actually "grow some" and be highly critical of the WMF itself gives me a glimmer of hope the community can take some of the power back from the Foundation. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree it should be closed, but am not happy to take that decision due to my patchy contribution level of late. I'd read the comments and votes as a pass, but I've a few concerns about what the consequences might be. Ideally, the WMF might take a few steps towards having an official programme — and put some of their mountain of cash into the liability insurance something like that needs. Don't think things have improved any in that regard since the departure of the prior CEO; or, one could uncharitably conclude they've got worse. (I'll keep my thoughts regarding Sue, formerly not at-all well-loved of CBC.ca, non-public thank you.)
So, someone else take the decision, please. Dennis assuming it's a passing close, prod me on my talk page for the @wikinewsie.org email address and a template for the biz cards we've used previously. Admittedly, that needs an update since the addition of Wikivoyage to the family. Beyond that? Well, the most help we can give is 'social engineering' by email to help you get better access.
Hopefully, when it does come to attending newsworthy events, you can drag along someone prepared to have a go at writing it up for here. Or, get access to events that can be done as photo essays. Just — please, assuming it's a passing close — don't publicise it on Commons/Wikipedia until you've a portfolio of photos in use here. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And remember to contact me via Wikimail or Gmail if anyone wants me to photograph a news event around Seattle and Puget Sound. Accreditation or no, I'm always happy to respond to requests for photos, research, and other work as needed. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Offer greatly appreciated, Dennis. I actually have a couple of friends in the Seattle area I still keep in-touch with online. One takes a very close interest in local politics, and writes well. Could easily see him covering local elections, asking some very pointed questions, and providing a quality summary of goings-on which would benefit greatly from photos.
Do you do any audio/video work too? I ask since Andy Mabbett has a nice little project capturing audio of people for Wikipedia. I've also made use of video which resulted in something similar, thanks to a lot of help from Wikimedia Austria & Germany. Point is, there's a surprising scope for use of photographic and/or A/V work here. Plus, with local upload permitted — and the ability to assert Fair Use/Fair Dealing — we could probably help get you onto local museum and gallery press lists. Newsworthy (Wikinews) versus Notable (Wikipedia) are such wildly different yardsticks I suspect you'd be surprised what might pass publication criteria here. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can do audio and video if necessary, but I wouldn't claim to be particularly good at it. If nobody with an A/V aptitude is available, I could try and the results would probably be acceptable if the conditions aren't too challenging. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
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/Dennis_Bratland&oldid=4354329"