No longer active due to censoring by the editors.
Verified statements in my articles were changed to "allegations", and my articles were subjected to a disproportionate amount of editing, content removal and disputation without reason, usually just as the "no more edits" rule went into effect. After reviewing my experience at Wikinews with editors in the public media, I have concluded that the philosophy of a news Wiki is an excellent one, but in practice, the control by a small clique of editors nullifies the 'open air' objective and replaces it with content control under the guise of 'no POV'. In organized media, or the organized news room, reasonable justification and peer review are an important part of the reporting process. If a reporter's article is disputed, the reporter is advised. Editors who dispute articles are expected to make an explanation of their decision and provide alternatives using a blanced approach. This was not my experience with Wikinews, and having followed stories placed in the "disputed" queue for the past few months, I can see that the de facto is still in effect.
Reporting the news is about a point of view; that of the journalist recording the facts and organizing them into a flow that will engage a reader with enough background that the reader understands why the article is news. All journalists have a point of view, but it has to be moderate enough as to not obscure the facts nor promote a particular position. (By the way, that's ten years of radio and TV news production speaking, not just my personal POV.)
This has been a learning experience, and I won't be buying any more Wikipedia sweaters.
Please remember to pay your TV license fee, afterall, BBC News online is the major source of Wikinews articles.