Areas of interest: Photography, Architecture, Newsmakers
Reason: I was refused permission to photograph the address by presidential candidates at a Republican Lincoln Day dinner because I did not have credentials. I had previously photographed candidates Mitt Romney and Herman Cain without credentials. It is not simply, however, only a matter of photographing politicians that I'm requesting accrediation, but also because I would like to expand the sources of my contributions and accreditation would provide me with more access.
My Wiki photographs have been reused in over 300 web pages, including those of prominent news organizations such as Forbes Magazine, The Detroit News, CNBC, CBC-Vancouver, AnnArbor.com and the Detroit CBS-TV affiliate, which has used my photos on four occasions.
This can be confirmed simply by Googling my name and selecting the Images tab. I have been awarded 3 1/2 Barnstars in Wikipedia and 4 Quality Image Promotions in Wikimedia. I recently began contributing photographs and articles to ArborWiki.
I have taken a college-level journalism class and I'm familiar with journalistic practices. While I have not contributed to Wikinews in the past, this was due to the fact that I spend a lot of time with my Wiki projects as it is and I could not see that Wikinews would add substantially to the exposure of my contributions.
I'm always looking for new outlets for my work and would not rule out contributing to Wikinews in the future. If I were convinced that Wikinews contributors regularly get their contributions reused outside of the Wiki community more often than I have up to now, that would certainly cause me to reconsider where I would make contributions.
I have read the Wikinews Style Guide and found it to be in accord with what I expected it to be. I appreciate the fact that Wiki project photographers may have more in common with Wikinews contributors than other project writers in that we actually have to go out in the world to get our material.
I would think anyone who's gone through the tribulations I have to make my Wiki contributions would be eager to help a colleague. For what it's worth, soon after having registered in Wikipedia under an alias, I came to regret the decision because I wanted my contributions to be absolutely transparent. To this end, as can be easily verified, I soon adopted the practice of signing my edit summaries with my actual name so that there would be no doubt on the origin of my edits as there can be with anonymous contributors, a practice I have continued even after changing my User ID to my actual name.
My original ID by the way, was not particularly opaque. I mention this for the benefit of anyone who might question my commitment to journalistic ethics.
Comment Your User ID isn't actually the same as your user name. You'll find the ID on your preferences; for example, mine is 1225. We moved over to using this for reporter ID numbers at some point for simplicity's sake. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment Since you're asking the Wikinews community to vouch for your conduct, evidently your conduct is of central concern to us. Wikinews is heavily oriented toward judging users by their accumulated reputations on the project — which you note you've omitted to accumulate, i.e., thus far you've not contributed here. (We do not follow an assumption-based principle such as AGF, but instead WN:Never assume.)
Question From your comments, it sounds as if your use of news credentials would not be limited to photography. You cite photographs you've taken and Wikipedia articles you've written; but news writing is different from photography and from encyclopedic writing (even our concept of NPOV is different than Wikipedia's). What basis would you offer for us to judge your news writing conduct?
Try reading my Cleveland Homecoming book as I suggested. It is all written from a point of view.~DDwight Burdette (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Question You mention reading our style guide; why mention reading that, but not WN:NPOV, WN:COI, and (obviously) WN:AP? Have you read these, and how do you see them pertaining to accreditation?
I'm sorry but I refuse to be treated as a student to whom the master can assign homework assignments to. Your presumption of being in a position to require me to do your bidding in order to get accreditation is arrogant in the extreme. If it is suggested that I read something, I will, as a reasonable person, take that into consideration, but what I will not do is to read it because someone thinks they can compel me to do so.Dwight Burdette (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose ....and adamantly so. There is little exclusivity here, but HUMILITY is highly valued. You know what you are? A pretty good photographer.....and that's great (no sarcasm). But, you contribute nothing here, then get your feelings hurt because some people try to ease you into the flow of things. Take a look at my path to accreditation....it's filled with bumps, sweat and much spillage of my own blood. Re-consider, have a humble-cookie and come back later.Bddpaux (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Though you show that you have considerable experience on other Wikimedia projects, you have none here. You do not have any edits to the project besides trying to get accreditation. Frankly, you have no ties here, and I am concerned that you will not use you Wikinews credentials to contribute to Wikinews and instead use them to contribute to other projects. Start writing articles first, even synthesis articles, and then I would reconsider giving you credentials. Cocoaguytalkcontribs‽ 16:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
It was explicitly stated somewhere during the application process that it was not only contributions to Wikinews that merited accreditation, but contributions to all Wiki projects. There was no implication that Wikinews contributions had some special favor. Frankly, I'm flabbergasted that there seems to be an attitude that Wikinews is some sort of exclusive club that only current members can belong to. This is so contrary to the Wiki spirit that I'm astonished anyone would have responded as you have. I refuse to be treated as some sort of apprentice who must curry favor before being allowed to practice his trade. Who are you to be making condescending demands of me? Dwight Burdette (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I note the irony of persons who have aliases questioning my integrity. I recognize, nor know of one, journalistic ethic which condones the use of aliases when it is not needed to protect the contributor from retribution; a situation which I'm pretty sure no Wikinews contributor is in any danger of facing . I don't use an alias. I'm not inclined to be lectured to about journalistic ethics by persons who use aliases. Dwight Burdette (talk) 01:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose The applicant is clearly hostile toward Wikinews; no need to speculate on whether xyr disregard/misreading of remarks made to xem is cause or effect of the hostility. Xe asks us to use our reputation to back xem, but appears to have no interest in the reputation xe is asking us to stake on xyr conduct. I can readily imagine situations where the community should seriously consider accrediting someone who does not directly contribute to Wikinews; however, this does not resemble such a situation. --Pi zero (talk) 03:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
The insinuation that I'm hostile to Wikinews is a deliberate misrepresentation of what I said. I'm not hostile to Wikinews. I'm hostile to persons who are hostile to the Wiki ethos. Of course, I'm at a great disadvantage since I have to respond to persons who hide behind their anonymity while I'm completely transparent.Dwight Burdette (talk) 03:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose lacks clue, as evident from this page, and the reaction to some fairly polite and simple comments. Not someone I would trust to represent the project. A shame, as I was quite interested in getting you accreditation. Blood Red Sandman(Talk)(Contribs) 12:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Polite statement? My accomplishments and contributiions should have spared me being accused of not being someone who can "represent the project."
Oppose There have been preliminary discussions about giving accreditation to photographers. But those discussions haven't been concluded satisfactorily yet. At the moment, Wikinews accreditation is specifically for Wikinewsies who intend to pursue original reporting stories for Wikinews. I do think we should consider extending it to cover photographers, and to consider publishing more photo stories, where the whole story is just, say, 10 or 20 well-selected photos of a news event. Undoubtedly, there are stories where the photograph is the story—consider this Daily Mail story (mostly SFW), where the words can be pretty much omitted! But until there is some consensus within the community to do this, we should hold off. The attitude problem and the carping about anonymous vs. real name is concerning. I edit under my real name, but I don't use this to rebut good-faith, reasonable questions or concerns about my editing by people who choose to not use their real name. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I think the issue of using aliases is germane. It appears that Wikinews, unlike any other organization, permits the use of aliases. Any other reputable news organization would eschew this since it compromises credibility.Dwight Burdette (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
We've had photo essays. As I recall, the essay was accompanied by text satisfying the usual minimum (three medium-sized paragraphs) and usual standard (lede etc.); it's not much to ask, honestly. Same went, iirc, for an on-the-scene video weather report, a while back, though that raised review issues that bothered me then, and that seem likely to revisit us in spades if what I've heard about upcoming UoW work is true... --Pi zero (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Interesting. I might want to propose some tweaks to that, but, interesting. I do note all the examples are old; most or all predate me on the project, which by definition means they're ancient :-). (Of course, video reports are a separate puzzle.) --Pi zero (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
It is obvious that my application is not going to dealt with in an impartial manner. Every response has expressed an attitude that Wikinews is an exclusive club which limits participation. I'm not going to pretend anymore that this process is being done in good faith and will not respond again.Dwight Burdette (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, what? You come on here, and ask for accreditation despite no stories and no experience and then whine when people tell you that this is a prerequisite for getting accreditation. Wikinews is not exclusive, but to get accreditation, you have to actually meaningfully participate. Impartial? This request has been treated in exactly the same manner as it would be from anybody who came along, made zero mainspace edits and then requested accreditation. Imagine if someone came along to your home wiki and requested adminship with zero mainspace edits... —Tom Morris (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't going to respond again, but when I saw yet another instance of a reputable news organization using my work, I thought I should pass it on. The Detroit ABC-TV affiliate just yesterday used one of my photos in an online story as you can see at
As I mentioned, I can cite over 300 reuses of my photos, including numerous uses by reputable news organizations. On the other hand, I have never seen anything online that cited or linked to a Wikinews story. What I saw in Wikinews were rehashes of other news organization's stories. The criticisms I've seen on this page are presumptuous. My work speaks for itself. If it had been explicitly said when I applied that only if I had previously contributed to Wikinews then I would not have applied; but what I saw indicated otherwise and so I applied. Not getting this accreditation will be a minor setback for me. I just thought it might come in handy and so I applied. I don't need to be evaluated anymore by people whose credentials to do so are dubious. By the way, not liking my demeanor should be irrelevant to granting my request, but I see that view is not shared. Dwight Burdette (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Strongly oppose and move to close this round of hostilities.
In over a week of discussions, with the critical issue of actual written contributions repeatedly raised, Mr Burdette has shown indifference to the wishes of the community, alongside a wholly misplaced sense of entitlement stemming from mainstream media usage of xyr photographs. To top this off, Mr Burdette demonstrates a wilful lack of knowledge regarding Wikinews content, quote: "What I saw in Wikinews were rehashes of other news organization's stories". I would pointedly refer xe to the current main page where leads 1 through 3 clearly display an Original Reporting template.
The primary purpose of our accreditation programme is to further the production of content for publication on Wikinews. One can only assume from the interactions in this discussion that such would never arise from granting Mr Burdette accreditation, otherwise xe would have at least made some effort towards writing one single article.
To close my remarks: Previous accreditation of primarily-photograph-contributing individuals has always relied upon them "showing willing" to produce written content for Wikinews. Mr Burdette has, in my opinion, seriously blotted his copybook with regards to Wikinews, failed to demonstrate that his request was not simply an attempt to use the project's good name for utterly unrelated work, failed to apply the AGF policy from The Other Place, which xe has thrown at Wikinewsies — or our own parallel AGI policy, in responding to established contributors posing questions regarding xyr accreditation request. Mr Burdette would you waltz into the Detroit ABC-TV affiliate, whose reuse you so-cherish in your above comment about your photographs, and demand issued a press ID from them in such a disagreeable manner? Would you respond to questions regarding such a "demand" in the same arrogant manner? No? Then shame on you for every weaselly-worded piss-poor attempt to make Wikinewsies feel uncomfortable regarding their above votes. You'd do well to learn from Bddpaux (talk · contribs); he's completely earned the right to call you on your lack of humility and, whilst I might word it differently, I agree wholeheartedly with his comments. Lastly, you can "cut the crap" regarding use of pseudonyms; the majority participating in this discussion are accredited reporters, they may use a pseudonym on-wiki, but they have disclosed their names, plain-as-day for all to see, on the credential verification page. I doubt you've even looked at that, let alone read more than a couple of paragraphs of any single policy.
You came here expecting either a project desperate for contributors, or as hostile as your own responses to its contributors have proven. Pick from your three choices: a) Slink off back to Commons, and Wikipedia, and never darken our door again. b) Take on-board the genuine concerns expressed in this discussion and actually make an effort to contribute to Wikinews. Or c) Run crying to the Foundation as others have threatened to do when called on their bullshit. Personally, I think the latter is worth more 'popcorn-munching moments'. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I concur.......close away! Bddpaux (talk) 13:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
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.