WikiTribune – Evidence-based journalism
So this is a for-profit operation where volunteers do the work?  The site is vague about such details.  "People like you helping people like us help ourselves?" Not good. You can be a for-profit or a non-profit, but pretending to be a non-profit when you're not is deceptive.<p>Their terms of use are awful.[1] Note that they want to operate under British law, where libel law favors the subject.  They have an indemnification clause, so their volunteers could be compelled to reimburse WikiTribune if WikiTribune loses a libel suit. That's happened in the UK; see the famous McLibel case, where McDonalds sued two Greenpeace volunteers. That decision was overturned by the European Court of Human Rights. But, post-Brexit, that level of appeal will no longer be available.<p>They also appear to have plagiarized the terms of use from other sites. One section reads "We may, in our sole discretion, limit or cancel quantities purchased per person, per household or per order. ... We reserve the right to limit or prohibit orders that, in our sole judgment, appear to be placed by dealers, resellers or distributors." That exact text appears on other sites, usually ones that sell tangible goods. It's completely inappropriate here.  Sloppy.<p>This stuff matters when the business involves pissing people off.  Don't volunteer to write for this organization unless and until they work out the liability issue.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.wikitribune.com/terms-of-use/" rel="nofollow">https://www.wikitribune.com/terms-of-use/</a>
[2] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel_case" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel_case</a>