In Finland, Finnish is the dominant language. Swedish is a minority language, carrying some baggage of historical political cultural domination that many Finns resent. Finns have to learn Swedish at school ('Forced Swedish'), but will rarely use it, unless cornered. On the other hand, a Swedish speaking friend tested the legally imposed bilingual system in calls to a hospital. He demanded to speak Swedish - as was his right. No-one could be found. He was directed to another hospital in another district where he was told he could not be treated for location reasons.

Added to this, English has permeated the younger Finnish culture to such an extent that a foreigner in club will be able to speak English all night with anyone who takes his fancy.

And then there's Russian ;-)

The people behind the proposed new venture themselves identify with the Swedish minority, though they are fully fluent in Finnish and English also. Their language conundrum is that not only are Swedish speakers a minority in Finland, and thus probably a size of audience that cannot reach 'critical mass' as far as users is concerned, but that the quasi-anarchist aims of the magazine are unlikely to appeal to the spoilt  'Pappa betaler - Daddy Pays' young Swedish speakers.

What I am pointing out to them is that it is possible, using CMS, to have multiple language input and single language output. With tagging, it is fairly easy for any user to set up the site to display content to their own preferences - including language.

A summary of any article text, in any language, is to be supplied by the submittor. Such a summary would need to be written in simple Heminwayesque language for which a good automatic translation can be obtained.

BTW the site is intended for photo-journalists, so some articles could work purely pictorially. But at some point, the 'best' content submissions are peer-judged for inclusion in the single language print version. At that point translation into the single language is needed.

This could be achieved by the combination of google translator and hand editing by the community. The motivation would be a share (as a translator) in a Pool à la Cook that would receive the income generated by the print version, which is to be a freebie financed by ad income.

There are also general aims I proposed that such a pool would not be paid out in micro-payments, but be allowed to build up until members voted on how to invest it, or part of it, in other RW projects. The number of content  'shares' that a member owned would define their voting power.

Another aspect I proposed was that all the financial dealings of the site and the print version would be available, totally transparently, to all members.

The alternative model is to use a similar micro-payments system to the music sharing site Equal Dreams - which pays external royalties and sales taxes before micro-paying into a user account. But there is always an overhead on getting your money out as a user. It is only worth doing with a largish amount (say over 1000 €), and that has to be reported by both the payer and the payee because it is still income-taxable.

I am suggesting that the first LETS-type version might be more powerful.

The initial start-up funding for the site is to be technology-sourced, not politically-sourced.

You can't be me, I'm taken