Difference between revisions of "Proposals for closing projects/Closure of English Wikinews"

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Closing project proposal
{{Closing project proposal
|comment=After some consideration, I'm making use of the [[CPP#Decision|possibility]] for langcom members to close a proposal considered "harmful, with no reasonable possibility of a decision to close the wiki". Reasons:
*One reason that was given for the proposal is that the project would be inactive. As I tried to explain in comment #1 [[#Discussion|below]], this is actually not the case. <small>On a more procedural note, a project closed for inactivity will get its content imported into Incubator, where activity can be resumed if interested users show up &ndash; guess how much time it would take for users of a non-inactive project to resume activity?</small>
*Additionally, "inactivity in itself is no valid reason; additional problems are". The other reason which was given for the proposal is "Wikinews actively drives users off". This may or may not be true, but is definitely no reason to close a project. "Solving" such problems by simply closing the wiki for everyone is obviously not solving anything.
*The [//meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_English_Wikinews&diff=4601661&oldid=4601556 second line here] is also very true.
--<small>[[User:MF-Warburg|MF-W]]</small> 17:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)}}

Revision as of 17:32, 19 November 2012

This is a proposal for closing and/or deleting a wiki hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation. It is subject to the current closing projects policy.

The proposal is rejected and the project will be kept open.

  • A Language Committee member provided the following comment::
    After some consideration, I'm making use of the possibility for langcom members to close a proposal considered "harmful, with no reasonable possibility of a decision to close the wiki". Reasons:
  • One reason that was given for the proposal is that the project would be inactive. As I tried to explain in comment #1 below, this is actually not the case. On a more procedural note, a project closed for inactivity will get its content imported into Incubator, where activity can be resumed if interested users show up – guess how much time it would take for users of a non-inactive project to resume activity?
  • Additionally, "inactivity in itself is no valid reason; additional problems are". The other reason which was given for the proposal is "Wikinews actively drives users off". This may or may not be true, but is definitely no reason to close a project. "Solving" such problems by simply closing the wiki for everyone is obviously not solving anything.
  • The second line here is also very true.
--MF-W 17:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Type: 2 (non-routine proposal)
  • Proposed outcome: closure
  • Proposed action regarding the content: should be transferred to Wikimedia Incubator
  • Notice on the project: [1]
  • Informed Group(s): (Which chapters, wiki projects, and other community groups have been informed, if any.)


NOTE: This proposal will not cause any of Wikinews' current content to be deleted, it simply closes the project to further editing.

Let's look at Wikinews' stats, as they provide some strong evidence for why the project should close:

I've used http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ActiveUsers&offset=&limit=500 for most of the following stats. Numbers are correct as of time of writing.

  • A mere 133 editors edited Wikinews in the last month
  • Only 25 editors made 10 edits or more

The total number of edits listed on that page is 8641. This is the list for the top 5 users:

2,840 come from BOT-Superzerocool 2,126 come from Pi zero 1,510 come from NewsieBot 714 come from Bawolff bot 222 come from Cirt

You'll note that three of those are bots. Over 58% of the Wikinews's edits in the last month are bot edits, and 25% come from Pi zero. Cirt, the next most active user, has just 2.6%.

If we exclude the three main bots, Pi Zero has 59% of all user edits.

Secondary analysis

However, these figures don't tell the full story, of course. Let's look at who actually started articles. Pi Zero does about 99% of the work preparing articles for publication, but they don't seem to actually write articles.

Pi Zero represents the majority of "collaboration" for Wikinews; most articles are primarily written by the person who starts them. For the months of October and November, here's who started every article actually published.

  • Tom Morris 12
  • CalF: 8
  • Rayboy8 5
  • Gryllida 5
  • DragonFire1024: 3
  • William S. Saturn (WSS) 3
  • 2
  • 2
  • House1630: 1
  • Nascar1996 1
  • Van Caps: 1
  • LauraHale: 1
  • Tyrol5 1
  • Ragettho 1
  • Shankarnikhil88 1
  • Cirt: 1

That's 16 people, total. There were 48 articles by my count, and 25% of those were made by 1 person. The top 6 people wrote 75% of all articles.

Further, as it's November 18th, and October has 31 days, that averages out to just under an article a day; and a lot of these are very short.

My problem

These stats don't represent an active Wikipedia project, they are the stats of what's essentially a vanity project, and the quality generally reflects this. Of the five main articles on the main page at present, the longest is 4,716 bytes, the shortest 1,896 bytes; none of them has any real depth.

There's other problems: Wikinews simply doesn't have the resources to cover even major news stories. The only article on Hurricane Sandy was written before it devastated America's East Coast; there was no followup. Further, some articles promote fringe theories: en:n:Tomatoes,_watermelons,_peppers_reduce_stroke_risk,_Finnish_study_suggests. And other articles are just plain wrong: en:n:Metropolitan Police to sell New Scotland Yard has a headline that suggests that what is, in fact, one of many possibilities put forwards (and one of the most unlikely ones), is definitely going to happen.

Quite frankly, this was an experiment that failed. The Wiki model has shown itself unable to produce news reporting. It's time to close the project.

Worse, it is well known for having an extremely hostile editing environment, where any criticism, no matter how mild, is met with massive attacks on the user in question.

Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikinews actively drives users off

Perhaps the most sinister aspect of Wikinews is that it has such a hostile editing environment that it cannot grow. Consider these threads, all from the last 3 months or so. These are typical of events happening for years back, and - since Wikinews actively deletes any article contributions from people not approved by its 3 or so admins, there are likely to be far more. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

We have a review process for a few reasons: credibility and NPOV. If an article doesn't meet the requirement of our review process, then the article doesn't get published. Without getting into specific policy, the article will be deleted after it is tagged to be. If you want to be able to instantly publish something without regards to a review process, Wikinews is not for you. DragonFire1024 (talk) 01:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Users stating they are leaving / Wikinews should shut down

Hostile environments

Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


  • The comment was aimed at this first revision of the proposal. Hi, the notice on the project in question, which is required by policy, can be put on the usual community discussion page there (this would probably be a page listed on n:Wikinews:Water cooler). However, I see that you're basing your proposal on a lack of activity. Please note that according to the policy, "Inactivity in itself is no valid reason; additional problems are". Only a nearly complete absence of content and activity can be a reason for a project closure. If you take a look at successful proposals listed on PCP, you will see that projects which were closed had no activity at all at least a year before being closed. Actually 12 editors with 10 edits or more in a month is a quite high number for the average wiki. So maybe I can convince you to retract the proposal? --MF-W 01:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I did put up the notice, I just neglected to link it. However, I don't think you're right. English Wikinews is failed. It's had years to try and find its feet, and it cannot do the basic necessary functions of a news project. This is supposedly a news project, but fails at the basic level of any news project: It can't handle reporting news. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • If you are unhappy with the quantity of content being written for English Wikinews, you can remedy this situation by writing content for English Wikinews. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I tried that once. Like most people who have to deal with the hostile editing environment there: Never again. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Have to tried it since? Last time you tried was over two years ago. Bidgee (Talk) 03:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

  • I have to comment on the links pulled to try and justify this proposal. I'll happily restore, and move to userspace, the 'effort' by Stillwaterising to write an article; then people can judge for themselves the merit of their petulance. As to the unsigned deletion proposal, it was rightly labelled as trolling, the user has that as their sole edit (yes, I checked for deleted edits too). And, the link to my outburst against Commons is broken; that's a project with a large userbase which has, repeatedly, severely inconvenienced Wikinews and taken a considerable amount of time away from writing articles to get images restored or locally uploaded; they could be far more helpful. Yair rand points out that "Adam's problem" is assuming projects are Wikipedia projects. Adam's argument for this proposal go downhill from there on.
This proposal fails on the majority of the guiding criteria for submitting such. It is obvious it won't be withdrawn, so I have to ask why doesn't Meta have a process to strike such disruptive proposals which take time away from projects that need all they can get? --Brian McNeil / talk 08:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

  • It is a particularly bad environment, but baby::bathwater. Oppose. --Rschen7754 01:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: My numbers look low, but are a result of preparing for an event to get Olympic and Paralympic media credentials. This work cannot be done on Wikipedia because of rules related to Original Research. During the Paralympic period, we produced over 70 articles in a compressed period of time. Given this, your raw numbers appear to be misrepresenting the work being done. (I've also review a few articles during this period, which you didn't cite and credited to pi zero.) Articles in Wikinews have been re-published by other news organisations, including one in Sierra Leone in print. This work has been mentioned in Australia's Hansard. It is key to GLAM work beinng done in Australia. What is your rationale beyond "the volume is not to my liking"? --LauraHale (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
[moved from in the middle of a post] Adam Cuerden, "extremely hostile editing environment" What? I've got to admit, this has been the exact opposite of my experience. I've found the community to be welcoming, willing to assist in learning the processes to get published, providing more detailed commentary as to why an article does not meet standards for publication than Articles for Creation does. I've criticised and been criticized and never met a massive attack. Your experience just do not match with mine in the past 8 months. --LauraHale (talk) 01:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
[moved from in the middle of a post] I can provide a large number of similar links about English Wikipedia, where there are great big problems of retention with similar reasons cited. Do you have precedent for a project being closed for this reason? What steps have you, as a contributor, participated in recently to make the editing environment more collegial? --LauraHale (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
You only have a tiny number of people. That's probably at least 10% of all discussion threads in your entire area for group discussion, because you don't have people. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I have worked with Wikinews since 2006. I love the project and wish I had more time to contribute. We don't have a lot of regular users...but that is because of a great many problems and here is not the place to discuss them. But a thought: A little more advertisement of the project would do good. Also...have you actually contributed to the project at all? Have any of you? If not, I find it insulting that you can take a few days or weeks and put it into the closure of a project. Sorry but shame on you. DragonFire1024 (talk) 01:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I have tried editing there. I would never do so again. I found it entirely unprofessional. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I put up an entire section showing people trying to edit there, and being driven off by the bad editing environment, just in the last couple months. In a minimally-staffed project, with very few editors. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The nominator clearly has a grudge against WikiNews, regarding the "extremely hostile editing environment", well I've found it to be much more welcoming environment to edit in as oppose to Commons and en Wikipedia which both have their own hostile environments on so many different levels. While en WikiNews may have a small base, it doesn't mean that it should be closed and in fact, I'm sure Wikivoyage is going to be the same way but that doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. Wikimedia Commons started in 2004 but didn't hit 1 million files until two years after the launch and since then, it has now got 14 million over files! Some project grow quicker then other and I think it is a good thing that WikiNews is slowly growing as en Wikipedia and Commons do have growing pains. Bidgee (Talk) 02:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
    • You link that. What's it meant to prove? That I had contributed a couple articles two years ago, and therefore can't say that I consider the site problematic now? I'm sorry, but I don't think mere personal attacks without evidence do your argument any good. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Not the article's I'm talking about, it's more the attacks you made at the water cooler [2][3] just over two years ago. You clearly have an axe to grind over an old issue. Bidgee (Talk) 03:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, of course. If you go to another wiki project and expect it to work just like Wikipedia, or Commons, then you're not going to be a successful editor. If you expect other projects to sustain similar levels of contribution as Wikipedia, then you would be nominating 90% of the WMF's projects for closure. You successfully got a fairly good article published in 2009, Adam. It would have become easier with more practice, and learning more of the project's policies and guidelines. What you discovered was that news is hard to do well; and, the biggest problem Wikinews has always had is Wikipedia doing news. That's easily proven, will the Manfalut train accident merit a standalone encyclopedia entry in 50 years time? Or, is that something which should be covered on a news site, just as-done by Wikinews?
A fork, which took a considerable number of contributors and had far more lax publication standards failed. And, before you cite the problems it experienced with a hosting company, it had already failed prior to that. Failed despite a most-favourable interview published in The Signpost.
The activity criteria used to single-out English Wikinews are equally valid if applied against the German, French, Polish, Spanish, Catalan and numerous other language-versions of the project.
I note the timing coincided with when I've had considerable other commitments and not been active recently. That doesn't mean I don't get alerted to things like this. As to my extreme frustration at Commons, I believe that's frequently shared across multiple projects. In the case of Wikinews, decisions taken on Commons meddle with the historical record Wikinews attempts to create. --Brian McNeil / talk 02:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: It is a regular feature that (especially inexperienced) editors aggrieved that their pet articles are being deleted pen essays similar to the above, claiming that the project's failure to suspend its notability criteria and other rules and guidelines in their favor is a sure harbinger of its doom. In point of fact, the criteria are not subjective - they've been painfully hammered out over a long time. There is no "crisis" requiring "extreme measures" - and somehow, those "extreme measures" always do seem to boil down to "Let my article stay without any of you touching it" - and if a horde of casual users from the days when Wikipedia and its siblings were collectively the Next Big Internet Fad are leaving the project in the hands of those who seriously care about maintaining and improving it, well and good.

    The foregoing, in fact, started as a response to an AfD discussion on the English Wikipedia; I edited it a bit to provide a momentary cloak. Whatever Mr. Cuerden's experience on other sides of the project, his experience on Wikinews seems quite scanty, and unless he's edited under pseudonyms, he has only made substantive contributions to three articles on Wikinews, the most recent over three years ago, and has fewer than 100 edits on the project. [4] While my experience is almost exclusively on the English Wikipedia, I would be flabbergasted at any editor attempting to make any such accusations based on several year old experience, and would be hard pressed to disguise my contempt for a veteran editor and administrator with nearly 15,000 edits project-wide doing so. (Although given civility lapses like this one, for instance ... [5]) Honestly, he should know better. Ravenswing (talk) 03:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Support. Environment is too toxic for anyone to be able to edit there remotely seriously. Wizardman (talk) 03:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
    • What makes you say that? You haven't edited en WikiNews for over two years. Bidgee (Talk) 03:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Indeed I haven't. After a short time there i was appalled at the discussions were that took place there. Left pretty quickly because of how bad it was there, which says something because I was never attacked or anything, I'm just going by what I saw. If the environment was any better now, you wouldn't be struggling to keep a handful of users. Wizardman (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
        • Over on Wikipedia, there was a user who recently said "I'd sooner stab myself in the hand with a rusty screwdriver than even remotely consider supporting this troll for anything. I'll admit that his candidate statement at least sounds somewhat decent, though I don't buy it." Do you think the discussion of this type works towards keeping Wikipedia retention and creates a collegial editing environment? Indeed, Wikipedia would not be facing a retention problem and so much time spent working on retaining editors if the atmosphere was collegial. The project has grown in the past two years. We've successfully gotten media accreditation for the London Paralympics where we pushed through 70 stories in about 2 weeks, and are well on our way to getting accreditation for the next Olympics. We've welcomed back a number of users from the unsuccessful fork and brought in new contributors in the past year. The project is stable, and outside the occasional trolling from Wikipedians with grudges, has little controversy. Our review process is a bit hectic for new users, but it essentially requires the primary writer and the reviewer to write an article and undergo a review process more demanding than Wikipedia's Good Article process in a very compressed time period for all editors. Thus, a learning curve is involved. The reviewers try to leave clear feedback for writers where there article is not published on the first attempt as the goal is for everyone to work together to get an article up to publishing standards. I've found a lot of success with this and learned more about the writing process and the journalism process than I have from Wikipedia... all with out the toxic environment... but I'm not anyone. :( --LauraHale (talk) 04:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
          • For the record, that specific quote was referring to a user where I commented: "I get that we tolerate critics, but I'd support an indefinite block at this point on grounds of disruption and trolling." All he does is run for ArbCom and troll other users. I don't support the closing of Wikinews, but I agree that the community is dysfunctional. --Rschen7754 05:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. And by the way, Wikinews is not a "Wikipedia project". It is a Wikimedia project, not some sub-project of one of its sister project. --Yair rand (talk) 04:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I was glad that I was alerted to this discussion, because I am no longer active at Wikinews. I was most active from the period of 2007-09, when I contributed quite a few celebrity interviews, ranging from singers at the Eurovision Song Contest to stars of the soap opera The Young and the Restless. I will be quite frank: Wikinews tends to be the laughingstock of Wikimedia projects when looked at from inside Wikimedia projects but outside Wikinews itself, nor has it ever been actively promoted by the Wikimedia Foundation (I remember trying to put forth a proposal in 2009 to earmark grant funding to Wikinews reporters so the caliber of our original reporting could increase, with the hope that page hits and new users would also bring Wikinews to a more substantial plateau. That was rejected by Sue Gardner, with the reasoning that Wikinews was not a project they considered of high-importance; at that time they really wanted to push the growth of the English Wikipedia and smaller language Wikipedias.). It can be terribly frustrating working on an offshoot that isn't well-regarded by your "Wiki-peers," especially if you are a budding journalist and "doing it for the knowledge" and not for an actual living. I stopped contributing to Wikinews in 2009 when I got a job as a writer for a magazine; when you're getting paid to put out what you were doing for free, you're gonna go for the money obviously. But one thing I noticed in the real world is that people view Wikinews a lot more favorably than anyone on Wikimedia projects does. Wikinews seriously opened doors for me. When I put together my first portfolio for a contract job with WTSP-TV, the CBS affiliate in Tampa Bay owned by the Gannett Company, I thought about just going with my college newspaper clippings because I was sure nobody would take Wikinews seriously. After all, people here don't, they would be right, right? After some thought, I decided to put in my Wikinews interviews anyway. When I was interviewed for the job, that's all the hiring manager could talk about. Not only was she impressed by the quality of the interviews, she was also impressed that I put them out there on Wikinews, a Wikimedia project, available for so many eyes to see. I got the job that day. I also got the aforementioned job with the magazine for the exact same reason. My interviews with The Young and the Restless stars and Nicole were the most talked about out of the ones I presented in my portfolio. Even as I added more stories from other projects (the CBS affiliate, the magazine, etc.) to my portfolio, I kept my Wikinews interviews there. They always get notice, and the notice is always positive. I think it's due to both my talent and the positive recognition and feeling Wikinews gets from random people. A lot of people forget that being insular in Wikimedia projects. Since then, I have worked in television news rooms and in magazine offices in large, medium, and smaller markets throughout the United States (#13, Tampa Bay; #58, Mobile/Pensacola; and #101, Fayetteville/Fort Smith). Two years ago, I started my own magazine, and this year, I was honored by The Advocate as one of their "Forty Under 40" honorees: the "budding powerhouses, leaders in media, politics, sports, and science...the architects of the next decade." You can read about me here. None of this would have happened in the manner it happened without Wikinews. The power of Wikinews is palpable. I'm proof. I vote oppose and hope people take my message to heart and follow suit. Thank you. Mike Halterman (talk) 05:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Wikinews fills an important niche and I'm proud to have it exist as a Wikimedia project, even though I rarely edit it. I do however enjoy reading it, and for those who do enjoy editing there and put their time and effort into it let's not spoil it for them please. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 07:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikinews is an important an valuable project. I've been here for a year, filing original news reports and interviews. The reception that has been given to the small project has been fabulous, with mentions in Parliament and the mainstream media! Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While it remains active, and well curated, then there's no reason to close it. QU TalkQu 09:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongest support possible. Wikinews is a dead wiki run by a small group of corrupt admins who drive new users away and violate the most basic rules of how a wiki works and what Wikimedia is trying to achieve by hosting the site. In my own case, I was run off the site when I politely disagreed with an admin, a disagreement which then turned into a constant barrage of personal attacks against me day in and day out. In order to keep me off the site, false claims of "sockpuppetry" were invented without the slightest bit of evidence to support my indefinite ban. We don't need this wiki as it is currently operating and we certainly don't need a group of corrupt admins running it. Adam Cuerden is correct in assessing Wikinews as a "vanity site" run by self-promoters pushing their own agendas. Shut this thing down and turn off the lights, it's a disgrace. Kick Pi zero and Brian McNeil to the curb and replace those clowns with real journalists interested in the Wikimedia movement. Good riddance to bad rubbish. Viriditas (talk) 11:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I guess you missed the "real journalists" using Wikinews for three different semesters of journalism students. I do hope whoever reviews votes on this proposal takes into account you were permanently blocked for extreme disruption, and such was a decision taken by a number of community members where, until the "constant barrage of personal attacks" from Viriditas became unbearable, I was actually trying to help xe reform. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongest support possible.
  • (1) Fatally flawed model. Wikinews looked like a great idea years ago, but now we've realised that in the absence of an expensive real-world network of journalists, all it can do is just paraphrase the news that came out of the major outlets a while ago. Occasionally it rises above this when funding is somehow available for travel and associated expenses, and there are opportunities for free interviews and sources, but this is rare and will continue to be so.
  • (2) Brian McNeil and supporters. I was shocked to find that this editor is still using en.WN as a power-base. He is abusive. He directs the most appalling bad language at other editors. Around him a culture of insularity and amateurism has grown; most good editors simply leave, realising it's a fascist environment—often after multiple dramas ultimately rooted in McNeil's power-trip.
  • (3) Too small and won't get bigger. To have the slightest hope of succeeding, you'd need dozens of active editors with close and collegial networks around the world. This is not going to happen. We need to get rid of WN as soon as possible as a sad waste of donors' funds. Tony (talk) 12:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Tony1, I object most-strongly to being called a fascist. I am asking you here, and now, in a civil manner, to retract that libellous statement immediately. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, essentially agree with comments by Bidgee (talk · contribs) (diff), and Mike Halterman (talk · contribs) (diff), above. Wikinews contributors provide a valuable service and the site features lots of good in-depth reporting on key topics of interest to readers. Wikinews fills an important niche. Wikinews is a great place to contribute original reporting and interviews, as noted by Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs), above. It pleases me to hear that other Wikimedia users enjoy reading Wikinews, like OlEnglish (talk · contribs), above. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support with regret - It's a symbolic vote, as it's pretty obvious the proposal will fail based on the above, but the culture is insular and keeps out the people with the ability and passion to write serious content and foster the page's growth. Coming from Australia and looking at n:Oceania, for example, I wouldn't recognise my own country. Some HUGE stories have gone down here recently and not a peep - yet our ABC is going to call California for Obama (a story that missed even the most devoted political watchers' attention) and something about Tony Abbott turning up to a sports event. I was following a Queensland election back in 2009 and their only article on it was an interview with an obscure minor party that read more like an ad. I tried with a friend about 12 months ago to contribute some content from my own city and pretty much was persuaded never to return - it took an argument with Brian McNeil some months after the fact on another project to even find a guide for writing articles which might have been somewhat useful, but the feedback received from those "reviewing" my article submissions was sparse and meaningless, reminded me of the alphabet soup people sometimes get hit by when they enter Wikipedia. I really wish that the WMF had funded the project and forced something of a reboot in the culture, but failing that, it's just not going to be anything else than what it is. Orderinchaos (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Err, that guide is linked-to from the Welcome template. But, ignoring those is fashionable on just about every wiki. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm seeing "little activity" and "they don't like me". The former can be potentially countered by more editors coming, the second sounds like spite. (May or may not be, but sounds like.) Demonstrating that Wikinews was a "failed experiment" would take somewhat more than that—no idea whether it actually is a failed experiment, but the nomination and subsequent comments just don't demonstrate that. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I should note the comments that this type of project are inappropriate should be discounted since this isn't a proposal to shut down all Wikinews projects—or even the most prolific one. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)