Jump to content

Requests for comment/Closure of Sister Project Task Force

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

The following request for comments is closed. The task force appears to have disbanded as of this edit so this RFC to close it down should be moot.

This is a proposal to close down the Wikimedia Foundation Community Affairs Committee/Sister Projects Task Force. I have no personal grudge against its members; however, the Task Force has delivered actions subpar to the community, both divisive and highly controversial.

A Sister Projects Task Force seeks volunteers, experienced in community management, policy building and project administration. Given the recent Public consultation about Wikinews published on June 26, this doesn’t seem to be the case. In fact, just about everything went wrong with the proposal. The Task Project not only proposed Wikinews closure without proper consultation with various Wikinews communities beforehand, in fact it failed to uphold the standards they outlined: Reviewing such projects is not about giving up—it’s about responsible stewardship of shared resources and failing to sunset or reimagine projects that are no longer working can make it much harder to start new ones.

Wikinews communities were not informed of this proposal from the proposer side, but were only informed via Wikinews community members themselves after SPTF published a Diff article. When met with facts on the community consultation talkpage, the Task Force members retaliated and doubled down on their decision, downplaying what various Wikinews communities already had achieved despite the different working model and an even bigger editorial deficiency. Not only is their current modus operandi unfit for a healthy crosswiki community relationship but also proves that they had made up their mind and will not listen to the community – something that’s not aligned with multiple practices, starting with WMF mission, then UCoC, and lastly, the first “pillar” they set themselves that I have quoted above.

While this task force could work well, it faces existential problems of handling cross-wiki matters and is, as proven by the behaviour of some of their members, clearly unfit to undertake such tasks in the future – with some comments such as I expect that the wikinewsians [sic] would be in COI from Victoria (talk · contribs) blatantly highlighting that they are unwilling to listen to the very communities they are tasked to assist.

I have yet to see a good proposal from their side. Their actions are based on project deletionists’ support, where these deletionists come from big wikis – making SPTF actions fundamentally opposed to what they were founded for in the first place and only allows for further quiet hegemony of big projects (biggest Wikipedia projects) over smaller projects (be other much smaller sister Wikiprojects or smaller Wikipedia projects). Volunteers’ time is unpaid but not free, and this is something this Task Force failed to implement during their time – yet of utmost importance when handling controversial crosswiki matters. To see such comparisons to editor time with sites like Quora (Do you know what happened to Quora? from Victoria) is not only degrading to the Wikinews community, but also the way sister projects are perceived.

If the members themselves have spent the last 1 month demonstrating that they do not fundamentally understand the scope of most sister projects or how they function, it goes without saying that

  • a) such a committee should not hold such a high-stakes role in the movement;
  • b) should not be allowed to make significant decisions.

It’s evident that keeping this task force around will only cause more harm than good in the long run. Its continued existence threatens to perpetuate a model of engagement blatantly disregarding established community consensus while fostering unnecessary conflict, undermining confidence in Wikimedia governance processes. These issues are not isolated mistakes but indicators of deeper structural and procedural shortcomings. It needs significant reform if it were to stay; however, given its severe systemic issues, it is far more pragmatic to close the task force entirely and work on alternate frameworks that seek to support sister projects, not undermine their existence.--A09|(pogovor) 12:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]
  1. Support Support Someone brought this up in a fit of anger before, and now we really have a proposal? Sorry, but I'll support this. The reason is just above, which is true, and it has been mentioned countless times elsewhere. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In any case, SPTF should change its name at least, because according to current regulations and consensus, Wikipedia is also a part of the sister project, and everyone is equal in legal terms. "Wikimedia sister projects are all the publicly available wikis operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, including Wikipedia." Does SPTF have the same power over Wikipedia? "to support the life cycle of non-Wikipedia projects across the movement" ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As things stand, I personally think we can no longer keep the current SPTF. Even if we do, we must have a brand new one. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 02:13, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I very much Support Support this idea. I'm glad we're finally having a discussion on this topic. Overall, I think the recent (and ongoing) discussion about shutting down Wikinews has somewhat exposed the absurdity and flaws of the SPTF. A09 has explained most of the SPTF-related issues extensively in his description above, so I don't have much to add. In my opinion, the existence of the SPTF is detrimental to projects and their communities - e.g., it creates its own "reports" and, without any consultation with the local community, proposes closing projects, etc. The SPTF is not functioning properly and is very poorly organized. There is no need for such a body in its current form. Therefore, I support the closure of the SPTF. BZPN (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. It seems that the SPTF people posted a notice on enwn, which shows that they understand the need to respect local communities and have read the Wikimedia Movement Charter. But they did not post a notice in other languages (before it start), but adopted a surprise tactic. In any case, this undermines some legitimacy and shows their lack of confidence to some extent. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 00:53, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sheminghui.WU can you link the notice made by SPTF please? I have only found one, but that one was really just linking to the Diff article by a community member so it doesn’t really count. A09|(pogovor) 08:38, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we're talking about the same notification, I just didn't look at it carefully. As it turns out now, they didn't even send a single notification. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 08:49, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Therefor, I think the SPTF is at least suspected of violating the Movement Charter: “This accountability is implemented through transparent decision-making, dialogue, public notice, reporting of activities, and upholding a Care Responsibility.”
    In fact, the report itself contains directional suggestions, and the entire decision-making process involving the life and death of the entire Wikimedia movement unit is still unclear until today. At least the transparency and notification obligations have not been fulfilled (This doesn't seem to be very controversial). I personally learned some information really related to the decision-making only after I asked in person at the first meeting. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 09:37, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Many community members, including those who actively participate in Wikinews, said that they learned about the consultation through group messages after it began, rather than receiving direct, proactive invitations to participate during the research phase. For example, User:Asked42, a long-term contributor to Bengali Wikinews, explicitly stated that they learned about the consultation by proactively contacting the Task Force. ("Speaking from personal experience: I have been working on Bangla Wikinews on Incubator for nearly two years now, and for the past seven months, the project has been active according to the Language Committee's guidelines. Ironically, I only learned about this consultation after I reached out to the Task Force myself, based on a suggestion from the LangCom. Shouldn't it have been the responsibility of the Task Force to at least inform active Wikinews communities during the research or analysis phase?") This communication method fails to reflect the principles of "transparent decision-making, dialogue, public notice" and "encouraging participation" in the Charter. SPTF does not respect the spirit of the Charter, at least in its recent actions. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 09:49, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong support Strong support per here --Ssr (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Support --Butko (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong support Strong support. I will be approaching from a non-Wikinews participant point of view so I will add on to what User:A09 wrote by focusing on aspects on new sister project creation rather than closing down existing projects. As an editor of WikiJournal User Group, we have an active project proposal which has been submitted since 2019. The continued "kicking the can down the road" issue has been raised repeatedly online (through emails, commenting on Procedure for Sibling Project Lifecycle [1]) and offline (e.g. Wikimania Singapore fireside chat with WMF CEO session, consultation process at Wikimania Katowice and WikiConference North America 2024). The Sister Project Task Force, for no explained reason, chose to continue to ignore WikiJournal by not selecting it as part of the cohort to evaluate its potential of becoming a new sister project. The fact that Sister Project Task Force continues to ignore validly created new WikiJournal's (at 182 support and 41 oppose as of the time of this comment) and Wikispores' (at 110 support, no oppose) sister project proposal demonstrates a lack of respect for community consensus. Specifically for WikiJournal, this task force does not observe procedural justice. There is no way to hold the task force to accountability because the task force members were selected by existing task force individuals and not via election, creating a cabal and potentially an echo chamber. New vacancies were not advertised and the positions were quietly filled through a secret process that nobody knows about. The composition of this task force is completely flawed and its actions (and inactions) become a "supervote" that overrides and vetoes the community's desires by imposing its own view to pick winners and losers. I believe that the existence of Sister Project Task Force is a detriment to any current new sister project proposals (WikiJournal and Wikispore) and future proposals. If this task force is not good at handling the closure of existing sister projects and also not good at handling the creating of new sister projects, then what is the purpose of its continued existence? OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:14, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong support Strong support Mobashir - 🇧🇩 (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Weak support Noting the wiki users are often working in isolation and may not be aware of the issues for years, it would be nice to voice them loudly before starting a closure. I need to add that engagement existed but was selective, replying only to a few users at the talk page of the consultation. Perhaps to those with whom the task force already has connections previously. Any newcomers with their new ideas, perhaps they were read and will be considered later, but they were not acknowledged. Is this called "lialiason" or "ambassador" or however to spell it, it is missing here and is essential. I am hoping this observation can be taken on board in addition to the approaching a wiki before making an ultimatum. In any case there is a list of tasks to do now, which could improve the wiki; yet, who and how is going to do them? I will try to reach to a number of people about this shortly. Gryllida 05:53, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The SPTF's participation in the discussion was kind of low, despite the fact that they painstakingly wrote a lengthy report beforehand (although Victoria claims she wrote it alone). They didn't directly address most of the questions raised, offering only brief criticisms mostly. As an active participant in the public consultation, I personally don’t recall any SPTF member ever responding to me. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 02:06, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Support Haven't really been impressed by their work so far. What surprised me was the lack of communication with the affected wiki and messages to unrelated wiki calling for participation. Besides that, I have seen plenty in that discussion leading me to believe that this isn't the right body to be making such decisions.--BRP ever 06:23, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Support As someone who spends most of their time on sister projects, the current task force only does a disservice. Community consultations have been extremely poor, as is their blatant unwillingness to listen to those who are from the Wikinews community and know what's best for their project. Nothing good out of the current taskforce has ever come either, and based on the way they've handled things (Victoria in particular), I would expect significant change if they are to stay. //shb (t • c) 08:34, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Support Seems OK. --نوفاك اتشمان (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong support Strong support. All is said, but it cannot be stressed enough how the "report" contains lies and hate and misleading statements. The statistics are falsified, they put examples for its own benefits instead of being neutral an looking for examples to all sides. Actually it is Victoria against RU WN but this won't work so it is Victoria against Wikinewses at all.— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matthiasb (talk)
  12. Support Support Иованъ (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Support Ｔｏｍ (talk) 09:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong support Strong support --Langusto (talk) 09:51, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Support Their actions show they are not fit for purpose.GothicGolem29 (GothicGolem29 Talk) 18:03, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong support Strong support Just agree all around, the task force is somewhat useless Rfqii (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1. Weak oppose They have done two investigations and come to two conclusions which are non-binding and something where reasonable persons could disagree. Requesting to shut it down based on a perfectly reasonable report that is just them doing their jobs seems very unnecessary. That said, the reason I'm just a weak oppose is that I can see how the standard existing process could cover the promotion/closure proposals already. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:14, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I don't like it very much, I have cooperated with most works of the SPTF during this public consultation, such as posting notices for their hosted discussions, etc. What truly led me to support the RfC to close the SPTF is that many have questioned the authenticity of the SPTF report (or at the very least, its seriousness), and I personally harbor doubts as well. Over the past ten-plus days (before this, many details had not been widely discussed), not only the SPTF didn't respond, but its members also appear to have made no active effort to address these concerns and dispel potential misunderstandings. My vote to close the SPTF stems primarily from this issue(Of course, there is also their "ambush tactics"), problems about their report, It makes me feel totally unreasonable now. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 12:25, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your rational attitude is really rare, and I think it can make many people stop for a while and think.
    If the data problems are explained in the future, proving that the skeptics are almost completely wrong, even if their explanation is a little late, I will also cross out my support vote. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 12:58, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose as straw poll started to protest the SPTF proposing the closure of Wikinews. The Metawiki community has no ability to close the SPTF as it is a creation of the Foundation not the community. This RfC is simply forum-shopping that will have no realistic chance of succeeding. --Dronebogus (talk) 12:15, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:POINT doesn't apply here. A09|(pogovor) 18:14, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if the RfC has no real impact on SPTF, I personally encourage everyone to express their true thoughts, which can serve as a reference for other volunteers, including SPTF members. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    These are my true thoughts. If you’re asking for my opinion on SPTF, I think it has a right to exist because the foundation has a right to review whether donor money is actually being used productively. Dronebogus (talk) 12:42, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, just share true thoughts about the issue, this will help the discussion, thank you for contribute. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - this task force is created by the WMF themselves, and it cannot be abolished without the consent of the Foundation. It may be catastrophic to abolish an important task force dedicated to monitoring how the projects work. I do not believe how the SPTF processes are subpar. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:59, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Community should held the right to endorse its closure, whoever the closing party might be. I don't agree with you, but I won't deny you your opinion. A09|(pogovor) 11:09, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose There are some support users above who are later confirmed as sockpuppets with insulting tones, making their comments doubtful by themselves. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liuxinyu970226 Making sockpuppet accusations with no backup claims is a serious allegation. Could you indicate how you think any of the supporters are socks? //shb (t • c) 23:55, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @SHB2000 see example here. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:59, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See full context. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ahri Boy It's still not sure whether that's indeed abuse on viwiki, so as that case hasn't appealed yet, it's a current negative point to me. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:14, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    那么，既然我还没被confirm, 请阁下解释那个later confirmed as sockpuppet的人是谁？ --Sheminghui.WU (talk) 08:59, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And how about Ssr? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:16, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And this? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:19, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at CA, Mobashir seems to be blocked for poor etiquette and Ssr for aggressive behaviour; neither indicate sockpuppetry as you claim. So unless you have a well-reasoned explanation, at this point you are merely throwing loose accusations with no backing to your claim, which goes against Meta's civility policy. //shb (t • c) 11:49, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What I want to say is that this case is clearly a ban due to evidence nothing. Unfortunately, I am the person who involved, but I believe that every passerby can see that my ban on viwiki is unfounded.
    Moreover, this is simply ridiculous. I have only 20 edits on viwiki, but I was only banned on viwiki. At the same time, the only intersection between the user who was banned as someone's "puppet" and me was that we disagreed with each other's opinions on an entry discussion page and debated in two foreign languages.
    The administrator himself also said on your discussion page that he is willing to unblock me. If I really violated the rules, would he unblock me just because of your "guarantee"? That would be the biggest abuse of power.
    I recently submitted the case to U4C as you suggested. What else you want to say? You are now suspected of spreading rumors and slander here. Do you also want to be reported? ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 09:07, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, Thank you very much for helping to divert attention to my case so that everyone can see how ridiculous this matter is. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 09:22, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    wait what it's me??? 🤔 wow intersting Sheminghui.WU (talk) 08:51, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't even seem to be a confirmed sock. //shb (t • c) 02:58, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to say that even if some of these people used pseudonyms, it is not a reasonable reason to oppose the bill (but of course it will make people doubt the motives), because the facts themselves have not changed. It's very simple. If I change my vote to "oppose" and then illegally create a pseudonym to vote against it, does that mean you will vote for support? ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 08:50, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    wait it's me ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 08:51, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Mr. Liu Xinyu, it seems that not long ago you offered to "vouch" that I had not violated any rules. It turns out that the facts were decided by several "seems well respected" gentlemen(阁下). ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 08:53, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This reminds me of your harassment of Kitabc, another experienced Wikinews editor, whom you seemingly accused of participating in a non-existent election for 行政员, and you made it sound like it was real. The relevant record can still be found on his talk page. But let's not get off topic anymore. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sheminghui.WU Election of bureaucrats (行政员) is a very serious thing for community, generally, it's strongly not recommend for any small communities to try electing it, as the linked section said: The local community must be large enough to require a bureaucrat. In that year, zh.wikinews community was confirmed not large enough, even Kitabc still claim "large enough", this wrong is made by Kitabc, not me. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:07, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest you retract sockpuppeting accusations as they are clearly baseless, especially if you're trying to indicate I was the one socking here. A09|(pogovor) 09:04, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, so it seems that everyone here is a "puppets", he is the only real person, it seems that we are all his puppets.[just kidding] ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 09:09, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @A09 Better to ask Nguyentrongphu to "retract" their block rationale as sockpuppet (Rối), as I can't do so, I'm not a vi.wiki administrator (or even other wikis), if you also really think that block rationale is wrong. But unless and until such "appeal" succeed, how is Sheminghui.WU a good user that "always emphasize etiquette and Wiki rules"? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:10, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I remember Nguyentrongphu was ready to drop the charges against me, as long as you "vouched." From your words, it seems that you are also willing to vouch for me. It is for you and everyone else that I rejected this unclear approach. So what is the truth? Is it really decided by you, the "seems well respect" user? ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 11:49, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    An accusation and ban without any evidence gave is not something that can be discussed. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 11:53, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably I can still oppose this RFC, but not on sock accusations, but rather some supporters' tones as insulting to other contributors? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:22, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a more reasonable reason anyway. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 11:50, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Modified my oppose rationale. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:52, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    nice ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 11:53, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But unfortunately, I don’t want to add “some opponents(actually opponent) are making incoherent and random accusations” to my reasons for support. That would make this discussion interface look like a Russian nesting doll. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 12:01, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My ban(By the Nguyentrongphu below) was lifted unconditionally before I filed a formal appeal on that. Viwiki has also initiated a policy reform. Are you satisfied? My friend ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liuxinyu970226: Where did anyone here have an insulting tone when you had to face facts? A09|(pogovor) 18:15, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @A09 You can see that example via opening the "unhelpful and potentially libelous content" box on the bottom of this page, thank you for reading. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:33, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose This whole discussion is moot. See below. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 01:41, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no intention of changing your mind. However, how people behave on this discussion page("moot") does not directly change the objective reality. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 09:33, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Oppose — The RFC is pointless since the SPTF will naturally dissolve once its finite lifespan ends. Instead, exploring alternatives like a community-led body to recommend projects to the Board—similar to Langcom—would be more productive than the WMF itself deciding on "task forces," which are mainly board members and thus already predetermined. Best, Galahad (sasageyo!)(esvoy) 23:10, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Oppose Having the task force is better than nothing. I find a lot (though hardly all of them, I find Talk:Public consultation about Wikinews#Foundation for Decisions quite egregious) of the findings in the report/proposal novel, convincing, and well-supported. There is a great need (exhibited in e.g. the decades of some enwiki users spitting on it) for conversations about the future of Wikinews, and there are definitely problems that exist and IMO greatly hamper WN's utility.
    I also don't understand parts of the rationale, especially The Task Project not only proposed Wikinews closure without proper consultation with various Wikinews communities beforehand. A consultation prior to closure is exactly what Talk:Public consultation about Wikinews is. I notice that Wikinews has not yet been closed, nor has closure been initiated. The proposal is just a report identifying problems with Wikinews. I do not see what is procedurally wrong with the SPTF's actions.
    There are, of course, very convincing and serious governance and administration issues (including apparent exhibited cluelessness) brought up, in the opening statement and in Ohana's !support. But this proposal is not for reforming or replacing the task force. It is for closing it without an alternative. Though A09 justifies closing SPTF as it is far more pragmatic to close the task force entirely and work on alternate frameworks that seek to support sister projects, there is no alternative framework proposed. Implementing this RfC would simply leave a void to fill a need sorely required. I would support a proposal to replace SPTF with an alternative that stewards the voices of sister projects no matter proposed or existing, but this is not that proposal. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The sudden public consultation itself was a blow and disrespect to the target community, as we can see it interrupted people's normal work. This sudden attack also undermined its procedural fairness. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 07:51, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What would you prefer? Aaron Liu (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The community should be aware that their project is being investigated, which would clearly help to informally resolve many issues, such as the data collection methods and results, which remain unclear.(As the consultation showed us, these communications are slow to happen within the formal process). This will also reduce the actual impact on the community. Yes, preliminary recommendations that haven't been discussed are non-binding, but the public consultation itself means something real. Furthermore, as you can see, key members of the SPTF, including the "only author" of the Document, have very limited knowledge of WN. If the SPTF had someone deeply familiar with WN, that would be much fine, but without them, how could they design a public consultation on a project they are completely unfamiliar with? That's my personal opinion. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 01:59, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This was clearly not just a minor, accidental mistake. It reveals flaws in the SPTF's working methods and spirit(From a practical point of view, the structure). Before deciding to conduct the public consultation, they don't want to thoroughly understand the subject they were consulting with, nor to maintain transparency and openness, talkable. After the public consultation began, aside from a few comments from Sj and Pharos etc., there was generally no response. Then, as you can see, the public consultation was extended for another half month, and still no one spoke. The main reason for this extension is that Wikimania workshop, and for some reason, a non-livestreamed meeting, effectively a closed-door meeting for us. Then SPTF member Sj was kind and suggest an unofficial online participation option and provided a link (which proves that the meeting did not involve state secrets). Many people said they will participate (including me). Then, he described the online participation like this: "I was the only one I saw in the hangout, alas." They then made a note.
    This is abnormal, and we currently have no other options for this RfC. However, I believe the SPTF should at least have a formal suggestions/criticisms and restructuring. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 02:20, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that's better. That's also going to cause a blow and interruption to the communities being investigated. If it's investigated and they eventually find nothing anyways, the blow and depressment would be for absolutely no reason. The notification would not be treated as any less real than a public consultation (except it wouldn't be across sister projects) and might be too much pressure and work for the SPTF given there's probably much more investigations that stopped at early stages.
    I do agree that they probably should include at least one WN member in the task force though, given how oblivious Victoria's comments made the task force seem.

    aside from a few comments from Sj and Pharos etc., there was generally no response

    Disagree; Victoria's infamous comments are scattered everywhere, for one.

    we currently have no other options for this RfC. However, I believe the SPTF should at least have a formal suggestions/criticisms and restructuring.

    You can add a sub-proposal below if it is detailed enough. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:46, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think an informal asking would have caused such a significant blow. These details need to be addressed by the SPTF. If, as you suggest, they conducted a survey before deciding to target WN, they could have explained to the community that this was a routine survey. If not, then the survey will definitely produce results; there's no such thing as "eventually find nothing anyways". Yes, this will certainly increase the SPTF's workload, but it will also make the SPTF's work more valid, or perhaps make it valid.(As you can see if the data itself is wrong, this huge consultation is almost nothing) Furthermore, the person conducting this survey wasn't a volunteer, but a hired individual.
    "Disagree; Victoria's infamous comments are scattered everywhere, for one."
    Yes. But I'm referring to fairly effective responses.
    I do have thoughts on that sub-proposal, but I'm not sure if it's necessary to open a separate one. If anyone has any ideas on this, please share them. Sheminghui.WU (talk) 03:37, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As you can see, even Wikipedia editors who are much familiar with the Wikimedia structure have written in the Wikinews entry: "As of June 28, 2025, the Wikimedia Foundation has proposed closing Wikinews." ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 01:49, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As you may have heard, Wikipedia only regurgitates contestable information the way the sources say it, Reliable Sources. There's very little analysis (Original Research) by Wikipedia editors of the claim's truth, unless the claim seems Exceptional/unbelievable, which is not the case here. The source cited for that is questionable, so I've replaced the claim with a citation to what the WMF actually said and an edit summary explaining why it's questionable.

    If, as you suggest, they conducted a survey before deciding to target WN,

    No? I never suggested that. In fact I just explained why I was against that. I don't understand your "If not" sentence either. Doesn't the "not" mean "if there is no notification"? How would it produce results if it's not there?

    they could have explained to the community that this was a routine survey

    I'm not sure if it is done on a regular basis. With all we know they could just be assessing projects with substantial complaints (except for the WMF's main focus, Wikipedia, which is also outside the task force's purview) outside them. I don't see any possible wording to calm the waters for such a process.

    if the data itself is wrong

    Since I don't see how that's a possibility, I don't see how that's related here.

    But I'm referring to fairly effective responses.

    Discussing with arguments that seem far from knowledgeable is very different from your characterization of not discussing, nearly at all. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. As a longtime supporter of increased investment in sister projects, I believe it's necessary to do this sort of work. The task force is a community-led effort, sanctioned by the WMF board, which needs more support. The discussion we've had about Wikinews is already a good result, whatever the outcome may be. The report they've published was not very impressive, but it's better to have it in the open. Now we know that internal deliberations at the WMF risked relying on flawed information, and we can do something about it. Probably this effort requires more financial resources, but first and foremost it needs more community support. Nemo 20:37, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The report's production was opaque, its authors were unprofessional and had a not-ideal attitude, its data was controversial and has yet to be responded to (as of today), and it had a sudden and severe impact on the Wikinews community(yeah repetition makes one bored). These are all the negative facts, you can confirm this by reading the relevant pages.. While this discussion on Wikinews may be beneficial overall and has a "good result," it's difficult to argue that the SPTF's actions were beneficial overall and had a "good result." Of course, as someone mentioned below, a single mistake doesn't explain the entire situation, but I personally still believe that this issue stems from structural and guiding principles issues that require thorough restructuring and reform (not just minor adjustments). This sort of work is certainly necessary, and always has been. Few would oppose it, but closing this working group doesn't mean abandoning the work. Perhaps we just need a new working group—that's it, but it's also brand new and needs to be completely overhauled or closed first. That's simple. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 11:17, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. One blunder doesn't defeat the whole SPTF's purpose. Well very well (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Oppose turning the tables is unseemly, but does clarify the character of the nominator, and is a boomerang. --Slowking4 (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with this personal attack. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What? Can you explain how is that a boomerang? A09|(pogovor) 21:26, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do whatever it takes👍 ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 00:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    that is not a personal attack, but rather pointing out that the behavior here, might lead to unflattering conclusions about the editor. the weaponization of process is a time suck for good faith editors, and a distraction. disagree with people all you want: it will not change minds, or do the mission of these projects. the Spanish Fork or Roads fork is that way. --Slowking4 (talk) 13:11, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying things about behavior is indeed not a personal attack, but saying things about character is. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Oppose Agree with Nemo Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:01, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Oppose --denny (talk) 13:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Oppose I see so many errors in the opening statement that I wish it were an article, so I could edit it (e.g., "A Sister Projects Task Force seeks volunteers" – no, they sought volunteers in 2023, and they got five of them). More importantly, if the Board wants to look into something important, it makes sense for it to create a committee to collect information for it, make suggestions, hear the Board's reaction, etc., and then to share the Board's views with others. The practical alternatives (e.g., one Board member; delegating it to staff; not talking to communities until after the decision is made...) are worse. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:53, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

[edit]
  1. {{weak oppose}}Neutral Neutral Personally I found the SPTF report disappointing. There is no discussion on why specific evaluation metrics were chosen. There is no discussion on what an appropriate baseline would be. Issues from different projects were woven together despite being very different from each other (Issues specific to ruwikinews should not have bearing on enwikinews). Some comparisons really stretch credibility or suggest fundamental misunderstandings of the goals/working of Wikinews. I suspect that if I used the logic of the committee I could write a report suggesting Wikipedia should be shut down. That's not to say there isn't problems with Wikinews. I believe there are severe problems. However, this report was simply not a good investigation of the issues nor was it particularly fair. I think Wikinews would have failed this evaluation even if it was doing well (which it isn't). Be that as it may, I don't think closing the task force is the appropriate solution here. After all, all they did was write a report with a non-binding recommendation. That's something we can debate, with our words. Regrettably the final decision might still be to close Wikinews, not so much for the issues in the report, but because this has gotten a ball rolling and brought attention to problems that have been building for a long time. I still think final decision should rest with the Wikimedia community on whether to close the project (via an RFC), but I don't think anything here really justifies closing the committee. I do hope the committee will take some time to reflect on this controversy and realize why people are frustrated, even if their ultimate conclusion wins the day. Bawolff (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bawolff: I'm not trying to change your vote in any way whatsoever but I'm not opposed to Wikinews reform and that discussion should be held independently of the outcome of this RfC. Proposed closure of SPTF and whatever Wikinews reform are not correlated here. A09|(pogovor) 08:39, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, I wasn't sure if I should make mine a neutral instead of weak oppose. I'm unhappy with the committee, but closing it seems like a knee-jerk reaction. I think the idea of the committee is reasonable but I'm unhappy with the execution (To be clear, this isn't just about Wikinews. The spore review was extremely superficial. I think I could make a more in depth commentary on the risks and benefits of spore off the top of my head). I suppose I'm hoping for reforms rather than shutting it down. Bawolff (talk) 08:53, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    After thinking it over, i moved my comment to the neutral category. Bawolff (talk) 09:15, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your seriousnesswinkThanks! ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 12:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per what I've said before. While there are issues (which can be fixed), I do not believe the concept of a SPTF is flawed. Leaderboard (talk) 10:24, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What you said makes sense. But we may need a brand new SPTF. Probably there is nothing wrong with the concept of SPTF, but the existing SPTF does not seem to be very qualified. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 12:05, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Brand new means, it cannot be (or it's hard) solved by replacing a few members, holding a few meetings, or modifying some clauses. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 12:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sister Project Task Force at least did something (they invested much efforts on Proposal for Closing Wikinews), comparing with the never functional Proposal for Closing WikinewsSister Projects Committee. Reforming it may be needed, but please do not close it without replacement.--GZWDer (talk) 11:16, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, by the way, the Wikinews public consultation has been extended once again. However, I believe that unless the SPTF drastically changes its past approach and actively participates in discussions(I hope) and responds directly to public concerns, it will be difficult for the public consultation to achieve any constructive progress. Participants have already raised enough questions, but the SPTF has no enough responded, so there is no room for further discussion sadly ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 01:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But I agree that a very thorough reform would be good if possible. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 01:38, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @GZWDer You obviously made a C+P mistake with the links, they are both identic. Would you mind to correct? Matthiasb (talk) 09:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed.--GZWDer (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sub proposal: Expand Language Commitee

[edit]

One of the few true things the Sister Projects Task force wrote is there is a gap when it comes to opening whole projects. Currently a new project would go to the Board of Trustees without anything defined prior to that. Sure, a RFC could be held, but I would prefer if the Language Comitee oversaw a discussion and then that would be submitted to the Board of Trustees.--Snævar (talk) 13:12, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

This idea was first mentioned in (probably) Talk:Public consultation about Wikinews#Proposal to close Sister Projects Task Force (SPTF). Participants include (at the moment/before this RfC start): @Ssr: @Matthiasb: @SHB2000:(shb) @Kylaix:(Kylain Aixter) @ZandDev: @Dronebogus: @A09: @BZPN: @OhanaUnited: @Sheminghui.WU: @Md Mobashir Hossain:(Mobashir - 🇧🇩) @Snævar: @Kitabc12345: @Leaderboard:; ranking is no particular oreder, please proceed here for further discussion, thanks(Sorry if there are any omissions—) ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 07:26, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By only calling/pinging folks involved in the Wikinews RFC, I feel like we are falling into the same purported pitfalls as that of the committee. Sohom (talk) 11:36, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Task force was notified and I left a neutrally worded notice on the consultation page as it is the reason why this proposal was even published. A09|(pogovor) 11:55, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that most of the people I pinged were "closers", but there were also several "keepers". I don't know if they include Task Force members, but I pinged indiscriminately, and someone once expressed the idea of "if there is an RfC, please ping me and everyone else". I think people who participated in the previous discussion of this discussion (which is actually) should receive a ping reminder, which is much better than waiting for them to see it themselves. Anyway, this discussion cannot be closed so hastily, there is still a long time, Thanks ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@A09: I just notified Wikispore [2][3] which should draw a greater diversity of participants outside of the Wikinews editors. Wikispore folks are the "other half" of the equation and we would like to hear their thoughts on the sister project task force. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:43, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Victoria said on her talkpage that she will be busy until the end of Wikimania. Many WMF staffers write that around this time. Getting rid of Sister Project Task force will just move the cases to the Language committee and then to the board, where some of the Sister project task force members sit, both in appointed and community seats. Snævar (talk) 08:02, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SPTF is not in Language committee's jurisdiction as it doesn't represent a language or a new project. A09|(pogovor) 08:05, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By cases I mean the closure of Wikinews and the creation of Wikispore. Well, it should handle the creation of Wikispore, because otherwise that just goes straight to the Board of Trustees. This is all assuming SPTF closes its doors. Snævar (talk) 12:22, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's OK to keep this interface open until the end of Wikimania. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 12:04, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I think everyone has their own things to do in reality; not only is Victoria going to a meeting, for example, I myself have recently entered a busy period with my studies. Making some simple responses to such documents will not take up too much time and effort. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 22:54, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not long ago, Ms. Victoria announced on the Wikinews public consultation page that the consultation period would be extended, until 15 Aug. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 10:22, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
unhelpful content
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Closure_of_Sister_Project_Task_Force&oldid=30025687"