Talk:Public consultation about Wikinews

The following discussion is closed.

Timeline: The talk-page consultation is extended until 15 August. A community RFC has been started on Meta. A final recommendation from the taskforce will be shared with the Community Affairs Committee by its October meeting.

• Past consultations: July 16, July 17 (Recording)
• Feedback: Day 1 & Day 2 feedback, Встреча на русском языке (Russian)

Updates:

• A community RFC has been launched on Requests for comment/Sister Projects next steps, please review and !vote on the questions there. Note that each question is independent of the others.
• A summary of the consultation and options for next steps will be presented to the CAC in September.

Refactored discussion

Extended commentaries: Gryllida, Koavf (below), Pharos (RFC on next steps), Summary of public discussions (2 online consultations, Wikimania workshop upcoming)

Section in progress. This is a wiki, please edit to include links to any discussion that is not yet there.

Restructuring

Editors spend a lot of time reading, writing, and reviewing material about news. Can we restructure current Wikinews workflows, and things that have worked well in the past, while linking that to other current events efforts on the projects?

• Multilingual tools: Wikinews Pulse (Wikidata, service for Wikinews or for Wikipedias)
  • Recognize that a tremendous amount of work is done on articles about news, but scattered across projects
  • Open question: is there a facility for original interviews or reporting (e.g. at events?) Compare: WikiPortraits has a news-like presence + gets press passes at dozens of events a year
• Make news articles more evergreen: similar to the encyclopedic version of an article, not real-time snapshot
• Small procedural changes
  • Increase engagement.
  • Increase article output. (i.e. to levels from previous years)
  • Reduce bureaucracy. (reviewer bottleneck)
• Refocus on news about the wikiverse / merge with community journalism about itself and free knowledge
• Refocus on original content/reporting instead of synthesis, potentially by banning articles that purely consist of synthesizing existing sources

Merging into Wikipedias

The most detailed and successful coverage of (high-profile) current events happens on Wikipedias. Can anything from Wikinews be merged into relevant language Wikipedias?

• Which other projects link into WN / when did they stop? Which Wikinewses link into WP and other projects?
• Images are already hosted on Commons; how often are they also used in relevant WP articles?
• Are there other places where people can share original reporting (text, images?) on a) notable topics that can have their own Wikipedia article, b) local topics

Archiving

Most Wikinews languages have low activity. Compared other Sister projects, freshness of articles is much more important to a news site. Should Wikinews have higher standards of activity to keep a language edition open? If the projects need significant restructuring to work as wikis, should they all be archived?

• "WN as currently set up has failed. Restructure should involve moving back to incubator" (even of large projects)
• Return smaller projects to Incubator. Discourage creating new language editions, while exploring restructuring.
• Compare what happened to WikiTribune (Q: how were its articles archived?)
• Return smaller projects to Incubator and discourage creating new language editions while exploring some restructuring.

Finding a new home

If projects are merged or archived: the current projects could be merged into compatibly-licensed external projects. What are candidates for this?

• Continuing to work or experimenting with new ideas in Incubator or Wikispore
• Migration to a project on a wiki host : single language or multilingual? [wants examples]
• Incorporation into another citizen journalism site. (no specific sites have been suggested, integration could be difficult for anything that didn't have similar structure.)

Other

• Take no special action, let Wikinews follow the standard process for opening and closure. Possibly with increased activity requirements for each.
• The indicators used should be better (especially if applied to other projects): improve indicators and get better data about sister projects generally.
• Run experiments for a short time on current Wikinews languages
• Make better use of [category intersections, other tools] to identify breaking news and current events, both on WN and on other projects. Make visible to contributors.
• Comparisons: many modern 'news' sites, even ones indexed by Google News, are significantly worse than WN in all dimensions.

Toward a more solution-oriented assessment

I'm not sure how these consultations work. If this isn't the right place to begin discussion, please let me know and I’ll move this comment elsewhere.

The evaluation presents many fair points. I agree with several major conclusions:

• User engagement is low
• The project struggles to respond rapidly and effectively to breaking news
• English Wikinews has long suffered from a shortage of active reviewers, which are essential to publication

But these outcomes are not surprising when viewed in light of how the project is designed. They are symptoms of a model that prioritizes finality and review over iterative development.

Wikinews operates under a specific structural model. Once an article is reviewed and published, it is archived and no longer open to collaborative improvement. This principle is foundational:

"We cannot rely on the wiki process to improve articles after they are published..." — m:Wikinews

This design choice was made deliberately, early in the project’s development, and has remained unchanged for more than two decades. It reflects a commitment to journalistic standards: articles should represent a stable, sourced, timestamped account of what was known at the time. On Wikinews, the wiki process happens before publication. That’s by design.

The report highlights problems like low post-publish editing, minimal integration with other projects, and poor collaboration metrics. But it doesn’t mention that post-publish editing is disallowed. These aren't failures of community engagement. They're direct results of the editorial model we use.

So I’d like to ask:

Does the task force recognize the "no wiki process after publication" model as a key structural constraint? And if so, does it view this constraint as a barrier to success—or as part of Wikinews’ mission-aligned identity?

The answer matters. Without considering the implications of the review + archive model, it’s hard to judge whether the current state of Wikinews is a failure of effort or the predictable outcome of the rules we operate under.

I’d welcome thoughts from the task force and other participants on whether this aspect of Wikinews has been adequately weighed in the current proposal and how it might affect future decisions around restructuring or closure. —Michael.C.Wright (talk) 13:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Michael's point here. It seems that the review does not fully take into account how the Wikinews model functions, even though that understanding should be central to any evaluation.

I don't intend to sound overly opinionated (and I apologize if I do), but I believe the objective and framing of this consultation are critically important. Was the purpose to understand the challenges and explore ways to improve or preserve the project? Or was it primarily to document what isn't working?

After reading the report, I feel that while it presents many valid concerns, it places much greater emphasis on highlighting problems rather than understanding the root causes behind them or proposing potential pathways forward.

It would be more constructive, in my view, to take an iterative and solution-oriented approach, such as: (i) Identifying the problems, (ii) Exploring possible solutions or alternatives, (iii) Implementing small changes or pilots, (iv) Observing outcomes and reviewing progress.

Such a process would create a more balanced framework, not just to evaluate but to genuinely assess whether and how Wikinews can be revitalized. Of course, all of this also depends on a fundamental question: is there a genuine intention and motivation to preserve Wikinews as a project. -- Asked42 (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm finding myself agreeing with both Michael and Asked on most of their points, especially the two questions Michael has highlighted. The thoughts of the taskforce once they've considered these questions, I think, will be interesting.

As Asked said, the report does highlight some of the problems without digging into the root causes. I have reviewed many Wikinews articles over the years and one thing that came up every now and then is some one coming over from another project – usually Wikipedia – and mistakenly thinking the rules on there original project applied on Wikinews. Some took the feedback well. Others not so much.

A project that we tried some years ago now was to engage with the University of Wollongong through one of the journalism professors. Doing this or something similar may be one way to improve engagement outside the wiki eco sphere. I'm not necessarily proposing to engage the same university but it may be a place to start.

I remember a time when there was an attitude amongst some on English Wikipedia that could be summed up as "I don't like Wikinews, Wikipedia Signpost is better, Wikinews should be closed." A discussion that encapsulates this can be found at m:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of English Wikinews.

I don't think we'll ever completely stamp that sentiment out. We acknowledge they exist and have worked against Wikinews in the past and may do so again. The discussion I have linked to contains a good argument for why Wikinews is useful. Said quote by Brian McNeil is "I even see one of my photos in-use In The Other Place. And, I didn't put it there. Who'da thunk it? The project in The Signpost's crosshairs is actually useful."

All this said, I invite all Wikimedians to Wikinews and even engage in some original reporting. RockerballAustralia (talk) 07:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think people are generally comparing the Signpost to Wikinews; but comparing current events on Wikipedia to Wikinews. Especially when there are similar topics covered in ITN and the Wikinews front page (in the relevant language). –SJ talk  19:08, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. To add:

I remember a time when there was an attitude amongst some on English Wikipedia that could be summed up as "I don't like Wikinews, Wikipedia Signpost is better, Wikinews should be closed." A discussion that encapsulates this can be found at m:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of English Wikinews.

I took a look at that link, and the Signpost was only mentioned exactly twice in that discussion - by Brian McNeil from Wikinews. In other words, RockerballAustralia's "summed up" pseudo-quote is egregiously misleading. One might also want to maintain some healthy skepticism regarding the factual accuracy of some other unsourced accusations here that allege unfair mistreatment of Wikinews.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:55, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

original reporting would be cool, @RockerballAustralia, but current wikinews policy is "it needs to be cited" - and therefor is olds, not news :) also - opinion should be permitted. neutral point of view is often established by citing different view points. quarrel, and different view points give a good and vibrant community. introduce some rating and classification system, make all wikipedia admins of all languages admins of all wikinews sites and it will fix itself. if 5 years of quarrel does not lead to good original reports, vibrant local reports from villages, then we might close it down. ThurnerRupert (talk) 20:11, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Doing more original reporting would be cool. English Wikinews does have an official policy on original reporting at n:Wikinews:Original reporting. Importantly it requires detailed note taking for verification. Audio recordings of interviews are also acceptable for verifying quotes.

I'm not giving Wikipedia admins such access by default is a good idea. They would need to be reasonably familiar with what the relevant policies are, and the how's and why's of said policies. I've often found, on and off wiki, there have been moments where I've not understood why something is done a particular way then I've gone and done the thing and then understood why. The practical experience often provides the explanation that a written source cannot.

Some of the other ideas I think could be expanded on and discussed further. RockerballAustralia (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@ThurnerRupert: but current wikinews policy is "it needs to be cited" - and therefor is olds, not news :) also lacks of factual accuracy. Reputable news have by-lines like: By John Doe with additional reporting of Reuters, AP, and the AFP. Or, even in the text they say: The Atlantic published yesterday a claim that. What the system press does: they're faster in publishing. However, the guide lines of Wikinews allows original reporting. There are some rules to follow, and they are not much different from what the big newspapers do but never ever original reporting was banned in Wikinews. Matthiasb (talk) 09:32, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with them too@Asked42@Michael.C.Wright@RockerballAustralia Rheabrux (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

@HaeB@Matthiasb also agree . Why get rid of wikinews? It gives people a chance to feel special and that they are a important part of the community! Like having a spiecial job that NOBODY can take away from you. Rheabrux (talk) 21:13, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this argument. It seems there has been a biased and unfair assessment (because it’s inaccurate) of the performance of Wikinews. You can’t just compare this particular sister project to Wikipedia by raw numbers—Wikipedia is one of the most popular sites on the internet and grew at a time when there were no similar encyclopedic projects on the web. Especially considering that Wikinews faces very particular challenges, different from Wikipedia’s, which are more related to its real competition on the internet: the press and news media—a very different publishing domain with very tough challenges.

With disinformation worsening and the rise of AI, Wikinews is a reliable and much-needed alternative to corporate, state, and clickbait “news.” If anything, the stronger projects and the Foundation should conduct a more thorough analysis with the goal of supporting its improvement, rather than deciding in advance that the consultation is about shutting it down. Providing targeted resources should be seen not as a burden, but as a strategic commitment in the Wikimedia movement’s goals of information reliability, neutrality and equity. Ventolinmono (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

• Specially Wikinews input should be considered in the analysis and proposals for improvement.

Ventolinmono (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

"With disinformation worsening and the rise of AI, Wikinews is a reliable and much-needed alternative to corporate, state, and clickbait “news.” " — It might be easier to talk about concrete examples of this, i.e. specific WN articles. –SJ talk  22:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

n:ru:FAEA of Russia recognizes Wikipedia's important contribution by w:Farhad Fatkullin, w:Wikimedian of the Year 2018 -- Ssr (talk) 10:19, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this illustrates - nobody cares about some Russian bureaucrats awarding diplomas before the Russian-Ukrainian war. This is on the opposite side of the spectrum from the interviews with the garage bands, but still not news in any normal media ecosystem. Victoria (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

If you're not sure, let others see, and you may stay unsure.

When you say "nobody cares", keep in mind that you are not the one who decide for "nobody" to "care". Some people care, some not. It's not you who decide this.

But if you want to oust a thorough Wikimedia-promoting work from Wikimedian of the Year 2018, maybe you ping him directly @Frhdkazan: and also say to him and his community that "nobody cares" about them. Directly, please.

Nobody cares is totally illegitimate reason for disrupting Wikimedia projects. -- Ssr (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Additionally,

you are a prefessional biologist and you say "still not news in any normal media ecosystem".

I am a professional journalist and have to say "while you may be good in ecosystems as biologist, you are absolutely not good in "normal media" as biologist". I am a veteran of "normal media", and I am absolutely sure that your words about "not in normal media" are nonsense. "Normal media" LOVES such content, if worked professionally (I am a professional, I know -- as you know biological ecosystems). -- Ssr (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

"If you're not sure, let others see, and you may stay unsure." Don't know what it means - you can write in Russian, although I suspect that it would be as rude as the rest of your message. And rudness is enver a valid argument.

I hope that quoting Frhdkazan and inviting him to comment you are aware of his loyalty to Medeyko - he's been trying to actively recruit editors into Bugopedia. Victoria (talk) 12:14, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I am the chief editor of n:ru:Викивестник, so I am aware of everything related to that topic -- Ssr (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

BTW your "Medeyko" is as well a Wikimania-donated-money-spoiler as you are. Ssr (talk) 06:25, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

It seems there has been a biased and unfair assessment (because it’s inaccurate) of the performance of Wikinews. - What exactly is inaccurate in the review document? (Please quote specific statements.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:55, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Not about the inaccuracy part, though. But I do feel that the report and the consultation seem heavily focused on—if not prioritizing—the closure (or archiving) of Wikinews. Other alternatives don't seem to be given equal weight, or they might be treated as a secondary concern or perhaps not considered a priority at all.

Even the mass message sent to all projects felt like it was trying to convince editors that closure is the preferred solution (or maybe I misunderstood). Still, it didn't come across as a fully neutral or ideal way to invite users to share opinions on an issue that could have many different solutions based on community input.

To clarify, I am not blaming anyone, I truly appreciate all the hard work the task force has done to prepare the report. But this isn't what I was expecting. I was hoping for something that not only acknowledges, but also properly explores the alternative proposals, at lest those mentioned in the consultation; something more balanced and solution oriented. Asked42 (talk) 07:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe I didn't explained myself precisely about what I meant about inaccurate. I'm not saying that the numbers in the report are inaccurate, I'm saying that the comparison is inaccurate as it is like comparing apples to apple baked chips. I think this might because of the assumptions that are being made that don't seem to be consider the particular characteristics, challenges and setting Wikinews has (the global news publishing domain). Heres a quote:

"It is, therefore, difficult to claim that it is disseminating educational content and, even more so, that it is doing so effectively and globally."

I don't think that the consultation has a malicious intent, but I think that it may be missing the greater picture about what Wikinews is and can be. Ventolinmono (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

@Ventolinmono Wikinews, as well as most number of other Wikimedia Projects, are considered unreliable sources by Wikipedias. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

This is not the place for you to be trolling. If you can't have a productive conversation don't add noise to the process. Ventolinmono (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

The conclusion that there are five editors in ru.wikinews, for instance. Even though there are tables in pdf file with amount of active users and editors per month. BilboBeggins (talk) 12:38, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

@Michael, for clarity, the quote you reference from Meta doesn't say anything about disallowing post-publication editing, it clarifies what "rely on" means in that clause by ending with "...Articles must be accurate and legal at the time of publication." This could be true on a project that still prizes improvement and aggregation over time.

Also, when that Meta page was written, we hadn't shown that the wiki model can successfully sustain world-class overviews of breaking news with sufficient attention on a sufficiently active project. –SJ talk  19:08, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea that news is static. Most wiki articles about sports events are, in a way, news articles. So it's not uncommon in the wiki world.

On commercial news websites, you can find both live news articles (updated hourly) and articles that have updated information. A random article I read in the past: NYTimes: Published Sept. 10, 2024; Updated Jan. 10, 2025. A live article: Tennis match live-text: Iga Świątek – Lin Zhu (not sure if this is common in English, I think there were some live articles about elections). There are various news formats. I'm not even sure if no edits after publication is the most common one.

Live-text articles could be very engaging in wiki world, new sections could be added and one could subscribe to changes I guess... Not sure if anyone tried to do something like that on Wikinews, but technically it is possible. I also know that some Wikinews articles are updated on pl.wikinews [1], so I’m not sure if no wiki process after publication is even a common rule in the project.

PS: From what I've heard (on multiple occasions), Polish Wikinews also struggles with low visibility and limited engagement. Nux (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

We all (Wikinews languages) am struggling. Some are doing better then others. The communities are not homogenous. News readers behaviour is different in different languages and/or countries. But why that is a problem? Why the fuck the funny committee is even considering this? It is not their matter. It is not their time We are "wasting". And it is not their money. This consulation is an insult on Wikinews editors. And, more worrying for me, this is a frontal attack on the free press. Matthiasb (talk) 08:32, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

This has been a topic of discussion for years. It originated within the community and was brought to the committee, not the other way around. Not sure about all communities, but I can confidently say that the Polish community has discussed closing Wikinews internally on multiple occasions. It's simply being made official now. Nux (talk) 08:43, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you to some extent, and feel the same way. We need to have a proper discussion with them and reason this out now ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 10:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Frontal attack on the free press -- I totally agree. -- Ssr (talk) 10:23, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Wow, "the fuck the funny committee" - so the Universal Code of Conduct and/or simple civility is suddenly switched off? Victoria (talk) 13:13, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Extended content
Nobody cares about this. --Ssr (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2025 (UTC) For the record: I have received a plain threat from Victoria, the author of the PDF, for defending the project where I am an elected admin, which she tries to kill for personal reasons using her WMF position. --Ssr (talk) 05:48, 12 July 2025 (UTC) It's not a threat, it's a question, which you didn't answer. Victoria (talk) 11:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC) You was de-sysoped in RWP for behaviours incompatible with Wikimedia standards. You publicly called w:Farhad Fatkullin, w:Wikimedian of the Year, a "jackal". You should not make any decisions in Wikimedia and should be displaced from any position in WMF (such as SPTF), and I feel free to not answer any of your writings because you are enemy of global Wikimedia movement that cause hatred and divide in community instead of friendship and collaboration which I build in RWN as elected admin. You are not an elected admin, you are displaced admin. -- Ssr (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2025 (UTC) You was de-sysoped in RWP for behaviours incompatible with Wikimedia standards. - not true, I gave up the flag and left the Russian Wikipedia because I was tired of the abuse. You are not an elected admin, you are displaced admin. - I know about displaced persons, this is the first time I hear about a "displaced admin", what's that? Victoria (talk) 10:29, 15 July 2025 (UTC) Another falsehood in a row. You did not pass confirmation of admin flag during community vote. That's why you gave it up. You was a part of the abuse that you are tired of. In particular, you made personal attacks on w:Farhad Fatkullin, w:Wikimedian of the Year 2018. In one case, you repeatedly called him a "jackal", and there were many such cases. So it is ridiculous now to hear from you about UCoC because of a word "fuck". The page of community vote contains endless examples of your uncivil, counterproductive and anti-community behaviours. --Ssr (talk) 10:52, 15 July 2025 (UTC) And can you give me diffs from the Russian Wikipedia, which confirm "personal attacks" on Farhad Fatkullin, who is not an active editor there? I think that my attempt to change the WP:STYLE rule to make women more visible in Wikipedia contributed more to the conformation result than anything else - Russian men can only tolerate women in a position of power only if the women are meek and praise the men. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Please remind me why you are indefblocked in Russian Wikipedia? Victoria (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2025 (UTC) Already answered. Words about glass stones sounds like another threat. Your rhetoric is full of threats, which is incompatible with healthy community management that WMF try to maintain. --Ssr (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2025 (UTC) No, you didn't, you are just trying to deflect the question why you are indefinitely blocked in Russian Wikipedia by insulting me. Google my phrase - not your misinterpretation of it - to learn the meaning of this idiom. But as you misinterpreted my post in Russian as well, I don't think it's a language problem, but rather a deliberate trolling. Victoria (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2025 (UTC) I am not trying to deflect the question why I am indefinitely blocked in Russian Wikipedia. I am indefinitely blocked in Russian Wikipedia by enemies of Wikimedia movement such as you for defending Wikimedia values, protecting "Wikigrannies" article from deletion and protecting Wikinews project from harassment from the same enemies of Wikimedia movement who also de-sysopped you for also being an enemy of Wikimedia movement. That is why I am indefinitely blocked in Russian Wikipedia. I am not trying to deflect this and I have filed T&S complaint about this which T&S ticketed. --Ssr (talk) 08:31, 4 August 2025 (UTC) You still didn't state the reason - формулировка - why you were blocked, "by the enemies" is an answer to a different question and not on the list. Victoria (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2025 (UTC) Какая тебе ещё формулировка? Ваша шобла кому угодно какую угодно формулировку пришьёт, похлеще сталинского КГБ. Сначала затравит, через дискорд ваш долбаный, потом дело сляпает, и на трупе оттопчется. Вы там себе ту ещё малину развели, я на форуме РВН вчера написал. -- Ssr (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2025 (UTC) Формулировка ваша была о том, что я перед вами недостаточно усердно приседал, а нарушений в ОП у меня не было за 19 лет, но кого из вас это волнует. Через систему кукол и стукачей с помощью вневикипедийной координации, лжи и травли вы завалите кого угодно и не поперхнётесь, и до сих пор небось празднуете там у себя. -- Ssr (talk) 03:58, 5 August 2025 (UTC) Ах да, формулировка, я вспомнил. Вы мне их целую гору пришили, пойди разберись в них, и все они не касаются ОП. Одна из ваших формулировок была такая: я нарушил ваш запрет на упоминание в своей речи дискорда. Слово «дискорд» в речи произнёс — бессрочный бан (при заблокированном пространстве ВП:, ребята!). Это ваша типичная тактика. Типа, как запрет в РФ называть Путина диктатором. Назвал Путина диктатором — на всю жизнь в тюрьму. Вот такая формулировка, Вика. -- Ssr (talk) 04:42, 5 August 2025 (UTC) Формулировка, значит. Были и другие формулировки, вы на них очень горазды. Например, я просил кого-нибудь снять с удаления статью про вики-бабушек (в АВП её успешно сняли в кратчайшие сроки). Разумеется, никто не собирался их снимать с удаления, но все отмораживались, как у вас принято, кроме Гурона — он взялся за этот вопрос адресно и постановил: вики-бабушек он снесёт именно для того, чтобы наказать лично меня. НТЗ, источники, ПДН, вики-движение — это всё пофигу, он их снесёт именно для того чтобы мне плохо было, и никак иначе. И снёс, разумеется, не поперхнувшись. И радуется до сих пор, наверное, как и остальные вы все, потому что нет для вас большей радости, чем урыть коллегу. А нейтральность и наполнение (а также развитие) проекта это сущая фигня. И ещё куча формулировок была у вас там, не перечесть всего богатства полёта вашей фантазии по поводу формулировок. -- Ssr (talk) 04:51, 5 August 2025 (UTC) Или например вот ещё был случай. Прессовали вы меня там, как обычно, по ложному доносу за фейсбучную страницу. Пришёл Карн, справедливейший судья, начал меня месить. Я ему сказал, что информация по обсуждаемому вопросу находится на сайте ВМРУ, где давно идёт дискуссия по данному поводу, и надо уточнить информацию там. В ответ на это Карн, мудрейший и опытнейший арбитр, заявил мне, что он отказывается посещать сайт ВМРУ по адресу ru.wikimedia.org, потому что он ненавидит ВМРУ, а так как он отказывается туда посещать, то и аргументы все там он читать не будет, в связи с чем считает меня априори виноватым и посему будет меня ликвидировать. «Формулировок» было море разливанное, если уж мы об этом. -- Ssr (talk) 05:43, 5 August 2025 (UTC) Или вот Томасина, опять же. Для неё ничего не стоило выписать два предупреждения подряд за одно и то же (виноват или нет — неважно). А также удалять статьи только за то, что их создал я, не разбираясь в том, что в них написано. Прямо так мне на моей СО и писала — её мотивацией, как администратора, является личная месть, а не наполнение Википедии. Рядом стоял Полиционер, я его спросил — а что, разве так можно? Он сказал, что можно. --Ssr (talk) 05:51, 5 August 2025 (UTC) Thank you. Victoria (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2025 (UTC) Не сто́ит благодарности. -- Ssr (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. Wikinews uses up resources just like every other project. Dronebogus (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

There is such thing as a free lunch. Wikipedia gets work of its contributors for free. -- Ssr (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I find this emphasis on "no wiki process after publication" as an issue a bit misplaced either way — the value of a wiki is that the whole history is recorded and preserved, and the great strength of it is that a revision from whatever point in time can be flagged for whatever purpose. This makes it largely a stylistic choice under what circumstances we show a version published at one particular date or at another, I would think of it almost as a flexible customization option we could give readers, as one mode or another might be preferred under different circumstances. Pharos (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

The idea of on not [relying on] a wiki process after publication came from the community that started Wikinews, and is observed differently by each language community. I think this emphasis may have become a "handed down truism" through a game of telephone, given the lack of continuity among contributors. It is certainly something under the control of those trying to sustain, restore, or update a WN process. –SJ talk  17:39, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't know wether the authors of the proposal know what they're doing. Example: : The Wikipedia communities can mobilize far more efforts towards updating content based on recent events than the Wikinews communities, partly due to their greater numbers of active editors and healthier communities. Wikipedia is NOT a news outlet. Actually it is the other way around: Wikipedia does need big efforts on defending attempts to make Wikipedia a news site. Matthiasb (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree this could be written to be more precise. One could steelman that part of the proposal by saying "Wikinews articles fall into a few main buckets, including summarizing notable global events, summarizing events about the Wikis, and covering niche or hyperlocal events. For the first one, Wikipedia coverage tends to be more comprehensive and more actively updated, partly due to the greater number of active editors [and denser options for wikilinking to related topics with related context]." This leaves the question of where, if anywhere, collaborative work on niche and hyperlocal news might take place. –SJ talk  01:24, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

@Sj hi, in Wikipedia the page gets updated about new developments while in Wikinews it is only about one event. There is expectation that news is allowed about local or also, original reporting, i.e. n:Wikinews interviews DuckDuckGo, Opera, Mozilla, Wikimedia about DoNotTrack feature. This is an exclusive report. Wikipedia does not do them. I suggested a few changes at Response to Public consultation about Wikinews. Is there something you suggest to add to that page? Thanks. Gryllida 14:55, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Re: "Additionally, by most measures, it is the least active Sister Project, with the greatest drop in activity over the years."

Do we have statistics for this for each langauge please - for all wikis. Like a matrix with 200 rows for 200 langauges, and 6 columns for 6 sister projects, and some measure of activity. Gryllida 06:26, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@Gryllida: yes, more numbers would be good ; you can start by having a look at Wikiscan (and other pages of this tool), more custom made statistics can "easily" be made. Not sure what you want exactly tho. Cheers, VIGNERON * ^discut. 08:45, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

See Category:Lists of Wikimedia projects for the numbers. These are mostly single-project lists, but I think you could build a spreadsheet from there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

No spreadsheets, to my knowledge, but there is data.

It's fascinating to learn that English Wikinews had 52 million views in May, on 21 million devices. In particular, there were 24 million page views from Brazil alone.

https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikinews.org

For all languages, 20M Wikifunctions, 35M Wikispecies, 58M MediaWiki, 63M Meta, 165M Wikinews, 176M Wikiversity, 178M Wikivoyage, 200M Wikibooks, 205M Wikiquote, 283M Wiktionary, 290M Wikisource, 527M Wikidata, 751M Wikimedia Commons, 2B Wikipedia.

For a site where one would expect content has a short shelf life, the articles seem to have a lot of durability. If we ignore the big three, and just focus on "the others," Wikinews has 56.89% of the views of Wikisource. -- Zanimum (talk) 02:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Those May 2025 numbers on Wikistats are unfortunately extremely misleading and should not be relied upon, for the reasons discussed in more detail in this section.

The historical data available in the siteviews tool (for individual projects) should be more reliable. See e.g. here for a comparison of the smaller Wikimedia projects in English, showing that English Wikinews had by far the least traffic among these during the timespan from 2016 to 2024.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Our metrics need work and we should practice defining and implementing good ones, and thinking about how to help make all projects better along those lines. Wikispecies has the closest set of challenges, including some overlap of function with related articles on other projects, but is more active and used in other ways. –SJ talk  17:39, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @HaeB I agree, it would help to actually post news in social media. This is not difficult to implement, though of course requires time i think. One user cannot do it 24/7/365 but a bot could post to social media from a wiki page where authorized users add what needs to be posted on social media. Once posted the bot blanks the wiki page. (About differences: in Wikipedia the page gets updated about new developments while in Wikinews it is only about one event. There is expectation that news is allowed about local or also, original reporting, i.e. n:Wikinews interviews DuckDuckGo, Opera, Mozilla, Wikimedia about DoNotTrack feature. This is an exclusive report. Wikipedia does not do them.) I suggested a few changes at Response to Public consultation about Wikinews and posting to social media aggressively is one of them. Is there something you suggest to add to that page? Thanks. Gryllida 14:59, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Strongly agree. Automatically posting news in different social media channels is a very good idea that could have a real impact in readership and potential contributions with very low costs. Ventolinmono (talk) 04:08, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

"Merge into Wikipedias"

Hi,

I'm wondering, is there really anything that could be merged? I can't see any example ; plus, by definition, Wikinews is original research which is prohibited on Wikipedias.

Cheers, VIGNERON * ^discut. 08:47, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify; I’m only responding to the point about Wikinews being original research, not the suggestion about merging.

Only a small portion of Wikinews articles are original reporting, and those are clearly marked with n:Category:Original reporting. While they would qualify as original research under Wikipedia’s standards and can’t be used as sources, I imagine they can still be linked using w:Template:Wikinews or similar to give readers access to related coverage on another Wikimedia project. One example of this type of linking is the Wikipedia article on the "Willow project" which links to a synthesis article on English Wikinews using the template.

Most of our content is synthesis, not original reporting. These articles follow n:WN:CS, which requires every fact to be verifiable and backed by reliable sources. I'd be curious if Wikinews switched to an inline citation model (i.e., mw:Citoid) if it would be more acceptable to Wikipedia as both a source and a link to related content.

I think this kind of clarification is helpful in the context of improving cooperation between Wikipedia and Wikinews. It’s important to distinguish what can and can’t be used or linked across projects so we can support each other’s strengths more effectively. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright: interesting, thanks for the clarification. You are talking about en.wn, is it the same on other Wikinews? And what is the gap between the rule and its application? From what I see on fr.wn, a lot of pages have no sources or sources of way lower reliability than what fr.wp expects. For information, a synthesis of primary sources is still be original research for Wikipedias. I'm sure we could find ways to cooperate between Wikipedia and Wikinews, but I don't see yet how "merging" is possible. Maybe "Willow" could be a good test case... Cheers, VIGNERON * ^discut. 07:57, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

@VIGNERON and Michael.C.Wright: I suggest a separate "News" namespace in Wikipedia to host news articles. This can potentially resolve the original research problem, as we can update the policy to clarify that WP:OR is most stringently applicable to mainspace articles. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:21, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand how it could happen. These are different projects with different rules. I am not talking about original research, how about WP:NOTNEWS - key Wikipedia rule? Run-of-the-mill news are allowed on Wikinews, not on Wikipedia.

There is no notability issue on Wikinews, how would that be dealt with in Wikipedia? BilboBeggins (talk) 09:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

NB: I have just moved away from my merger idea as incompatible to Wikipedia's core policies, instead supporting the Commons model as I have described in User:Sbb1413/Multilingual models. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:47, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of merging to the Wikipedias. I believe it would be very unpopular with the English Wikipedia in particular. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Exactly, and that's why I no longer support this proposal. The core policies of Wikipedia and Wikinews are just too different. I rather support the Wikisource model for Wikinews, where there will be only two versions: English and Multilingual. This is very similar to a monolingual forum having an "International" section, where users can use their native languages for discussions. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 03:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@Vingiova Hi, there are original research, and there are also difderent publish strategies.

• Wn articles include 5W in first paragraph (who where what why how)
• wn articles, once published, are not continuously edited. if there is new development, new story is created for it.
• wn dont use inline citations. instead, sources are listed at the end, and any piece of information if needed is attributed to original source. ie if BBC writes "police said the man escaped by bus" then in article instead of "man escaped by bus[1]" it is written "police said the man escaped by bus" as they are the original source of that info.

There may be some other differences. Saying "lets merge all Wikinews into Wikipedia" will result into data lost. Gryllida 10:56, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

As far as I understand this discussion, we talk about all Wikinews projects, not only the en:Wikinews. And as for Wikipedias, every project has own rules. So the de:Wikinews usually don't want OR. Marcus Cyron (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikinews was originally supposed to be a way to have less recentism in Wikipedia articles, but in practice Wikipedia is where people go to summarise the news of the day. A majority of the Top Ten Wikipedias by pageviews embrace this fact and present the news in the frontpage as well. As most news-reporting activity is already in Wikipedia, there is barely anything to move back. This ship has sailed. Nemo 06:30, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

That includes notable events. In Wikinews there are some more local. And article published is not continuously edited. There are some more detailed discussions on that above. Gryllida 10:58, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Per w:WP:NOTNEWS you are saluting a global violation of a fundamental Wikipedia rule. And instead of conforming the rules, you propose to destroy those who conform them to legitimize violation. -- Ssr (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

@Ssr: Yes, and the first pillar of Wikipedia explicitly declares, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", with the description being (emphasis on journalism terms), "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a social network, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a web directory. It is not a dictionary, a newspaper, an instruction manual, nor a collection of source documents or media files, although some of its fellow Wikimedia projects are." Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 16:50, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

NOTNEWS is a local enwiki policy. Please do not create a hegemony among Wikipedia projects. I do agree though it is still a violation of 5P which are fundamental to all Wikipedias and should not be overstepped by means of a (essentially) global RfC. A09|(pogovor) 18:46, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

@Ssr and A09: AFAIK the Alemannic Wikipedia is allowed to violate the first of the five pillars by hosting wikibooks, dicdefs and quotes there, albeit in separate namespaces. See: Proposals for closing projects/Deletion of Alemannisch Wiktionary, Wikibooks and Wikiquote. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 05:17, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

@Sbb1413: That was community decision since community members overlapped between projects. This current proposal is not such case as many Wikipedia community members oppose merging of Wikinews community. If we were to repeat the alswiki scenario we should determine the consensus locally on specific project basis instead of giving a bad blanket-like solution to the perceived problem. A09|(pogovor) 06:01, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

@Nemo: Also, not all of those 10 versions present "news" the same way. While for instance some Wikipedias presents only news to which a dedicated article exists the German WP might present any news which is covered in any article. Also in some languages these news remain for days and weeks (where less frequent) while in other the news are exchanged every few hours, e.g. in German WP which otherwise opposes news articles strictly but near to never deletes them (in this relation German:WP is kind of schizo). I am pretty sure that German WP would not accept Wikinews to be merged in. Matthiasb (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

W polskiej wersji pewnie także będzie to bardzo źle widziane, niezależnie od tego, ile mediów światowych będzie o danym wydarzeniu pisać. W tej chwili na stronie głównej wiszą newsy z 3, 7 i 13 lipca. Nawet kibice sportowi ostatnio się nie angażują. Poza sportem tam zazwyczaj nic nie ma i ten bias nie jest najlepszą wizytówka dla encyklopedii. Sławek Borewicz (talk) 16:31, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Whether or not the current state of affairs for news is a violation of (some) Wikipedias' policies, the fact remains that news are largely covered in Wikipedia. The amount of news which is handled in Wikinews but not in Wikipedia is negligible. Hence I maintain that there is practically nothing to merge back.

There is an argument to be made that we should have more freely licensed news reporting for the kinds of things which do not end up on Wikipedia, but that's not a discussion about "merging" things into Wikipedia. Nemo 11:37, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

There are numerous examples where Wikinews entry is considered more appropriate than a Wikipedia one – on the other hand many accidents are encyclopaedical in some way. Yet Wikinews helps to fill in the niche of reporting on political affairs and local events, which is somewhat harder to achieve on Wikipedia. A09|(pogovor) 08:03, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi @A09, I agree with you that kind of event is challenging to report in Wikipedia.

in Wikipedia the page gets updated about new developments while in Wikinews it is only about one event and is no longer editable after 2 days after it was published. In Wikinews the first paragraph answers n:5W which is not always the case in Wikipedia. There is expectation that news is allowed about local or also, original reporting, i.e. n:Wikinews interviews DuckDuckGo, Opera, Mozilla, Wikimedia about DoNotTrack feature. This is an exclusive report. Wikipedia does not do them. I suggested a few changes at Response to Public consultation about Wikinews. Is there something you suggest to add to that page? Thanks. Gryllida 15:02, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

What would be merged? Would its content be merged? Or would its functions be assumed by the Wikipedias while its previous content is archived? I think much of the existing WikiNews content would be out-of-place with the encyclopedic mission of wikipedias. I can imagine a new page type (News:) being created to accommodate it, but it still seems like it might be an odd fit. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by SecretName101 (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

To jest fałszywa alternatywa, zupełnie nieprzemyślana i pewnie było założenie, że tu ktoś coś wymyśli. Tylko encyklopedia to nie jest miejsce na hostowanie wszystkiego, co wydaje się, że mogłoby być hostowane. Sławek Borewicz (talk) 05:21, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Please, don't merge Wikinews in ns0

At least in it.wiki we struggle to avoid people blindling adding pieces of news to current topics. Even if a serious newspaper is used as a source, it's often the case that the news is retracted because later evidence shows that what actually happened was not what has been thought before. I usually don't trust Wikinews in general, and my first choice is to archive the project; but if a majority thinks that there is something good and votes for merging with Wikipedia, please leave it aside in a separate namespace, so that we can tell encyclopedic content from "breaking news". --.mau. ✉ 15:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I can't imagine that there would be any serious consideration of merging content from Wikinews into other projects like Wikipedia without the active consent and cooperation of that project's community. For what it's worth, though, I doubt that this is a viable outcome; most newsworthy events on Wikinews sites probably already have Wikipedia articles with superior coverage of the event - particularly, as you observe, because an encyclopedia article can continue to be updated after an event, whereas a news article is generally not modified after it is published. Omphalographer (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@.mau. and Omphalographer: I suggest a separate "News" namespace in Wikipedia to prevent mixing news content with mainspace content. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

{{@Omphalographer}}: An encyclopedia article may also remove content, if it is deemed no more noteworthy (or worse, if it was plain wrong in spite of the first coverage). This should not happen with news. Unluckily, at least in it.wiki people tend to use Wikipedia and not Wikinews, and there are too few backpatrollers who prune text no more relevant. This is my main concern, which makes me think that Wikinews content cannot be merged in Wikipedia ns0 namespace. --.mau. ✉ 15:22, 28 June 2025 (UTC) .mau. ✉ 15:22, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

A newspaper and an encyclopedia have, in fact, two separate purposes. The "backstage" of Wikipedia (everything beyond mainspace) ultimately serves to support the encyclopedia itself, and adding a parallel source of content not subject to Wikipedia's policies – and with a totally different purpose – just wouldn't fit. Many of Wikipedia's core policies (such as it being a tertiary source, summarizing existing material without drawing new inferences from them) are not compatible with those of Wikinews (where original research and synthesis are both encouraged). Chaotic Enby (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I do not think any WN news story have a wp article about it. Some interviews, photo essays do not. Gryllida 11:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I would say merging Wikinews materials in Wikipedia proper is a bad idea in general, irrespective of namespace. They have their own category system, which is going to be confused all the time with Wikipedia's own, there will be confusion because of similar names etc. Overall, keeping separate Wikinews is less harmful than moving their entire content into a different project. --Deinocheirus (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Inherent deficiencies for Wikinews

This is some points we should consider - which are reasons I believe Wikinews is not a good fit of Wikimedia movement even if it is an active project.

• BLP concern - opening potential floodgate of potentially unverifiable (in Wikipedia sense) information, which may be considered defamation.
• News created "new content" in the Wikidata perspective instead of describing existing content. What it means: most articles in Wikipedia (except lists and disambiguation pages) describes existing entities - they does not "create" new entity. In contrast, Wikinews articles always create new entities. The potential scope of news are unbounded.
• Wikinews is "shadow Wikipedia" to some extent - imagine we do not have Wikinews but have Wikievent - a project similar to Wikinews but allow user to create news articles for old events. Then we would be able to create a "shadow Wikipedia" to describe e.g. my father who is not notable for Wikipedia - by creating articles for events around him. Even we have a freshness requirement, Wikinews is still potentially prone to be spammed by non-notable people or companies who try to promote themselves.

GZWDer (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I fail to understand how a Wikinews project is inherently more susceptible to publishing unverifiable and defamatory content. Moreover, multiple language editions, like my home project of en.wn, have a rigorous peer review system that examines articles for these things before publication, while most articles on the English Wikipedia are not subjected to formalized, pre-publication peer review (not saying either system is better).

I'm not sure I understand the third concern you mention. Again, peer review ensures published articles are about reasonably recent and relevant events. Heavy Water (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikinews is less susceptible to publishing unverifiable or defamatory content because the minimum number of people who must review the source is higher: At the absolute fewest, there is one drafter and one reviewer, and the reviewer must be experienced. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

However original reporting would be more troublesome since everything can be fabricated without any notice. GZWDer (talk) 05:47, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikinews articles always create new entities. The potential scope of news are unbounded.
Was Wikidata meant to eventually become static, with no new entries? Wouldn't something like d:Wikidata:WikiProject_Music cause the same problem of boundless expansion? Michael.C.Wright (talk) 00:13, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

the scope of WikiProject Music only includes musics that are elsewise described somewhere (unless we decide to support user-generated music), so is Wikipedia (which does not allow creating articles for topics just invented). However, Wikinews allow original reporting plus synthesis of sources, thus allow creation new entities never described in secondary reliable sources. GZWDer (talk) 05:43, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

@GZWDer If you think such creation new entities never described in secondary reliable sources should be allowed, propose at e.g. w:WP:RSN instead, this talk page may not interested in allowing so as it may also be simply vetoed by local communities. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:36, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

What I mean: doing so is allowed in Wikinews. GZWDer (talk) 09:05, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikinews allows original reporting on verifiable news events. However, at least one reliable source is still required, and all content, including original reporting, must comply with n:WN:CS (our citation policy). I believe original reporting on Wikinews is being wrongly conflated with Wikipedia’s prohibition on original research. They are not the same: Wikinews permits firsthand reporting under strict sourcing and documentation rules, whereas Wikipedia does not allow any original research at all. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

"Wikinews permits firsthand reporting under strict sourcing and documentation rules", but since notes can be fabricated, original reporting is in no sense reliable and prone to abuse. GZWDer (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

┌─────────────┘
I disagree with the characterization of Wikinews' original reporting. The claim that "since notes can be fabricated, OR is in no sense reliable" assumes bad faith from contributors and disregards existing policies, guidelines, and practices.

en.WN has policies already in place to protect against such abuse, including n:WN:OR, n:WN:CS, and n:WN:NPOV. While any process can be misused, OR is permitted under strict documentation and review requirements and has supported many high-quality articles. I’ll leave it there. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

GZWDer is invited to review (refer to the "Discuss on Day 2 meeting" to understand how local communities conduct reviews—it is not "unverifiable" as you claimed). Wikinews reviews every news article with such rigor that the review process for each article usually takes a week. You can fully trust each reviewer elected by the local community through voting: they carefully examine every single word in each source. As a result, Wikinews has almost no articles that violate the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) principle—this is far stronger compared to Wikipedia, where materials can be published without undergoing review. Kitabc12345 (talk) 00:36, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

if it is spammed, it is fine. add a category "spam", "publicity" or "advertisement". defamation is also fine, add a category "defamation". there is blogging - and how much defamation and publicity is happening there? the contrary is happening - even blogging is dying. ThurnerRupert (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikinews articles always create new entities. The potential scope of news are unbounded. That's not a big problem, since we also have entities for Wikimedia project pages (d:Q14204246). dringsim 12:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you, and for example, at Wikinews in Portuguese, we create more than 150 news items per month, and our main page has more than 30,000 views per month. I see no reason to close it. 92.20.239.254 11:18, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

@Victoria how does the above claim align with the report as I think it does not mention Portuguese edition as active? Gryllida 15:06, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Please point me to the page of the report that lists all active editions. Victoria (talk) 10:40, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Close it down.

or archive it. Whatever you want to call it. If readers want to read the news, there are plenty of free news websites out there (e.g. AP, BBC, etc.) that can do all of this news thing better than Wikinews ever can.

But whatever you do, please do NOT merge it into Wikipedias or other projects. Projects such as the English Wikipedia already have enough to deal with. We don't need more problems and drama.

Thanks. Some1 (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@Some1: I don't see the reson behind sunsetting the entire project just because there are "free news websites". I have entered into Wikinews because I cannot fully trust those "free news websites" that often give rubbish and misinformation with no regards to neutrality. Many of the high-quality sources are paywalled, and I have to spend my hard-earned savings to get something truly newsworthy. I rather suggest merging to Wikipedia and hosting the news content in a separate "News" namespace. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:30, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

That's fair (depending on the news website you're reading), but I don't trust Wikinews either because it can also publish "rubbish and misinformation with no regards to neutrality". Some1 (talk) 11:35, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

At least in the Bengali Wikinews Incubator I am working on, there are gatekeepers who verify and publish the news articles written by editors. Such gatekeepers can verify the veracity of the news articles before publishing them. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

If the WMF is going the "merge" route, they should allow the different Wikipedias to vote on whether they want Wikinews merged with their projects or not. For example, on the English Wikipedia, we have Portal:Current events, so I don't see what benefit having a new namespace for Wikinews would bring to that particular project (besides duplicate content, additional drama, POV-pushing, etc). Besides, Wikinews and the English Wikipedia are both different projects with different purposes and goals, different policies, different guidelines, different standards, etc. I don't even see how a merge would even be possible? Some1 (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikinews and the English Wikipedia are both different projects with different purposes and goals, but the question is whether they are incompatible. The existence of en:Portal:Current events suggests that they aren't so incompatible, despite the fact that current events are not really encyclopedic contents. The real current issue is that having a same set of rules for encyclopedic content and current events create tensions when rules are discussed. That problem exists currently in Wikipedia independently of wikinews. The rules for current events should be much closer to those used in Wikinews and the rules for encyclopedic content should not be discussed with current events in mind. So, on the contrary, this integration could be an occasion to adopt different rules in en:Portal:Current events than those in the main space in such a way that wikinews could stay somehow alive within Wikipedia and this will be beneficial for both the encyclopedic content in the main space and for the current event content. Dominic Mayers (talk) 01:27, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

If they were to be merged, that would mean the content would be duplicated, wouldn't it? Compare, for example, Wikinews: Boeing 787 crashes into Indian medical school, killing hundred vs English Wikipedia: Air India Flight 171. And why would the former be used in Portal:Current events (if merged), but not the Eng Wikipedia article itself (with a blurb)? Some1 (talk) 02:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Two articles on the same topic can certainly be problematic, but that's okay. People are used to seeing multiple articles on the same topic. A little background information will help them understand why this happens with current events on Wikipedia, and they might even see it as a good thing. If this is our worst problem, we don't have a big problem. Dominic Mayers (talk) 06:40, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Think of all the drama/strife/problems that's currently present in Eng Wikipedia's contentious topic areas such as Israel/Palestine and American Politics, and multiply that by 2 due to the creation of a News namespace which would obviously include news about I/P and AP. Wasting volunteers' time and creating unnecessary additional work for them is a "big problem". Some1 (talk) 12:35, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

If by "extra work" you mean the time required for the initial integration, which creates not-so-problematic duplication, whether this is a waste of time depends on our assessment of the benefits of this integration. Filtering might be necessary to remove inappropriate content from Wikinews that does not follow any acceptable Wikipedia rules. I consider this time well spent. I am biased toward the benefits for Wikipedia. Regardless of Wikinews, a revision of the rules for news content on Wikipedia is essential. Regardless of Wikinews, the rules for standard encyclopedic content should be different from those for news. I therefore see this integration as an excellent opportunity to improve Wikipedia. Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:03, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Extra work as in monitoring the articles, debating on the talk pages about Wikinews-like articles' neutrality (or lack thereof), etc. Whatever problems Wikinews has will be imported to Eng Wikipedia with the merge, basically. Some1 (talk) 13:19, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Of course, there will be some duplication, but the main task is to understand the events and obtain the agreement of Wikipedians. In this case, the existence of two articles would not create a major difference, because the process applied in one article would also be valid for the other article, and there would be no duplication in this work, which represents the majority of the total work. The existence of two articles might even provide extra inputs that would help reduce the time needed to get a consensus. Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I am not so optimistic. :) I just hope that if the WMF is going the "merge" route, that they let the different Wikipedias !vote on the potential merger to their projects. Some1 (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I think we've reached an agreement. I understand your lack of optimism. In cases where no consensus is ever reached, it will be visible in two articles instead of one. But even in those cases, the true problem isn't the duplication. The duplication only makes it more visible. And, of course, the Wikipedia project must accept this integration. It can't be imposed. Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, I know the German Wikipedia. They will delete any news ontent by matter of AfD. Matthiasb (talk) 15:58, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

So yes, traditional news outlets do big stories better, faster.

But at its peak, Wikinews rocked at original content. Al Sharpton, Shimon Peres, RuPaul, etc. But we also did wonderfully niche things like an Iranian teenage girl chessmaster, a penguin researcher, a school headmaster cutting staff, the chair of an anime convention, and a Satanist priest. During the 2012 Summer Paralympics, one contributor filed 99 original articles, which drew so much attention that she was made a Wikimedian in Residence by the Australian Paralympic Committee. Even hyper-local content. We just need a refocus. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Seems to me that this is something that micro-blogging largely covers nowadays which is why the peak for WikiNews was 2007-8, right about the time that Twitter launched. Pretty hard to put that particular toothpaste back in to the tube. FOARP (talk) 12:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, these were excellent examples of what is possible. And a great deal of excellent niche reporting happens now even more directly (but less collaboratively, less editably, and with poorer citation standards) through social media channels. One question is: how can we refocus effort and outreach in a way that invites and supports more of that; another is, within the Wiki ecosystem, what are the best ways of providing information about both global and local current events? The latter we have to answer no matter what; the former one can argue about what is and isn't possible at the moment. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sj (talk) 17:39, June 30, 2025 (UTC) [2]

Zobacz rozwiązanie w wersji włoskiej: w:it:Pagina principale. Nie ma tam rubryki z newsami pisanymi w encyklopedii, za to są newsy podawane wprost z Wikinews. Sławek Borewicz (talk) 06:06, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Aczkolwiek to jest rozwiązanie zastępcze, ponieważ nie taka jest rola encyklopedii. Ale jednak nieco lepsze niż zachęcanie na stronie głównej, aby pisać w niej hasła newsowe. Sławek Borewicz (talk) 06:30, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

"how can we refocus effort and outreach" - you will need a culture change in gatekeepers. "the admin like Larry" is a content killer, and we see evidence of Larry behavior here. you would need editor/reviewers who could provide friendly rigorous feedback. you would need a standard of practice for reporters and editors to build trust. you could train reporters and reviewers, and remove those gatekeepers who refuse to follow a standard of practice.

"what are the best ways of providing information" - content creators will go where the culture facilitates their content. you can lead editors to water but you can't make them drink: WN is proof that a site without AGF is a dead horse. Slowking4 (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Właśnie dlatego powinno istnieć Wikinews że Wikipedia to encyklopedia i tematy tam powinny być omawiane gdy już pojawią się źródła wtórne. Np. na Wikipedii artykuły o wyborach (np. prezydenckich) powinny być dopuszczone dopiero po zakończeniu wyborów. Wcześniej szum medialny jest zbyt duży i nie wiadomo co okaże się naprawdę ważne. Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I also say, close it down. I only had one experience of Wikinews, back in 2018, and as a non-native English speaker, I found it to be one of the most rule infested and complicated places to get an article published, without verification, discussion, arguments over which words to use to describe something, and so on. I have read it many times, and seen contributions from the late Brian McNeil, Pi Zero, and many other users too. The thing is, it seems to be bogged down with too much behind the scenes, and not enough going out at the front. Time to lay it to rest, and find a better way to convey the news to users. Maybe, just let them search through Google - they'll find it there from reputable journalists, not "citizen journalists". DaneGeld (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Questions to be answered if merging to Wikipedias is to go ahead

Coming from someone who does not interact with Wikinews so much, and as an admin on enwiki, there are so many questions that I have. What style guides are in use? What is the publication process is like? Draft, editor verification, publish? What additional admin or special roles required? I see accreditation process? Is there a pathway for Wikinews admins be admins on Wikipedias?

Other than content, the merge would mean a transplantation of processes and norms from Wikinews to Wikipedias, otherwise there may be a period of chaos on the Wikipedias where editors and admins do not know how to deal with the content and requiring to spend time recreating the administrative processes.

There are possibly several things that need to be done before a merge can happen:

1. A widespread community survey/poll on accepting the Wikinews content and community (however small they are) on Wikipedias.
2. A proposal on how Wikinews processes can either migrate to Wikipedia, or map to relevant policies there. What policies or guidelines on Wikipedias have to be updated to accommodate selective aspects of Wikinews?
3. A proposed process for allowing at least the active Wikinews admins to be Wikipedia admins (at least exploring the option of time-limited/namespace-limited adminship). Many Wikipdias have their own admin request or election processes and may not accommodate direct transfers of adminships.

Robertsky (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@Robertsky, I'll answer what I can:

• What style guides are in use? n:WN:SG
• What is the publication process is like? n:Wikinews:Publish checklist and also n:User:Michael.C.Wright/Review process study/Full process flow
• Draft, editor verification, publish? If you are asking what is the full process from draft to publication each article follows, then: n:User:Michael.C.Wright/Review process study/Full process flow
• What additional admin or special roles required? Reviewers
• I see accreditation process? Correct; n:WN:AP and this is specifically for n:WIkinews:Original reporting (OR) but is not a requirement to publish OR. Accreditation is primarily meant for third party use to recognize Wikinews contributors as members of the press. i.e., to gain press credentials as part of an event.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Multilingual Wikinews

I acknowledge the concerns raised in the report, it is true that the Wikinews project faces significant challenges. Many language editions are inactive or minimally active, and maintaining separate infrastructure for each is increasingly difficult and time consuming for both the technical community and volunteers. Over the years, several Wikinews editions have undergone a kind of "soft closure" due to low participation. In light of this, I would like to propose an alternative approach — not to archive the project entirely, but to reimagine it in a more sustainable form.

Instead of running multiple separate Wikinews sites, we could consolidate all editions into one unified, multilingual project; hosted on wikinews.org (similar to how Commons and Wikispecies work). Mian inspiration behind this idea is the diff. This approach would:

• Reduce technical and maintenance burden

• Foster a stronger and centralized community

• Simplify governance and encourage collaboration across languages

• Provide a platform that is easier to improve and evolve collectively

The specifics can be worked out collaboratively, but the general idea is: editors will be able to write articles in any language they want. That means we have to specify per-page-based source languages, not just English. Articles can then be translated into other languages using existing tools like the Translate extension. That means translation would also be applied in the main namespace, unlike other multilingual projects. To make things more organized, there could be language-specific reviewer groups; reviewers can also have the translationadmin right so that they can mark the article for translation after review or after the article passes review.

We can also improve SEO and searchability to make articles easier to find on the web. The interface and layout can be made more "news-like" to enhance readability and credibility.

This proposal aims to strike a middle ground. It acknowledges the limitations of the current model, but retains the core idea of free, neutral, volunteer-led journalism within the Wikimedia movement. Yes, such a transition would require a lot of effort both technical and community driven. I strongly oppose the idea of archiving Wikinews or moving it outside the Wikimedia.

(Personal Opinion) - I do agree that we need to evolve, adapt and embrace new projects within the movement as times change. But I don't believe that closing the Wikinews project is the solution. If in the future, other sister projects also become inactive and faces challenges, will they face the same fate as Wikinews? Instead of helping them in meaningful ways, will we simply let them fade away? Asked42 (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree (re: personal opionion). English Wikinews is actively working to revitalize itself, as reflected in recent discussions at n:Wikinews:Water cooler/proposals. Outside perspectives are especially valuable, as those within the project may be influenced by internal biases and assumptions. We are beginning to see improvements from these efforts.

It’s important for non-Wikinews contributors to assess Wikinews in light of its distinct mission and structure, particularly the review-and-archive model described at m:Wikinews. If that framework is limiting our ability to fulfill the mission, then revisiting the design—especially the review process—should be part of the conversation. That process is likely a key factor behind English Wikinews’ persistently low activity. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this is a bad idea, especially as (i) it will help with less familiar languages, (ii) policies and quality control currently vary wildly, and (iii) we would have more users to monitor the site as a whole. Leaderboard (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I could imagine something like this working, especially if the idea were to have a freely-licensed summary of a newsworthy event, with sources (possibly in multiple languages, certainly you want the language most relevant to the locale of the event). Wikipedias often wrestle with whether events are significant enough to have their own Mainspace article; if not, there isn't an obvious place to collate a long list of sources and context about the event even if it is mentioned elsewhere. –SJ talk  18:46, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for this proposal. It is even better than merging to Wikipedia that has a different scope. A single multilingual project is much better than individual single-language projects under a single superproject, as it consolidates the scattered workforce. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:37, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, some small Wikiquote projects can be unified into a multilingual Wikiquote à la multilingual Wikisource. In the Wikisource model, larger languages deserve separate projects, while smaller languages deserve a multilingual project. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Asked42's call for an iterative approach. Rather than deciding the project's fate immediately, we should explore alternatives by identifying the main problems, piloting some solutions, and then reviewing the outcome. This process is essential for making a fair assessment. ~ KHATTAB (DM) 10:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

For "multilingual Wikiquote", see also Structured Wikiquote proposal. GZWDer (talk) 10:52, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:08, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

we should explore alternatives by identifying the main problems, piloting some solutions, and then reviewing the outcome. This process is essential for making a fair assessment.
I agree with this summary. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't support Multilingual Wikinews. We need an active society for this project. We can create a contest or others for this project. Mobashir - 🇧🇩 (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, the multilingual Wikinews proposal is indeed a second preferred option, at least for me, rather than merging it into Wikipedia or moving it out of Wikimedia. Definitely, my primary objective will be to understand the current problems that exist in the project and possibly restructure it and perform a more iterative approach. Asked42 (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I have said that I want to rebuild Wikinews. I didn't indicate you. Mobashir - 🇧🇩 (talk) 03:19, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

diff i find valuable, it produces original content. but it has this publishing process, instead of rating and categorization post publish. main challenge with wikinews is also only one: it does not produce news, as it cites existing news. and - it does not solve anything. local newspapers cannot put their articles on wikinews. local people cannot write about local stuff. they cannot write opinions. there is no easy video publish. ThurnerRupert (talk) 20:34, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Ileś lat temu był pomysł na Multilingual Wikisource, ponieważ projekt był uważany za prawie martwy. Nawet taka konstrukcja powstała, ale warto sprawdzić, jak to wygląda po latach: [3], [4], [5]. Niewiele osób się skusiło na przejście do Multilingual, które stało się chyba inkubatorem. Sławek Borewicz (talk) 05:44, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Some years ago, there was an idea for a Multilingual Wikisource, as the project was considered practically dead. Even such a structure was created, but it's worth checking out what it looks like years later: [3], [4], [5]. Few people were tempted to switch to Multilingual, which seems to have become an incubator.

Sławek, I don't believe Multilingual was created because 'the project was practically dead'. I think of it as being from the start a single-Project incubator for smaller languages, before we had the Wikimedia Incubator.

–SJ talk  18:19, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Był poważny problem z rozruchem tych projektów i rozważano własnie ich połączenie, bo wersje językowe nie potrafiły wystartować. Zobacz na pierwsze lata w w wersjach FR, RU, PL. Sławek Borewicz (talk) 05:11, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

A tu dobitnie widać podejście do wielojęzyczności. Taki projekt pewnie mógłby być wielojęzyczny, ale pod warunkiem, że byłby anglojęzyczny. Sławek Borewicz (talk) 09:53, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

And here, the approach to multilingualism is clearly visible. Such a project could certainly be multilingual, but only if it were in English.

That was an unfortunate comment from Dronebogus. We do need better tools to supporting collaborative discussion on multilingual projects; this is the primary obstacle to having a thriving multilingual MediaWiki. (We have the good example of how Discourse offers inline translation for every post, which was the most popular reason for trying to keep a Discourse instance up; need a path towards something similar or better.) –SJ talk  18:32, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Inaccessible stats in section 8

In Section 8: Wiki Comparison stats snapshot (p.29) of the review document, the link under Wikinews, Jan 2024 Wiki Comparison [public] snapshot is not publicly accessible. Could this be fixed?

(As an aside: I know that the author of this report - Victoria - is a volunteer and must already have spent a massive amount of unpaid time compiling all this interesting information. But in the future perhaps the WMF could make some paid staff available to assist and check for such basic errors before such a document is published?)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

It's accessible now. Julle (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

"News articles are not a good fit for the wiki model"

I agree with a lot of the ideas expressed in the document, but there's one statement there with which I strongly disagree: "News articles are not a good fit for the wiki model".

No. This statement is too general to be true.

It may be true if it's rephrased like this: "News articles are not a good fit for the wiki model as it has been practiced on Wikipedia, Wikivoyage, and other Wikimedia sites", and I'm not even entirely sure about that.

But the term "wiki" is not limited to what has been practiced on Wikimedia projects. A wiki is a website that anyone can edit. I can imagine a news website that anyone can edit. Experience shows that it will probably have to be different from Wikinews to succeed, but it is not impossible.

I wouldn't be particularly sad if Wikinews ends up being closed, but it would be quite bad if the document that kickstarted its closure makes this statement, because it may strengthen the voices that want to never even try something like this again. The idea of a news site that is a wiki is valid, and I'd be happy if it succeeded somewhere and sometime, perhaps even under the Wikimedia umbrella.

So please consider rephrasing this statement or removing it from the doc entirely.

Disclaimer: I am a volunteer member of the Language committee and a staff member of the Wikimedia Foundation. While this comment may be somewhat informed by my experience in these two bodies, it does not represent their opinions, but only my own. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this. It is making wrong assumptions about what the wiki model is. The wiki model is not only the Wikipedia model because not only encyclopedias can be wikified. The wiki model is a publishing model where many different types of literature can be wikified and news can very well be wikified as Wikinews already has proven. It might need improvements and maybe remodeled but it certainly can be wikified. Ventolinmono (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

The most clear example of this is that MediaWiki is used in many different publishing projects, the most known is technical documentation but it's also used for fiction, as a library, blogs, catalogue, tutorials, courses, etc, and in this case news. Ventolinmono (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

The "wiki model" (in reality, a "Wikipedia model") is IMHO essentially a book publishing on the 21st century steroids. In this sense, it is indeed fundamentally incompatible with the news cycle (consider, for example, en:WP:NODEADLINES). I agree with you that it is better to replace the fuzzy "wiki model" term with a more precise one. Викидим (talk) 08:11, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Ok but you are claiming it's incompatible to "the news cycle" and then you quote an opinion article about Wikipedia, not about "The Wiki Model". Also Wikipedia was incompatible with the "encyclopedic cycle" when it came out. So again, you are making the wrong assumptions. Ventolinmono (talk) 01:39, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

My argument is simple: (1) The classical encyclopedias (and book publishing in general) are broadly based on fairly relaxed deadlines (a typical paper encyclopedia used to take many years to publish). (2) For the news to be "news" in the common sense of an English word, reporting happens on very tight deadlines. (3) It turned out that the glacial pace of book publishing (where the authors as a rule do not have formal work hours) fits well with the volunteer character of the WMF projects ("sooner or later someone with skills or patience will fix the issues in this article or will write a decent new text on this topic"). (4) Very tight deadlines of the news cycle force finalization of text at a very early stage, with quality assurance performed by the fully engaged editorial staff. This so far did not work well within all-volunteer projects IMHO. Викидим (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Your views on publishing are outdated. There are quicker ways to publish books now and also there are news that are not breaking news. Just look for all the journalism genres in its corresponding Wikipedia article. Besides, the checks that Wikinews have now are self imposed, and could be changed to make it more agile. There's not a real reason why you could not publish breaking news using a Wiki model and the Wikimedia software. As I said already, the Wikipedia model is just one model (which btw has changed overtime). The Wikipedia model is not canonical and sister projects don't need to imitate it exactly. Ventolinmono (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

"reporting happens on very tight deadlines." that is prematurely down selecting scope. much news content in reliable sources is interviews, style, essays, and analysis. And increasingly, video multimedia content.

WN could broaden their content, but that would require some self-reflection. WN remains small because the vision is small. Slowking4 (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Old news are not news, they had either moved into the category of notable events and now probably belong in Wikipedia, or are forgotten, so a rapid news cycle IMHO is baked into very definition of "news". Of course, there is also opinion journalism and interviews, but it feels really awkward for Wikimedia Foundation to provide yet another social network engine for expressing opinions. Викидим (talk) 04:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

the imposition of artificial breaking criteria, breaks the project. many news products are driven by their publishing cycle, which are frequently monthly. interviews are news. book reviews are news. investigative journalism requires long lead times, so is not really breaking. the "not social media" is the old "not AGF". Slowking4 (talk) 15:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Your reply is really thoughtful, thank you! I agree with you that interviews, book reviews, and investigative journalism have long publishing cycle:

1. Interviews are "final", and do not require any subsequent changes (unless errors were made and retractions are in order). Essentially, in addition to the original text, the only group involvement is in editing for size and a "go/no-go" decision beyond the efforts of the original author. This (magazine) model poorly fits with the Wikipedia model due to lack if an equivalent of en:WP:Notability: if the project will become popular, the "go/no-go" decisions will be completely at the whim of the volunteer editorial staff - without any firm(ish) rules to guide them. How many interviews of a marginally notable (in Wikipedia sense) - singer are OK?
2. Book reviews are close to research articles (and frequently published in the peer-reviewed magazines) and have all the issues of #1
3. Investigative journalism at any decent level is impossible without major material resources (money for travel/meals/events and access to people). Like the en:gentlemen scientists of the past, it is possible to imagine "gentlemen journalists" who spend their own significant wealth in the pursuit of the Truth, but how are we going to vet them? Without such vetting, the "investigative journalism" branch of Wikinews will become a platform of choice for disseminating and anonymization of paid-for slander or praise produced at best by partisan activists, at worst by government agencies.

Викидим (talk) 00:57, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

• As a rule, old interviews benefit from adding new illustrations and explanations. Not every reader may fully understand the interview, so the explaining comments from independent researchers are very useful. Also, old interviews may contradict with some new rules, and in such cases they have to be changed to fit the rules.
• Notability rules are useless in general, and rarely working. Wikimedia Commons acts without notability, as well as many other Wikimedia sites. The filtering rule for Wikinews is being educative and neutral. «Wikipedia notability» is simply an amount of independent sources. Are there any interviews at all with any independent sources? How may the direct speech have any independent sources? This means, a useful and interesting and educative and neutral interview must be kept not because of its sources, but because it is an important source of educative value.
• Book reviews are indeed standing close to research articles, you are right. It would be an important addition to the world of knowledge to have a site for these reviews, so we could freely publish our own free research about the books.
• I have performed some investigative journalism with zero resources. To complete it, I just asked some people about their opinions and summarized these opinions in one text. You'd ask, why other newspapers ignored the theme? Why do we need Wikinews for this investigative journalism? Let me answer. Other newspapers are afraid to speak against the local authorities, are afraid to write that the legal decisions are wrong, — and, also, the common newspapers cannot get any payment for such investigations.
• I thank you for your opinion, because you raise some interesting and important questions. --PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

So what's the precise time in hours applicable to all kinds of news in all contexts for a news to be not old? Ventolinmono (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, 2 months is a good time to prepare some news articles about a large scientific conference. To make such articles, one needs to visit the conference, to speak to the scientists, to analyze their answers, to make and process the photo illustrations, to collect the scientific illustrations, to check the result with advisors, and to solve many copyright issues. -- PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:56, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your useful example. The purpose of my question was precisely to show that news are not only breaking news as some people here are willingly ignoring this fact. Another telling example that many people probably know (because it's so obvious) is a news outlet called NEWSWEEK. Newsweek is a WEEKLY news magazine that has published news since 1933 every 7 days. There are examples like this worldwide of news products that are printed every week, every fortnight and even every month. So it is not really a valid criticism that Wikinews is not a news site because it can not publish "breaking news". Which by the way this is also a fallacy as on many occasions news have been published on the same day. The issue is rather how to do this better. A more streamlined publishing cycle for breaking news using Mediawiki together with other periodic news products (as has already been proven) is perfectly doable as a Wikimedia project. Ventolinmono (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I worked at a real news website for 6 years and we used the engine known as CMS Мошкова. Wiki model is much better than that. --Ssr (talk) 17:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Did this real new website pay real salaries? Problem is not with the engine, problem is with editorial staff with motivation to produce quality, if biased, content on tight deadlines. Wikipedia neatly avoids this problem by having no deadlines. Викидим (talk) 05:01, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes it paid real salaries. It was called w:Lenta.ru and I worked there from 1999 to 2006. From 1999 to 2000 it was financed by w:ru:ФЭП and paid (illegal) salaries in cash US dollars. In 2000 it was bought by w:Rambler (portal) and paid (legal) salaries in Russian roubles. Bias in Wikinews is fixed in the exact way, as in Wikipedia — by balancing POV by several users. As in Wikipedia, it requires some amount of users. When number of users is small, things may be unbalanced sometimes. Exactly as in Wikipedia, because it's wiki-news. Yes, Wikinews cannot have absolutely no deadlines, as Wikipedia has, but deadlines can be long if we treat Wikinews as a "wiki-magazine", not just hot news website. We are not obliged to treat volunteers as professionals and can use lighter standards than in "real media". As well as Wikipedians are not obliged to be professionals in encyclopaedias and they do use ligther standards. No one can force them to be professionals in encyclopedias, but they still can participate as much as they can. --Ssr (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia users are not obliged to be professional encyclopaedians to write Wikipedia.

Commons users are not obliged to be professional photographers to upload to Commons.

Wikibooks and Wikisource users are not obliged to be professional librarians to make contributions.

Wikispecies users are not obliged to be professional entomologists to contribute.

Why on Earth we are talking about Wikinews users should be professional journalists? Sounds like anti-community fraud in violation of WP:BATTLEFIELD and WP:EQUAL. Combined with violation of WP:NOTNEWS. It is awful that WMF allows all that all that time. -- Ssr (talk) 10:50, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

(1) There is a major difference between Wikispecies and Wikinews: there are no deep-pocketed entities willing to push their version of Truth about the species. There are a lot of people with money and determination to impose their version of news on the humanity. (2) No real-world news publication works by "balancing POV", the balance is provided by having multiple new sources with conflicting POVs. I do not see how this can be replicated under the principles of Wikimedia Foundation. Викидим (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

So we should suspend Wikimedia projects because there are bad people with money somewhere else? We are so afraid of them, that we should declare ourselves big cowards, hide away and do nothing?

I do not see how this can be compatible with the principles of Wikimedia Foundation.

Neutrality in Wikinews is achieved by plain attribution. When we say: THIS MAN SAYS THIS THING. Then we are neutral. We attribute THIS THING to THIS MAN (or SOURCE) and we are neutral in such case. And we can publish news in such way. So simple. We just shouldn't attribute THIS THING to US. Then we are not neutral.

This is the very way Wikipedia works. And Wikinews works. Wikinews works since 2005 in many languages. Probably, you didn't examine and didn't try this thing before discussing this thing (as many of people here). So simple. -- Ssr (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

The content of real news is determined by the editorial staff (there is no consensus-building process in journalism in general or on Wikinews in particular, AFAIK). This staff is not neutral, they inevitably have their political opinions. For example, I would fully expect that no card-carrying US Republicans are working for the en:National Public Radio, so their news are predictably biased. In the US, the issue is solved by the existence of (just as biased) en:Fox News. I do not understand how do you propose to handle this within the confines of WMF. Without such (funding-induced) balance, the chance of a Wikimedia news outlet (in case of success) becoming an instrument of some political party is way too great IMHO. Our mission here is spreading the knowledge, not helping to fight someone's battles. Викидим (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

PDF

This is a meta-comment, but it's quite important: Why is the document a PDF? It's generally very inconvenient to read it, and it expresses a bit of a defeat: Do we, ourselves, think that wiki pages are not a good way to post essays? I certainly don't think so—MediaWiki pages are quite good for this.

It would be great if future documents of this kind, not only by this taskforce, but by everyone else of this kind, would be wiki pages, rather than PDFs or Google Docs. If anyone can go the extra mile and republish this document as a wiki page, it would be even nicer.

Disclaimer: I am a volunteer member of the Language committee and a staff member of the Wikimedia Foundation. While this comment may be somewhat informed by my experience in these two bodies, it does not represent their opinions, but only my own. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:24, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Seconding this. This is a particular issue for reports summarizing multilingual issues because the document is only in English, and is difficult for volunteers to prepare translations of. Omphalographer (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@Amire80 and Omphalographer: Proposal for Closing Wikinews, I'll finish in an hour? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:01, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Omphalographer (talk) 03:17, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:43, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:21, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Excellent work Justin, sorry this wasn't already done. @Amire80: to your point, it would be great to have a more robust tool that takes in a file and outputs a wikitext draft for a given page title, as a stopgap for cases where for whatever reason some contributors were not able to work on a wiki. NB: I am a volunteer member of the Taskforce that asked for this analysis, with a stated preference for drafting on-wiki, but this position does not represent anyone but myself. –SJ talk  01:24, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

[...] cases where for whatever reason some contributors were not able to work on a wiki. NB: I am a volunteer member of the Taskforce that asked for this analysis - apropos, do you happen to be in a position to clarify who authored the overall review document?

Victoria claims that she is its sole author, and my default assumption is that public statements by WMF Trustees are truthful, but from what you are saying (as well as some other context) it seems that this may not be so in this particular case. It's also a little odd to see WMF staff using their volunteer account to weigh in on this talk page when (helpfully!) addressing issues related to its content. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:27, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I am the sole author of the pdf. The original document was complied and edited by staff and the Taskforce members. I am not going to disclose the edits history - I'd rather continue suffering from the personal attacks on my own than involve anybody else. Victoria (talk) 15:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

@Victoria: please allow me to apologize on behalf of the community for anyone whose behavior is rude or otherwise inappropriate. You are doing your job and have a difference of perspective from some others. None of that justifies anyone being abusive to you and while I dislike the prospect of Wikinews being shut down, I have no ill will to you and appreciate your hard work in this report and over the many years that you've been a part of the community. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:21, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

People who create such reports are not users of the wiki engine. They consider themselves part of the community, but they are not. They need to report to the management, not to the wiki community. In this case, a report in pdf is quite normal. VladimirPF (talk) 12:38, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Often (including in this case), people who are experienced in wiki editing still have use cases for different formats, and if under time pressure may only share the first format produced. In cases where drafting is done in e.g. Google Docs (which has affordances for change and comment tracking that match certain workflows better than wikis), we need to make MediaWiki conversion a bit less clunky, and make it part of the standard publication workflow for any such PDF. –SJ talk  01:24, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

yeah, and I wonder why people might want to collaborate off-wiki when the reception on wiki is so friendly and constructive. we have a profound governance problem where ad hominem is tolerated or even a standard of practice. As reliable sources have reported, decisions are made by appeals to social capital rather than the merits. Returning to a chronic problem without a culture change is quixotic: you should not expect a different outcome than previous drama-fests. Better to leave the abject failures in their well earned oblivion. Slowking4 (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

"New name"

Above, I mentioned that while I agree with a lot of things in the document, I disagree with the statement that "News articles are not a good fit for the wiki model".

There's another somewhat related statement with which I disagree: "If some contributors feel, despite the overwhelming evidence, that a wiki news site is a viable project they want to put time into, they could fork Wikinews and re-host it somewhere else, under a new name."

First, I'm quite sure that some contributors do, indeed, feel that a wiki news site is a viable project. I know a few personally. I don't necessarily agree with them; that's a topic for a different section. But they definitely exist, and they are definitely sincere and well-meaning.

That said, why under a new name? If the Wikimedia Foundation gives up on this idea, why not also give up on the trademark? I actually think that spinning off Wikinews to another organization can be a pretty good solution, and if that happens, transferring the trademark to it is fair and sensible. I am neither a lawyer nor a marketer; I know very little about brand management and practically nothing about trademark law, but simply as intuition, it sounds like the right thing to do.

Besides, if the WMF doesn't want Wikinews, why would it want to keep the name?

Disclaimer: I am a volunteer member of the Language committee and a staff member of the Wikimedia Foundation. While this comment may be somewhat informed by my experience in these two bodies, it does not represent their opinions, but only my own. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

"giving up on the trademark" should only happen when all Wikinews projects are deleted (not just closed) from Wikimedia (though database dumps may remain hosted in Wikimedia). If users see a read-only archive of Wikinews plus a living non-WMF project named Wikinews, they will confuse the two. GZWDer (talk) 10:49, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we should really give up the current name even if WMF gives up supporting Wikinews, and we do have several non-WMF projects with the "Wiki-" prefix. Wikileaks is the most notorious example. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:12, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Interestingly, under "Prosecution History" for the US trademark (which despite its threatening name is simply renewals and updates of information), it seems Wikimedia spent legal time on updating the mark to new attorneys May 29. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

As just a matter of IP law, I'm pretty sure you can't retain a trademark if you don't use it for something. A trademark that isn't used goes extinct. That said, WMF would have the ability to apply to "Wikinews" to any other sort of project, that wouldn't have to closely resemble the existing one. Pharos (talk) 03:26, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Hosting a website under that name likely counts as "using" the trademark, even if the website is merely a static copy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

To be clear: if we were to rid WikiNews of the right to use that trademark, and fail to use it for anything else ourselves: under U.S. law we would ultimately be risking ANYONE re-appropriating the trademark for their own use.

Abandonment of a trademark for more than three consecutive years without intention of resuming its use would allow another party grounds to register the trademark as their own.

if we are not careful here, there is the possibility that if WikiNews continues under another name, and we abandon the trademark by not using it for something else, within a few years some mal-intentioned distributor of disinformation swoops in to register the name WikiNews as its own trademark, creating a new site called WikiNews that is instead dedicated to spreading malicious disinformation SecretName101 (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

And to follow up: no, merely maintaining ownership of the web domain does not constitute using the WikiNews trademark. SecretName101 (talk) 19:10, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

WMF Legal has a lawyer who manages their trademarks. I'm sure they can figure out what the requirements are and what to do with it, if the Board want it to remain in force. Maybe they would rename the Diff (blog) or the Wikimedia News milestones page or the Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin newsletter, for example.

(Mind the gap between "hosting a website" and "merely maintaining ownership of the web domain".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:23, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

The suggested list of options for a future Wikinews are not exhaustive, and certainly need to address where the current domains and URLs redirect. One principle we might bear in mind is that the current links should not rot, and sites as a whole should be archivally preserved. [We failed to ensure this for the 911wiki, for example.] If the same communities try something new at the same host, it would be a migration or successor rather than a fork. A few separate questions:

• Are there different subsets of the community who each want different outcomes? If so that sounds like a fork: a given URL can't point to two things, though each could have a disambiguation link to the other.
• If everyone wants the same resolution, that's more of a migration or successor. Would there be both an archival site (with current policies and approach) and a new one (which could look quite different), or would the new site be built on top of the old? Would pages share common URLs or is there a new non-overlapping naming scheme? Is there a role for third-party archiving such as Archive-It or Webrecorder?
• If the consensus is that a successor site shouldn't be a WMF project, but should be hosted elsewhere [newly independent, merged with an existing news project, &c]: do they reuse current domains? If so, how do we collectively ensure that the domains don't fall into disuse and stop resolving historical URLs? If not, choosing how to direct the organic flow of traffic to the existing domains is one of the ways we could support a successor.

–SJ talk  01:24, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I suspect that the "under a new name" statement in the report is based on tax law, rather than trademark law.

Realistically, a non-profit organization (including, but not limited to, Wikimedia Foundation) can't give any valuable assets (e.g., a trademark, a domain name) to for-profit businesses. However, there are two typical ways to address this:

• The non-profit organization sells its asset at fair market value.
• The non-profit organization donates (or sells at a discount) its asset to another non-profit organization.

If someone wanted Wikinews to be its own organization, they would need to form a corporate (for-profit or non-profit) and then negotiate for its transfer. The WMF's Board can say no; the WMF's Board can also say "No, but we would ____". For example, they might say "No, but we would lend it to a mission-aligned non-profit organization for the next ten years, with the option to transfer it permanently later", or "No, but we would donate it to a well-managed non-profit organization that has an operating reserve equal to at least the next two years' projected expenses". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikinews could be news about Wiki

My comment will be based solely on knowledge of the Russian-language Wikinews and will include links to their stories, since I’m only familiar with the activities of their contributors.

I believe that if Wikinews can be relevant at all, it would be as a narrowly focused project covering news and events that are, in one way or another, connected to the Wiki environment — like Photographers from WikiPortraits contribute to Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, setting a good example for us or Ivan Abaturov has been banned from participating in Wikimedia Foundation projects. This niche is unoccupied; no one else is going to write about it except for Wikinews (except Signpost perhaps). Even now, a significant portion of what they themselves refer to as “original reporting” is dedicated to events around Wikipedia and other Wikimedia Foundation projects — see: Category:Original Reports.

Moreover, each of the project’s contributors likely has enough competence to produce such news: writing them doesn’t require insider information, direct access to key figures, or real-time monitoring of Twitter or influencer feeds.

The current format — “news about everything,” without clear positioning — in my opinion, is a stillborn idea. It’s impossible to compete with traditional media without their resources and capabilities, relying solely on non-professional volunteers. Continuing this approach only dilutes the community’s already limited resources on an unmanageable task. Rampion (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikimedia does not host an encyclopedia for wikis in production (see also wikiindex:, a non-Wikimedia project), and I fail to see how limit the scope of Wikinews to wikis will solve any problem. If you mean "Wikimedia wiki", then we already have multiple systems for that (without using MediaWiki), such as Diff (blog) and Planet. GZWDer (talk) 05:54, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

It does look like Russian Wikinews has occasionally seen some valuable Wikimedia-internal reporting of this kind. But it's not true that This niche is unoccupied; no one else is going to write about it except for Wikinews (except Signpost perhaps). Apart from the fact that the Signpost definitely (not just perhaps) covers such topics regularly, there are various other active projects covering this kind of news, like Kurier on dewiki or RAW on frwiki, not to speak of movement-wide topic-specific newsletters.

That is to say, it might well be possible to launch a dedicated on-wiki project focusing specifically on the kind of coverage you mention, quite possibly with the added advantage that this makes it easier to attract a regular readership audience specifically interested in such topics (as the Signpost and others have done).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, this would be a dedicated on-wiki project hosted on an existing project (e.g. Wikipedia or Meta), not a new dedicated sister project. GZWDer (talk) 10:45, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it would make sense. BilboBeggins (talk) 10:50, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I think a Wiki that covers only news about other Wiki's seems too limited in scope. Is there enough news to keep such a 'News About Wiki' project dynamic (more dynamic than Wikinews currently is, admittedly a low bar)? Michael.C.Wright (talk) 14:11, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry but this is missing the point of the discussion. You are making an argument about fundamentally changing what Wikinews is only because of it's name. Besides, there's already The Wikipedia Signpost which does what you are saying. Ventolinmono (talk) 19:58, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

The news about Wikipedia is the Signpost (in EN) or the Kurier (in DE). There is no point in making Wikinews the site for news about WP. Matthiasb (talk) 08:22, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

making an argument about fundamentally changing
I don’t see any problem here. Pivoting is a normal part of an organization’s life if it realizes it was heading in the wrong direction. Slack, for example, was originally supposed to be an online game.

what Wikinews is only because of its name.
It seems you didn’t read my argument carefully — I didn’t mention the name as a point at all.
My main point is that the Wikinews community should focus on what they can (and already do) well: covering events in different communities within Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation.

Besides, there’s already The Wikipedia Signpost which does what you are saying.
Well, yes, it exists.
But how many languages is it available in? And could you compare that number with the number of languages Wikinews operates in? Please keep in mind that there is a huge wiki-world beyond the English Wikipedia.
Overall, I believe that if Wikinews had a clear focus on one area, it easily outcompete the Signpost for readers — and the Signpost might either fade away or become more of a supplement, reposting announcements from a revitalized Wikinews. Rampion (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

If you are claiming that Wikinews should be news about Wikimedia because Signpost is only available in English you are missing the point. The logical argumentation should be that Signpost should have more languages, not that Wikinews should be converted to Signpost because there is no Signposts in other languages. Ventolinmono (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikinews should certainly leverage its unique sources to provide more firsthand coverage of meaningful Wikimedia movement news and conduct interviews with its prominent participants(This has not been done enough in the past)—that's true. But there's no need to limit itself solely to this, right? ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 09:31, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

and For big and serious Wikimedia news, Wikimedia already has a dedicated area for updates. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 09:32, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

The issue discussed here is maintaining a dedicated project for news as a WMF project, may be problematic for multiple reasons. GZWDer (talk) 10:12, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikinews not "could be", but ALREADY are news about Wiki (2nd link) -- Ssr (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Na pl.Wikinews bardzo mile widziane są wiadomości dotyczące Wikimediów. Brak nam sił by pisać wszytko co chcemy ale jak najbardziej każdy jest do tego zapraszany. Mamy newsa o tych konsultacjach. Mamy newsy o wyborach administratorów pl.wikipedii, mamy newsy o kamienicach milowych projektów Wikimedia. Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 14:01, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

A still-relevant comment and article from 12 years ago

"This is Wikinews' fundamental problem: it can neither do a good job providing a summary of world news, nor does it have any special focus that it does well. It's a collection of random articles, with only the occasional, passing resemblance to important current events. "

Adam Cuerden, "It's time to stop pretending the English-language Wikinews is a viable project", The Signpost, 2013-07-10. Ed ^{[talk] [en]} 21:57, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for surfacing this, Ed. It's painfully obvious that wikinews should be archived today, and it's unfortunate that it's taken so long to seriously consider doing so even as the need to do so has been clear since before I joined the Wikimedia movement a decade ago, as this comment reflects. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t) 22:04, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikinews is inherently closer to the definition of a free and neutral citizen media, just like Wikiversity, a free learning community or whatever. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 09:24, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

No, it is not obvious, not at all. BilboBeggins (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

yes, it's obvious and painful. it is a cautionary tale that highlights the limitations of the wiki model. we could study why Wikipedia succeeded and wikinews failed, but denial is a long river. Slowking4 (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd argue that the random (original) articles are exactly what it what it thrived with.

A lot of news is consumed at random. You're fed it by an algorithm on social media, or you're searching for the topic, not the outlet.

Most of the world wouldn't care about the 2006 Toronto municipal election, but when I did a series of interviews with candidates, the mainstream media carried an incumbent's quote.

Most sports fans ignore parasports, but Laura Hale's in-depth coverage and interviews were so valued by that athletic community that the Australian Paralympic Committee hired her as a Wikimedia in Residence.

RuPaul was in a career rut when David Shankbone interviewed him, a year before Drag Race debuted.

Wikinews was a site that you'd stumble upon when it was relevant to your interests, not a destination. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:24, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd call those examples, each of which are well more than a decade old, emblematic of a thriving wider website. Wikinews has had its higher points, but there's a fair argument to be made that it does not have enough of a foundation to (re)build a project upon in 2025. Ed ^{[talk] [en]} 04:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I looked at the front page today and it’s just stuff you could find in a major news outlet. The most recent featured content is from 2023, 2022, and 2020. Dronebogus (talk) 19:29, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

To są problemy anglojęzycznego świata, w którym występują takie podmioty jak BBC i NYT, i w których trudno będzie zrobić coś, co miałoby wartość dodaną. W innych częściach świata trudno będzie znaleźć media, które robią "summary of world news". Wystarczy porównać główne kategorie GoogleNews w poszczególnych językach, by zobaczyć, że w części będzie głównie rozrywka. Kiedyś próbowałem odhaczać z polskiego GoogleNews tytuły, w których nie ma horoskopów, nachalnego spamu i tematów typu "Ta substancja spowoduje, że..." Zostało kilka niszowych tytułów, które nie epatowały takimi tematami, ale one też nie robiły summary of world news. Przeglądam sobie różne media i większość ostatnich tematów jest okraszonych zdjęciami Trumpa, Putina, Kim Dzong Una i Netanjahu. Czy to są media z odpowiednim summary of world news? Sławek Borewicz (talk) 05:24, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

@Sławek Borewicz, I agree with you: English speakers have more news sources than most languages.

However, there is a demographic problem: We need about 10,000 readers to get one active editor for Wikipedia. We need about 10,000,000 readers to get one good Wikinews editor.

There are ~400,000,000 native English speakers. The English Wikipedia gets 40,000 active editors, but we get just 40 active editors for Wikinews – and only 4 who made 100+ edits last month.

There are ~40,000,000 native Polish speakers. The Polish Wikipedia gets 1,500 active Wikipedia editors, but most months, we get just 10–15 active editors for Wikinews. This is more than I would expect, but it is still true that Polish Wikinews is mostly four people.

I don't think this will change. I think that Polish Wikinews will always be written by a very small number of people, which means it will always be written by too few people to have ordinary journalistic/editorial controls, and too few people to have the depth and breadth of content that we would like to see. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

A skąd przekonanie o tym always? Teraz widać wyraźne odbicie. I nie wiadomo, jak ten trend by wyglądał dalej, gdyby nie próby jego zatrzymania. Ale i tak patrzysz przez okulary anglojęzycznego świata. Redakcje w polskich mediach (nie patrzę na te, które produkują medialną sieczkę) liczą kilkanaście osób, tworzą mniej niż 20 newsów dziennie i mają całkiem sporo czytelników. Tylko część z nich publikuje coś codziennie. Niektórzy robią 2-3 artykuły miesięcznie. Mają więcej OR, ale też nie martwią się swoim POV. Chyba poza Wikimediami żadne inne media nie martwią się o NPOV (poza światem anglojęzycznym). Być może wyraźny POV to jest po prostu lep na czytelników, ale chyba nie o to chodzi, gdy przechodzimy od mówienia o ilości do mówienia o jakości. Sławek Borewicz (talk) 04:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Your stats includes non-article edits. From March 2013 to January 2020, the Polish Wikinews had only one (1) editor writing articles.

During the last year, they have eight (8) editors helping write articles each month. This is an improvement, but it is still very little.

Having a neutral POV in articles is only useful if you have some articles. "If we wrote an article, then it would be perfect" does not help readers. Only writing the articles can help readers. If you do not write articles, then why exist?

In the last month, I see:

• 279 articles, of which 34 are from an unflagged bot. That means 245 articles.
• 217 (88.5%) articles are copied and pasted by Igor123121. Compare https://pl.wikinews.org/wiki/Kanada_wycofuje_si%C4%99_z_wprowadzenia_podatku_cyfrowego and https://kontrabanda.net/r/kanada-bez-podatku-cyfrowego/ These articles are not written for Wikinews. Readers could read these articles (in Polish) even if Wikinews had never existed. By stealing a few readers from original site, Wikinews even may be hurting the real reporters.
• One editor wrote 14 articles. One wrote 5. A few other people wrote articles. The total creation of articles is about one new article per day.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I cannot say how Kontrabanda itself works but it seems to work much similar to Wikinews:

They are licensing CC-BY 4.0 and CC-BY-SA 4.0 socopypasting seems fine with me. Matthiasb (talk) 11:51, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Tak, zgadza się i jest oczywiście oznaczenie autorstwa pod artykułem: Artykuł wykorzystuje materiał pochodzący z tekstu „Kanada wycofuje się z wprowadzenia podatku cyfrowego. Powodem napięte relacje między Kanadą a USA”, którego autorem jest Oliwier Jaszczyszyn, opublikowanego w serwisie kontrabanda.net na licencji CC BY 4.0 Zresztą to także efekt tego całego zamieszania z próbami zamykania serwisu - Kontrabanda przeszła z cc-by sa na cc-by, aby można było pozyskiwać newsy do Wikinews: n:pl:„Kontrabanda” liberalizuje licencję, na której publikowane są materiały w sekcji „Informacje” — od 2 lipca 2025 roku jest to CC BY 4.0 International. H. Batuta (talk) 12:04, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you:

• It is legal in terms of copyright.

Do you agree with me?

• It is pointless, because the reader could read at Kontrabanda.
• It is harmful to Wikinews, because copying means Google ranks Wikinews low. In fact, I believe that when (only) Polish and Russian Wikinews copy so many articles, all the Wikinews get ranked lower in search results.
• It is harmful to Kontrabanda, because we take a few of their readers, so they get fewer donations to continue their work.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Czy w takim razie licencje cc-by są szkodliwe, bo pozwalają na kopiowanie treści między serwisami? H. Batuta (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

CC-BY licenses are helpful for sharing information.

Copying everything from a site is harmful for supporting the creator of the information, if that creator is trying to earn money by writing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Lubisz duże kwantyfikatory. Jeśli użytkownk dokonał republikacji w Wikinews tego newsa z Kontrabandy, to czy według ciebie szkodzi on autorowi pierwotnego newsa, zakładając, że autor oryginału próbuje zarabiać na pisaniu artykułów? Czy uważasz, że to nie jest moralnie ok, jeśli autor oryginału zgodził się na to, że jego praca może być powielana na licencji cc-by? Czy może uważasz, że autor nie ma świadomości, co ta licencja oznacza i doświadcza szkód wbrew swojej woli? H. Batuta (talk) 07:22, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I think it's more complicated than that.

The author made a choice. But the author may have made that choice thinking "This will be nice for someone who wants to share one or two articles. Maybe a teacher will use this in a language class". The author might not have been imagined that someone will copy everything.

That author is asking for money. The author might some day make a different choice. Perhaps that choice will be "No money again. I quit". Then what happens to Polish Wikinews, since nearly all (90%) of its content is copied from Kontrabanda?

Or maybe the author will choose a CC-BY-NC license. foundation:Policy:Terms of Use#7. Licensing of Content does not accept importing CC-BY-NC. Then what happens to Polish Wikinews? They are very good copiers of Kontrabanda's work, but they write very little news themselves. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

A wystarczyło kliknąć w artykuł n:pl:„Kontrabanda” liberalizuje licencję, na której publikowane są materiały w sekcji „Informacje” — od 2 lipca 2025 roku jest to CC BY 4.0 International, żeby się dowiedzieć dlaczego :) H. Batuta (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

So, today, he likes it.

And next year, maybe he changes his mind. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing My personal impression was that Kontrabanda website was started by Wikinews contributor. Yup, @OliwierJaszczyszyn! See their topic "Wikinews should not be shut down in entirety". So please stop claiming that Polish Wikinews are copying content from somebody else! This is blatant disinformation. Wikiwide (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

In terms of w:SEO, this fact doesn't matter. If User:OliwierJaszczyszyn posts something on Kontrabanda.net, and the Polish Wikinews copies it, then the Polish Wikinews will be downgraded in web search engine results. That means fewer readers at the Polish Wikinews, for everything at the Polish Wikinews. It does not just affect the individual pages containing the copied articles. The web search engines do not say "Oh, this person edits both of these sites, and he is happy to do this, so we should overlook the duplication". They instead say "Oh, look, duplication. Our users hate duplication and spammy content farms. We should downgrade this website with duplicate content."

I don't know enough about the current SEO standards to know how likely it is, but it is possible that this copying could hurt Kontrabanda.net's search rankings, and it is possible that it could hurt everything at all the Wikinews sites. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:05, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi @WhatamIdoing about Polish Wikinews, what i find about a small group, is that real time communication is fragmented. If i post a question on wiki, maybe first 5 users will take a week to see it. Would you agree that this is a software issue like this? Wouldn't it be better if all users in Wikinews, by default, were subscribed to the project discussion page and email notifications enabled about each new topic? Gryllida 15:38, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't. But I might agree that most (not all) active (not just anyone) contributors to Wikinews were subscribed by default to some page. In fact, I think that might be useful for most small communities.

The main downside is spam and vandalism. I am subscribed to all new conversations on a handful of pages, and sometimes half the "new comments" are inappropriate and get reverted before I see them. But I still get pinged to the now-missing comment. Imagine how people would feel if a hundred editors got pinged to a different project once a week to read "nothing". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

What could a fantasy wiki news site be?

Note the title: This section is not about Wikinews™, capitalized and written as one word, and representing the current Wikinews site. It's about a "wiki news site". It doesn't exist now, but it could.

This is just my fantasy. Some people will agree with it and some won't. While I disagree with some points in the document (I detailed a couple in the sections above), I agree with most of it, and, most importantly, I agree with its central point, which I would summarize like this: For the most part, Wikinews hasn't proven to be a successful project in its current form.

But what if a successful wiki news site did exist?

Here's what I'm missing in current news sites:

1. Truly global perspective in terms of content.
2. Multilingualism.
3. True neutrality and independence of commercial and political interests.
4. Decentralization and lack of strict editorial control held by one person or a small group.

The New York Times, for example, is a pretty good newspaper in quite a lot of ways, but it also fails in many points. Among other things, it fails in all the points I mentioned above:

1. It is occasionally described as "the world's newspaper", but it definitely is not one. It is centered on the United States, and it covers some world news that may be interesting to Americans. (And I'm not even talking about its very non-global name.)
2. It is almost exclusively English, occasionally publishing translations of certain stories into languages that are related to these stories. For example, I remember them publishing particular stories in Spanish, Chinese, Yiddish, Haitian Creole, and some other languages. They actually do those particular stories really well, but it is very rare. (They also used to have whole editions in Spanish and Chinese, but they discontinued them, because that's what happens when you have commercial interests.)
3. Its business model depends on subscribers and advertisers, and it at least appears to have a certain political bias (with which I don't necessarily disagree, but that's beside the point).
4. It has an editor-in-chief and a small editorial board that makes all the decisions.

While not perfect, Wikipedia already is better on all these points. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper—it's an encyclopedia. Its software platform is built with focus on writing encyclopedic articles and its community is focused on writing encyclopedic articles, too.

However, editions of Wikipedia in some languages already have several things that make it quite close to a news website, they all work quite well, and they are mentioned in the document:

1. Recent news on the main page.
2. Non-article pages dedicated to current events (such as w:en:Portal:Current events).
3. Encyclopedic articles dedicated to news events.

Even though these things work quite well, the biggest problem with them is technical: They are done 100% by manually editing raw wiki pages, involving a lot of templates, HTML, markup, etc. There is no structured system for editing them as news items or for translating them. Because of this, they only succeed in the wikis with the largest communities, in which there are enough people to write articles and to regularly maintain a news section on the main page and on a current events portal.

(Another problem, for which I don't have a solution, is that a real newspaper has reporters who create original content. Wikinews kind of tried to develop such a thing, but not very successfully, and blogs and social networks are more successful at this. But let's leave this for now.)

What if the WMF or someone else developed a platform that takes these features, and the Wikimedia's community generally good experience in fact-checking, translating, and summarizing other reliable sources, and built it into a true news platform? Global, translatable, politically and commercially independent, decentralized? It can be a separate news site, under the name "Wikinews" or under some other name, or it could be integrated into Wikipedia, but as properly structured content. Or even both!

This will require product design and software development. I don't know if the WMF, or any organization, wants to commit to such a thing. But it's definitely feasible with some investment.

Wikinews doesn't work like that at the moment, and will never work like that without big changes that the current volunteer editors community doesn't have the capacity to make, in any language. Which is why, in its current form, it should be discontinued as a Wikimedia project.

As the title says, all the above is a fantasy. Is anyone interested in changing it? If yes, this proposal can be a good possible strategic direction for a wiki news site. If not, then it can remain a fantasy, but it is more realistic than thinking that Wikinews in its current form will ever succeed.

Disclaimer: I am a volunteer member of the Language committee and a staff member of the Wikimedia Foundation. While this comment may be somewhat informed by my experience in these two bodies, it does not represent their opinions, but only my own. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 22:34, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Aside: this is exactly the sort of thing I hoped to see emerge from public consultations. I have longer thoughts and will write them up later, but dropping a quick note of thanks first :) –SJ talk  23:03, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikinews, too, was meant to be "global, translatable, politically and commercially independent, decentralized", was it not? AtUkr^{(talk to me)} 00:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Um... Was it? Citation needed :)

Even if it was meant to be translatable, it is definitely not really translatable. At least not nearly as translatable as Wikipedia or—ironically—Meta. Very theoretically, people can translate its pages, of course, but people don't.

And it may be independent and neutral, but if people don't really read it, then it doesn't matter. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 02:58, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

What makes Wikinews "not really translatable"? Michael.C.Wright (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Translation is a process that can be structured, at least partly. We have structured translation tools for Wikipedia articles; for newsletters and help pages on meta, mediawiki.org, Commons, and Wikidata; for user interface; for Wikidata labels; and for banners. None of them is perfect, but all of them are nevertheless heavily used and serve a purpose. We have nothing structured like this for Wikinews. It's possible to translate wiki pages manually, as it was done on Wikipedia before 2015, but it's very difficult and inefficient.

In theory, the Content Translation extension, which is currently enabled only on Wikipedia, could be used on Wikinews. However, it will require some significant development, and news pages are not quite the same as Wikipedia articles. In addition, at least at first, it probably makes more sense to make a translation tool that focuses on the short news on the main page, and not on the full-length articles. And when I say "translatable" I definitely don't mean "from English"; it should be available from all languages to all languages, and this seems to be one of the cases in which translation from "small" languages into "big" languages can be especially useful.

(We don't have a structured translation system for Wikivoyage either, and Wikivoyage appears to be much more thriving than Wikinews. So translatability is not the only issue. But solving this problem can be a part of a package that will relaunch Wikinews as something successful, under this name or under some other name.) Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

The number of articles being translated from other language Wikinews editions into English may be very low, but the reverse is not true. Many language communities actively translate English Wikinews articles, this is certainly the case for Bengali Wikinews on the Incubator. Wikipeida already benefits from the Content Translation tool, but other projectss do not have such a feature yet.

Also, editors in different language communities often prefer creating new articles from scratch- I don’t think that’s any worse than translation, in fact I would argue it's even better that there are more original articles (not to be confused with original reporting) than translated ones. It shows that communities are actively engaged in creating news content based on their own research, prioritizing events that are especially relevant to their language community. Asked42 (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I've had original reporting articles that do better on the Dutch Wikinews than the English, despite being about the not-very-Dutch Toronto.

Agreed, 100% nothing wrong with other languages creating new articles from scratch. Different people, different views on what parts of the story should be focused on. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:27, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

OP mentions great points. A global, multilingual, independent, decentralized news source is not just an unoccupied niche, it's a glaring hole in the web. Twitter used to fill that niche pretty successfully but it has been captured by commercial and political interests. So it might be just the right time for a restart of WikiNews with a brand-new publishing model. Joe vom Titan (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I too think the world really needs a thriving Wikinews publishing model, probably now more than ever before. Pharos (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

BlueSky is the new twitter. Maybe it will fill that role. Maybe someone will invent a novel model to fill that role. But as long as Wikinews is stuck in the shadow of sister projects that are already stuck in the shadow of Wikipedia, it will never be able to fill such huge shoes. Dronebogus (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

The ideal Wikimedia-aligned news-related project would be something that:

• is freely licensed;
• is independently managed by its language/cultural community while being supported by one or more neutral hosts;
• helps make journalism and news reporting more transparent.

The only reason to keep Wikinews is that it stands there as a statement that there should be something in this field; but Wikimedia could instead support a project led by someone else. I don't know whether the project needs to be a wiki. It sure doesn't need to be a newspaper, or even a magazine: it could be something more similar to a news agency, or even a database.

If I had to name some projects which serve the purpose Wikinews exists for, I would probably mention something like Muckrock and OCCRP (which are also regular allies in our regulatory/policy/copyright fights). It's not 2004 any more, and it ought to be possible for Wikimedia orgs to liaise with other organisations in this field to come up with a joint project to be run by a consortium. If they want a wiki, such a consortium could then take over the stewardship of Wikinews, while the hosting could be handled by one of the existing wikifarms (such as Miraheze) with some time-limited support from the WMF. It might also be beneficial to split Wikinews across two or three wikifarms, with one hosted in a BRICS jurisdiction, to reduce the risks of geopolitical clashes which are nowadays unavoidable in an increasingly polarised world where WMF had to intervene more and more often to enforce the USA-aligned view of the news. Nemo 12:01, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

A news agency powered by volunteers would be a cool thing, but I doubt that it can happen. Of course, people doubted that Wikipedia can work, and it did, but the difference is that an encyclopedia summarizes things from other sources, whereas a news agency collects new information. It needs a much bigger infrastructure of reporters to generate texts. It's not totally impossible, but it is much more challenging. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be volunteers, just like the Linux kernel isn't any longer just developed by volunteers. It can be a consortium of news media with their employees and freelancers joining forces to handle some specific task that's too much for any of them individually. I'm not saying this is easy: this section is about fantasy. :-) Nemo 17:44, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Oh :)

This goes well beyond my fantasy :)

Wikimedia has always relied on volunteers for content creation and maintenance. I'm not saying it's impossible to have staff for that, but that would be a model that is completely different from anything we've experienced till now. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Which is why it may be better done by someone else. It would need to start from something very small that news orgs are already doing: there are precious little examples of news media cooperating for their common good, and usually they've acted as freeloaders on the commons. Nemo 20:18, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Zobacz tutaj n:pl:Wikinews:Współpraca z innymi serwisami. Chyba nie byłoby trudno poszerzyć bazę portali, które publikują newsy na kompatybilnych licencjach. Sławek Borewicz (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

we could have a non-profit wiki news, with volunteer stringers and grant supported editors. we have editors with journalist credentials, who could be recruited to provide some standard of practice and professionalism.

we could do summary content with a sweep of reliable coverage with endnotes. we could do essays based on summaries of non-fiction books. we could do travel coverage working with wikivoyage. we could do original book reviews. we could do coverage of Wikimedia, recruiting from signpost and outside reporters. we could do arts coverage working with wikiproject visual arts, and wikiportraits. we could recruit journalism students from Women Do News. we could do breaking news by recruiting editors who now write in Wikipedia articles. Slowking4 (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

A note on the mentioned alternatives

Before and without expressing a preference for a particular outcome, I would like to point out that "find a new home" should not be considered a separate alternative to choose between: if one of the alternatives discontinuing Wikinews is selected (e.g. "Archive"), it could also be re-homed elsewhere (thanks to the content license), but whether or not it finds such a home should not dictate or prevent choosing what to do about Wikinews within Wikimedia.

In other words, I wouldn't want an option like "Archive" to receive weaker support because people like the "re-home" option; the project can be archived here and re-homed elsewhere.

Disclaimer: I am a staff member of the Wikimedia Foundation. This comment only represents my own opinion, and is accordingly made from my volunteer account. Ijon (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikinews' value and possible solutions

The value that Wikinews, in its current form, provides comes from its review system. A minimum of two people—usually more— must check every sentence for both facts and neutrality before the article is published, and at least one of them must be an official reviewer of proven skill. Not so on other projects.

Most of Wikinews' problems could be solved by higher engagement, and there are a few identifiable reasons for low engagement:

• Most new article drafters don't get it right on their first try. They don't use a neutral tone or they don't follow Wikinews' sourcing or freshness rules. It takes time to understand what's expected, and seeing an article deleted is a real turnoff.
• Because we have a small reviewer pool right now, many decent articles do not get reviewed within their freshness window. In this way, low engagement is self-fulfilling.
• I have seen reviewer culture become toxic, with reviewers making unreasonable demands for changes that the article does not really need, among other issues. Part of the problem is that several reviewers acted as though Wikinews were really a writing school with themselves as self-appointed teachers. I found this to be a major diversion of time and resources from writing the news.

There are changes that could be made to the review system that could fix this:

1. More active mentorship of new drafters. The Wikinews community has already made some effort toward this.
2. Require reviewers to mark changes as Required vs Not Required, with all Required changes linkable to an official written Wikinews policy, guideline, or precedent. This would allow reviewers to express their artistic vision without slowing down the publication process.
3. End the rule against reviewers just making the changes to the draft themselves. If the changes are substantive, let them put it back into the to-be-reviewed pool for another reviewer to check again. But the back-and-forth between reviewer and draft team wastes time.

I first heard the phrase "the truth is behind a paywall, but propaganda is free" the same year I started contributing to Wikinews. In this era of curated-algorithm echo chambers, publicly accessible news sources committed to verifiability and neutrality are more important than ever. Reimagine Wikinews? Restructure Wikinews? Good and good, but don't get rid of Wikinews. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Example of healthy prep and review: Turkey Notice how the reviewer expresses an artistic/improvement opinion but does not delay publication for its sake. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:58, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Very much agreed that the small reviewer pool is a major trip up. I was an active contributor, but the challenge of getting things out while they're still "fresh" is what ended my participation. It's one thing if I was writing based on existing coverage, but when I travelled to another city, and then it doesn't get used, deal breaker.

From memory, during its peak productivity Wikinews only required extensive reviews for challenging topics. Stuff like Q&A interviews, photo reports, any other reporter (read: user) in good standing could give it a quick once-over and publish. There should be a difference between the level of scrutiny for reporting on a geopolitical conflict and an undisputed event like a comic convention. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:35, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24, what do you think is the minimum number of experienced users to do a good job every day? For example, if we defined "good job" as – I'm just guessing at numbers – 20 decent articles per week, how many active, experienced contributors does that take?

For comparison: The New York Times publishes 1,200 articles per week. A small newspaper might do 100–300 articles per week. The free weeklies near me do about 20 articles per week, typically with a paid staff of ~four people, plus additional writers getting an hour's pay or doing it for self-promotion (the mayor's column, the real estate agent's column, etc.). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I don’t speak for @Darkfrog24, just adding to the conversation. Based on our Wikinews:2025 Boost publication rate/Monthly top article data, our top articles this year have averaged 3.5 contributors each—not counting the reviewer. Our publication rate is increasing, and the number of days each month with no articles published is going down [6].

In 2024, we averaged fewer than eight articles published per month. Right now, our basic goal is simply to beat that each month while we gain a clearer sense of where to focus our revitalization efforts.

I think we're working improving at a healthy, sustainable pace—though of course I’d like to see things move faster, especially in light of the Task Force’s recommendation. If we’re allowed to continue this work and expand the boost project to reflect the feedback from this consultation, I believe we’ll be in a stronger position by the end of 2025.

Unfortunately, just through its existence, I believe this consultation has reduced reviewer activity at en.WN. Hopefully that doesn't last and we're able to continue the work. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

It seems you might be asking how many articles per unit time Wikinews should produce. For that, ask Wikinews readers. You might be asking how many people should work on each Wikinews article, for which I would say the minimum is two but the more the better. But I think the question for this Wikinews at this time is the reviewer/drafter ratio.

My answer to that has long been that reviewers must not ever stop drafting articles, that continuing to draft articles should be a condition of maintaining reviewership. Ideally, all reviewers would continue to draft. If Wikinews were >90% reviewers who draft, a lot of our current problems would disappear. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm really looking for the articles-per-contributor ratio. If I know that the English Wikinews has x active editors, how many articles should I expect to find at the English Wikinews in a week (or a month)?

I doubt that news readers have an opinion on how many articles should be produced by a source. When I look in my news feed, I might wish that I could read more about a subject that interests me, but I've never thought "I wish this particular newspaper wrote a different number of articles". Within a reasonable range, it doesn't matter to me whether the article is written by (e.g.,) The Chicago Tribune or The Los Angeles Times or The Guardian. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Lack of clarity on the comment process

Call me dense, but are we expected to actually edit the main page itself and add comments directly or propose alternatives and discuss them here on the talk page? I would assume the former, but since no one else seems to have actually done that and there are many threads here on talk, I don't want to trample on the format of the page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:17, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes. And why only English Wikinews is assessed? Why not look at ruwikinews, which is a success? Midleading (talk) 03:16, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

n:ru: and n:zh: are discussed in the report. See also Proposal for Closing Wikinews, which wikifies the PDF. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:04, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I went ahead and posted my long-winded comment. If this is not the way to do it, please revert and tell me what is more constructive. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:04, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what made you think it's OK to give your own detailed thoughts, opinions and arguments priority over those of all the other Wikimedians who have been posting their comments on this talk page instead. I have reverted this; if you feel that there is an important option missing, I would suggest adding a single bullet point under "Other" that is as brief as the already listed options. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:22, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

@HaeB: Maybe you are unfamiliar with assuming good faith, but I in no way thought that my thoughts had priority over others'. Please don't make baseless allegations. My comment that you removed:

• Take no special action, let Wikinews follow the standard process for opening and closure When I think of the various WMF projects in terms of their basic utility, I ask something like "If I don't know what a word means and I look it up on Wiktionary, will I probably get a useful definition?" and the answer is yes or "Can I find a piece of media about topic x on Wikimedia Commons?" which is also probably yes. Some projects are still on the way to being as successful as Wikipedia, Wikidata, Commons, and Wiktionary. A person could plausibly find a lot of travel information on Wikivoyage, even if some of it is outdated or partial and there are a lot of freely-available texts on Wikisource, even if there's still a long ways to go before it's a general-interest library of all freely-available sources, but you can find a lot of the biggest classics of literature, many famous speeches, etc. This level of success also applies to Wikispecies and Wikiquote. Wikibooks and Wikiversity are a step below that, where there is very uneven content, but some useful material that could plausibly lead to someone learning about a topic (e.g. b:en:Cookbook and several of the better textbooks or v:en:Bloom Clock). Wikinews is ultimately a failure. The problem is that Wikinews is inherently unlike these other projects, where if it takes time to build up a dictionary or a travel guide or what have you, you can make those reference works and libraries over time and progress can be steady and linear or even something like exponential growth if there is a network effect or something goes viral. Unfortunately, if news stories are not written in a timely fashion, they are no longer news at all. News events keep on happening and Wikinews only ever falls further behind in being a document of current affairs. So the answer to the question "Could someone be reasonably informed about what's going on in the world by reading Wikinews?" is obviously no. That said, there is no actual harm done by continuing to host Wikinews and it's not in any way different from the other sister projects in its scope and alignment with WMF goals and values. It could maybe be compared to Wikifunctions to the extent that the boundaries of what could be content there is virtually infinite and the projects are developing very slowly compared to the mammoth ocean of possible things there, but I think there's utility in the activity for those who want to put forth the effort and in principle, these are good and useful projects for being an educated person. Citizen journalism is a public good and having this as an option for it, even if it's not used as much or in the way we'd like shouldn't stop us from having this element of the Wikimedia movement entirely. Projects that have too little content and too small of a community should be moved to Incubator and ones that are generally limping along should be kept open for if and when someone wants to put forth the effort. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:01, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Dlaczego nie zamknięto polskiej wersji Wikinews

Nie będę się wygłupiać i pisać w nie swoim języku, bo nie wyrażę dobrze tego, co chcę przekazać.

• Wystarczyła grupa kilku aktywnych użytkowników, aby w ciągu 3-4 lat zwiększyć zarówno liczbę edycji, liczbę nowych artykułów, jak i kilkukrotnie zwiększyć oglądalność (tu po odsianiu spiderów i innych automatów).
• Podejście do tworzenia encyklopedii jest takie, że nie zamieszcza się w niej bieżączki na podstawie serwisów newsowych, w których nie sprawdza się tego, co się pisze. Jedyne co w takim przypadku można zrobić, to własne krytyczne przeanalizowanie tego, co się dzieje, a to już jest OR i tak więc trzeba czekać na dobre źródła wtórne. Jedynym miejscem na OR pozostaje więc serwis newsowy i do tego zachęca się użytkowników, których hasła o bieżących wydarzeniach się usuwa.
• Prawdopodobnie liczba newsów mogłaby wzrosnąć, gdyby można było hasła o bieżących wydarzeniach importować przed ich usunięciem, ale tu blokadą jest niekompatybilność licencji.
• Paradoksalnie brak możliwości wsparcia – ze względu na to że jest to serwis przeznaczony do tego, aby go nie wspierać instytucjonalnie – doprowadził do tego, że grupa użytkowników wypracowała własne pomysły i mechanizmy działania, łącznie z automatyzacją aktualizacji newsów na stronie głównej i paru innymi rozwiązaniami. Wprowadzono też pewne rozwiązania, które są korzystniejsze dla serwisu informacyjnego, np. sortowanie w kategoriach ze względu na czas utworzenia newsa, zamiast sortowania alfabetycznego.

Problemem en Wikinews stało się to, że poszło w stronę Nupedii – ciut za wcześnie zaczęto ograniczać możliwość bezpośredniego tworzenia newsów bez konieczności ich przyklepania przez osoby z odpowiednimi uprawnieniami, które się po prostu zdezaktywowały. Coś takiego można zrobić, gdy się osiągnie masę krytyczną, czego tu zabrakło. Jeśli więc chcecie coś zamykać, to zamknijcie serwisy w tych wersjach językowych, w których społeczności nie potrafią stworzyć zespołów potrafiących ze sobą współpracować w celu usprawniania działania serwisu newsowego. A z przedstawionych pomysłów najbardziej nieszczęśliwy to ten, aby integrować serwis z czymś zewnętrznym. Takie pomysły WMF miała już wcześniej, czego skutkiem jest chociażby pozbycie się ze swych serwerów LanguageTool, które było dobrym otwartym projektem do językowej poprawy treści, ale sprawdzono że nikt nie korzysta w wersji angielskiej, więc założono, że nikt w ogóle z tego nie korzysta. To niestety zgubne, gdy się zakłada, że jest się pępkiem świata. Pomysł z tworzeniem nowej przestrzenie nazw też jest niewypałem. W polskiej wersji Wikipedii całkiem niedawno zdezaktywowano portale i prawdopodobnie zdezaktywowane będą niedługo wikiprojekty. Czekam na odpowiedzi, postaram się coś odcedzić z korpogadki, która zapewne za chwilę się tu pojawi. Sławek Borewicz (talk) 05:13, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Put it to rest

Look, we tried :) It didn't work over too many years and with too many different communities. The reasons are many and diverse. I think that Wikimedia's major strength and value is providing reliable information to the world. We can't afford to continue experimenting with a not-well-working news site, especially without any outlook that this will change. Not us, not us, not in this day and age. I am not saying that there can never be successful Wikimedia project that focuses on newsworthy content. But it won't be Wikinews. Dimi z (talk) 07:54, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, what about Wikinews isn't reliable? It often isn't timely, it's got minimal output, but what of it isn't reliable? -- Zanimum (talk) 01:37, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

That, IMO, is oversimplifying the issues. The reasons are many and diverse. Wikinews often isn't timely, it output is minimal but what it is reliable! Closing it does not solve the problems. It only hides Wikipedia's future problem. Matthiasb (talk) 08:18, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Too many topics on this talk-page

Hello ! I think that they are too many topics on this talk-page.
It would be non-sensical to put my opinion on each threads for which I have an interest.
It would be unreadable. So , I did created this topic to synthetise my opinion.

I did never contributed to any linguistical version of Wikinews.
I say this because I consider it should be taken into account.
I consider that it is better to get opinions among those with at least one edit on a "Wikinews project".

My contributions on Wikimedia projects are primarily on "French language Wikipedia" and "English language Wikipedia" , "Wikidata" and "Commons".

If you want to know all project with at least one edit by myself. You can read my userpage on Wikidata. : https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Anatole-berthe

Opinion :
* Restructure how Wikinews works and is linked to other current events efforts on the projects.
I haven't an opinion concerning a restructuration because I don't know how it can be restructured.
I'm not saying it could not be restructured. I'm saying that I don't know because I haven't such ideas about how to restructure.

* Merge content of Wikinews into the relevant language Wikipedias, possibly in a new namespace.
The idea is interesting.
If it is done. It should be in a new namespace because the content of "Wikinews" can contain "Original Research".
In my knowledge , "Original Research" is prohibited on all Wikipedias.

As we can't keep "Original Research" in the encyclopedic namespace. Create a new namespace seems to me necessary in the case of a merge.

* Merge content into compatibly-licensed external projects.
I consider that it's not write in a clear way.
Does "external" means out of "Wikimedia" or "merge with a project of Wikimedia" ?

I interpret "external" with the next meaning. "out of Wikimedia".
In this case , why not if this project cease to be maintained ?

If my interpretation is not right and that the meaning is "merge with a project of Wikimedia".
Read what I wrote above concerning "* Merge content of Wikinews into the relevant language Wikipedias, possibly in a new namespace.".

* Archive Wikinews projects.
If this project cease to be maintained. I think that archiving is the better choice if it is not merged outside of Wikimedia.
I prefer archiving that merge it with a Wikimedia project. Anatole-berthe (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

 Support Fourmidable (talk) 10:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

 Support Pharos (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

 Support Sohom (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

If this project is archived ? Who will host the archives ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 04:58, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

My experience

I participated at some point in el-wikinews. After trying, I was put off by stringent structure, strict rules and a general attitude which drove me away. In practice, even the people who enforced these rules designed to break the moral even for the experienced wikipedians, they left. So, in effect, this meant "no new users will be tolerated", "experienced users will be driven to desperation" trying to make the project fit to the highest standards expected from seasoned journalists. Of course, no time to edit, as this is news. No wonder the project died. No merging to Wikipedia please. Archive it if you want. FocalPoint (talk) 09:55, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I've had the same expierience with Russian Wikinews, but, sadly, this problem exists not only there but in all low-attendance project, Wikinews just made it worse. Fundamental problem here IMO is the fact that when some Wikinews and Wikipedia articles can take the same time and effort to make from scratch, actuality of a Wikinews one is far shorter than Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia) one. That in practice lead the projects by two different ways: either to have relatively low article count with no even closely full news coverage, or to make bot uploads from other news websites released under the free licence (like Krassotkin did for some time until WMF told him to stop multiple times). So the overall idea of Wikinews seems unreal for me. To maintain some good coverage any news platform should have a small army of paid topic editors and, probably, writers, and that goes against the Wikimedia principles. Красный^{wanna talk?} 10:55, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

@Красный, you are probably right. I can tell you, however, how Wikinews was useful for me: I wrote a few articles on news about Wikipedia community actions in Greece (It was two or three). Original news (written by me), limited interest (only to Wikipedians, not all of them too), but still, Wiki-movement related. This could be an idea, without even renaming the project: Wikinews = News about Wikipedia projects. FocalPoint (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, FocalPoint, I mostly did the same, but I'm afraid that limiting Wikinews to "News on Wikimedia movement" will lead to merging Wikinews into Meta, probably "News" namespace, similar to "Events" one. Красный^{wanna talk?} 15:04, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

@Красный, it might, but in the end, Wikinews is dead (at least el-Wikinews), so choosing where to bury the dead body, or whether to burn it, is an unpleasant experience, but its dead anyway, it will not change anything. It is just a ritual that we need to go through. Bury the body, pay the undertaker, inform the authorities and maybe mourn the dead if you were close. Just like any other death. And life goes on. FocalPoint (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Completely agree with FocalPoint, el.wikinews is totally dead. Archive it but DO NOT merge it with Wikipedia - no need for that. 2A02:587:724F:2A00:929:727D:C230:1263 19:59, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

It does need a couple of active editors. Five to ten could make it. I guess that about ten active users is the treshold for a self sustaining project. Matthiasb (talk) 08:15, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

WRONG: "limiting Wikinews to "News on Wikimedia movement" will lead to merging Wikinews into Meta, probably "News" namespace, similar to "Events" one."

RIGHT: "Meta", with its ", probably "News" namespace, similar to "Events" one", will EXPAND to Wikinews as a section dedicated "to "News on Wikimedia movement""

Think not about LIMITING, think about EXPANDING, otherwise you are a not good Wikipedian -- Ssr (talk) 16:28, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

My perspective on Wikinews

Wikinews is failing to deliver across many fields. It was created at time when online journalism was not yet “a thing” on a wider scale, and has since become obsolete in the light of blogs, vlogs, podcasts and other elements of the recent Web (r)evolution that also impact other sisters. The Web is drowning in news feeds and commentary.

Out of the proposed action paths, complete restructuring of the project seems least viable. The idea behind WIkinews will always be a news portal – what new can be developed here? Automatic translations of free-licensed news items from national news agencies around the world which are not copyrighted in many jurisdictions? Everyone is sharing them, besides there will be little community input there. I cannot see an alternative for a community-driven news portal that will stand out and become a strong market player at this age.

Merging into WIkipedias fires of a series of red flags with me. Wikinews and journalism in general do not follow the verifiability principle, which has been indicated as a strong pillar to maintain by the Foundation in its projects. Introducing original research and accounts of a reporter’s experience will seriously impact that pillar and this is what we want to avoid. Current goings-on are actually included in many articles, which might look odd a few years later – let’s remember that Wikipedia is an all-purpose encyclopaedia which is characterized by a certain degree of generality, so encountering a sentence on when the Queen of England first appeared publicly without a facemask during the COVID-19 pandemic seems odd. At least such insertions into the articles are often verified with a reference, though.

Find a new home – Wikimedia model of creating content is unique to the point where an outside stakeholder might not be interested in the project for not knowing how to handle this.

With sadness, I conclude that Wikinews is a project that needs to be archived, freeing up a lot of resources both within the Foundation and among the community members, if we are to strengthen the Wikimedia brand worldwide. Right now, Wikinews is not the shining example of such a strong project if a large edition has news items on its front page that reach over a week back. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 10:03, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Please note "published free-licensed news items" would meet the scope of Wikisource. So if we want a mirror of Voice of America articles, Wikisource would be a better place. GZWDer (talk) 10:44, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for that! It's a valid voice - still this would pertain to a rather limited scope of material that might be utilised on WikiSource. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 11:11, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, why wouldn't the entire contents of Wikinews be welcomed on Wikisource? It's a digital library of textual sources, but that's basically because you're not storing scans. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:45, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikisource is a digital library of free texxtual sources. Those are CC-BY in some way. Or they are 70 years pma. So, give or take some years, it are mostly newspapers publisher in the 1920's which can be transcribed and republished on Wikisource. In German Wikisource that won't happen any time soon. We're still correcting the Gartenlaube magazines published in the late 19th century. Matthiasb (talk) 08:13, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikinews articles are CC-BY-2.5 from 2005 to December 15, 2024, and CC-BY-4.0 from December 16, 2024 onward. While many articles will use copyrighted material as a source, but information itself isn't copyrightable. There are fair use images in a limited number of articles, but they're rare, and the official rule of preference is that bad but free is preferred to good but copyrighted.

And I know it isn't either currency of the content, or editorial standards, as Wikisource has Interview to Tucker Carlson, copied off the website of the Kremlin. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

"entire contents of Wikinews be welcomed on Wikisource" - Wikisource only include news article already published elsewhere. It does not accept original creation. GZWDer (talk) 10:10, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikinews articles are published elsewhere. You wouldn't be able to create a new news article on Wikisource, but what is the difference between this interview from a zine, on Wikisource, and this interview with a video game programmer, the co-inventor of the Internet, TV talent show finalists, or Shimon Peres? -- Zanimum (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, but not entirely, some interviews or feature articles may not be timely but obviously have great value, as long as they are stable, they can be a week old. In addition, if the plan is really shut down, some articles can also be considered to be transferred to the Wikisource right. Sheminghui.WU (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

"With sadness, I conclude that Wikinews is a project that needs to be archived, freeing up a lot of resources both within the Foundation and among the community members, if we are to strengthen the Wikimedia brand worldwide." What kind of resources? WP:NOTPAPER. How will it free community members resources? I will not edit Wikipedia in the languages I don't know anyway, and I think other users too. BilboBeggins (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Low activity projects which receive low quality edits and which sometimes are so small they cannot maintain active admin force need the attention of the monitoring teams. There is also a technical side of things - maintaining the wikis, updating, sometimes custom scripts break when MediaWiki gets updated - I have seen main pages of abandoned projects look worse than houses that were not cleaned for a year. Making sure that new mechanisms (new Vector, technical solutions) do not break the readibility of the wiki. I will not edit Wikinews in languages I don't know - only thing I do in unknown language wikis is insert a new photo if I take one that fits better than the one which is there, and I am not asking anyone to edit outside their linguistic comfort zone. Around the time I proposed the closure of Polish Wikinews it was also strongly discrepant from other Wikimedia wikis and from the Internet as a whole in terms of devices. While the usage of mobile devices was 50%+, for pl.wikinews it was as low as 10% which means that the main viewers were the editors. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 21:22, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, next to zero resources have been put into Wikinews by the Wikimedia Foundation. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

+1000. Matthiasb (talk) 08:13, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

+1001 -- Ssr (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this. At English Wikinews, we have in the past considered outside grants to help: Grant project for Wikinews. There are several good ideas in that proposal for how resources could benefit the project. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 13:40, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

No bardzo ciekawe to ujęcie o chęci unikania original research. Dopóki można się było zaprezentować, nie wspominając o zaangażowaniu w tłumaczenia różnych ORów z wersji angielskiej, to tego problemu nie było. A z innej beczki, to wydawało mi się, że Wikicytaty szybciej zamknięcie, bo bardziej was drażnią. Sławek Borewicz (talk) 06:12, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Tłumaczenia

Gdzie i kiedy będą dostępne tłumaczenia raportu na wszystkie języki Wikimediów aby konsultacje mogły zostać rozpoczęte? Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 11:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Marku, zgadzam się z Tobą, że takie tłumaczenia powinny być zrobione i dostępne (albo powinien być wyznaczony jakiś czas na przetłumaczenie ich przez społeczność przed oficjalnym rozpoczęciem konsultacji). Wiem, że tłumaczenie na wszystkiejęzyki Wikimediów byłoby dosyć trudne logistycznie i czasochłonne, ale przynajmniej w krajach, gdzie działają lokalne stowarzyszenia byłoby zapewne wykonalne (to nie jest długi dokument). Można by też pomyśleć o informowaniu zainteresowanych społeczności (wszystkich wersji Wikinews) o możliwości tłumaczenia. Uważam, że chociaż powinna być myśl w tą stronę i podstawowe starania. Uważam, że zakładanie, że wszyscy powinni i potrafią komunikować się po angielsku jest błędne, krzywdzące, marginalizujące. AnnaPruszkowianka (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Who is participating in the discussion?

It is surprising that the participants of the discussion are not themselves participants of Wikinews.
I have always been surprised that Wikinews is discussed and condemned by those who do nothing in Wikinews themselves.
This reminds me very much of the Soviet Union (which is a significant part of my life): in the USSR, everyone always took part in the discussion, but not those who were directly related to the topic.
Instead of asking: why is Wikinews less popular? why are there so few authors? what are the difficulties for the reader? and so on. And instead, the suggestion immediately arises: let's close it.
This is a very bad sign. This means that tomorrow other small projects will be closed. And then they will start closing Wikipedias in small languages. VladimirPF (talk) 12:45, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

"And then they will start closing Wikipedias in small languages" or... Maybe they will start merging Wikipedia in every languages in a single multi-language Wikipedia. I am considering this because recent growth of Wikipedia and evolution of AI are leading it to that possible outcome. Mehedi Abedin (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm a former participant of Ru-WN. FocalPoint is a former participant of El-WN. Also to mention that we should act here as a whole movement deciding do we want to allocate resources and effort on this project. I think we can manage a good discussion with that. Красный^{wanna talk?} 15:31, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Speaking on the overall idea of Wikinews I can copy my message from down below: Fundamental problem here IMO is the fact that when some Wikinews and Wikipedia articles can take the same time and effort to make from scratch, actuality of a Wikinews one is far shorter than Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia) one. That in practice lead the projects by two different ways: either to have relatively low article count with no even closely full news coverage, or to make bot uploads from other news websites released under the free licence (like Krassotkin did for some time until WMF told him to stop multiple times). So the overall idea of Wikinews seems unreal for me. To maintain some good coverage any news platform should have a small army of paid topic editors and, probably, writers, and that goes against the Wikimedia principles. Красный^{wanna talk?} 15:35, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I am a participant. So is @Asked42, @Heavy Water, @Darkfrog24, @Gryllida, @Leaderboard, @RockerballAustralia to name a few. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 23:09, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I would say that a Wikinews article is short and meant to give a more or less complete understanding of the given event that is its subject. Wikinews articles are long and often interconnected. The reader must or at least often feels the need to read article after article to understand the answer to their original question. In this way, Wikinews offers the reader a service distinct from Wikipedia.

• Allow readers to request articles on given subjects.
• Streamline the review process (many options).
• Streamline onboarding of new drafters (many options).

Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:45, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Gryllida happened to be away these past few days :(, I just published our collaborative news piece on zhwikinews by myself ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 09:15, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Dear Vladimir, you are absolutely right. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 09:12, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I do not think that participation in Wikinews is required to evaluate this project. Furthermore, if the personal opinion is negative (and there a lot of users like that; full disclosure: I was in this camp since the very beginning of Wikinews), then this person will naturally neither contribute to, nor use the project. There is a very big difference between "other small projects" and Wikinews: most projects are like books, Wikinews are like newspapers. By now it IMHO it is clear that the latter paradigm does not work using lots of amateur volunteer contributors. To begin with, there are very few volunteers. But there are other issues:

• if I want to publish a local news article, I can easily submit it to a local media outlet (this is not hard);
• if I want to publish a journalism piece on an important (i.e., non-local) issue, I would most likely need to do a lot of travel, et access to the sources, etc.). Without a solid outfit behind me, it is impossible. Writing about a non-local issue by re-hashing other publication is IMHO recipe for "yesterday's news";
• in general, news are original research in Wikipedia term, and WMF is successful in places where OR is not needed.

Викидим (talk) 09:43, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

My view from a young zhwikinews editer 维闻

我是中文维基新闻上一个较为年轻的资深编者（获认证的记者）。我们的社群规模的确很小，近几个月也不太活跃，即使是英文维基新闻对我们来说也是十分活跃的社群。但我并不认为这应该成为关闭维基新闻的理由，我同时在很多小维基（姊妹专案）活动，中文维基新闻的有效文章产出绝不是最低的，该动议得出的结论可能有些片面。

同时，维基新闻并没有辜负她作为一个共笔的自由的新闻源的使命，事实上我没有在市面上看到任何她的替代品。由于她或多或少的草根性质和有限的社群，她目前可能不会长期产出高质量的原创新闻，但原创新闻也一直是有的，有时候速度还比其他主流媒体要快，准确性也没出过什么问题，至少中文维基是这样。拿我个人来讲，本人手里就还有两篇采访稿没有整理，最近正准备着手编辑发布（并预计同步至日维英维和中维），从这一点来说维基新闻做到了她该做的。

另外，维基新闻有着一批活跃和负责任的骨干用户（虽然很少，确实有，需要增加但也可以增加），也在很多地方（如中文各姊妹专案前段时间通过的汇入政策更改）中体现了自己的独立性（维基新闻因其性质而没有通过与其他姊妹专案一样的政策），与其他姊妹专案（如中文维基百科的新闻模块）也有着长期的合作历史。不同语言的维基新闻交流也很广泛，如英维的Sveta小姐就经常与我（主要在中维活动）一同编辑、交流新闻并约定相互翻译。我们也有着稳定的cross-language交流平台。

总而言之，个人不是很赞同该页面的说法和并入维基百科等等议案，维基新闻是一个优秀且有意义的姊妹专案，更何况已经取得了很多成就（一些独特的新闻）。已经有一些语言的维基新闻被关闭，但主要是因为长期完全无正常贡献并被稳定破坏、发布不可靠信息，影响恶劣，取得社群共识后被关闭，可大多数语言（中文日文英文等等）的维基新闻并没有这些问题，完全不该被关闭也没必要合并。维基新闻社群也一直在积极的尝试更好的工作模式，如这几天英文维基新闻的Future of Wikinews系列讨论等。

English Translation(just machine translate):

I am a relatively young but senior editor (certified reporter) on Chinese Wikinews. It's true our community is small and hasn't been very active in recent months. Even English Wikinews seems highly active by our standards. However, I don't believe this should be grounds for shutting down Wikinews. I am active in many small wikis (sister projects), and Chinese Wikinews' effective article output is certainly not the lowest. The conclusions drawn by that motion seem somewhat one-sided.

Furthermore, Wikinews has not failed in its mission as a crowdsourced, free news source. In fact, I haven't seen any real alternatives in the market that match it. Due to its somewhat grassroots nature and limited community, it might not consistently produce high-quality original news in the long term at this stage, but original news reporting does exist. Sometimes, the speed even surpasses mainstream media, and accuracy hasn't been a significant issue, at least on Chinese Wikinews. Speaking personally, I currently have two interview transcripts awaiting organization and editing for publication(and is expected to be translated into Japanese, English and Chinese). From this perspective, Wikinews is fulfilling its intended role.

Additionally, Wikinews has a core group of active and responsible contributors(not much, but do, need but could improve). We have demonstrated our independence in various contexts (for example, the recent changes to the import policy passed by various Chinese-language sister projects, where Wikinews maintained its own distinct policy due to its nature). We also have a long history of collaboration with other sister projects (such as the news module on Chinese Wikipedia). Cross-language exchange between different Wikinews editions is also extensive. For instance, Ms. Sveta from English Wikinews often collaborates with me (primarily active on Chinese Wikinews) on editing, discussing news, and arranging mutual translations. We also have stable cross-language communication platforms.

In summary, I personally disagree with the arguments presented on that page and proposals like merging into Wikipedia. Wikinews is, overall, an excellent and meaningful sister project. This is especially true considering the significant achievements already made by some editions (some unique news). While some language editions of Wikinews have been closed, this was primarily due to long-term complete lack of normal contributions coupled with sustained vandalism, publishing unreliable information causing severe harm, and closure achieved through community consensus. However, the majority of language editions (such as Chinese, Japanese, English, etc.) do not suffer from these problems. They should by no means be shut down, nor is merging necessary. The Wikinews community is also actively exploring better working models, as seen in the recent "Future of Wikinews" series of discussions on English Wikinews, among other initiatives. Thanks ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 12:52, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

至于“缺少维基流程”的一些质疑也不是很站得住脚，维基文库一样是录入校对后就基本不再改动了，只是维基新闻由于其性质和作用会有一个自动的全保护而已。仅就我个人而言，我所发布的大多数新闻文章都是与其他编者所合作的如Kitabc先生，即使是维基百科一篇文章的主要编者也就只有那么几位，就这点来说并没有什么大的区别。英维最近也搞了ping用户组的新尝试旨在进一步促进文章的维基协作。我并不认为模式本身有悖于该网站的使命，至于是否有更好的模式我等待各位进一步的讨论。

As for the doubts about the "lack of wiki process" doesn't hold that much water either. Wikisource functions similarly – content is primarily entered, proofread, and then largely left unchanged. The key difference with Wikinews is that due to its nature and purpose, articles are automatically fully protected after publication. This is a practical measure, not an indication that wiki collaboration doesn't occur.

Speaking from my own experience, the majority of news articles I've published involved collaboration with other editors, such as Mr. Kitabc. Also, even on Wikipedia, it's common for an article to have only a few primary contributors. In this respect, the collaborative process isn't fundamentally different from other wiki projects where core work on a page might also be done by a small group.

enwn has also recently launched a new attempt at a ping user group in order to further promote wiki collaboration on articles. I don't think the current model itself goes against the mission of the website. As for whether there is a better model, I await further discussion. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

另外我个人是很反对一刀切的。如果有一个计划的一个语言版本完全不合格而有必要被关闭，那就去关闭，但即使是一个计划所有的语言版本都必须被关闭了，也应该是一个个讨论一个个关闭掉，最终该计划消失。也许WN一些语言版本的情况会在接下来的一段时间有所改善，也许有的语言版本还有其存在的意义，哪怕有一个也不该关掉整个计划，哪个计划不是从寥寥几个甚至一个语言版本发展而来的呢？在接下来对其他的计划进行审查时也许也应该这样In addition, I personally am very opposed to a one-size-fits-all approach. If a language version of a plan is completely unqualified and needs to be closed imediately, then close it, but even if all language versions of a plan must be closed, they should be discussed one by one and closed one by one, and eventually the plan will disappear. Maybe the situation of some language versions of WN will improve in the next period of time, and maybe some language versions still have their meaning of existence. Even if there is only one, the entire plan should not be closed. Which plan did not develop from a few or even one language version? Maybe this should also be done when reviewing other plans in the future.~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Please note even if Wikinews is active, it is a question that whether it should continue to be hosted in Wikimedia. GZWDer (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this is up for further discussion. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

But I don't understand, if it is being considered for incorporation into Wikipedia, why can't it be hosted by the Wikimedia? ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 14:58, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Why hosting is the problem? Is this for limited resources? If yes, then can anyone give us assurance that the same proposal people would not make for other projects in future? If not, then I it doesn't make sense because Wikimedia movement is not business/corporate initiatives. Mehedi Abedin (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

To be honest, the maintenance cost of WN is really very small... negligible in comparison (I mean a large Wikipedia has more userbox pages than this. Why not just ban all community culture?;) ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 03:24, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, even though institutional improvements are only just being discussed, I believe that each community has good small ideas for improvement, and we should trust that. Sheminghui.WU (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Having weathered this round of reviews, it's clear that different language versions of WN need more cooperation and communication—sometimes, you could even say, they need to huddle together for warmth. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 23:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

首先，维基新闻作为一个新闻媒体，她的使命一是更新时事，二是存档时事，为他人提供一个可靠、自由、中立（常常涵盖多方观点和引文）的新闻来源以供研究引用和参考，从这一点来说，即使是较低的更新频率也不会使得维基新闻失去其意义。如果诸位还认同并且相信维基媒体运动的自由中立，那么目前还没有什么是能替代维基新闻的。其次维基新闻上的专访和专题文章并没有时效性。

First of all, as a news media, Wikinews' one mission is to update current events and another mission is to archive current events, providing others with a reliable, free, neutral (often covering multiple viewpoints and citations) news source for research, citation and reference. From this point of view, even a lower update frequency will not make Wikinews lose its significance. If you still agree and believe with the freedom and neutrality of the Wikimedia movement, then there is currently nothing that can replace Wikinews. Secondly, the interviews and feature articles on Wikinews are not timely. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 02:32, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I personally hope everyone will continue to give Wikinews a fair chance and carefully consider the issue of her life and death. 希望各位能继续给予维基新闻公平的机会，并慎重考虑她的生死存亡问题。--Sheminghui.WU (talk) 09:10, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@Sheminghui.WU對於“维基文库一样是录入校对后就基本不再改动了”，閣下錯了，真的錯了，維基文庫內容並不是錄入校隊後就不會再改動了，她們的內容需要定期審閱版本情況，並跟隨最新版本對既有錄入內容進行修正。(For "Wikisource functions similarly – content is primarily entered, proofread, and then largely left unchanged." your excellency are wrong, really wrong, Wikinews contents are not unchanged later than entered and proofread, she need their contents to dynamically review the edition/version, and follow the current one to amend the entered contents.) Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

谢谢您的补充。但维基新闻也有着持续的事实核查和改正机制，例如柳惠千任中华民国驻英公使引发争议 私烟案记过仍获提拔（一个昨天的例子）。您说的维基文库此类机制似乎也不过是定期的检查和更新，而且据我所知一篇文献的多个版本本就会同时出现在维基文库。按照您的叙述，是不是那些稳定的古文就不需要再变更了呢？维基新闻和维基文库当然不完全一样，因为我们搞得是两样东西，这是只是由于维基新闻是维基新闻而非文库而导致的。

Thank you for your supplement. But Wikinews also has a continuous fact-checking and correction mechanism, such as Liu Huiqian's appointment as the Republic of China's ambassador to the UK caused controversy. She was punished for the smuggling of cigarettes but was still promoted(an example just from yesterday). The Wikisource mechanism you mentioned seems to be just a regular check and update, and as far as I know, multiple versions of a document will appear in Wikisource at the same time. According to your description, do those stable ancient texts no longer need to be changed? Wikinews and Wikisource are of course not exactly the same, because we are doing two different things, which is only due to the fact that Wikinews is Wikinews and not a library or Source. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

还有一个很现实的问题就是，如果WN开了被整个关闭的先例，Wikibooks和Voyage, Versity等等上的内容也会面临着危险，这对于很多人来说是未曾想象过的。这确实是需要考虑的事情。Another very realistic problem is that if WN sets a precedent of being completely shut down, the content on Wikibooks, Voyage, Versity, etc. will also be in danger, which is unimaginable before for many people. This is indeed a thing that needs to be considered.Sheminghui.WU (talk) 03:14, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Artykuł(y) na Wikinews o tym raporcie

Na polskojęzycznej wersji Wikinews mamy artykuł o tym raporcie / tej dyskusji. Czy któraś inna wersja językowa też zamierza odnotować? AnnaPruszkowianka (talk) 13:14, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

• n:pl:Propozycja zamknięcia Wikinews na podstawie raportu od Sister Projects Task Force

Opinion of Wikinews admin

I am administrator of one of the Wikinews projects, namely Russian Wikinews. I am against closing Wikinews. I can not quite grasp how Wikipedia and Wikinews are supposed to be merged, because they are different projects with different rules, different paradigms. I learned about this discussion and the possibility of Wikinews being shut down only today, from the news article on Wikinews. Being also active user on a number of Wikipedian projects. Which speaks for itself. Why the fate of Wikinews is being decided without knowledge of Wikinews community. Why did this posibility arise without discussion with Wikinews community in the first place? BilboBeggins (talk) 14:08, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

IMO we should decide here as a whole movement do we want to allocate resources and effort there. And there are already some number of former WN participants (me, for example). It's normal that active participants are defending the project, but I still see more former ones and some inconsistensies in the overall idea of the project that I've voiced after the ban of Krassotkin. I'm not glad that the projects will be closed, but IMO if there's some need to cut the corners, Wikinews is a first candidate. Maybe, Wikibooks will be next, maybe not. Красный^{wanna talk?} 15:44, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Nonsens. I, an admin in German WP btw., an deciding how I spent my personal resources. If we close Wikinews I won't use my time or even my muse for Wikipedia. God beware! It is a fatal error to think closing Wikinews would move people's activity to Wikipedia or another WM project. Indeed, freed-up time I would use for anything but Wikipedia. Matthiasb (talk) 08:07, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

As long as we all have to stand for what the sister project Wikinews does, your argument doesn't hold water. Of course, you can decide what you do with your free time. But the Wikimedia community can certainly decide whether to provide you with the platform to do so. I've long since stopped wanting people "out there" to lump Wikinews and Wikipedia (and other functioning sister projects) together. I don't want to have to put my name on Wikinews, which I'm currently doing unintentionally. Marcus Cyron (talk) 14:59, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

As long as we all have to stand for what the sister project Wikinews does,That’s an interesting perspective. What makes you feel that you’re being held accountable for what sister projects like Wikinews do?

I don't want to have to put my name on Wikinews, which I'm currently doing unintentionally.I’m curious, how do you see that happening in practice? I ask because, for example, I didn’t notice an account of yours on en.WN. I’d like to understand better what you mean. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

"we should decide here as a whole movement do we want to allocate resources and effort there" the resources and efforts are allocated by me, I spent my time there, I block vandals.

Former Wikinews editors can come to Wikinews, edit and create content at any time. BilboBeggins (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I am the administrator of the Wikinews project in Russian and I am also against both closing the project and merging it with Wikipedia. Firstly, news is clearly not a format for Wikipedia, so the forced infusion of news articles into Wikipedia will generate conflicts and in the long run will simply lead to their deletion. Secondly, the issue of the quality of articles and bot-uploads can be resolved by active editors, of which there are quite a few in Wikinews. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Why Wikinews?

Why did you choose Wikinews and not Wikivoyage, Wikibooks or Wikiversity? After all, no one uses them and they have minimal reach (at least in the Polish language version). For example, pl.wikinews has significant reach (~700,000 views of pl.wikinews in May this year), indicated in the thread above by Sławek Borewicz (stats). Using pl.wikinews as an example: we have active editors, several, and sometimes a dozen or so articles a day, many new ideas for developing Wikinews, etc. So why close something that people actively use and that is clearly useful? Any ideas of merging Wikinews with Wikipedia are absurd and would lead to the loss of any sense of Wikinews. I suggest not changing anything - the current situation is good and does not require any discussion. BZPN (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Exactly, but actually they are probably nexthh, I really have to say that despite being a contributor to Books, Wikinews is definitely doing better than Wikibooks ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikivoyage and Wikibooks are like books, and it is still potentially useful even the community vanished. However, Wikinews is much less useful if no new contents are regularly added. GZWDer (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

We have original reporting and interviews, featured news, although they are few and far between, and the vast majority of the knowledge on Wikibook has complete alternatives, and the Internet is now flooded with tutorials and online courses. and I mean, wikibook will probably be the next ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

There are many featured books on English Wikibooks, so Wikibooks (as a whole) will not be closed. dringsim 17:37, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

There are many featured articles on English Wikinews, so what's your point? -- Zanimum (talk) 01:47, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

featured articles are not that useful if no new ones are added. GZWDer (talk) 08:28, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Why? Featured articles are helpful for researching topics. Heck, even nonfeatured articles are helpful for researching. That is not a valid point you're trying to make. Matthiasb (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

If certain language versions of Wikinews do not have regularly appearing new content and are inactive, then we have a procedure for closing inactive wikis. The fact that one version is inactive does not mean that all Wikinews projects should be closed and terminated. BZPN (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

pl.wikinews has significant reach (~700,000 views of pl.wikinews in May this year), indicated in the thread above by Sławek Borewicz (stats) - note that this number is likely vastly inflated by undetected bot traffic, see phab:T395934 and [7].

More generally, it seems like you haven't had a chance yet to read the review document, which casts significant doubt on the something that people actively use and that is clearly useful interpretation by looking at Google Search Console data:

Search engine statistics tell us that users are not searching for and finding relevant information on Wikinews.

To digress a bit: Admittedly, WMF should make such data available to volunteer communities more generally to help them improve their projects, instead of only trotting it out when it comes to closing such projects. I have argued before in a different context that WMF should consider

to make public at least some of the data that Search Console provides to site owners. That should enable community members (especially from smaller projects) to detect [various] issues earlier and in a more systematic fashion [...] And also, to take a broader view, to think more systematically about content aspects of SEO. (Some of the smaller projects have been quite interested in this, see e.g. https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Search_engine_optimization .)
If you are an editor of a non-Wikimedia website, Search Console is a standard tool to help understand where your readers are coming from, how they may be accessing your work and where your site may have issues that prevent them from doing so. There is no reason to assume it couldn't be quite useful for editors on Wikimedia wikis too.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

(1) There is fundamental difference between Wikivoyage, Wikibooks, or Wikiversity and news: the former three exist on a (glacial) timescale that is compatible with Wikipedia. This is no accident: Wikipedia, Wikivoyage, Wikibooks, and Wikiversity all imitate the book publishing process with its incremental iterations, ability to ignore the deadlines, etc. In this model, a group of unpaid volunteers can take on established businesses and offer a competitive encyclopedic product, simply because sooner or later either an expert will come around and straighten the article (in Russia Wikipedia at least, few editors also write articles for paper encyclopedias), or a gifted amateur will rise to the occasion. For this to happen, having an unlimited supply of time is essential. Newsrooms do not work like that: an expression "yesterday's news" indicates something that is not useful anymore. Au contraire, yesterday's information in The books carries no such stigma. Therefore, I can therefore imagine Wikivoyage, Wikibooks, or Wikiversity become real-world winners in the sense that Wikipedia is a winner. The tight deadlines of the news business are mostly antithetical to volunteer work, therefore Wikinews, as a Wikimedia project, cannot offer anything competitive with the real-world media, and the (few) aspiring reporters among us are better off submitting their work to the real news publications (these, based on my experience, are always on the lookout for the good zero-cost content).

(2) Side note: this (IMHO fundamental) incompatibility is also why I think that Wikinews should not be merged into any other Wikimedia project.

(3) For the avoidance of doubt, IMO it might be possible to use the wiki technology for the news, provided that paid editors (in the newspaper, not wiki, sense), travel budgets, media badges, etc. are supplied. But this is a project for Bill Gates' foundation, not the Wikimedia one. Викидим (talk) 07:43, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Honestly I am not understanding all your points. But please take in mind this: While it might take months and years until Wikipedia or Wikivoyage is outdated – which makes parts of the projects really fastly unusable, for exampled when phone numbers or opening hours are outdated – the usage of Wikinews is different. True, a news report from yesterday might not be of interest for the every day user. But still this reports exist for people interested in looking up how things came.

And on the other side, if some weak period (weak in the sens of lack of active users) came to an end, e.g. new fresh motivated people come in, all is changing. There is no need to go back to make updates, because of that's an archive, but they simply write new articles. As you meant: who cares on the old stuff. Simply write new stuff. Matthiasb (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

There is already a way to publish news reports with no deadlines and editorial oversight: any social network allows anybody to do such journalism right now. I am not an expert, but I think that all major platforms do not object to publishing text with a CC0 license slapped on. Викидим (talk) 05:10, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Social networks cannot provide free content that anyone may freely use under some free license. So the social networks are not about the freedom of content!!! -- PereslavlFoto (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

How is it that some bureaucratic commission, based on a statistical report, wants to close a project just like that? After all, en.wikinews or pl.wikinews, for example, are projects with an active, ambitious community that volunteer in their language versions of Wikinews and wants to develop them. You can't just get rid of local communities based on selective statistics from some projects. Will WMF benefit on closing Wikinews? I don't think so. BZPN (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

The notification sent to multiple village pumps on this is very one guyed. It goes along the lines of oh no, there was a guy that created a request to dismantle English wikinews, that was rejected. The community has already said no and the community looks at the consensus, but the Sister Projects taskforce gets one guyed on the guy that proposed it. As far as community conventions go, getting one guyed like that and claiming it to be the will of the community is outright falsification of facts. The entire notification needs an citation needed on every single sentence, and doubly so on all of the bolded ones.

The report on Wikinews by the Sister Projects taskforce just looks at three projects and again looks at one guy at english wikinews and makes assumptions on how bad the project is based on this single guy. Wikinews is in 30 languages, not 3. It assumes that since the large projects have, by their definition, few users, then surely the rest of them must have less. Wrong. Japanese Wikinews has 21 active users despite having 3900 articles and Korean Wikinews has 13 active users despite having 600 articles.

All of this is being proposed by a committee called Sister Projects Task Force, which was created by the Community Affairs Committee. This committee was proposed at Requests for comment/Sister Projects Committee, but then created by Community Affairs committee without having any consensus from said requests for comments, just on a whim. This community affairs commitee is supposed to improve relations with the community, but then just ignores the community and does whatever their members feel like. But wait, it goes a bit further. Most of the first members of the Sister Projects Committee come from the Community Affairs Committee. It is just a power move by a comitee that is supposed to support the community. Yup. I guess the next plan for this Sister Projects committee is to pull another one guyed card and claim that the community wants to dismantle wikinews, when in fact that is just the voice of the minority. Please, leave the WMF communities out of this puppet show of yours and leave this to be handled by the community. I hereby request the Sister Projects committee to be dismantled and anyone that wants to get rid of Wikinews can just propose all 31 projects individually for removal. Yep.--Snævar (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

উইকিসংবাদের ব্যাপারে একটি প্রস্তাব

বাংলায় লেখার জন্য দুঃখিত। বাংলা উইকিপিডিয়ার আলোচনাসভায় দেওয়া নোটিশ দেখে এখানে এসেছি। উইকিসংবাদের একটা বিহিত অবশ্যই হওয়া প্রয়োজন। ভুল হয়ে না থাকলে তিনটি অপশন দেওয়া হয়েছে। এর মধ্যে একটি ছিল উইকিপিডিয়ায় কাস্টম নামস্থান তৈরি করে সেখানে উইকিসংবাদের কনটেন্ট রাখা। আমি এই অপশনকে একটু পরিবর্তন করে প্রস্তাব করতে চাই। যেহেতু আমি ইনকিউবেটরে বাংলা উইকিসংবাদের জন্য অল্প কিছু কাজ করেছি সেহেতু আমার মনে হয় আমার মতামত সাহায্য করতে পারে।

আমরা জানি যে উইকিপিডিয়ায় নিবন্ধের মধ্যে "তথ্যসূত্র" তথা রেফারেন্সেস নামক একটি অংশ থাকে, আর সেখানে আমরা সূত্রগুলো উদ্ধৃত করি। আমরা কী উইকিসংবাদকে এরকম একক কাস্টম সূত্রের ইউনিট হিসেবে গঠন করে নিবন্ধগুলোতে উদ্ধৃত করতে পারি? যেমন, ধরা যাক, একটি নতুন ঘটনা ঘটেছে যার জন্য একাধিক সংবাদপত্র ও ওয়েব পোর্টাল সংবাদ নিবন্ধ প্রকাশ করেছে। আমরা এই সংবাদ নিবন্ধগুলো ব্যবহার করে উইকিপিডিয়ায় "উইকিসংবাদ" নামস্থানে একটি সংবাদ পাতা তৈরি করবো। তারপর সেই পাতাটিকে আমরা বিভিন্ন উইকিপিডিয়া নিবন্ধে সূত্র হিসেবে উদ্ধৃত করতে পারি। এতে করে আমরা "এনরিচড" সংবাদের একটি ক্ষেত্র তৈরি করতে পারি যেটিকে উইকিপিডিয়ায় উদ্ধৃতির জন্য ব্যবহার করা সম্ভব হবে। কিংবা চাইলে আমরা উইকিসংবাদকে বন্ধ না করে এটিকে মাল্টি ল্যাঙ্গুয়েজ প্রজেক্ট হিসেবে ট্রান্সফর্ম করতে পারি (উইকিডাটার মতো)। তারপর সেই মাল্টি ল্যাঙ্গুয়েজ উইকিসংবাদের পাতাগুলোকে বিভিন্ন সহপ্রকল্পের পাতায় সূত্র হিসেবে উদ্ধৃত করতে পারি। এভাবে উইকিসংবাদ হতে পারে সূত্র সংগ্রহ ও সম্পূর্ণ লিখিত সংবাদের একটি কোষ যেটিকে উইকিপিডিয়া, উইকিউক্তি ইত্যাদি সহ যেকোনো সহপ্রকল্পে উদ্ধৃত করা যাবে। তবে উইকিসংবাদের খবর উদ্ধৃত করা বাধ্যতামূলক করা যাবেনা। কিন্তু আমার বিশ্বাস এই উদ্যোগ আমাদের উইকিমিডিয়া আন্দোলনকে ভিন্ন যুগে নিয়ে যেতে পারে যা হবে নতুন ইন্টারনেট যুগের একটি সোপান মাত্র। Mehedi Abedin (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Machine translation: Sorry for writing in Bengali. I came here after seeing the notice given in the Bangla Wikipedia discussion forum. There must be a provision for Wikinews. If I am not mistaken, three options have been given. One of them was to create a custom namespace in Wikipedia and put the content of Wikinews there. I would like to propose a little modification to this option. Since I have done a little work for Bangla Wikinews in the incubator, I think my opinion can help.

We know that in Wikipedia, there is a section called "References" in the article, and there we cite the sources. Can we structure Wikinews as a single custom source unit and cite it in the articles? For example, let's say, a new event has occurred for which multiple newspapers and web portals have published news articles. We will use these news articles to create a news page in Wikipedia in the "Wikinews" namespace. Then we can cite that page as a source in different Wikipedia articles. This way we can create an area of ​​"enriched" news that can be used for citations on Wikipedia. Or if we want, we can transform Wikinews into a multi-language project (like Wikidata) without closing it. Then we can cite those multi-language Wikinews pages as sources in pages of various companion projects. In this way, Wikinews can become a collection of sources and a cell of fully written news that can be cited in any companion project, including Wikipedia, Wikiquote, etc. However, citation of Wikinews news cannot be made mandatory. But I believe this initiative can take our Wikimedia movement to a different era, which will be just a stepping stone to the new Internet age. Mehedi Abedin (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

If it is really to be merged into Wikipedia, this would be an idea worth discussing, but it seems difficult to have the motivation to implement it... ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

If motivation is the only problem in this equation then we can invent online tools that can help to make a unified Wikinews page from sources with help of users. I guess that will reduce editor's workload. And if even that can't motivate us then I don't know what can. Mehedi Abedin (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessarily ideal, as Wikipedia (at least English Wikipedia, I'm not sure about other editions) is pretty strict on the quality of sourcing – another wiki would likely not be considered reliable. "Bundling" already existing sources doesn't bring any benefits as it makes it harder for Wikipedia readers to verify which source specifically is being used. Chaotic Enby (talk) 01:54, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I had previously proposed to merge Wikinews to Wikipedia, and I suggested the "News" namespace for it. I also suggested to give Wikinews links for "In the news" headlines. While I nowadays support a multilingual Wikinews, I don't rule out the possibility of a merger to Wikipedia. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 15:54, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

On English Wikipedia at least, there's been a lot of debate recently about whether "In the news" should even be kept, with en:WP:NOTNEWS being cited as a major reason against it. Linking, on the main page, to a namespace that doesn't follow the usual Wikipedia policies (and isn't a repository of existing article content like Portals) would only make this more problematic. Chaotic Enby (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

ধন্যবাদ, আপনার মতামত এবং পরামর্শ দেওয়ার জন্য। বহুভাষিক উইকিনিউজ বিষয়টি নিয়ে আমি উপরে একটি প্রস্তাব করেছিলাম। আপনি চাইলে সেখানে এই বিষয়ে আপনার ধারণাগুলো যুক্ত করতে পারেন। আমার ধারণায়, উইকিপিডিয়া সঙ্গে মার্জ করার চেয়ে এই একত্রিত বহুভাষিক প্রকল্পটি আরও ভালো এবং উন্নয়নমূলক হবে। তবে হ্যাঁ, যদি এই বহুভাষিক উইকিনিউজ বাস্তবায়ন সম্ভব না হয়, তাহলে সেটি নিয়েও আলোচনা হতে পারে।

English: Thank you for providing your opinion and suggestions. I had proposed the idea of a multilingual Wikinews project earlier. If you’d like, you could share your thoughts on that proposal as well. In my view, a unified multilingual project would be better and more development-oriented than merging it with Wikipedia. However, yes if the multilingual Wikinews is not feasible, then that too can be a topic for discussion. Asked42 (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Value of Wikinews vs Wikipedia

I have noticed that English Wikinews articles are written to be self-contained, to tell the whole story or at least a whole story of a single event. The reader almost never has to click to this other article and that other article and yet another article to understand what is in front of them, as is the case with many Wikipedia articles. Perhaps we should remember this.

Have contributors to Wikinews and Wikipedia in other languages noticed the same difference? Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and that make sense. Because the purpose of Wikipedia and Wikinews are not same. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and Wikinews is an news repository. And honestly, Wikinews can be a better project if we can make some changes that can bring more visitors (significantly). Mehedi Abedin (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

It's also a case that Wikinews describes things in the moment, and can focus on niche areas, whereas Wikipedia has to take the long view.

Take at random 2015's Petition pressures City of Edinburgh Council to review clause affecting live music scene. A group of Wikinewsies interviewed "venue owners, academics, the City of Edinburgh Council, and local band The Mean Reds to get different perspectives on the issue."\

While there's a category "Music in Edinburgh," and an article List of Edinburgh music venues, there's no article about music in Edinburgh, and coverage of this topic would be undue weight in an article about a city founded before 7th century AD. So there's no mention of this topic that likely engrossed Edinburgh's lively arts scene when it happened. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:54, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

opinion on russian wikinews

English: In fact, I haven't found an answer to the main question in these reports — why exactly should Wikinews be shut down? What specific resources does it consume? What resources will be freed up if it's closed?

I fully agree with the issues described in the report, but I want to point out that on the pages of the Russian and Ukrainian Wikinews, I saw no prior invitations to any potential discussions about the future of the project. Meanwhile, the report states that such discussions have supposedly been ongoing since 2023. No one even asked the editors of the Russian and Ukrainian Wikinews what kind of support they need or what the Wikimedia Foundation could offer them. Moreover, the news about the possible closure of Russian Wikinews wasn't even posted by a Foundation staff member.

Why not use Wikinews as a platform for testing new features, including those involving AI? Large projects like Wikipedia are often conservative when it comes to adopting innovations, whereas on less active platforms, such experiments could be implemented much more easily.

Yes, it's true that the Russian Wikinews section contains a lot of redundant pages created by bots or based on Wikidata entries. I agree with that — much of it should be deleted so that the most popular queries to Wikinews aren’t just a list of names (Arabic, Turkish, Russian, etc.). But again, this would require the help of a technical expert who could clean things up properly. It might also make sense to eliminate the separate comment pages that are automatically created by bots for each news story. That would also help save resources (if that’s really an issue).

I would also note that the report focuses solely on negative trends. And yet, despite everything, Russian Wikinews received 17.6 million visits in three months — with a total of 1.4 million news stories. Isn’t that enough to consider the project in demand? What level of traffic is considered acceptable? Also, such a large amount of content indicates that Wikinews has already carved out a niche in news archiving. Perhaps this direction should be further developed, for instance by importing more material from news sources distributed under free licenses.

Русский: На самом деле я не нашёл для себя ответа на главный вопрос в этих отчётах — зачем именно закрывать Викиновости? Какие конкретно ресурсы они на себя забирают? Какие ресурсы высвободятся при их закрытии?

Я полностью согласен с описанными в отчёте проблемами, но хочу отметить, что на страницах Русских и Украинских Викиновостей я не увидел никаких предварительных приглашений к возможному обсуждению будущего проекта, а между тем, в тексте отчёта говорится, что оно ведётся кем-то с 2023 года. Никто даже не спросил у редакторов Русских и Украинских Викиновостей, какая им нужна помощь и что Фонд Викимедиа мог бы им предложить. Более того, новость о возможном закрытии Викиновостей на русском языке разместил не сотрудник Фонда.

Почему бы не использовать Викиновости как площадку для тестирования новых возможностей, в том числе с применением ИИ? Ведь крупные проекты, такие как Википедия, часто консервативны к внедрению новшеств, тогда как на менее активных платформах такие эксперименты можно было бы реализовывать гораздо легче.

Да, в русскоязычном разделе действительно много избыточных страниц, созданных ботами или с использованием данных из Викиданных. С этим я согласен — многое следовало бы удалить, чтобы самые популярные запросы к Викиновостям не сводились к разнообразным именам (арабским, турецким, русским и тд). Но здесь, опять же, нужна помощь технического специалиста, который мог бы аккуратно это сделать. Также, возможно, стоит отказаться от отдельных страниц для комментирования, которые автоматически создаются ботом для каждой новости. Это тоже помогло бы сэкономить ресурсы (если это действительно проблема).

Замечу также, что в отчёте акцент сделан исключительно на негативных тенденциях. Тем не менее, Викиновости на русском за три месяца посетили 17,6 миллиона раз — при общем количестве новостей в 1,4 миллиона. Разве этого недостаточно, чтобы считать проект востребованным? Какой именно уровень посещаемости считается приемлемым? Кроме того, столь большое количество материалов говорит о том, что Викиновости уже заняли свою нишу в архивировании новостей. Возможно, стоит развивать это направление и переносить больше материалов из новостных изданий, распространяющихся по свободной лицензии. Mitte27 (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

In addition to my colleague, I don't fully understand a wish to close Wikinews, but also based on others sections assumptions: other "small" projects will be also in danger: including Wikiversity, Wikibooks, etc.
And in arguments I see (shortly): low activity, low synergy, etc. All of these problems are the same for all "small" projects. But if the low activity is long-term problem, so synergy - is problem of metapedia and technical moments. This problem is exists due to relations from wikipedian to small project users: based on previous negative reputation of these projects, "anti-advertisement" is created for this small projects. All these problems with kind of communication must be solved by meta, but as I see, meta can solve nothing...
All these problems (technical and metapedian) must be solved for such projects as Wikinews by creating new extensions and making standards (in design, templates, bots) through the communication between these projects. And it's not so hard - technical base must be absolutely similar for about ALL projects of Wikimedia.
Wikinews have a great potential to become an fully independent "news agency" (which becomes important now) and a good place for "newswritting" experiments. What the members need - support (mostly - technical).

But if Wikinews will be totally closed, I sure, that we loose some of the wikimedians which prefer to work only in Wikinews, as I only in Wikibooks/Wikiversity. I think, our users more important than 20-100 Gb of free space on disk. Kylain Aixter (СО) 17:56, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

You indicate that you have read the review document, so it's a bit odd that you didn't see any answer to the question What specific resources does it consume. In fact, the review document gives two very specific examples, in the section titled Systemic conflict caused by Russian Wikinews. Perhaps you don't agree with the description of these two incidents (in which case it might be interesting to hear a different perspective). Or maybe you think that such occasional demands on the time of WMF's technical staff are justified given the value that Wikinews provides to its readers. But the fact that you seem oblivious of this part of the document casts doubt on your claims.

(Also, regarding recent traffic stats, see my remarks [8] above.)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:27, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@HaeB: Let us agree that the case of the russian Wikinews is somewhat special. However that whole report is fraudant. See for example Appendix Section 1. What is that traffic? 50,7 million pages accessed? 50,7 Megabyte? Why this is not clarified? How does that compare to Wikipedia? Some time ago, the German WP had about a million pages accesses on it's main page each day. Might differ now. However the German Wikipedia on it's main page alone seems to cause about 1,5 times of the traffic within three months used by all Wikinews languages together. That's utterly little. It is about three times of the traffic when disregarding RU. It is chilishly to even report such numbers as a problem. Even if you compare to the German WP. And, as you know, the German WP is far smaller than the English WP. Compared to the sum of all WP languages Wikinews eats nothing or near nothing. The material provided isn't complete, it has no meaning and is obviously not made to inform the community in a fairly manner. It is biased. Nothing we can work with. An Elvis song comes into my mind: Return to sender. Matthiasb (talk) 08:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@HaeB English: Perhaps I did not express myself clearly enough, but what I meant was that the report lacks data on what percentage of traffic Wikinews receives compared to other Wikimedia Foundation projects. There is also no information about how much server space Wikinews occupies and what its share is among the other projects. Additionally, it does not specify the exact amount of financial resources allocated to support Wikinews or what proportion this amount represents in relation to the total budget for all projects.

Русский: Возможно, я недостаточно точно выразился, но я имел в виду, что в отчёте отсутствуют данные о том, какой процент трафика приходится на Викиновости по сравнению с другими проектами Фонда Викимедиа. Также нет информации о том, сколько места на серверах занимают Викиновости и какова их доля среди остальных проектов. Кроме того, не указано, какое конкретное количество финансовых средств уходит на поддержку Викиновостей и какую долю эта сумма составляет от общего бюджета на все проекты. Mitte27 (talk) 10:29, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I completely agree with this opinion. BilboBeggins (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Different situations in different language versions

I have never contributed to WikiNews in any language version and have not reviewed any statistics on its contributions and usage. Therefore, I am only commenting on the basis of other comments that were made here. It seems that, for some language versions, those who contribute to that specific wikinews feel it is successful and they provide some statistic to back their view. I don't understand why some say globally "It is dead, etc."―they might have a specific language version in mind. Therefore, I tend to agree that it should be done on a case by case basis. The global wikinews project should manage that. I also agree that, when there is some significant interest in maintaining a project, we should first make sure we considered all possible ways to make it work, before closing it. I am not against merging into wikipedia, but only if those who work on these projects think it's a good idea. The few comments above suggest the opposite, so I also think it is not a good idea. Though, perhaps it should still be discussed and a form of merging could emerge that is acceptable by all parties. I am not addressing the question what happens when we close a wikinews project (in some language), because the most important question at this stage is whether it should be closed at all. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia have a rule w:WP:NOTNEWS which says that NEWS should be not posted in Wikipedia. In fact, Wikipedia is heavily stuffed with NEWS and almost every big news story is tend to be added to Wikipedia despite its rule WP:NOTNEWS. Therefore, Wikipedia heavily violates its own rule because NEWS are very much exploited in Wikipedia while Wikipedia said it should not. So that, the mechanism is simple: Wikipedia, __according to its own fundamental rules__, should place all its NEWS activitiy in a place already designed for it: the Wikinews. So simple. --Ssr (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree. I would add that the spirit of your argument does not oppose integration within Wikipedia. If done well, with a differently managed namespace, etc., it could bring the benefits of integration without its drawbacks. I find it odd that integration is only seen as a way to close the project when it could, on the contrary, be a way to revitalize it. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

@Dominic Mayers @Ssr what you write is not true. current wikinews publishing policy only permits what can go on wikipedia as well. as long this is so wikinews adds nothing to wikiverse. every single article on wikinews you can get deeper, more thought out information on wikipedia. but it needs not to be so, news is much broader - it contains journal, it contains opinion,stuff i d be really interested to read, listen, watch. in a very restricted domain we saw it with https://diff.wikimedia.org and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost. both could not be hosted on wikinews. wikinews is no platform for news as it should be. ThurnerRupert (talk) 03:18, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

"Сurrent wikinews publishing policy" you say? As an admin of Russian Wikinews, I can assure you: there is no "current wikinews publishing policy" of such kind. So what you write is not true. Maybe you mean only English Wikinews? Please clarify such points before saying that someone is not true. --Ssr (talk) 10:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Russian Wikinews forum has a lot of information on your question

Please read Russian Wikinews forum: n:ru:Викиновости:Форум/Общий From the top, until the bottom, you will find a lot of discussions and opinion on exactly the questions you raised here. Just open and read it. -- Ssr (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't read Russian and the machine translation is too bad. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

In short:

• Russian Wikinews is a good place to archive some news sites with free license.
• Russian Wikinews is a good place to cover some local events with the original reports or interviews.
• Russian Wikinews is a perfect place to move actual and current articles from Russian Wikipedia, but this theme cannot be active and popular — because Russian Wikinews gathered some bad fame.
• This bad fame appeared because the active editors don't want to follow the rules, don't want to keep Russian Wikinews neutral, and noone cares about copyright violation.
• Also, Russian Wikinews is step by step transforming from a neutral newsfeed — into a political weapon. --PereslavlFoto (talk) 23:38, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

This suggests to me that different language versions of WikiNews should be considered on a case-by-case basis. My understanding is that only the English version is directly at issue in this consultation. If that's the case, why are we considering the specifics of the Russian version here? I was informed that I am wrong. All languages are considered. Still believe that it should be done in a case-by-case basis. Dominic Mayers (talk) 00:22, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

"archive some news sites with free license" - we can archive them to Wikisource instead. GZWDer (talk) 10:07, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Have you tried it in reaity? We had. -- Ssr (talk) 11:28, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Wasn't it "archiving some news sites with free license" that crashed Wikipedia servers - twice? Victoria (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

No, it was community discussions in sister projects before that. --Ssr (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

"Wasn't it "archiving some news sites with free license" that crashed Wikipedia servers - twice" - This is because the bad performance of DynamicPageList, which is only installed in some wikis. GZWDer (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

We are not at the time yet when can blame a software as an agent. It was deliberately done by a Russian Wikinews editor, who since was indefblocked in all Wikimedia projects. The "weakest link" projects present easy points of entry for the malicious agents. Victoria (talk) 12:30, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

We can blame software: DPL is extremely buggy. This was (is) widely known and harshly criticized by Krassotkin. Krassotkin was raising the problem actively, but was unheard. After a DPL bug disrupted Krassotkin's bot, Krassoktin was banned. -- Ssr (talk) 09:18, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Was it the DPL bug that threatened an engineer? Victoria (talk) 10:08, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

No. It was Krassotkin desperated with DPL bug. He did not threat the engineer. He attempted to resolve problem through an act of citizen journalism. Very erroneous and badly performed act. Because Krassotkin is a weirdo. So he was punished in his own style. I feel very good that he is no more acting on Wikinews. -- Ssr (talk) 10:20, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

DPL was not buggy. It was known from the beginning that the approach taken would only work on small wikis. The original deal (Like back in 2005) was that Wikinews could use it while Wikinews stayed small. It seemed like a reasonable trade off at the time - after all, if wikinews ever really hit it big, it would be worth investing in an alternate solution and in the mean time it worked fine. Ruwikinews decided to be obnoxious about it so they lost their toys. Bawolff (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Ruwikinews did not decide, Ruwikinews did not know all this "original deal in 2005" (I joined in 2007). Krassotkin did decide, and was banned for that.

Extended content
We do not need and use this damned DPL now and did not need it from the start. We just used what was available. And it is your fault that you did not inform us about some "original deal". Though, it is commonly known that you at WMF are totally obnoxious about informing volunteers. -- Ssr (talk) 11:50, 28 July 2025 (UTC) @Victoria, please, why did indef blocking that user did not resolve the issues. Is there still someone doing the insults, and copyright violations? Could you please clarify that? Gryllida 21:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC) Ssr - Russian Wikinews admin - is still "doing the insults" right on this page and on Russian Wikinews village pump page. And I see that this is a normal behaviour, nobody's trying to stop him. Victoria (talk) 10:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC) and Russian Wikinews have English version -- Ssr (talk) 10:08, 29 June 2025 (UTC) And we do care about copyright violations, you are saying not truth -- Ssr (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC) Where does this untruth come from? 1.145.121.26 12:50, 8 July 2025 (UTC) PereslavlFoto finds some spam, that we didn't notice, and says we are violating copyrights. We delete spam and copyvio as we notice it, but not all always. Some spam occasionally remains until we notice it. -- Ssr (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2025 (UTC) @PereslavlFoto hi, is this correct? Couldn't you just tag the spam with {{speedy}} or something? Gryllida 21:01, 8 July 2025 (UTC) Not a spam it was, but a systematic violation of copyright. To show some samples, here they are. 1, 2. -- PereslavlFoto (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2025 (UTC) Another example of brazen disinformation. The issue of reprinting the article from "Radio Liberty" is on the article Talk Page, anyone can see it [9]. Conclusion: "Radio Liberty has no claims regarding copyright violations. Thank you for reading Radio Liberty! Sincerely, -Anton Shiriaev, Senior SM Editor RFERL, Russian svc www.svoboda.org" Nicoljaus (talk) 06:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC) «Commercial use of Radio Liberty materials is strictly prohibited». -- PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2025 (UTC) @Ssr hi, isn't there additional issue, that users are copying from Wikipedia and licences are not compatible? Was this ever resolved? Gryllida 21:02, 8 July 2025 (UTC) Hi, please refer here -- Ssr (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

My perspective on Wikinews

I first joined that project in April for two main reasons: 1) I got an impression for some time that it was being treated as some sort of punchline on Wikipedia and on social media, and; 2) I wanted to get out of the Wikipedia bubble a bit, where I was becoming disaffected due to the toxic environment in some of the main noticeboards. My initial aim was to write about 10-15 articles per month and perform requested changes of some others, but I soon realized that was an unrealistic goal (it takes two days or even more for me to finish an article of moderate length). So far, I have written or significantly modified a half dozen articles, and mindful of systemic bias, I have mostly chosen stories in Africa and South Asia (with a secondary focus on those from Oceania or the South/Central America).

I think the biggest problem with Wikinews is the lack of active reviewers, at least for the English version, not necessarily the low readership (WN shouldn't be a clickbait site) or the modest article quality, which is entirely understandable when you factor in its exponentially smaller editor base and tighter deadlines.

The findings of this report are mostly correct, but they don't take into consideration some of the positive statistics in 2025, namely that article output year-to-date (132) has been the highest since 2018 (150) – counts for other years are 67 for 2019, 72 for 2020, 75 for 2021, 101 for 2022, 117 for 2023, and a dismal 43 for 2024 – , nor that there is an ongoing proposal to revamp the project, with concrete results yet to be seen.

Part of me is inclined to agree that the report's findings perhaps make a case for closing down/archiving the project, the other part wants to continue writing articles until such a hypothetical closure takes place (shrug!). Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

@Dsuke1998AEOS Yeah, we want to rebuild this wiki. Mobashir - 🇧🇩 (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I read "Proposal for Closing Wikinews". I view it as a low quality work. They make far-reaching conclusion out of scarce evidence.

For instance, they are making this conclusion "Summary: Most Russian Wikinews articles are imported as-is by a bot without any human curation or written by one of 6 non-bot authors" based on

"Looking at the last 1,000 changes (from Special:RecentChanges) on the Russian Wikinews as

of May 17, 2024, 6 non-bot users made all changes, with the vast majority coming from bots.

Looking at a list of 20 instances of Special:Random pages, all 20 were generated by NewsBot.

One article from the set had a single non-bot edit. The others had zero edits after the article was created."

And at the same time, the number of monthly editors as given on Wiki comparison snapshot is 69.

Aren't 1000 edits too small sample? Today only, 9 registered users made edits, and there were edits made by anonymous users. There are users who make many small edits, shouldn't these be considered as outliers and not being counted?

Wouldn't it have been better to analyse main page articles during larger period and count the number of authors and people who edited them?

Why di the authors think it is adequate to sample 20 random articles out of 1,5 million?

I just don't feel the report is fair to Russian Wikinews. And there are mistakes in report, like misspelling actor's name (Dabnet Coleman instead of Dabney Coleman), tmass.ru instead of tass.ru. BilboBeggins (talk) 20:37, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, there are several sentences there that are blatantly incorrect, especially the one about "no changes are allowed on English Wikinews before it undergoes a review process" on Page 11. On the contrary, editors are always allowed to constructively improve Wikinews articles in development. In general, this report focuses too much on the negative aspects of the project, without mentioning any positive things at all (for example that most published articles do not have serious POV problems, or that article depth per capita is almost as high or even higher than Wikipedia articles), making it seem like it was a report only designed for the WMF to pursue a fait accompli decision. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it has factual errors, so I also hold the view that it was supposed to back the decision that had already been taken.

Which leaves the question: where does community stand in this, who will listen to us? Why we were not informed on the possibility of Wikinews being closed? BilboBeggins (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Why we were not informed? Because the administration of Russian WN don't want to follow the rules of Wikimedia Foundation (the rule of neutrality, and the rule of copyright). -- PereslavlFoto (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head: modern news sources use a complex system of moderation that involves career news editors, a somewhat unglamorous, but well-paid (at the top) job. These editors are the ones with their heads on a chopping block if they make a blunder (they use real names and get real salaries, there is no en:WP:CLEANSTART in this business). Knowing that, the public is slightly assured that a report by a reputable newspaper is a version of the truth, naturally biased due to the political leaning of the source (there is no en:WP:NPV either). I see no way to create such an institution based on Jimmy's ideas used for Wikipedia (for example, how would we reproduce the editorial policy differences between WSJ and NYT?), so Wikinews will never acquire essential elements or readers' trust of any decent news publication. For the avoidance of doubt, IMHO inherent lack of editorial policy is a secondary problem related to Wikinews, as I happen to think that the incompatibility of timelines is more fundamental, see my remark above. Викидим (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Newspapers editors have their names and reputation at stake.

Reputation and trust is also important for Wikipedia editors. BilboBeggins (talk) 08:38, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

(1) There is no "career" in Wikipedia, it is a hobby for almost all of us (in fact, this state of affairs is preferred and enforced by en:WP:PAID), so level of risk is not even remotely comparable. (2) The trust of an NYT subscriber includes his expectation that his POV is reflected by the editorial staff (such a reader consistently votes Democratic un the current US party system). Similarly, a reader of the WSJ, who leans Republican, expects his POV (very different) to be reflected. The result is a pair of mostly different articles; this is how the freedom of press works in real world. I don't think that this approach is possible to replicate within the confines of Wikimedia foundation. Викидим (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

restructure, please

wikipedia needs citations. news sites over time are more and more disappearing. killing wikinews would be like shooting oneself in the foot - or even head. theoretically. because - as wikinews operates today is completely useless. it makes the impression five people use it to train their students, put a process on top which would make even larry sanger proud, and write articles with citations just the same way wikipedia does. so little people with so much stubborness is rare in wikiverse. they try to improve the existing model - even more larry sanger like processes, citations and reviewers. completely forgetting this "newspapers are disappearing" challenge. also sites where people can publish an article, either researched, or a piece of opinion, are disappearing. it cannot be that publishing and citing of the future is tiktok, insta, facebook reel.

my dream would be that one can self publish pieces. and categories are used to classify, and rating is introduced. no process, no citation requirement, thus personal opinions, resp op-ed are permitted. one might find a quality process, to add a category which has some connotation of sufficient quality to be cited in wikipedia. but this is after publish. most important process wise one could imagine to make all wikipedia administrators automatically admins of wikinews. they have the right, but no obligation. to get rid of the 20 year long claw of death of wikinews admins. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but no, I dissent!

I am a wikinews editor since 2008, wrote some 600+ Wikinews articles; my shortest and my longest article show that perhaps I am an experienced user, and I am one of the few who did the 100 wikidays challenge in Wikinews. I am also an admin sincr 2010, so lets say: I know a little bit on Wikinews.

This proposal or whatever it is meant to be is a frontal attack on the freedom of the press. Not more, but also no lesser. The free press is challenged by AI, Fake News, Lies produced by the Trump regime, paywalls, Orbanism (and other friends ofillegitible democracy), Putin, trolls, Putin's trolls (might be a thing of its own), and on, and on, and on. Wikinews is fighting uphill for various reasons. Several Wikipedia language versions are behaving hostile to Wikinews; I could weite pages of examples in the German WP alone, beginning with removing of links to openly diffaming of Wikinews. I don't have the time to list all this.

I share to some point what User:ThurnerRupert. The english language version of Wikinews does have a quite hard vetting process, what is good, but it acts overhardly in cases, I think. Also the German WP follows the principle no edit w/o a source and normally content is verified to the sources given in the bottom of an article. Well, mostly, but we get to this, after some other remarks.

There is a lack of strategy how to conduct Wikinews as a project. Actually there is not a lack but there is nothing. I told thisand some more critique, IIRC, 2014, to the community member of the WMF board, I forgot the name of this Frenchman. Later the evening I overheard him accidentally talking to Nicole Ebber (WMDE) complaining that the German wiki community is kind of special, obviosly concerning talking about problems and not telling conversation blabla. Okay, possibility missed, but then, after Eric Moeller no WMF personal ever spend some minutes on how to promote wikidata. There had been some ideas through the timeand through the different language versions. One language version (es or it?) played with changing Wikinews to a sports journal, en brought it into Google News, the de version discusssed about producing a weekly PDF. If not for other reasons that did not work because of the lack of material to publish and manpower to do this. We never tried out to realize it. The idea of providing special formatted content for information systems in trams or buses never materialized – who would know how to start this, to ask whom. We implemented some kind of newsticker in n:de:Hauptseite, right column, but again, no people to do this at 8 to 20 through the day. Social Media and Wikinews was a failure for years.

Because of this funny committe metioned resourced needed for Wikinews in any matter, bucks for the servers and buchs für, eh, "updating" the software, what the f.... are you talking about? Compared with WP Wikinews is using financial and technical resource which are likely below – much below – of 0,000000000000001 percent of the Wikipedia resources. That is close to nothing and give no reason even to consider this.

But if the question was that Wikinews users would, after a Wikinews closure, benefit other Mediawiki projects, especially Wikipedia: that's a nonbrainer. People are engaging volunteerily for projects because of there seeing some sense in doing so. A closere of Wikinews causes frustration, hurts, angers active editors but won't bring any more action to Wikioedia. Or, eh, Wikiquote.

Off course there will still arrive the bunch of haters.

Regards, --Matthiasb (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Na pewno zamknięcie Wikinews nie przyniesie korzyści Wikipedii. Raczej zniechęci do edytowania Wikimediów. Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

@Matthiasb unfortunately wikinews does not allow news. your shortest article is a typical example: https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/de:Handball-EM:_Norwegen_siegt_gegen_Schweden, there is zero news in it, just a copy of some other site. that is pointless, i can read it on that site and wikipedia. but, what you wrote above i want to read, and you have nowhere to publish it. so leets try, and you ll see wikinews not permits it. after a century i tried now again to put something on german wikinews: https://de.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews,_abschalten_oder_mit_fantasie_wiederbeleben%3F . ThurnerRupert (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

https://de.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews,_abschalten_oder_mit_fantasie_wiederbeleben%3F to nie jest news (wiadomość) lecz felieton. W pl.wikinews taka forma byłaby do naprawy. Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Natomiast https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/de:Handball-EM:_Norwegen_siegt_gegen_Schweden jak najbardziej jest newsem (wiadomością) - przedstawia co się wydarzyło gdzie i kiedy. Czy takie wydarzenie warto opisywać w Wikipedii (czyli czy przeszło do historii) często wiadomo dopiero po dłuższym czasie) Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 22:38, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Of course it's a copy of some other site, isn't it? Off course it's not otherwise it would be a copy vio. The sources given are given for verifying the reportet action. The source also could "live transmission in 2nd public TV programm", it could be a radio transmission; it could be some even other news sites. And of course it is a news, that Norway has won that match against Sweden. But if you want to say that this article is just another article in the WWW reporting the match's results, you are right. But then we have the issue of paywalls and depublication and/or link rot. I've written tons of articles (both in Wikinews as Wikipedia) where sources were put behind paywalls after I used them, and there are millions of this cases when reviewing the work of the broken link reporting bots in some WP languages. German public radio and tv have to depublish their news after two years. So those "news" are also missing after a while. What stays, is Wikinews. Wikinews are citeable in Wikipedia because of the normal redaction process. If normal, as described on the "Prüfung" on each articles talk page. What, as d:de:Diskussion:Handball-EM: Norwegen siegt gegen Schweden shows did not work as it should because it lacks the users verifying the first four points. The cat is biting it's own rear: Lack of users causes lack of verification causes reluctance to cite causes degrading importance of project causing still bigger lack of users.

On the opposite site we have: lack of neutral reporting in the system press in at least a dozen countries in Europa and Northern America. For hell's sake: Wikinews is the most important of the Wikimedia's project at lengths. But yet the WMF denies to admit that. And they do nothing to prevent its failure.

@Marek Mazurkiewicz: That your article is most certainly a candidate for deletion because in German Wikinews we do not write article about Wikinewsif they're not reflected somewhere on third site. The handball event most likely ist covered in the championship article in Wikipedia, in w:de:Handball-Europameisterschaft der Männer 2020 #Gruppe II but not on it's own importance. Matthiasb (talk) 07:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@Matthiasb you have an example of an article where the source is not reachable any more and it is not in wikipedia without having wikinews? in rare cases english wikinews do publish originals, like the one about an arrested wikimedia sysop. but the category "original reporting" is not clean already, it contains e.g. lists. @Michael.C.Wright why is this so with this list, and you guys have other use cases why wikinews should continue living? ThurnerRupert (talk) 09:43, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

but the category "original reporting" is not clean already, it contains e.g. lists. @Michael.C.Wright why is this so with this list

Thanks for the ping. A few clarifications:

I'm not sure what you meant by “not clean."

That particular list is auto-generated as part of our archive procedures. It’s categorized as original reporting because it transcludes template:OR from the headline story it references, in this case a story about inflation in Ireland. The list itself isn’t an original report; it simply reflects the metadata of the story it links to.

This behavior is expected and consistent with how we manage category tagging via templates. We're not claiming the list is OR, just that it includes an OR article.

you guys have other use cases why wikinews should continue living?

1. Neutral, timestamped record of what was known at the time

• U.S. strikes Iranian nuclear sites Fordow

2. Coverage of underreported or hyperlocal stories, in this case via OR

• San Diego joins US-wide No Kings protests

3. Complement to Wikipedia, not a source for it

• Ukrainian drone strikes target four airfields in Russia
• Use of "Sister links" pointing to en.WP article on same subject
• Routine linking to WP, WK, etc, to clarify terms, titles, and especially for BLPs. Nearly all en.WN articles contain interwiki links as recommended by our Style guide.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@ThurnerRupert unfortunately wikinews does not allow news?! What means by you? This will lead several other users to claim that "Wikipedia does not allow pedias", "Wikisource does not allow sources"... etc. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

the source is not reachable any more Right. That is mostly the case if

1. the news site of public TV or radio was used, e.g. there should be many links commencing with https://www.tagesschau.de/… The Rundfunkstaatsvertrag demands them to delete pages after some time, mostly 24 months. They can in cases "undelete", for example if there is an disaster on an island they are allowed to undelete an article on an earlier disaster to give context.
2. Pages on welt.de, spiegel.de, zeit.de, sueddeutsche.de, faz.net, nzz.ch among others tend to disappear after pay walls after some time with no exact pattern to define. Most newly those news outlets even seem to coordinate so hat diversifying sources might not help at all. The news to that issue XY might disappear behind the pay wall at several of this media outlets simultanely.
3. The idea of the n:de:Vorlage:Prüfung used on the talk page, mainly its first four data lines, is to certify, that that mentioned user has seen the source and controlled wether source and article are telling the same story, or more simplified, that facts are fachts but not alternative facts by the articles's authors. Pityfully there is a lack of users doing that work, and there are users ignoring by deeming it is unneccessary. That is amatter of behavior and/or ignorancy which the project has to adress but failed doing so, so far.

Matthiasb (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

At Wikinews Portugal, we created more than 150 news per month, and our main page receives more than 30,000 views per month. I see no reason to close it. (DARIO SEVERI) 92.20.239.254 11:27, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Lisence

Lisence could be a problem for Wikinews. You can use Wikipedia content in Wikibooks, Wikivoyage, and I have done that in those projects. But you cannot use it in Wikipedia [Wikinews]^(typo) because Wikipedia is SA. If Wikipedia can somehow allow editors lisence their additions in news coverage articles by CC BY, maybe we can use those stuff to create news articles. --魔琴 (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Note: Some Wikinews projects decided to switch the license to CC BY-SA 4.0. GZWDer (talk) 03:29, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Some ill-going development: Other language versions like EN, DE or RU cannot use CC-BY-SA texts, for example by translating wholly or in parts. It are not a bunch of articles which ever got translated, so the issue is minor (among my 600+ wikinews articles I think it's far less then five percent which). However transferring content from Wikipedia to Wikinws (CC-BY-SA to CC-BY) is invalid but that mever was an issue. Encyclopedic content does not work as a news text. The French perhaps thought the license change would facialiate to move unencyclopaedic news texts from Wikipedia to Wikinews but IMO that won't work. Like i a hit and run game the Wikipedians will copy such texts to wikinews and leave it. After a while the French wikinews users willhave to deal with a lot of bad non-articles. pityfully this stunt also put the German Wikinews of the rails. Because of the issue having be enforced on our community users are alianated from each other. And again that is a fault of the WMF: WMF leagal never should have allowed this nonsense. Pitifully the didn't care or they did not get aware of it, and I don't know what is worse. Matthiasb (talk) 07:25, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

The issue of whether English Wikinews and English Wikipedia accept each other as sources might be beside the point. Both projects require that information be verifiable and supported by reliable, cited sources. So in practice, if a piece of information appears on either site, it should be possible to trace it back to the original source and cite that directly. I mention the English versions only because I am familiar with them. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Years ago I still documented on my user page n:de:User:Matthiasb corresponding articles in German WN and WP where I was the main editor in both projects, didn't do this for ten years or so. From this there is one significant thing to see: Comparing the texts it is less than 5 percent of the WN text which can be used in WP. Those texts are totally different texts.†) You cannot copy a WN text to WP and think it is possible to make it encyclopaedic. Aside this there is no reason to do so. Subjects notable enough have their article for years. There is no need to merge in WN stuff.

†) I did a showcase for a poster session some years ago covering the Cyclone Nargis. See File:Vergleich WP-WN Nargis.png Though the texts are German, most of the sense is self-explaining. Matthiasb (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

In RU we can (and did) use CC-BY-SA texts. --Ssr (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Also zhwikinews already updated to CCBY4.0. And in practice, we don't really rely on wp content ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 06:20, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Let it go

The most recent news of Persian Wikinews in their main page is from 21 May 2017. It is effectively a dead project (for people who say we should just nominate Persian Wikinews for closure, please read Closing projects policy). The news section of Persian Wikipedia gets much more attention than totality of Persian Wikinews. 118 wikis have Current events page which can be served as good place for the Wikinews community to migrate to (of course it's not 1 to 1 mapping). Such merge would benefit Wikipedia and the movement as a whole. I don't think any change could revive Wikinews and it's inherently a different project than the rest (as they focus on education). We never learned to sunset projects and I understand that this is making us uncomfortable with the idea of saying goodbye but we should have more focus and avoid stretching too thin (as a movement). I'm all in favor of sunsetting projects, software, products, or anything that its cost outweighs its benefit. You might say that it's not much cost but the problem is that a lot of the cost is being carried by different group of people. For example, wikinews wikis require a dedicated extension called mw:Extension:GoogleNewsSitemap which paid or volunteer devs are spending time and energy to keep updated (recent commits). Volunteer translators are translating the messages. Other extensions has to have support for the aforementioned extension. For example, FlaggedRevs ([10]). So in my personal opinion, we should let it go. Amir (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Are we sure that GoogleNewsSitemap actually works?

The last three original news stories on the English Wikinews are "San Diego joins US-wide No Kings protests", "Players line up for the launch of the Nintendo Switch 2 in New York City", and "Authorities arrest Belarusian Wikipedia sysop and only bureaucrat Maksim Lepushenka", none of which show up on Google News. Choosing articles off the front pages of the Polish, Chinese, and Russian Wikinews websites, also no results.

Also, in the thread directly following yours, OhanaUnited mentions something that I didn't realize, that Wikimedia funds news websites that produce copyrighted content. I'm personally counting $250K in 2021, $50K in 2023, $200K, $150K, $90K, $100K, $160K in 2024. Ignoring inflation over that period, that's $1 million. -- Zanimum (talk) 02:17, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Accountability is a two-way street

As much as a large group of people suggesting to close down all Wikinews projects, we should also examine the role and accountability that WMF played to support Wikinews in recent years (hint: near non-existent). I have already said it in Wikinews in November 2024. A TL;DR summary of what I wrote: WMF funded a number of reporter/news-reporting projects for multiple rounds under Knowledge Equity Fund yet the recipients contributed 0 Wikinews article. The easiest that WMF could ask the recipients in news industry to do is contribute towards Wikinews. Yet, this lowest hanging fruit was not even attempted. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:36, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@OhanaUnited, while I agree nominally with your statement near non-existent seeks to downplay the significant resources spent on maintaining servers and tooling (see the section just above). Also, news articles are the one thing you should not need external content injection to maintain, it is designed to bring in the clicks due to the nature of the news cycle, the fact that we are failing there shows a deeper problem. Sohom (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Does Wikinews have servers distinct from those used by other projects? -- Zanimum (talk) 02:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@Zanimum Not that I know of, however,it has tooling specific to the wiki like the GoogleSiteMaps extension (regardless of whether it works perfectly -- Google is temperamental) additional work goes into (both from the volunteers and developers) to make sure that other extensions work around it and in general don't break it.

To @Sheminghui.WU, maybe if you compare against the scale of Wikipedia, yes it takes much less maintenance, but the cost is still non-zero and significant in the grand scheme of things (and probably cumulatively outstrips the amounts paid to individual news organizations). Sohom (talk) 04:57, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Fairenough. In comparison, the scale and maintenance costs of Wikinews are almost negligible. I don't think the Wikimedia Foundation really lacks this budget right. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 09:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Correct, Wikimedia Foundation is not lacking budget to assist Wikinews. The above mentioned Knowledge Equity Fund supplied $1 million in funding to third-party news outlets over three years. None of those articles (seemingly) were licensed under a free license. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@Zanimum More over, if someone proposes a photography-related project and ends up not uploading a single photo onto Commons, I think everyone would have grabbed their pitchforks and demanded accountability already. And any loopholes would be immediately patched in the next funding round. But apparently the community and the fund evaluation committee turn a blind eye when Knowledge Equity Fund news recipients don't write stories for Wikinews (or any WMF projects). And this isn't a one-line statement buried in page X in a 30-page report. One journalism recipient openly reported that their news stories were published elsewhere (and nothing on Wikinews). For a different journalism recipient in the same funding round, their lack of on-wiki impact is literally on the first page of a four-page report that was provided to the Foundation and uploaded by a Foundation staff. For those who don't want to click on the report link, this is their metrics and results summary:

The Racial Equity in Journalism Fund at Borealis Philanthropy

Metric	Achieved outcome
# of new images/media added to Wikimedia articles/pages	0
# of articles added or improved on Wikimedia projects	0
Absolute value of bytes added to or deleted from Wikimedia projects	0

OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:33, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd be curious to see in-bound traffic sources, to see whether the number of visitors specifically from Google News (instead of Google itself) is enough to justify GoogleSiteMaps.

I'm skeptical that it worked at all for years, as a search of Google News for Wikinews just finds an image credited to Wikinews, coverage of Jimmy Wales' Wikitribune, quotations of the site (Loudwire quoting the interview with the Satanist High Priest), and a copy-paste of a photo story, etc. Shouldn't there be articles that were indexed when the GoogleSiteMaps was last working? -- Zanimum (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Judging from the scale, Wikinews does not require that much maintenance resources maybe? ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 02:35, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

It does not need any maintenance at all. I am not aware of any software modifications in comparison to Wikipedia projects. It just uses some other server clusters. Each wikisource and each wiktionary enforces more maintenance work. Matthiasb (talk) 07:33, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

That's not true. See the above section (and check the related extension I linked). Or wikinews:ru:Special:PermaLink/14612507 (major outage caused by Russian Wikinews). Amir (talk) 08:44, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

that is a couple of days for one engineer every five years for an organization with 200 million budget yearly? ThurnerRupert (talk) 09:10, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

However an inactive Wikinews project is not that useful. GZWDer (talk) 10:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay, so then we close those individual languages. -- Zanimum (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Closing projects policy does not allow that. Amir (talk) 23:23, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

How did you come to this estimate? Because it's wildly inaccurate. I'm not saying it's causing a lot of maintenance burden or burden on the infra but it's not as negligible as you portray it to be. Amir (talk) 13:47, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Or wikinews:ru:Special:PermaLink/14612507 (major outage caused by Russian Wikinews).

I agree with @Ladsgroup on this and maybe that's a good argument in favor of more technical support from the Foundation. en.WN uses DPL (lightly), Flagged Revisions, and Liquid Threads, all of which should probably be reconsidered/replaced/etc. We could use some technical assistance on how to go about that. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

DE WN uses DPL widely (actuall for creating all portals) but never ever before the RU WN incident anyone told us that DPL might be a problem. And even after that anyone came and told us. Actually since the DE WN is much smaller so it even might not be a problem at all, so it is unclear why this outage is replayed in the discussion on and on and on again. Matthiasb (talk) 08:19, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

DPL is in very bad condition, but no problems with it right now. No need to replay this on and on and on again. RU WN got rid ot DPL. Other projects can use it if no high load occur. Talking about traffic and accountability -- other projects don't generate high load. -- Ssr (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

BUT if high load on other projects occurs, the DPL will be what someone called a "timebomb". During RU WN DPL failures, the cause of one of them was an _anonymous edit_ at a high-level category that caused cascade changes by DPL in lower-level articles. No bot was involved at the moment, and Krassotkin was not acting directly in the incident at the moment. User:Ladsgroup as a server admin absolutely correctly pushed the red button when he saw extreme server load. He was not guilty in anything and was legitimately accomplishing his duties. He generally doesn't work with DPL as a server admin. And latter discussions about DPL concluded that such incident may happen at any other project with DPL. --Ssr (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

No accountability should be applied here. It was never required for a Wikimedia project to collect traffic and clicks to survive. -- Ssr (talk) 14:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

@Ssr Agree at most of your comment. Of course in here. Mobashir - 🇧🇩 (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

News namespace on Wikipedia

I think a News namespace would have been the better solution at all. We should close Wikinews (of course keep as archive) and give a try to introduce a News namespace on Wikipedia. There news articles can be created and if the news is not new anymore the article can be moved to article namespace or stays in an archive in the News namespace. GPSLeo (talk) 08:44, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Yep, this still needs further discussion. In addition, the Wikipedia homepage already has a Wikinews link and "More News" juxtaposed, and the page views of the More News page are only over 30,000(zh), while the page view statistics alone show that the Wikinews homepage has over 130,000 views(zh). So at least for Chinese, I doubt the effectiveness of this method, and I have every reason to doubt that the conversion rate of homepage views is very low, because the page views of the Chinese Wikipedia homepage are very large every day, but the page views of the items displayed on the homepage (such as festivals or DYKs) will not increase much. In other words, if you just open a module, I feel that the effect will be quite limited. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 08:54, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

In fact, all sister projects face the problem of insufficient visibility and publicity. An editor named 胡頹子 proposed an idea before, which is to put a link to the corresponding Wikinews page after each news update on the Wikipedia homepage (if there is a corresponding page, we would have put it in the entry in the form of {Wikinews|xxxx}} anyway.), which is a possibility for Wikipedia to further directly help (attract traffic) and cooperate with Wikinews, if the Wikipedia community agrees. Of course, just a side note. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 08:59, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

If it is possible to introduce separate policies for news articles, I think the News namespace can be viable. I currently support both the multilingual Wikinews proposal, and the proposed News namespace on Wikipedia, as either of the two is a possible next step to take. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:41, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Po to wymyślono projekty siostrzane, aby nie ładować wszystkiego do encyklopedii i nie robić z niej śmietnika. Jeśli chcecie robić ze swoich wersji językowych przestrzenie bezładu, droga wolna, ale nie zmuszajcie do tego wszystkich. Właśnie sprawdziłem, że w wersji angielskiej są przestrzenie MOS i Event (tu przykład humorystycznej strony w przestrzeni MOS). Dodajcie jeszcze jedną przestrzeń, to zapewne wzrośnie wam parametr depth. Sławek Borewicz (talk) 09:58, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

True. What's the point for this ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 10:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

One important point to consider: introducing a News namespace may encourage non-notable people to promote themselves. GZWDer (talk) 10:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

While a news namespace would have different policies, that news policy would have rules on what's newsworthy and what isn't. The articles would still be governed by the same Conflict of interest policy.

Ultimately, self-promotional articles on Wikinews are just as badly written and easy to spot as self-promotional Wikipedia biographies. This isn't introducing complexity, in my opinion. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, for this reason alone, I'm worried that this will increase the damage in numbers that are disproportionate to the amount of traffic and contributors it will increase. "Man, I'm on the Wikipedia" is much attractive than "man im on the wikinews;)", Of course, it doesn't really matter, as long as we have a good policy.

This thing being merged into Wikipedia will definitely increase the attention of more people on the site. But what other benefits are there? How much worse is it to read news on an independent news site than in a space on Wikipedia? ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 02:57, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I don’t support a “news” namespace on Wikipedia because it’s not Wikipedia’s job to solve everything for notionally independent sister projects, especially fundamentally incompatible ones. Dronebogus (talk) 11:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Zwolenników tego rozwiązania chyba zbyt wielu nie ma. Proponuję pójść krok dalej w drugą stronę i doprowadzić do wyłączenia stron w:en:Template:In the news, w:en:Portal:Current events i pokrewnych. Na razie te strony prowokują do tego, by zamieszczać newsy w encyklopedii. Sławek Borewicz (talk) 05:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Duration of the public consultation about Wikinews

How many time will be approximately the duration of this public consultation ?
I didn't found any indication anywhere.

I think that it could take 3 to 6 months. Anatole-berthe (talk) 09:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Why do I see only one month written on the front page... This is really too short to decide the life and death of a sister program like this. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 10:04, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks you ! Which front page ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Main Page of Meta-Wiki. It's interesting that it's there, and not also on Public consultation about Wikinews. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

This will run for one month, until July 27. GZWDer (talk) 10:04, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks you ! Where it was wrote ? Anatole-berthe (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

• Miesiąc to zdecydowanie za krótko. Konsultacje powinny trwać 12 miesięcy od czasu ostatniego komentarza. Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

A month here, but there will be a workshop at Wikimania, and I expect to have many more conversations there. Victoria (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Dlaczego Wikinews powinno zostać zachowane

Wikinews powinno zostać zachowane i rozwijane ponieważ:

• jest jedynym miejscem na ten rodzaj wiedzy w Wikimediach
• wiele osób włożyło wiele pracy by rozwijać ten projekt
• media są pełne klikbajtów, reklam i nie archiwizują swoich newsów
• zasady i praktyka Wikipedii sprawiają że newsy nie są na niej mile widziane przez doświadczonych wikipedystów - Wikipedia to encyklopedia a nie serwis newsowy
• te konsultacje prowadzone są w nieprawidłowy sposób - nie przetłumaczono raportu, nie powiadomiono projektów

Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 10:40, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

The projects were notified now. Victoria (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Gdzie powiadomienie do pl.Wikinews po Polsku zostało wysłane przed rozpoczęciem tworzenia raportu? Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Software requests

Software shortcomings (thread) 1: Newsletter

Phab task was opened to request Newsletter extension, to allow users to signup to get echo notifications of news. I think this can be used to make two subscription streams, one for news which was approved, and another for draft which was just started. Would you see this useful for your Wikinews section? Link: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T394022 Gryllida 11:03, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I also mentioned before that we are just making improvements recently, and the community is constantly improving. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 03:28, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Software shortcomings (thread) 2: Android

Someone think writing https://gryllida.neocities.org/news/writer/v3/index-3 as Android app with automatic import to wiki could help? Gryllida 11:05, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Software shortcomings (thread) 3: User groups

Make user groups pingable via syntax @Asia or @tech etc, with ui for users to signup to it like a mailing list. Again this could help to have two feeds, one targeted at reading audience and another for notifying of new drafts. Gryllida 11:07, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

See phab:T148154. GZWDer (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Software shortcomings: add your own

What software could make working with news much easier? Please share your ideas here! cc @Ssr, @Brateevsky, @revi- . Please also tag someone else you know. Gryllida 11:08, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

We need working statistics -- Ssr (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

My opinion

Wikinews has always been the black sheep of the Wikimedia family. It’s an inherently weird premise— every other project is an archive of general information that is timeless while simultaneously always open to updates and improvements; News is just a news blog, “but Wikimedia”. A good metric of a project’s suitability for Wikimedia is whether its content would be roughly the same in a different equivalent work— there’s only so many ways to write a dictionary entry, but a million ways to write a news article. While I personally find it more interesting and informative than Wikibooks (who actually uses Books instead of something like Wikihow? I want names) or Wikiversity (what even is the point of that project?) and certainly more worthwhile than the numerous editions of Wikipedia in moribund constructed languages spoken exclusively as a second language by a few online hobbyists, it simply makes no sense as a Wikimedia project. I doubt that it will actually close, since there’s still more than enough editors in the major language editions to “keep the lights on”, but are these projects really, actually serving anyone besides those editors? It doesn’t “break” major events (that’s Wikipedia’s job by way of legacy news agencies) and a few decent interviews or entertaining articles once every whenever doesn’t cut it, especially when its inherent reliance on original research, “expiration date” on articles, and lack of logical ways to onboard new editors (people can’t just w:wp:BOLDly go out and record an interview with RuPaul like they can correct a typo or upload a picture of a cool grasshopper in their backyard) clash so heavily with the basic ideals of Wikimedia. Dronebogus (talk) 11:47, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

How would you suggest to improve onboarding? Gryllida 13:40, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@Dronebogus Gryllida 14:13, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I’m not sure. My point is that it, along with WN’s other flaws, seems like an inherent vice. Dronebogus (talk) 14:14, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

When you say it seems like an inherent vice, what kinds of fundamental instabilities do you see as driving that? I’d be interested to hear more about what you’re noticing. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I kind of already did say what was behind the issue: other projects require very little effort and preparation to start contributing to; original reporting is the opposite. It lacks that fundamental user-friendliness inherent to other projects, and is dependent on the wherewithal of the contributor more than anything comparable on Wikipedia or Commons. Dronebogus (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Per Wikibooks usage, 86 million page views in May 2025. Even if you think "pff... that's probably all AI training," it was no lower than 12.6 million each month in June 2019 to August 2020.

While I agree that general news coverage isn't a winning formula -- few wouldn't have already heard of the US strikes on Iran June 24, when they happened June 21 and 22, the original reporting that Wikinews used to be known for has much more utility. We've had in-depth parasport coverage, in-depth interviews on biology scholarship, in-depth coverage of municipal elections. On their own, each has a limited audience, but they covered topics otherwise overlooked.

One instance I mentioned briefly in a previous thread was an interview with RuPaul, between his periods of cultural relevancy. In the interview, he is somewhat despondent, saying that there's no next generation of drag performers; a year later he was hosting Drag Race. If someone was a biographer of RuPaul, these shared thoughts would probably be very relevant for understanding this chapter of his career. They could have been shared on a blog, but would that blog exist now? Would we still have a blog with the parasport coverage, the biology scholarship? Likely not. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I don’t deny there’s good content on WikiNews; however I also think you defeated your own argument when you brought up “AI training”. WikiNews is no longer just putting out content nobody reads (unhelpful but harmless); it’s putting out content nobody reads while also providing raw material for the ongoing tsunami of AI slop. Even if most content online is fodder for the robot apocalypse, a Wikimedia project of all things should not be feeding into it without a very good reason. Dronebogus (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

What? If Wikinews' existence is feeding AI training, then isn't every project doing the same? Isn't every website? Should we tell all news media to stop writing news articles? -- Zanimum (talk) 02:37, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

No, that’s not what I said at all. Everything is feeding AI, that’s a moot point; Wikipedia feeds AI, but also serves a useful function; mainstream news outlets feed AI, but serve a useful function; WikiNews feeds AI, and doesn’t serve a useful function, or at least enough of a useful function to justify being primarily useful to slop-o-trons scraping the internet for data to plagiarize and turn into yet more anti-educational garbage. Dronebogus (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

While what you wrote is an aside, I'll answer re: Wikiversity. Wikiversity spun out of Wikibooks because there was some appetite for general educational content that wasn't strictly a book/manual/guide. E.g. see v:en:Bloom Clock. It could be a useful platform for generally learning together, such as hosting lecture notes, gathering other online educational resources in one place via links and discussion, coordinating learning activities offline or online (e.g. chess tournaments or working together to an open-source cola). The Wild West nature of it does lead to some unimpressive material, but it has a clear scope within the WMF's general mission of open culture and education. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:29, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree it’s notionally in scope, but you are more correct in that it’s basically “wiki-misc”. Dronebogus (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry that I'm too dense here, but what do you mean by "wiki-misc"? Just that the content is miscellaneous? If so, I agree, but that is basically the idea of Wikiversity: anything that is a learning resources or module of some kind but doesn't really fit into the other sister projects. Otherwise, where would this content go? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:00, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, everything you just said. Wiki-hodgepodge. Dronebogus (talk) 18:47, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Then we may disagree about if that's a feature or a bug, but either way, your assessment is generally correct, sure. And as to your main point above, yes, it is the case that Wikinews is inherently different from the other sister projects in as much as old news ceases to be news entirely, so you cannot really have a news site without a constant churn of content, but you could take an indefinite amount of time to make a dictionary or encyclopedia or travel guide, etc. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:50, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I actually started spitballing some ideas for a serious wiki-whatever project down in #What next? As it stands I think for ‘versity it’s a bug because it makes it impossible to easily describe to people, unlike other projects which are either self explanatory or become obvious when you read them a little (i.e. wiki functions didn’t make sense to me until I actually browsed some of it and it clicked). Dronebogus (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

In practice, Wikiversity - at least, the English edition; I can't speak for the others - has become a dumping ground for weird fringe-y content that no other project would accept. The focus on "learning content" was lost long ago; the reason it's hard to describe is because it lacks definition. Omphalographer (talk) 07:05, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is true. I'm an admin there and I've been slowly removing nonsense, abandoned material, and inappropriate uploads, but it's a slow-going affair. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:07, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I think it would be better if Wikiversity were scrapped entirely, merged into Wikibooks, or completely restructured along the lines I’ve been talking about. Dronebogus (talk) 23:56, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I respect it and disagree. If you feel like you want to make a proper proposal, you could, but I don't see that happening. Either way, there is definitely some stuff at en.wv that shouldn't be. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:10, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

My 2c

I have mentioned some of my points on Wikivoyage, but the underlying issue with Wikinews is that it is the only WMF project that requires an active community to sustain itself. Every other project you can completely abandon for a year or two and the content will still be largely relevant, but for Wikinews, if there are no new articles within the last 7 days (being generous), it is completely dead. Other metrics which people have brought up in past discussions like number of articles are completely irrelevant because nobody will willingly read an outdated news publication.

I'm being quite generous with my suggestions here, giving some of the lesser active projects that still maintain some activity a chance to reform but I propose that:

• no new Wikinews projects be opened (which is already the case, if I'm not mistaken);
• all Wikinews projects with the newest article published laterearlier than 1 January 2025 automatically be soft closed/archived;

That would, as a result, leave only the Wikinews projects in larger languages (such as en or ru, which do have reasonably active communities). I believe those those projects remaining are decently sizable and know the ins and outs of the project to know what's best for them going forward. Any other Wikinews that would have had no article for over 6 months should follow my second point (no new Wikinews projects).

Alternatively, as a completely different suggestion, another possibility that could be explored would be to revitalise Wikinews into a multilingual project with articles individually translated into other languages. This would at least allow the smaller language Wikinews projects to continue having a space while not being completely dead.

//shb (t • c) 12:08, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

all Wikinews projects with the newest article published later than 1 January 2025 automatically be soft closed/archived;

Minor correction: I think you meant "earlier than 1 January 2025", as large-language Wikinews projects have newest articles published later than 1 January 2025, and many small-language Wikinews projects have newest articles published earlier than that date. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:16, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I did; thanks for picking it up. //shb (t • c) 13:25, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

How would you suggest to implement translation? I am bilingual. Gryllida 13:41, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I'd implement it maybe a bit like how Meta does with translations – they're written in one language but are then translated afterwards (which in the case of Wikinews, could be after it is reviewed). //shb (t • c) 13:44, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I find content difficult to edit in this format. Is there a way without inserting translate tags? There was Special:ContentTranslation, but that was not sufficiently developed to present a translation status tracker in the footer of a page. Gryllida 14:12, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. However, regarding the statement no new Wikinews projects be opened (which is already the case, if I'm not mistaken): that's not entirely accurate.

The most recent Wikinews project, Shan Wikinews, was created in September last year. Additionally, just before this consultation began, Bangla Wikinews had already become active enough to be eligible for approval under the Language Committee's guidelines. -- Asked42 (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Interslavic (a constructed auxiliary language that has not seen any serious widespread adoption) and Toki Pona (an artistic language with maybe, generously 5000 hobbyist speakers) have been greenlit for Wikipedia editions. All you need for a new language edition is a valid language with non-trivial number of speakers and a handful of enthusiastic supporters. It says nothing about the long-term viability of the edition or even the umbrella project. Dronebogus (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

By and large, I like the proposal stop the expansion and selectively archive. That said, a point of clarification on "nobody will willingly read an outdated news publication."

English Wikinews' articles in the past two weeks have had 938, 1,104, 1,222, 970, 1,452, 952, and 525 pageviews, or 7163 collectively. English Wikinews had 52 million page views on 21 million unique devices in May. I have no idea what people are reading, but the back catalogue seems to be very actively used. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Maybe it’s bots. And dogs. Dronebogus (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

For the reasons discussed in more detail in this section, that 52 million page views number is unfortunately extremely misleading and should not be relied upon. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:19, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Back catalogue is really actively used, it is the ARCHIVE, archives are used always. Also, WE ARE NOT BOTS. We read archives often and ARE NOT BOTS!!! HUMANS!!! -- Ssr (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Invalid method & Undercommunication: this was escalated without querying the wikis

This effort of sister wiki task force appears to have been done without prior effort to seek feedback on each local wiki. This is concerning to me. It would be, I think, much better to approach each Wikinews and ask "how can we support you better?" and propose measurable output characteristics, and work together to improve the situation. This apparently did not happen. Gryllida 13:38, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I completely agree with this point. Now, regarding the consultation process, I do have some criticisms, some of which I have mentioned earlier. Since this consultation directly concerns Wikinews, shouldn't the Task Force have involved the community before preparing such a report? Or at the very least, shouldn't the Wikinews projects have been informed in advance that such a consultation was going to take place?

From what I have seen, many Wikinews communities (if not all) only learned about the consultation after it had already started, through the mass message. But isn't it important to involve local communities when conducting any kind of assessment or preparing a report that affects them? So far, I haven't found any prior communication from the Task Force to the individual Wikinews communities regarding this.

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?

I fully understand that the Task Force members are also volunteers, and I have great respect for their efforts. But when it comes to conducting an analysis of a project like Wikinews (or any project), informing and involving the community doesn't seem like an unreasonable expectation. It's a basic principle of transparency and fairness.

Now, if the conclusion of this process leads to the closure of Wikinews, what happens to the years of hard work and time that countless editors have invested in these projects? Are those contributions simply going to be overlooked or discarded? Are our efforts not valuable enough to at least be informed about what is happening behind the scenes?

At the time of writing this, I realize my comment may come across as more emotional than logical—but I genuinely feel that no amount of statistics can outweigh the commitment and contributions of the communities. I apologize if my tone seems harsh. But if I don't express this now, I fear I may not get another chance to do so. -- Asked42 (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree, and I’d add that during the period covered by the report, English Wikinews was actively discussing and organizing efforts to revitalize the project. We’re now starting to see early signs of progress—even from small steps taken so far: Wikinews:2025 Boost publication rate/Monthly top article/Updates.

The improvement is modest, and we started from a low baseline (in 2024, we averaged just 7.75 published articles per month). But the trend is moving upward. With more coordination and focused effort, I believe we can accelerate that progress. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

True. We can discuss about this much more ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@Victoria It’s concerning to me that the Sister Projects Task Force is sending messages to all sorts of unrelated communities instead of trying to work directly with Wikinews. I really hope the task force genuinely listens to the people who are actually working on Wikinews, rather than just gathering noise from everywhere else.

The message more or less implies that Wikinews is beyond saving. If that’s the case, then the focus should be on supporting the volunteers who’ve been working on the project for years—helping them figure out how to pull things together or offering alternative ways to keep the goals of the project alive.

It’s honestly disappointing to see volunteer work being dismissed as a failure, especially in the way it’s being portrayed in these messages across community pages.-- BRP ^ever 14:16, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, if five people are running, someone is always going to be behind, that doesn’t mean they’re failing. It’s not an elimination race, so the comparison doesn’t make sense to me. BRP ^ever 14:23, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I too agree with this – getting a hoard of people to comment, many of whom have little to no experience with the way Wikinews works – should have never been favourable to simply working with the Wikinews community altogether. I hope the SPTF does not repeat this mistake for any other WMF project either. //shb (t • c) 22:27, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

We are going to talk to the Wikinews community, just as we talked to the Wikispore representatives. However, I expect that the wikinewsians would be in COI. And this consultation is exactly about how "to pull things together or offering alternative ways to keep the goals" - can you propose any?

As for the five people running - this is a great metaphor - what if one of the people not only running behind, but manged to trip the winner? I'm talking the case when a script deliberately employed on Russian Wikinews, caused Wikipedia servers outage - twice. And that was before 70% of our traffic in all projects was by the external bots.

We simply cannot keep all the projects running "because the volunteers worked" - otherwise nothing would been deleted. The Language Committee deals with this question on a smaller scale - and the consensus that if a project cannot fulfil its' goals, it should be shut down. Victoria (talk) 09:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

"However, I expect that the wikinewsians would be in COI." — this statement itself reflects a conflict of interest. It gives the impression that the task force has already made up its mind, and this consultation is merely a formality. Even if the task force has no intention of incorporating community input, it still has a responsibility to transparently inform the community of such decisions. I find it deeply concerning to suggest that the community should not be informed simply because they might object to the potential closure of a project they’ve dedicated significant time and effort to. That logic is both unfair and dismissive and, in my view, represents a greater conflict of interest on the task force's part.

"We simply cannot keep all the projects running because the volunteers worked" — this statement seems to highlight a disregard for the contributions of volunteers. The task force cannot simply shrug off its responsibility to engage with the communities affected. While I agree that volunteer work alone may not be a sufficient reason to keep a project active, it is certainly not a reason to ignore those who have kept it alive. Volunteer contributions should be considered a strength, not an inconvenience.

I believe the core issue with the task force lies in its lack of transparency. Most of the decision-making appears to be happening behind closed doors. The idea of shutting down Wikinews seems to be treated as an afterthought, something minor and unimportant; when in fact it is a serious matter that affects communities. The task force should approach this process with greater care, responsibility, and openness. -- Asked42 (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Why do you think that my private opinion is the opinion of the Taskforce, which is compsed of the trustees - including the Chair and Chair elect - volunteer advisory members from the several continents and staff?

Please tell me how the Taskforce is less transparent than the rest of the BOard-associated Commitees - AffCom, for example? Victoria (talk) 14:15, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough @Victoria, I should not have assumed that your comments necessarily reflect the official views of the task force as a whole. However, even if these are your personal opinions, I believe the points I raised remain important and I stand by them. The task force in my view, should still try to address them.

At the moment, you're the only visible point of communication from the task force. I have no idea who the other members are, or whether they’re actively following the discussion or engaged with the concerns being raised. That lack of clarity contributes to a broader sense of disconnect.

Regarding transparency: I’ve already expressed my concerns about it in multiple comments, so I won’t repeat everything again. But in brief: there was no prior communication about this review; the possibility of closure was mentioned in the report before the consultation even began; there's been no clear effort to identify and understand the core issues facing Wikinews; and overall there’s been very little direct or constructive engagement from the task force. All of this raises serious concerns about transparency and openness.

Once again, since you've clarified that your comments are made in a personal capacity, I kindly request that in future responses, you distinguish clearly when you're speaking on behalf of the task force — if and when that happens.

I truly appreciate the time and work you’ve put into this process. I understand my messages may seem critical, but my intention is to contribute to a more neutral, open, and genuinely collaborative environment. Have a good day! -- Asked42 (talk) 14:38, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello Asked42, thanks again for all of your input on the topic and your help spreading the word to others. Task force members are listed here, and include myself, @Kasyap, Noe, Billinghurst, and Galahad: and members of the CAC. –SJ talk  02:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

@Asked42: I don't read that from the first cited message. I read "I expect that the internal community will try to keep Wikinews open and active", so this aspect should be taken into account.

@SHB2000: Opinions of users that do not contribute to Wikinews brings value. At the end the commission will be able to evaluate their weight. People that contributes to Wikinews should not ignore what happens outside. -- ZandDev (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Asking opinions of users that don't contribute to Wikinews is not the problem – only taking in the opinions of the wider community, many of whom don't know the ins and outs of Wikinews, merely for a box ticking exercise, is the problem. Nobody is saying the wider community views should entirely be dismissed. //shb (t • c) 01:32, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

@Victoria: It’s important to distinguish between conflict of interest and having a stake in the outcome. Of course Wikinews contributors care about the future of their project, just like Wikisource users care about Wikisource. But having passion or being affected by a decision does not disqualify someone from being part of the conversation. In fact, it makes their input more essential. Community voices bring real-world insights, experience, and accountability to the process. -- Asked42 (talk) 11:04, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

@Victoria: I genuinely cannot tell if you're being serious when you say "I expect that the wikinewsians would be in COI." Why do you think seeking consultation with those who know the project the most is considered a conflict of interest? And none of this explains why you want to discuss with the Wikinews community after when you say "[w]e are going to talk to the Wikinews community" in future tense. Asked42 has said everything else what I've wanted to say except I am utterly disappointed in how poorly SPTF is handling this. //shb (t • c) 13:40, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

"We simply cannot keep all the projects running because the volunteers worked" — WHY NOT? What is preventing it? Money? Matthiasb (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

The answer will be similar to why Wikipedia has notability criteria - writing about literally everything will not only require unlimited resources, but will fill the project with garbage. Do you know what happened to Quora? Victoria (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

There is difference in writing an article about a school band and it being deleted and closing dozens of projects where millions of articles and news have been created. BilboBeggins (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

@Victoria: I am both an editor in Wikinews and Wikipedia so please, PLEASE, do not try to play plays with me. why Wikipedia has notability criteria - writing about literally everything will not only require unlimited resources, but will fill the project with garbage. is just not the reality. We have notability criteria for different reasons. For instance because of people not fulfilling notability criteria (or Relevanzkriterien in the DE WP) are not in the news, they don*t write papers, they are not known, so there are no sources and therefore it cannot be written about them. Still, talking about DE WP, we have hundreds of millions of topics which are relevant but don't have an article either. Places or species, for example. But how would you know that given that only 1200 edits of you have been made in another language version than the RU WP. Your edit count in the EN WP is about 200. you have less than a hundred edits in the RU WN. You are, speking of internationalization and of sister projects totally unexperienced. You should never have been selected for that funny Sister Projects Taskforce committee. And that is the problem we have to deal here. You don't hae a clue what you are talking about, and that can be seen in the whole report which is full of untruths. I am really really annoyed. And that is the nopersonal attack version. Matthiasb (talk) 08:13, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what games you have in mind.

This is a personal attack version' just skirting around being blocked - you are attacking my credibility based on the number of edits, while I have a flag in Russian Wikinews and edits across several projects in different languages - size and number of edits doesn't always matter. I'm also a trustee since 2021, which also gives me a bit of a vantage point.

But I don't want to tempt you to become really uncivil, so I'm finishing the discussion here. Victoria (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I think you should have simply discussed this with the Wikinews community first. You're not just talking about deleting a page; this is about closing or restructuring a set of projects. I have minimal involvement with Wikinews and with no COI, I can say there were better ways SPTF could have handled this. This really reminds me of the conversation Mr. Prosser had with Arthur in Hitchhiker's Guide. BRP ^ever 14:47, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

"However, I expect that the wikinewsians would be in COI." Wikinewsians are the most important stakeholders here, in this issue.

Why would wikinewsians be in COI more than other wikipedians? BilboBeggins (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

The Language Committee deals with this question on a smaller scale - and the consensus that if a project cannot fulfill its goals, it should be shut down. It doesn’t do this nearly enough, precisely “ because the volunteers worked”. The same thing will almost certainly happen here. People, especially a close-knit group of passionate volunteers, are obviously defensive about their work. Dronebogus (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this, thank you Gryllida for summing up what I wanted to say! BilboBeggins (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I revised the page, adding the sentence highlighted in yellow:

• Since the Sister Projects Task Force (SPTF) was convened in 2023, its members have sought the community's opinions during conferences and community calls regarding Sister Projects that have not fulfilled their promise in the Wikimedia movement (see Wikimania 2023 session "Sister Projects: past, present and the glorious future" and WikiConvention francophone minutes). Wikinews was the leading candidate for an evaluation because people from multiple language communities proposed it. (Wikinews was not included in the consultations; Wikinews was notified of the proposal outcome on June 2025.) Additionally, by most measures, it is the least active Sister Project, with the greatest drop in activity over the years.

Hope it helps. Gryllida 21:17, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Certainly a more accurate description. //shb (t • c) 00:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

That should be revised. The community consultation about Wikinews started when this page was posted here on Meta, not before. We are making up a process for proposals for sister project changes or closure, which did not exist before; the newly proposed process includes posting a proposal and indicating its authors before an analysis is done, and engaging the projects affected in the discussion. I personally find it vastly helpful in evaluating a proposal when those who contributed to it (the proposal text) also share their personal takes and understandings in an associated comments section. Those who have been active on Wikinews, now or in the past, should particularly weigh in. –SJ talk  01:24, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Gryllida & Nemo thanks for your edits and for discussing changes here, I have clarified the page intro to be more accurate. –SJ talk  02:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

It would be, I think, much better to approach each Wikinews and ask "how can we support you better?" and propose measurable output characteristics Do you really think have a mandate to establish key performance indicators like that? And, honestly, how do you think such a proposal would have been received by the communities in question? Graham11 (talk) 06:04, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

• I concur with Gryllida's observations. My reading of the report indicates a missed opportunity to truly diagnose the issue at hand, explore avenues for enhancement, and develop actionable proposals. The current suggestions, unfortunately, appear to aim for removal rather than a constructive path forward. Oleg Yunakov (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Agree, why? why? and again why? Why SPTF is killing us (means our contribution). I have made more then 1000+ edit on Bengali Wikinews and more then 200+ in English Wikinews (Still a little one)! Is it will be fall to the sea? Mobashir - 🇧🇩 (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Disagree on: Lack of educational value

apparently they think that key issue is that contributors engagement is low. new users write a story and leave. they think that editing in wikipedia does not have this issue

i disagree with that assessment. i think that both in wikipedia and wikinews many new users leave. the only difference is that because of journalism format, vast majority of content is not editable, as it was archived after publishing. because of this, the stats are in favor of other projects.

request: provide stats on % of new users that left in wp vs new users who left in wn. non bots only.

info FYI: working in journalism format, with article not perpetually editable, improves language reading and writing skills, as well as critical thinking Gryllida 14:08, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@Victoria, please comment. Gryllida 14:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Also I think they care the data to much, avtually Wikinews only needs ten active users to keep its basic channel updated.Other important elements, such as exclusive interviews, are inherently serendipitous and cannot be forced. News is not everyday-have Sheminghui.WU (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

By "educational value" I mean "educational value for the general public", not for individual wikimedians, who edited the page. Wikipedia/Wikibooks etc, even Commons are used in various classrooms & for self-learning, while the Wikinews are generally not more educational than an individual blog - and Wikimedia is not a blog hosting site.

I believe you can find the information you requested on stats.wikimedia.org Victoria (talk) 09:59, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

@Victoria: Thank you for clarifying your definition of "educational value." However, I respectfully disagree with the characterization of Wikinews as being equivalent to a blog.

Wikinews follows strict policies on neutrality, sourcing, and verifiability much like Wikipedia and is not written as personal opinion pieces. Unlike blogs, Wikinews articles are required to cite multiple reliable sources and adhere to a formal review process before publication. These editorial safeguards are specifically designed to prevent the platform from becoming a space for individual expression or editorializing.

Wikinews is not meant to replace mainstream media or serve as an academic resource in the same way as Wikipedia or Wikibooks, but it does have informational and educational value in helping readers stay informed about current events in a neutral, free, and globally accessible manner. In fact for underrepresented languages and regions, Wikinews sometimes becomes one of the only freely accessible news archives available online.

If a particular edition of Wikinews isn’t meeting its potential, the goal should be to support it not dismiss the entire model as blog like. -- Asked42 (talk) 11:14, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

"Wikinews follows strict policies on neutrality, sourcing, and verifiability much like Wikipedia and is not written as personal opinion pieces." - this is not the case at least for Russian Wikinews, which is one of the biggest editions.

There are very few Wikinews in the underrepresented languages. Victoria (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Then don’t you think Victoria, that instead of giving up on the less actively monitored Wikinews editions, we should try to support and assist them? I can’t speak on behalf of the Russian Wikinews community — I don’t know the language and haven’t contributed there. But based on my experience with English Wikinews, and from occasionally browsing the French and Spanish editions via Google Translate, as well as my work on the (still unborn) Bengali Wikinews, I’ve clearly seen the enforcement of core editorial guidelines.

I’m not trying to claim that Wikinews is 100% reliable, of course it's not, just as Wikipedia isn’t either. That could honestly be said for any Wikimedia project. Wikis are imperfect by nature. But what matters is the intention- the drive to collaboratively build open, reliable knowledge through news. That intention does exist in Wikinews. Maybe it’s not always as visible as on Wikipedia, but it’s real.

Even a small gesture of support, a simple "Hey, you’re all doing great, reach out to us if you need help about handling spam or enforcing coree guidelines" - would mean a lot. It would make a difference. I know it would for me. -- Asked42 (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

>Then don’t you think Victoria, that instead of giving up on the less actively monitored Wikinews editions, we >should try to support and assist them?

Yes - in theory. But I'm a practical person, so when I see "let's make Wikinews great again" I expect to see who, when and how will be making it great. If SPTF sees a plan with a timeline, KPIs and responsible people, I'm sure the recommendation to the BOard will be different from the recommendation based on the history and the current state of Wikinews. Victoria (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

How many worldwide Wikimedia project volunteers (not your staff) have already given to you something resembing "a plan with a timeline, KPIs and responsible people"? An example, please, we should review? -- Ssr (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

All of the affiliates. All of the grantees. Most of the event organizers. Some groups of volunteers/editors, though this is not usually about everyday editing (e.g., a contest to create articles, rather than the ordinary process of creating articles). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

If we are closed, we aren't able to generate such document. But we can if we are asked. But we were never asked. -- Ssr (talk) 09:35, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Have you read this document? It is online since 15 September 2020‎. -- Ssr (talk) 08:19, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

So Victoria, you think that all languages are to be measured on what you found on RU WN? That is nonsense. Besides that RU WN is one of the biggest editions it has a reason why it is that and this reason makes it uncomparable to every single other WN language version out there. There are very few Wikinews in the underrepresented languages. How this is a criteria on deciding on WN in DE, FR; IT, ES, ....??? If you make this an argument why can we keep EN WP when hundreds of "underrepresented languages" have little to none content. What you are talking about? It is not my mistake as a DE WN editor that there are "underrepresented languages". That even isn*t a problem. If there is a WP version in am "underrepresented language" fine, glad to see, but if the same language does not have an WN language versions, sorry to hear, but I don't care. It is what it is. Matthiasb (talk) 07:48, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

>So Victoria, you think that all languages are to be measured on what you found on RU WN?

No, I don't think that, read the report, which uses RU WN as just one data point. Victoria (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Russian Wikinews is unlike any of the others. It is largely a news-specific Wikisource or archive.org. They import news articles that were published on freely-licensed Russian news outlets. There is almost no creation of news articles there. If we count only original creations, they might have created 15 articles last month (half the items are redirects). Some of those 15 are self-promotional pieces ("A new public organization “We are Russians” has appeared in Russia..." by User:WeRussians) or about Wikinews ("Wikimedia Foundation May Close Wikinews").

@Matthiasb, have you looked at the statistics for these "big" languages?

• German-language Wikinews: Average of 6 active editors in the last 10 years,[11] and 6 in the last 2 years.[12]
• French Wikinews: Average of 11 active editors in the last 10 years,[13] and 7 in the last 2 years.[14]
• Italian Wikinews: Average of 8 active editors in the last 10 years,[15] and 7 in the last 2 years.[16]
• Spanish Wikinews: Average of 8 active editors in the last 10 years,[17] and 5 in the last 2 years.[18]

There are not enough people. There is zero growth. This is not working. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Why didn't you come to Russian Wikinews and didn't share your concerns there?

user:ssr pinged you in message on 29 may on forum [19]. He mentioned that when he voted for you last time, you had a program of develpoment of Wikinews [20]. BilboBeggins (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

"An instance of will to develop Wikinews among other things in her electoral program" -- Ssr (talk) 09:48, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Location of visitors seems conflicting

"After looking at the readers' traffic across all the Wikinews projects grouped by the country from which the traffic originated, we find that most of the traffic originates from (in descending order) the US, Russia, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Germany. Please note that this observation does not factor in the fraction of this traffic that originates through proxies. Few countries generate more than a thousand pageviews a day." -- Page 7

I'm wondering where this information is from. English Wikinews' traffic in May was from Brazil (24M), Singapore (13M), the United States (2M), and Argentina (506K). Most of the Chinese viewership (11M) is from Brazil, and the most active Russian readers are in Singapore (3M) and Brazil (2M).

Is stats.wikimedia.org broken, or has the audience really shifted that far between 2024 to May 2025? -- Zanimum (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Probably the former - readership stats for May are likely vastly inflated by undetected bot traffic, to the point of being unusable, per phab:T395934 and [21] (see also my comment above). Unfortunately WMF has so far failed to add warning notes to the affected parts of stats.wikimedia.org.

(Apropos: Even disregarding such anomalies, note that the default view in the pageviews stats there includes spider and automated traffic, which one should exclude for most purposes. That's been a common pitfall of stats.wikimedia.org for many years, I have seen it trip up many users.)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

If bot traffic skews data so much, how do we know that any Wikimedia project has readership beyond its editor base? Shouldn't all stats be suspect? -- Zanimum (talk) 02:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

You need to distinguish several different issues:

• phab:T395934 is a recent problem, which from the descriptions there looks like it should not affect data from before April 2025. (Then again, e.g. English Wikinews seems to have had a fairly suspicious looking rise in February and March already.)
• Re the default view on stats.wikimedia.org, note that the site does offer the option - under "Agent type" - to exclude bot/spider views (more precisely, what the WMF's analytics pipeline has detected as such, see R:Page view and other documentation pages linked there for more detail). It's a usability problem, not a data problem.
• It's fair to ask how reliable this bot/spider detection is in general. (E.g. from phab:T395934, it appears that it took WMF over a month to notice that extreme data anomaly, even though it ruins one of its core metrics and the pageview tool(s) that many editors across many Wikimedia projects rely on.) Then again I seem to recall that the method in general had been fairly thoroughly vetted at least a couple of years ago by manually inspecting a diverse sample of pageviews, but I am not familiar with more recent assessments, if there were any.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:15, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Comparing volume to Hackernews

Am I missing something with the comparison to Hackernews, for volume?

The fact that exhaustive, complete lists of edits in the Main namespace for the three large Wikinews projects over seven days include less than 150 articles (including spam, vandalism and bot-created articles) is evidence of a lack of momentum in the Wikinews contributor communities. In comparison, Hackernews, a volunteer-aggregated news service catering to tech professionals, is believed to have over a thousand submissions per day despite its niche audience.

Are they simply comparing the number of articles that were written and went through an extensive review process as equivalent to the number of articles that people copy-pasted to a Reddit/Digg-like website? -- Zanimum (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, Hacker News is a message board, so you don't typically post the content of anything there, you just post a link to something that you find interesting and others discuss it. But yes, something like that. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:34, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

"No references to Wikinews articles" on Wikipedia

One of the criticisms of Wikinews' usefulness is that in relation to the "Self-immolation of Maxwell Azzarello" and "Kerem Shalom border crossing," neither of the corresponding Wikipedia pages references Wikinews.

Is it not a case that English Wikipedia bans referencing Wikinews articles, as Wikipedia ironically doesn't trust other wikis, despite Wikinews having the most open editorial process of any news website. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Reading the report further, they say "As a self-published site lacking fact-checking and editorial oversight, Wikinews does not meet the reliability standard of Wikipedia sources."

a.) So why were they acting like there should be citations, a few pages earlier, and

b.) What do they mean no fact-checking or editorial oversight? If anything, the burdensome process for getting anything published is what has limited participation. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Regarding a), I'm not quite sure what your point is. Both the lack of citations and the fact that Wikinews does not meet the reliability standards of enwiki form part of the evidence for (the first part) of the report's conclusion that Wikinews does not fill a need in the world through useful articles, significant readership, or significant volunteer engagement. What's contradictory about that?

To answer question b), you could review the various community discussions linked at w:WP:RSPWIKINEWS as sources for the current enwiki community consensus, which reads:

Most [English Wikipedia] editors believe that Wikinews articles do not meet Wikipedia's verifiability standards. As Wikinews does not enforce a strong editorial policy, many editors consider the site equivalent to a self-published source, which is generally unreliable.

Various other Wikipedias have come to similar conclusions, often many years ago already.

It sounds like you strongly disagree with this community consensus on enwiki?

Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what your point is. Both the lack of citations and the fact that Wikinews does not meet the reliability standards of enwiki form part of the evidence for (the first part) of the report's conclusion that: I’m genuinely trying to understand the basis of this statement, as well as what’s mentioned in the report. Almost all Wikinews articles (if not all) include sources. I can confidently say this is true for English Wikinews, and I believe it applies to other language editions as well. You can visit the main page, open any article, and you will find the listed sources. To clarify, Wikinews does not use inline citations like Wikipedia.

Each article goes through a review process by a designated reviewer, who checks for verifiability and reliability. That’s why I’m finding it difficult to understand how reliability is being raised as a concern, especially when many of the comments argue that the review process is actually too strict.

As for Wikipedia not allowing Wikinews articles as citations, well, that's a separate discussion. But it's worth noting that Wikipedia doesn't consider itself a reliable source either, including projects The Signpost and Wikidata. Asked42 (talk) 00:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

My point, simply, is that it was an irrelevant statement in the report. -- Zanimum (talk) 02:32, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

English Wikipedia places interwiki boxes like w:Template:Wiktionary and w:Template:Wikiquote to link to sister wikis, typically in the see also or external links sections at the bottom of an article. The template for Wikinews, w:Template:Wikinews, does not appear in the w:Kerem Shalom border crossing article, and did not appear on the Self-immolation of Maxwell Azzarello article immediately before it was converted to a redirect. That was my interpretation of what is being referred to. This, that and the other (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

@HaeB: As Wikinews does not enforce a strong editorial policy Where does this come from? It is blatantly untrue. The EN WN has a clear vetting process for every article and is the reason that many articles get deleted before they got the published status. In the DE WP, less formally, but still, at least one other editor should have a look on it before it goes from "in Bearbeitung" to "veröffentlicht". In normal cases the n:de:Vorlage:Prüfung should be used. Actually DE WN has higher needs on article and sources than DE WPwhich still accepts single literature sourced articles without naming the page where the information was found. Matthiasb (talk) 07:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

However, we do have

Wikinews has news related to this article:

[[Wikinews:|]]

~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 06:22, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but therefore the method used to claim (or rather anti-claim) the lack of synergy might be wrong. Actually this Template:Wikinews makes use of interwiki links but they can't be detected automatically by any tool, and searching for the string [:n: does not get them either, since the code ist using {wikinews|, so the table in the report giving outgoing links to Wikinews, Wikisource and other probably is totally useless. On the other that table does not reflect in any way that some of those links from Wikipedia to Wikinews, Wikisource and other are outgoing to categories and portals. So, for example, the outgoing Wikinews link in w:de:Berlin corresponds with n:de:Portal:Berlin containing about 30 articles directly and further 1742 articles indirectly. The Wikipedia article n:de:Hochwasser ("flooding") links to n:de:Category:Hochwasser containing 111 articles. Off course Wikipedia articles are linked in each of these articles as literally every wikinews article backlinks to Wikipedia, sometimes only to four or five articles, sometimes dozens of links to WP articles (about nine in the newer article n:de:Verheerende Sturzflut mit vielen Toten in Zentraltexas, and more might come, when other editors read the article. (That does not fall under the "no edits after publishing" rule). So assuming that there is no synergy between both projects is wrong.

We see here also an overall misunderstanding of synergy between WP/WN. Synergy does not mean necessarily that both projects link to each other but is is also about using/reusing the text, information within the text and even the sources used in Wikinews when writing the Wikipedia article. While I am not involved into the central Texas flood article (not involved so far) I showed such interdependencies in articles I was involved in on my Wikinews user page n:de:User:Matthiasb #Meine Arbeit ("My work"). While the upper table shows actualities for which I wrote the start and more of that in both of WP and WN the lower table shows a selection of events which had been covered in both WP and WN at the time in which I contributed more than only small parts but did not start the article. I never got to maintain this tables after 2010 or so due to the lack of time in R/L but it definitely shows how the article work of users active in both projects appears. Again I must point out on the Victoria's lack of knowledge of the workflow of users like me and how wikinews works at all. --Matthiasb (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

You can see an example of {{wikinews}} template correct usage in EWP at the address w:Russian_Wikipedia#External_links --Ssr (talk) 06:17, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Encyklopedia w ogóle nie powinna opierać się na prasówce, mediach społecznościowych, blogach i forach. Encyklopedia nie jest miejscem na bieżączkę. Szum medialny bardzo szybko się wyciszy, a w hasłach encyklopedii powinny pozostać jedynie informacje o tym, co było istotne i wyszło poza szum medialny, znalazło się w opracowaniach tematu, monografiach, artykułach naukowych. Wszystkie przypisy do jakichkolwiek newsów powinny być zastępowane takimi opracowaniami, a jeśli takich opracowań nie ma, to takie informacje nie mają większego znaczenia i powinny być usuwane. Dane hasło może być jednak powiązane z odpowiednią kategorią newsów, cytatów i obrazków, a także linków do innych uzupełniających stron. Sławek Borewicz (talk) 07:56, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Consider establishing another independent foundation to host Wikinews?

So that we don't need to "close Wikinewses in all languages", but rather:

1. Establish the Preparatory Office of it, initialize the convention of establishment, sign it and ratify, then send instruments of ratification... so such a separate foundation established, it could be named e.g. Wikinews Foundation.
2. Create a global Central Notice to announce that assets of Wikinews will be phased out as a WMF sister project, but not closed permanently, and rather will be owned and maintained by a new foundation, once the migration works completed, they will be administrated by that new foundation.
3. Start exporting WN contents, settings... from our servers into NAS storages, give these storages to that new foundation, and ask that to import them to their own servers.
4. Temporary cancel "client transfer prohibited" requirement, and transfer *.wikinews.org domains' Registrant to be that new foundation, so their Whois informations changed to no longer reflect WMF's benefits;
5. For Wikinewses already have subdomains, the subdomains should be entered as CNAMEs on their new servers, so such already existing Wikinewses will still work per se, but just need to remove "A Wikimedia Project" icons on the bottom-right, and modify privacy policy and other links on the bottom-left to reflect new foundation's, they are still Powered by MediaWiki.
6. For Wikinewses on Incubator, the new foundation should promise to also establish their own Incubator platform, so they can still be tested and decide whether some of them are eligible for new subdomains (e.g. Bengali).
7. After such foundation-level migrations completed, the Extension of Incubator should just remove Wikinews-related functions.
8. After such migrations done, the current Wikinews requests should therefore be closed with rationales that Wikinewses are no longer WMF projects, ask the new foundation for future subdomain requests.
9. The "Remove Wikinews from the Wikimedia.org portal and from Foundation communicationsand decks" should continue be done as is, but with Wikinews as a Meta-Wiki page also announce that it's no longer one WMF sister project.

Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226 Why? Is Wikimedia Foundation not eligble to keep this project? Why new foundation? Why????? Mobashir - 🇧🇩 (talk) 01:45, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

The Foundation issued a report recommending that the site be closed. They can keep the project, but it would be contingent on the community changing staff's mind. -- Zanimum (talk) 02:26, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

SPTF is a community body, not a WMF one, so no, WMF didn't publish a report on Wikinews closure. A09|(pogovor) 07:15, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Is foundation selling this project? Mobashir - 🇧🇩 (talk) 01:45, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

According to the 2024 report, page 18, Wikinews may be forked, but it must be hosted under a new name. For whatever reason, the Wikimedia Foundation is simultaneously uninterested in keeping the project, but interested in keeping its trademark.

(Note that the Creative Commons licensing means that any Wikimedia project may be forked, at any time. The difference here is that WMF is willing to assist in the process.) -- Zanimum (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

However, It was a proposal. Mobashir - 🇧🇩 (talk) 03:28, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I think we have a more direct section on this point at #"New name", and I've expressed my view there. Pharos (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Are there any byers? Victoria (talk) 12:55, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Given your experience I thought you'd know wikiprojects are not for sale ... A09|(pogovor) 07:16, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't really understand the reason and the difference ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 03:16, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Czy jest ktokolwiek kto mógłby tego ogromnego przedsięwzięcia dokonać? Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

That's contrary to WMF mission so Strong oppose A09|(pogovor) 07:14, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

It was done before in EWN and didn't survive. It is wiki-separatism, it is prohibited and out of scope. Wikinews is WIKI-NEWS. There are many other news projects, but they are not WIKI, while we are here all WIKI- and the WP:NOTNEWS is WP: not just NOTNEWS. We have to use Wiki-Commons for pictures and PDFs, use Wiki-Data for categories, Wiki-Phabricator for errors and features. If you want to run a separate project, then is is not question for Meta-WIKI. --Ssr (talk) 07:24, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

What is the ultimate goal of this public consultation?

ENG: Thank you, SPTF, for a tremendous amount of good analytical work and for the wikified version of the document. I'm glad it's no longer exclusively in PDF. At the same time, I don't fully understand what the purpose of the public consultation is. I think this stage of any decision-making is important, but it only makes sense if there is a plan for what we can do with the time and input Wikimedians give us here. Will the opinions be taken into account, or has the decision already been made? Do you have any guidelines for evaluating the statements from the discussion? I mean assumptions like “if by day X there are Y statements for/against then we will make a given decision” or “if by day X new proposals for the redevelopment of Wikinews emerge” then we will start a discussion on them, which will last until day Y and end with a decision by means of a vote". You know, whatever, something like that. Esencially, do you know what this discussion is supposed to give us?

PL: Dziękuję SPTF za ogromną ilość dobrej pracy przy analizie i za wiki wersję dokumentu. Cieszę się, że nie jest on już dostępny wyłącznie w formacie PDF. Jednocześnie nie do końca rozumiem, jaki jest cel tych konsultacji społecznych. Myślę, że konsultacyjny etap każdego procesu decyzyjnego jest ważny, ale ma sens tylko wtedy, gdy istnieje plan co możemy zrobić z czasem i wkładem Wikimedian. Czy opinie wyrażone tutaj zostaną wzięte pod uwagę, czy decyzja została już podjęta? Czy macie jakieś wytyczne dotyczące oceny wypowiedzi z dyskusji? Mam na myśli założenia typu „jeśli do dnia X pojawi się Y wypowiedzi za/przeciw, to podejmiemy daną decyzję” lub „jeśli do dnia X pojawią się nowe propozycje przebudowy Wikinews”, to rozpoczniemy nad nimi dyskusję, która potrwa do dnia Y i zakończy się podjęciem decyzji w drodze głosowania". Wiecie, coś w tym stylu. W skrócie: czy wiecie co ta dyskusja ma nam dać? AnnaPruszkowianka (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

No, I have no idea lol, The introduction document for this public consultation proposal is so short ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 03:04, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

The closest equivalent to this consultation that we have are the language-specific Proposals for closing projects, which are evaluated by the Language committee, and run for an unspecific length of time until consensus is distilled and they are closed. They are not votes but !votes, similar to a Request for Comment ideally converging on a proposal that has significant support across those weighing in. Given the range of possible outcomes, this first round of discussion might be followed by a more explicit Request for comment with the most popular options — this is common with complex RfCs on some of the larger wikis.

I would hope that this discussion lasts a finite amount of time, but long enough for all affected communities to be heard. The draft policy does not yet suggest standard timelines, and I expect it will be updated as this consultation develops. –SJ talk  02:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

It already did a lot of damage to the projects. Why one should still work in the Wikinewses a single byte? Should anyone still invest some time into a given other project. What, for example, with the Wikisources where in the cases ofworks in progress thousands of pages already are transkript but thousands of pages still to do? And, whar, in heaven's sake, you will say to the professor who's life-long reseach got kicked from the university's server after he had to retire and, for some years, he is transferring piece to piece onte EN WV at v:en:Social Victorians, literally hundreds of pages. DO you tell him it that all this devoted to learning resources, learning projects, and research for use in all levels, types, and styles of education from pre-school to university, including professional training and informal learning wording was a mere lie only? Matthiasb (talk) 08:11, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

২ বছর সময় চেয়ে আবেদন English: Application for 2 years

আমার পক্ষ থেকে উইকিমিডিয়া সম্প্রদায়ের প্রতি একটি আন্তরিক অনুরোধ:

আমি আগামী দুই বছরের একটি সুসংগঠিত কর্মপরিকল্পনা বাস্তবায়নের জন্য স্ব-উদ্যোগে কাজ করতে প্রস্তুত। তবে, এই লক্ষ্য অর্জনে আমি আপনাদের সক্রিয় সহযোগিতা কামনা করছি।

আমার পরিকল্পনা নিম্নরূপ:

• ২০২৫ সালে ইংরেজি উইকিসংবাদে ৩০০টি নিবন্ধ প্রকাশ করা।
• ইংরেজি উইকিসংবাদে ২০২৬ সালে ৫০০টিরও বেশি ইংরেজি উইকিসংবাদ নিবন্ধ প্রকাশ করা।
• নিষ্ক্রিয় বা কম সক্রিয় উইকিসমূহ পুনর্জীবিত করতে বিভিন্ন উইকিমিডিয়া গ্রুপ ও চ্যাপ্টারের সঙ্গে যোগাযোগ ও আবেদন করা।
• বাংলা উইকিসংবাদ প্রকাশ করা।
• বিভিন্ন বিশ্ববিদ্যালয়ের সাংবাদিকতা বিভাগে যোগাযোগ করা।
• বিভিন্ন কন্টেস্ট আয়োজন।
• সকল ভাষার উইকিসংবাদের জন্য একটি স্বতন্ত্র "Wikinews Reporters Group" গঠন করা, যা সংবাদ পরিবেশনে সহায়তা করবে।

এই পরিকল্পনাগুলো বাস্তবায়ন করতে আমি একা নয়—আমাদের সবাইকে সম্মিলিতভাবে এগিয়ে আসতে হবে।

পরিশেষে একটি প্রশ্ন:

যদি শুধুমাত্র নিষ্ক্রিয়তার অজুহাতে উইকিসংবাদ বন্ধ করে দেওয়া হয়, তবে উইকিউক্তি, উইকিভ্রমণ, উইকিবিশ্ববিদ্যালয় বা উইকিবই-এর মতো প্রকল্পগুলো কেন টিকে থাকবে? সক্রিয়তা বাড়ানোর চেষ্টা না করে প্রকল্প বন্ধ করে দেওয়া কোনো সমাধান নয়।

আসুন, সক্রিয় অংশগ্রহণের মাধ্যমে আমরা একসঙ্গে উইকিসংবাদের ভবিষ্যৎ গড়ি। আমার দৃঢ় বিশ্বাস, বন্ধ বা আর্কাইভ হওয়া কোন সমাধান নয়।
English: A Sincere Appeal to the Wikimedia Community on My Behalf:

I am ready to take the initiative to implement a well-structured action plan over the next two years. However, to achieve this goal, I sincerely seek your active support and collaboration.

My proposed plan is as follows:

• To publish 300 articles on English Wikinews in 2025.
• To publish over 500 articles on English Wikinews in 2026.
• To reach out to various Wikimedia groups and chapters to help revive inactive or low-activity Wikinews editions.
• Contacting the journalism departments of various universities.
• Organizing various contests.
• To launch a Bangla Wikinews edition.
• To form a dedicated “Wikinews Reporters Group” to support news contributions across all language editions of Wikinews.

I cannot achieve these goals alone—this requires a collective effort from all of us.

A final question:

If Wikinews is to be closed solely on the grounds of inactivity, then why should projects like Wikiquote, Wikivoyage, Wikiversity, or Wikibooks be allowed to continue? Shutting down a project without trying to increase engagement is not a real solution.

Let us work together to shape the future of Wikinews through active participation. I firmly believe that closure or archiving is not the answer. Mobashir - 🇧🇩 (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Wikinews should continue to be given equal opportunity and time. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 03:02, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. But it is a must that we need some active editors and reviewers. Mobashir - 🇧🇩 (talk) 03:34, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

ENG: The problem with Wikinews is that writing a news story means writing about current, fresh events, and you can't do that for months at a time going back to your article like you do on Wikipedia. Writing a news article (especially if it contains any own, original research) requires: a) a lot of free time one day (compared to Wikipedia, where I can add one sentence at a time for 10 minutes a day b) more editors working on one news item. Both of these things are more difficult to do with volunteers, which is why monetized editors have an advantage over Wikinews. To start doing something you need a kick start of some kind. It's also worthwhile to take a particular direction, news topics, establish partnerships with outside entities (in plwikinews, Marek Mazurkiewicz worked hard on this, but it's very difficult to attract people to a low-activity project especially since they mostly don't see the value in free licenses or clickbait-free spaces. I don't think a declaration like "I will write more articles" is enough. We need to know what isn't working and why and then find solutions if possible. That's what is lacking in this report - analysis on how to change situation, what would help globally and locally and if it's possible to do or what sould be done but is impossible at this moment. That's why I think the decision was made and they don't really want our input which makes me very sad as this is contrary to my beliefs about how a community should function

PL: Problem z Wikinews polega na tym, że pisanie newsów oznacza spisywanie bieżących, świeżych wydarzeń, a nie można tego robić miesiącami, wracając do swojego artykułu tak jak w Wikipedii. Napisanie takiego artykułu newsowego (zwłaszcza jeśli zawiera jakiś własny reserach) wymaga: a) dużo wolnego czasu jednego dnia (w porównaniu do Wikipedii, gdzie mogę dodać jedno zdanie na raz przez 10 minut dziennie b) większej liczby redaktorów pracujących nad jednym newsem. Obie te rzeczy są trudniejsze do zrobienia z wolontariuszami, dlatego komercyjnie pracujący redaktorzy mają przewagę nad Wikinews. Aby zacząć coś robić, potrzebny jest jakiś silny bodziec na rozruch. Warto też obrać konkretny kierunek, tematy newsów, nawiązać partnerstwa z zewnętrznymi podmiotami (w plwikinews ciężko pracował nad tym Marek Mazurkiewicz), ale bardzo trudno jest przyciągnąć ludzi do mało aktywnego projektu, zwłaszcza że w większości nie widzą oni wartości w wolnych licencjach czy przestrzeniach wolnych od clickbaitów. Nie sądzę, by deklaracja typu „będę pisać więcej artykułów” była wystarczająca. Musimy wiedzieć, co nie działa i dlaczego, a następnie znaleźć rozwiązania, jeśli to możliwe. Tego właśnie zabrakło w tym raporcie - analizy, jak zmienić sytuację, co pomogłoby globalnie i lokalnie i czy jest to możliwe do zrobienia albo co powinno być zrobione, ale jest na dany moment niemożliwe. Dlatego myślę, że decyzja została podjęta i tak naprawdę nie chcą naszego wkładu, co bardzo mnie smuci, ponieważ jest to sprzeczne z moimi przekonaniami na temat tego jak powinna funkcjonować społeczność. AnnaPruszkowianka (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

@AnnaPruszkowianka agree at some. But, It is not the reason to close. Thanks. Mobashir - 🇧🇩 (talk) 14:13, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Co możemy zrobić, jako społeczność Wikinews żeby się obronić przed zamknięciem? Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

@Marek Mazurkiewicz Try to reply them, who are wanted to close or merged this project. I believe one day they will request to close wikipedia. Because of they don't love Wikimedians! Mobashir - 🇧🇩 (talk) 04:30, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I second this: We need to know what isn't working and why and then find solutions if possible.
I also wanted to circle back to a question I raised earlier:

@Victoria, I don’t mean to single you out—I just don’t know who else is on the Task Force (has that been published somewhere? Apologies if I missed it). Does the Task Force view the “no wiki process after publication” model as a core structural constraint? And if so, is it seen more as a limitation that holds the project back—or as something fundamental to what makes Wikinews distinct (and thus necessary to fully preserve)? Michael.C.Wright (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I can speak only on my behalf - I don't see “no wiki process after publication” model as a core structural constraint, because it's not applicable to all the WN editions. However, at this point considering the low number of WN editors I think that opening up WN for revisions would do more harm than good.

If you are interested in a second opinion of a SPTF member, you can ask SJ, who is also active on this page. Victoria (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

It's applicable to the EN WN, to the DE WN and several others I know. You can surely tell which language versions do it otherwise? Matthiasb (talk) 07:57, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

You answered a lot of "what" needs to be done to revive wikinews but I'm not seeing the answer to "why". People are saying wikinews should "be given equal opportunity and time". Which my question again is "why?" (beside the fact that projects are not humans so the equality argument is moot IMHO). Let me spin this a bit and give you a counter-argument. You said we should "reach out to various Wikimedia groups and chapters". As a board member of Iranian UG, we have a very limited number of activities we can do in a year so if I want to do some outreach program about the wikinews (which I have no issues with per se), I'd have to stop doing some other activities. So please convince me that we should cancel Women in Red, or Wiki loves monuments, or Wikidata outreach programs we planned so we can do wikinews programs instead. There also has been a lot of ideas on technical improvements that can be done to help wikinews. I do a lot of development in my volunteer time too but currently, in that very limited free time I have, I'm focused on fixing much higher priority issues (such as file moderation on commons or fixing major upload bugs). Why should I stop doing that and do things that would have way less impact instead? This is ultimately the heart of my argument. I'm sure wikinews could use more resources and maybe it could grow to a successful project (or maybe not, I can't see the future). The problem is that I don't think we can afford that without hurting other projects that are already severely under-resourced (such as Commons) and have way bigger impacts. To me, I feel we (the movement) are a bit like a 5 year old kid who wants to be a doctor, and a pilot, and a president and an astronaut by the time they reach 20 years old. Something's gotta give, otherwise they wouldn't be any of them but it doesn't mean being an astronaut is bad. Amir (talk) 23:18, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

One part of the solution might be finding ways to attract more contributors to Wikinews. More contributors means more capacity to create content, and also more time available to support other efforts, like outreach, policy and guideline updates, and documentation maintenance.

We've recently seen a telling pattern on English Wikinews: when publication volume rises, contributor activity increases. More articles lead to more engagement, which leads to more submissions for review. This momentum can build on itself and become a virtuous cycle. But as soon as the review process slows down or stalls, that momentum collapses.

So perhaps if we can find a way to ease bottlenecks in the review process, at least on en.WN, we might be able to spark a virtuous cycle of growth, with more contributors helping to solve a range of other problems simply by showing up and participating. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

That is also true in DE WN. Is there some more activity more users show off and make corrections/additions. Some years back I made a test by starting five or six articles in a row. All of them had a start length of about two lines and two sources provided.All got worked on within the day and by evening about three or four had been published. Activity createsmore activity. But surely it is not good when like in EN WN a bunch of articles gets discarded while they never make it through the review proces because of they are too old when finally a reviewer gets into it. Also, I think, the "newsticker" created on the top right in the DE WP might help but it needs real article starts [ @Ankermast z..K.], for getting better results. Matthiasb (talk) 07:24, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that was the original intention, so that someone with little time is able to put a headline in the ticker and another one can create a short draft out of it and two others can finish the article. Of course, it doesn’t work without enough people. But it could be a concept in order to find a topic and motivate users to write articles. --Ankermast (talk) 08:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

What I said is just echoing. But one of the things about "equal" is that the numerous sister projects and minority language Wikipedias are still growing, even after a long time, and so is Wikinews.

I don't know what the essential difference is, countless Wikibooks and Wikiversity versions have not been promoted, even after many years, but what's the harm in them? 1% of Wikipedia's maintenance resources? They haven't been shut down ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

And your five years old child example doesn't make sense to me... Beside the fact that Wiki is not a person. a five years old child has only one body, WMF has tens of thousands volunteers. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

You said you can't see the future, you think WN's model is not working, we can continue to actively try to reform right, yes WN is quite old, but have we done enough exploration? As far as I know, in the past year, only Gryllida the administrator of enwn, proposed a reform about enwn half a month ago. Until today, How many major discussions(like this) have we had? ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 02:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

What a question it is! @Ladsgroup Why you are not contributing in Wikinews? Please answer it. Please! Mobashir - 🇧🇩 (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Nobody has to contribute to anything. I can’t speak for Amir, but I will say the reason I don’t (and arguably can’t) contribute is I don’t really know how, there’s a steep learning curve for entry, and even if I did know how there’s not much I could conceivably report on in my area. Even my local newspaper struggles to put out anything interesting. Dronebogus (talk) 11:15, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

This is quite helpful feedback. We've known it for some time and have tried to address it. I'd say after the review process itself, this may be the second-most-consequential issue we at en.WN could address. We have considered more interactive tools, but haven't dug in deeper yet. Maybe the answer is closer to a hands-on, peer mentoring approach rather than a tool or another guideline. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ @Asked42 @Gryllida Michael.C.Wright (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

This problem is the same in DE WN, and I guess also in others. It all starts with that reporting news is somewhat different than one upon a time. Encyclopaedic storytelling is, IMHO, more natural storytelling. Matthiasb (talk) 02:18, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

How?.. I would say, that's easy. Obligatory link, so that you can go down the rabbit hole of documentation at your leisure: https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Writing_an_article

Now, my personal impressions:

One: find an event to report about. It doesn't have to be something grand: a local union strike, a helicopter crash, a beached whale, even a sports match would do.

Or, if your local area is particularly quiet, go the opposite route: pick an event of global significance, preferably one that happened today, and try to write it up on Wikinews - chances are, there will be nothing published, or being written, yet.

You can see published articles on the main page. You can see articles being written in the newsroom. You are more than welcome to look around even if you are not editing anything yet!

Two: Find reputable sources describing the event. It is less necessary for original reporting. But if you are not doing original reporting, then you must have two independent sources reporting on the event. ABC, ABC news, BBC, Bloomberg, CNN, Reuters, et cetera - anything, really. As long as it's not behind a paywall?

Three: Write a title of the article. Something in active voice: such as, who did what and where. Doesn't matter if it's not perfect, an article can be renamed during development - it will only be set in stone after publishing.

Four: create article on Wikinews. It will be empty at first. But throw in your sources, and it will be already a bit better looking. Source template is very easy to fill in: url, title, publisher, author (can be left blank if the source doesn't name the human(s) who wrote the text), date (in style July 13, 2025).

Five: edit article on Wikinews. It doesn't have to be long. First paragraph just has to answer 5 W: Who did What, When, Where and Why? I personally like to begin paragraph with when:

On Sunday, July 13, Wikiwide tried to write down "How to contribute to Wikinews" notes because it was easier than trying to find a link to an existing guide. This was Wikiwide's first day on Meta - which is not at all related to Facebook or Instagram, despite the name coinciding with the name of the company which was formerly known as Facebook.

^ See, two sentences can be enough for the first paragraph. I don't have the strength to go into structure of the following paragraphs (if any), not at 1am~2am at night.

Six: Add some wikilinks just so that people can look up the unknown words or names or phrases. Where is Austin located? Who is Texas Governor? What is a flash flood? Where is that river located? Everything is easier with a wikilink!

Seven: Add images (from Wikimedia Commons?), categories (confusingly, if you write article about flash flood in Texas, you include all categories: not only Floods, but also Natural disasters and Disasters and accidents; not only Texas, but also United States. Correct me if I am wrong), templates (one or two will do; say, one for Disasters and accidents and another for United States???) and submit for review.

After submitting article for review, continue to check up on it at least once a day. Better twice a day if you can? Continue improving it if you see how. Check the talk page - I am not a fan of them, because they are not visible at all from the article's main page, but they are a reality one has to take into account.

The reviewer might request major or minor edits to the article. The reviewers could do edits themselves... But any reviewer who edits the article significantly loses the right to publish it, due to conflict of interest. So: reviewer can edit article for formatting and style issues, but they cannot add sources or change meaning of written text of the article without compromising their unbiased position.

Don't be disheartened if article does not get published through no fault of your own. The most common problem (besides some unscrupulous people trying to post spam on Wikinews - that's a new phenomenon, it did not happen at all just a few years ago?) is article going stale. Reviewers are humans too, they need sleep, they get sick, they change jobs, they are overworked, they can get medical problems, they can actually die (sadly), et cetera.

Another common problem is when an event is described in multiple Wikinews articles, and then they have to be merged somehow. It can happen. For now, just check the Newsroom before writing a new article: did someone already start writing about this event? If yes, hooray, you don't have to start from scratch, you can just contribute to existing draft!

I wish there was some kind of duplicate detection system before a new article is created. Something along the lines of "Website visitor started typing title of new article, let's check if any of the >4characters words typed match against any of the words in titles of unpublished articles"? And show drop-down list of matching titles, so that the user has an opportunity to click (and open in new tab?) an existing (under development? submitted for review? being disputed?) article with suspiciously similar title. Would be great if there was already something like that written which just needs to be enabled so that it doesn't have to be invented from scratch - surely, other wikis also want to avoid duplicate articles being created.

Wikiwide (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@Dronebogus ^ See above, I forgot to highlight you. Wikiwide (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@Wikiwide I am really happy for your answer. I can not but thank you a lot for your responce! Mobashir - 🇧🇩 (talk) 03:51, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Sure, some events are significant enough to merit articles in both Wikipedia and Wikinews, but: Wikinews is not Wikipedia. Wikinews is not going to go into all the details of background or aftermath of an event, and Wikipedia is not going to report on a local event such as a traffic accident or an art festival?

I regularly use Wikipedia, but I rarely ever edit it - only if I see something glaringly in need of improvement. I regularly use Wiktionary, but I rarely ever edit it - only if I see missing or incorrect information. I regularly use Wikinews, and I mostly try to edit articles so that they finally get published, and occasionally write articles from scratch myself.

@Amir Wikinews require a tremendous amount of effort, but are incredibly rewarding. If Wikinews are closed, that will not transfer my enthusiasm to Wikipedia, Wiktionary, or Commons. I suspect it's the same case for many other people - different projects are not competing against each other, they are helping out each other.

I want to create a barn star for people who have uploaded a photograph to Wikimedia Commons that has thereafter been used in a published Wikinews article - that would bring attention to Wikinews from Commons contributors and encourage photographing of unfolding events - and writing articles about them. How does one go about creating a star?..

Wikiwide (talk) 15:17, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Well said. Even I who's most Wiki activities are on Wikipedia would not add more time there but rather would use the time getting freed by closing WN to work in other projects. Or, saying it the other way around: if I am fed up for some reason with WP occasionally, I am editing Wikinews. Or whatsoever if WN would not be available anymore. So, dear board of the WMF, don't dare to close Wikinews. It could thrive people away from WMF servers to totally external projects. Matthiasb (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Archive it

First of all, Wikinews has good-faith contributors, and I hope that they find a way to continue at it. So this is not a proclamation that some sort of Wikinews-like-thing shouldn't exist somewhere. I just don't think it should be WMF-hosted; it should be blogs-powered-by-MediaWiki, basically.

Okay. Wikinews is not thriving. That in and of itself is not a reason to close a project. Open content is a marathon, not a sprint. It's fine if it's slow to document all the species or to write an encyclopedia in an obscure language. There's forward progress being made.

No, the problem is that in the scenario where Wikinews is a success, the WMF will have bigger problems than right now when it's quiet and mostly unused. Right now, Wikinews's very obscurity provides a certain level of protection. If spammers or POV-pushers or activists want an obscure platform, they are already available cheaply - blogs, websites, hell even "converted" websites where a legit website is bought for its SEO rank and replaced with spam. Why go to Wikinews, which is equally obscure but your crazy story might not get published by an editor? And where there'll be a full record of you and whatever sockpuppet you make to try and clear your stories for easy cleanup later? So... spammers don't. They just go to Facebook and post whatever fiction-presented-as-fact as they like there, where at least there's an audience.

Right now Wikinews is a small problem. In the unlikely scenario where it becomes a success, it'll be a big problem, and require the kind of specialized teams that Facebook and the like have to deploy to stop scams and policy violations as suddenly Wikinews is a popular place to sneak your "Politician I don't like caught trying to ban religion I do like" or "This penny stock is amazing and going to jump huge tomorrow, buy buy buy" stories. Or even good-faith yet radioactively controversial original reporting (remember that for stuff like the Gaza War or the Asian News International case, Wikipedia is protected by simply reporting what others are saying, but that's not true about original reporting that may or may not be accurate). Does the WMF really want to be in that business? Deploying teams of lawyers and political lobbyists to decide whether to take down a probably-false story that flatters some people in power yet maybe libels others who have access to lawyers, and you might get sued by one side (if you leave it up) or regulated by the other (if you take it down and submit to "censorship")? SnowFire (talk) 02:01, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Have you reviewed Wikinews' publication process, which requires only users with reviewer permission to put anything live? If anything, it's too burdensome. Additionally, Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 in the United States redirects liability to those creating the online content. Someone could sue Wikimedia, but it would go nowhere. -- Zanimum (talk) 02:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm familiar. In the scenario where Wikinews is a smash success, there will be many more users applying for such permissions, and some of them will be "bad", and if you catch them it may well be too late. Take Reddit: it's a smash success and therefore a target. It mostly works but there are absolutely compromised moderators out there who take a payment to bury stories their patrons don't like and allow upvote brigading of stories their patrons do like. I don't think WMF's time, money, and reputation is best spent learning this very specific community-managing skillset that also requires some measures that the current WMF community would find unpopular (real Reddit can just ban / de-permission people with no need for 100% proof or a public discussion or anything). SnowFire (talk) 03:15, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

至少 zhwn 在这方面没有硬性规定。~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Your statement shows that you do not trust the Wikimedia movement to uphold its principles of neutrality... Why do you distrust the community so much? Every day, people rashly add non-neutral content to Wikipedia. Wikipedia has special marks for controversial entries. These problems can be solved by the community through discussion. and we could even do something, For example, if you think the Gaza War topic will be controversial, you can add more review requirements for this channel separately. Why are you afraid of citizen media itself? ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 03:00, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about the current, tiny community. I'm talking about the unlikely scenario where Wikinews becomes a success, which by definition means a more diffuse community that can't possibly keep track of what every single approver and author is up to. SnowFire (talk) 03:15, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Here is my opinion Mobashir - 🇧🇩 (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

This section is just "SnowFire's thoughts on the matter", not a formal proposal to close down Wikinews. There is nothing to oppose yet; that is later. SnowFire (talk) 03:43, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

What's the objection of the Wikimedia Foundation hosting it? Mobashir - 🇧🇩 (talk) 03:46, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Is there something unclear in what I wrote above on the nature of my concern? Happy to clarify if so. The short version: if Wikinews remains a failure, its value add is low. If Wikinews somehow succeeds, it would require an active, interventionist, paid staff equivalent to all the other projects put together capable of draconian measures that would be unpopular on other projects, and probably still expose the WMF as a whole to legal and reputational risk. Better for some independent group to tackle the problem. SnowFire (talk) 04:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

However, there was not any legal and reputational risk in last 19 years of Wikinews. As I know. Mobashir - 🇧🇩 (talk) 05:17, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

"Right now Wikinews is a small problem. In the unlikely scenario where it becomes a success, it'll be a big problem" - let's solve problems after they arise, otherwise there is possibility they will not arise at all and we will spend resources on a non-issue. BilboBeggins (talk) 07:39, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

If you think Wikinews won't become an even larger problem if it should somehow succeed, then fine, you can make your case (although the experience of similar sites suggests that massive moderation infrastructure, paid staff, automated tools, etc. would indeed be required). But if you agree that a successful Wikinews would have a large chance of becoming a big problem, let's just avoid the problem entirely by not wasting resources trying to push for this scenario. If a business is losing money on every sale, you don't want to suddenly be selling 10x as much, you need to figure out a plan to not lose money first before you scale up. SnowFire (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Wow. So, theoretically, let's take wikipedia is successful, where all

that massive moderation infrastructure, paid staff, automated tools, etc. (…) required

happens? How all this works in the English Wikipedia and its runner-ups DE and FR?

Well, that all sounds like the little town's high shool newspaper's editor's nightmare of being so successful with the high school newspaper that he needs more paper than the Washington Post's weekend edition. Wait until it happens. Matthiasb (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

maybe Even if we take a step back, we should maintain the status quo until she starts to grow stronger. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 08:13, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

SnowFire, it strikes me that Wikipedia is already in that business. People are always trying to make Wikipedia articles that push a project or point of view, and Wikipedia's anti-spam and anti-vandalism systems mostly work. In the scenario you describe, with Wikinews as a success, of course we would have to have anti-spam systems, but in that scenario, we'd have the people and interest to do it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

The same filters preventing Wikipedia off-Spam are doing this for Wikinews. Some years ago there was a short period, three months or, when spam was a WN issue. Now I see one case a month or so. Matthiasb (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Re Darkfrog24: It really isn't, but I guess this requires diving a bit deeper. Wikinews is fundamentally different than Wikipedia, at least for the most important half. Let's back up. To oversimplify, Wikinews has two types of stories: summarizing other reporting, and original reporting.

When Wikinews is summarizing other reporting, it is closer to the Wikipedia model. Approvers can theoretically check the references and verify that the story matches them. It's also something that serves a very questionable purpose. Back in the 2010s, various websites would just summarize the stories written by real news outlets and wrap them with ads, acting as sort of vampires on real journalism. We'd be doing the same, except without the ads. I guess it's not totally valueless in that we'd be a backup site of last resort if the sources were to go down, but meh. Just link to the real story like Reddit or Hacker News et al. (And sufficiently Big Deal stories can already go on Wikipedia, of course.)

When Wikinews does original reporting, this is Wikinews at its best. If I somehow scored an interview with a person of interest, Wikinews is a place I could publish it rather than just a personal blog or YouTube channel. That's cool! So this is the raison d'etre of Wikinews IMO. However it's also the case where other editors validation is absolutely the hardest and most impossible. A real media outlet is paying its journalists and trusts them and theoretically can fire a fabulist and knows them in-person. But if someone puts out questionable original reporting here - how can this be checked? Sure, if I claim to have interviewed Beyonce or something, it'd be pretty easy to expect proof like photos or audio transcripts. But if I say I've interviewed the programmer behind an obscure video game, who is going to know if I'm just making stuff up? And negative aspects of stories about real incidents are especially tricky. These are, again, in theory the most useful part of Wikinews, but how do you verify original reporting on a scandal? That the pictures of the corporation dumping waste in a national forest are real and not AI-generated? That even if it's suspicious, a compromised reviewer hasn't been paid to approve? These are hard questions. Getting them wrong can rebound and do collateral damage to the entire WMF project, including stuff that has no hand in original reporting and tries to steer clear like Wikipedia. It's something that an independent foundation could handle much better than the WMF. SnowFire (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Re Matthiasb: I addressed this above. Spam isn't a huge issue right now because nobody cares about Wikinews and it's so obscure that any spammers will find easier targets. I'm saying that attempting to make Wikinews succeed is a bad idea because it would make the problem 1000x times worse if Wikinews somehow did succeed. Put things another way: do spammers target Reddit and Facebook? The answer is yes, absolutely, and Reddit & FB have fancy automated systems that theoretically check this. We'd need similar if Wikinews ever did take off. SnowFire (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Do we have a spam problem in WP which is a 1000 times bigger? No. Why? Because it does not get through. And if, from time to time, one spam message get's through and even get's "published" it never goes through the moderation process. Spam does not play a rola at all. In the worst time of spamming, some seven, eight years ago, I deleted maybe five pages at a time. Spam even isn't an issue at Commons which is 10.000 times bigger but has far less then an appropriate number of admins. Reddit & FB have fancy automated systems that theoretically check this. We'd need similar if Wikinews ever did take off That's true for every WM wiki. Wikisource- Wikibooks. Wikiquote. Wikiversity. Even Wikipedia. That argument is a strohman. Besides that we have a fancy set of filters, global user blocks and on and on. Matthiasb (talk) 04:33, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

To follow your conception of the "two types" of Wikinews stories, I actually think a restructured Wikinews should focus primarily on scaling-up of the first type of summary-esque articles, in the short to medium term. (The second type is valuable too, but as you say, it requires rather more care, and should only be built up gradually.) It's actually been my experience that Reddit in recent times really is pretty bad at giving factual, sourced, neutral headlines for current events, and other social media is not at all better. And here we are right now in the "golden age of AI", with the least advertising and deliberate political bias we're ever likely to see again Pharos (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

But if someone puts out questionable original reporting here — how can this be checked?

That’s a valid concern, and one that absolutely should be addressed in Policies and Guidelines. At least on en.Wikinews, it currently isn’t.

We recently had a situation where a user account used the full name of a doctor and submitted an original reporting article. Before we could proceed, we needed to verify their identity and affiliation with Harvard. This was done by having them email us from their @harvard.edu address, which matched the one listed on their official Harvard bio page. So verification can happen, and cross-referencing institutional credentials is one method—but I agree it’s not always easy, especially for a smaller, loosely organized project.

This seems like exactly the kind of procedural gap that the report could help highlight. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Please note some American university emails are open for online life-long learners, and can be registered by essentially everyone. For example, until very recently you can register an @asu.edu email here. GZWDer (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Understood. In this case, the individual had a Harvard profile listing their official email. Verification involved confirming that the email matched what was listed, that the person using it controlled the Wikinews account, and that their claimed affiliation was accurate.

I brought up this example to show that en.WN has recently dealt with the challenge of verifying original reporting, and to highlight one method we've used, at least to verify the author. It shows that even small projects can perform verification through cross-referencing, but it also highlights the need for a documented process that allows for consistency while accommodating edge cases.

Historically, en.WN leaned on informal norms and "institutional knowledge" to guide how many things were done. But with many of those experienced contributors no longer active, we've lost some of that shared understanding, which makes it even more important now to define clear and adaptable verification procedures moving forward. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

So it is right, for handling with EN:WN to throw all other language versions under the bus anyways? Interestimg approach. Matthiasb (talk) 04:35, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

┌─────────────┘
I'm not throwing anyone under the bus. I can only speak for en.WN, where I'm active. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright, thank you for the answer. This heat wave makes me stupid. What I wanted to say was that we shall not measure WN as a whole bucket on one specific language version's flaws. Still heat here, hoping it is understandable now. Else, moving to the fridge. Matthiasb (talk) 07:32, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

PS: Feel free to translate it into normal English. Matthiasb (talk) 07:33, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree that Wikinews should be archived. Maybe news is not quite the kind of content that is best created by (potentially) anonymous wiki editors. For the kind of information that, based on newspaper articles, is useful in the mid term or long term, Wikipedia is well suited. Ziko (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I think a good way to archive wikinews would be to upload all pages to the internet archive in a big file with a searchable index (with comments intact) Koopinator (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

What next?

One of the main proposals that has been floating around is the merger of Wikinews into their respective Wikipedia editions, usually suggested as a News: namespace. While this community consultation is a good first step, such action should probably seek consensus from the Wikipedias on which the merger would be implemented – is that planned as a next step? Since each Wikipedia edition has a different community and policies, a merger might be possible on some but not on others, which raises more questions about the future of the remaining Wikinews. Chaotic Enby (talk) 07:40, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I don’t know who thinks merging into Wikipedia is a good idea or why. Enwiki, the rigorously maintained flagship project of WM, would probably be aghast at the notion of having a bunch of unusable OR dumped on them— “I don’t want your damn original research news articles! What am I supposed to do with these?!” I think archiving the Wikinews editions and marking them as closed makes a lot more sense. My other (more sarcastic) suggestion is merging Wikinews into some other straggler project with a sufficiently broad scope like Books or Wikiversity. Really all three might un-ironically do better as some kind of “Wikimiscellanea” super project. Dronebogus (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Personally I believe Wikiversity and Wikibooks should be merged since Wikiversity are not really a success (only 17 language versions created, 10 fewer than Wikivoyage) and Wikibooks already hosted some sub-projects such as Wikijunior and Cookbook. GZWDer (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I think a dedicated wiki-whatever (actually a good name) project could actually have some utility for both consolidating the work of three straggler projects and providing a place for people’s oddball project proposals that never stood a chance of becoming an independent website anyway. Dronebogus (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Actually I've seen discussions about merging Wikibook into Wikiversity or Wikisource also ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

There is definitely some diffuse interest in having a low-prescriptiveness wiki for a range of large educational wikiprojects that don't fit elsewhere. In some sense, that's also what Wikispecies is despite a very high overlap of content with knowledge that exists on similarly-named pages on Wikipedias. Individual Projects could have their own styleguides and layout templates, and be in their own categories (similar to how the largest WikiProjects work on some Wikipedias). Wikisource is not a good candidate for merging — because it is essential for primary source work and requires a lot of custom tooling for the primary use case (transcription and translation) — but other projects could be. –SJ talk  02:36, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

For these sorts of miscellaneous projects that are still small (~thousands of articles), see Wikispore, which exists to incubate such things while determining the best host and approach to sustain that work. That would also have been an option for Wikijunior, Wikicookbook, Wikijournal, Txikipedia, &c, though I think each found a natural home. –SJ talk  02:36, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

(1) Wikispecies is a very old pre-Wikidata project. I believe it should be closed in long-term, but not now until a tool to build Wikidata front ends is developed and officially maintained by WMF. (2) Wikibook and Wikisource has very different scope - Wikisource only accepts works already published elsewhere. (3) By looking Proposals for new projects, most (>95%) proposals are either not viable to be a new Wikiproject, or already in scope of another Wikiproject. Spliting part of project to a dedicated project, like "Wikicookbook", is not recommanded in >99% of cases since this will fragment the already underdevelopmented community. Similarly, I lean on Wikijournal be a part of Wikiversity in foreseeable future instead of a dedicated project, since a dedicated project is not easy to manage. GZWDer (talk) 08:11, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

A technical point to add: a new project add a number of tables to database (see phab:T397367). We should accomplish the goal to provide knowledge with fewer projects. So it is better that We have Wikiversity with "Wikibooks", "Wikijunior", "Cookbook", "WikijuniorWikijournal" as subprojects instead of introducing five top level sister projects. Note other than (a) closing Wikinews (b) merging Wikibooks and Wikiversity and (c) potentially replace all Wikiquotes with one Structured Wikiquote, I do not suggest closing or merging other projects, since most projects are somewhat developed and self-contained. --GZWDer (talk) 08:20, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I don’t think Wikiquote and Wikispecies should or need to be merged. They have straightforward, logical roles and they’re good enough at them. News is being discussed because it’s a weird outlier that struggles to even fit the wiki model let alone use it successfully, and books and ‘versity are simply the (other) sick projects of Wikimedia with similar generic, ill-defined roles. Dronebogus (talk) 11:09, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

So it is better that We have Wikiversity with "Wikibooks", "Wikijunior", "Cookbook", "Wikijunior" as subprojects instead of introducing five top level sister projects. How so? Wikiversity has nothing to do with books. Matthiasb (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Introduction to Swedish has 12 lessons, each of which are like a very small chapter of a book. Understanding Misbelief is all one long page, but it has question prompts just like my school textbooks. The pedophilia item in the News section is just a short article, 929 words ignoring the see also and footnotes. That's barely more than the minimum length of a book review in an academic journal.

Neither of these examples, pulled off the front page of Wikiversity, seems to have any sort of active "professor," they're all self driven. Nothing would be lost, if these were "turned into" books. Are there Wikiversity courses that I'm unaware of, where there is actual interaction with someone learned on a subject?

Coincidentally, the English Wikiversity front page News section. everything is listed as "2024". Two items are 2025, but the contributors seem unaware. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikiversity is not an interactive program. The English Wikiversity is (or claims to be) more like a repository for quizzes and questions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:51, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

That is not true for the DE WV. It considers itself a place where you can learn. For example a group of pupils coordinating and doing schoolwork together is considered to be on scope. Some years back there was a professor documenting his lectures on it. I used it on some occasions to do original research on Wikipedia related issues. Wikipedia is sometimes linking there, for example to link descriptions of paintings which would be considerad as undesired OR if included in an artist's article in WP but outlinking to the same text in WV is tolerated. Matthiasb (talk) 16:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@Sheminghui.WU: I am an ENWS admin, and, for the record, though I don't speak for the whole community, I think there would be very strong opposition to dumping WN content in WS. — Alien  3
3 3 10:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Wikisource has a well-defined niche and it fills it well. It’s not a “straggler project” like books, news and ’versity, which might actually benefit from being merged together into a general-purpose educational miscellany project. Dronebogus (talk) 11:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Aside of being very active in WP and an admin in DE WN I also am a contributor to the DE WS, and I am sure that that community would deny any attempt to WN or any other content into WS as strong as it can. Matthiasb (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

um, I only said merged wb to ws I guess, and I said I saw the discuss but I did'nt make this. But thanks for your addition ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 01:06, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Opinion of a former Wikinews contributor

In April 2017, I joined three earlier initiators in helping to relaunch the Dutch-language Wikinews. This effort succeeded with its reopening on 5 July 2017. At the time, I was convinced that Wikinews had a future, as it could serve as a platform for citizen journalism. However, I found that Wikinews is not suitable for that purpose, as it quickly comes into conflict with the "No original research" policy.

I continued writing for a few more years, referencing news sources, but I came to realize that Wikinews offers no added value compared to mainstream media. I am convinced that the latter will always do it better than Wikinews. Another option was to write in-depth news articles that also provide background information—yet such articles are perfectly suited for Wikipedia.

Ultimately, for the past few years, I have only been reposting newsletters of Wikimedia chapters. If a vote is held on the future of Wikinews, I will vote in favor of archiving. Ymnes (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

"No original research" policy? That's policy from WP right, not Wikiversity ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 02:15, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

@Sheminghui.WU https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Original_reporting Polygnotus (talk) 07:01, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

This is different from not having original research right ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

In every language (as far as I was able to understand) exists a rule to and how to accept original reporting. Matthiasb (talk) 07:27, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

@Ymnes I was also the one who helped revitalize Chinese Wikinews back in 2020, and I understand that being a pioneer is no easy task—there are so many mixed feelings involved. But your ideas are always crucial. To solve problems, we need reform and change. I understand what you’re saying. Please refer to the comments I’ve posted (here:#2 online events related to the consultation held on google meet (Tomorrow and tomorrow's tomorrow)#Discuss on Day 2, #The Dilemma of Wikinews Demands Bold Reform, and #The Dilemma of Wikinews Demands Bold Reform#Eample)). Thank you very much. Kitabc12345 (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Interesting. "Original research" and "Original reporting" are as similar as a bowl of ice cream and a dolphin. I have seen some of the best original reporting in my life done at English WN. Quite some time ago, we had SWEEPING coverage of the Paralympics -- it was epic. Some of the language projects may be floundering and English WN has had its floundering moments -- and it has had some notable revivals. I propose we are on the cusp of a revival.--Bddpaux (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Dlaczego likwidować cały projekt?

Byłbym bardziej za likwidowaniem nieaktywnych wersji językowych, a pozostawieniem aktywnych, takich jak plwikinews, enwikinews, ruwikinews etc. Patryk2710 (talk) 08:01, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikinews should not be shut down in entirety

TL;DR:  Oppose

I understand that Wikinews isn't the most popular project maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation. However, there is a crucial issue with the report, too. Only three language editions (namely English, Russian and Chinese) were cherry-picked by the report makers, leaving us with the incomplete image of the Wikinews' actual state.

For the last few months I have provided aid in reviving the Polish Wikinews -- and thanks to Polish Wikinews' community recent activities we were able to announce two minor (18 and 19 thousand articles) and one major milestone (i.e. 20,000 articles) in terms of articles quantity in just the year of 2024 and two another minor milestones (21 and 22 thousand articles) by 2025. See more on this in Polish.

For a project that in our case took around 15 years to reach 20,000 articles back from 10,000 in 2009, our recent activities on Polish Wikinews brought back any faith in reviving the citizens-made journalism spectre at all -- as I am unable to recall any other active project encouraging people to test out -- and improve if necessary -- their journalism skills. In fact, I am now running Kontrabanda with all the experience I have gained while contributing to Polish Wikinews.

Closing down Wikinews entirely would destroy the hard work of people who some day decided to attempt their language edition revival, including Polish-speaking community which is by now one of the most active Wikinews communities, yet skipped by the SPTF while the report was under construction.

With that in mind, I oppose shutting down Wikinews completely. Instead, shut down the language versions which appear to be now-long dormant and keep running those which show any signs of regular activity. OliwierJaszczyszyn (talk) 13:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

The issue identified is not only the quantity of article, but also the quality of articles and the health of community. GZWDer (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Who and how evaluates "health of community"? Are you doctors? --Ssr (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

How the quality of articles depend on the health of the community, and what the quantity of articles has to do with? Matthiasb (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Low activity and little internal control could be exploited to publish non-compliant content. -- ZandDev (talk) 11:08, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

wikt:de:hätte, hätte, Fahrradkette.... Could, would, should... these are not bothering at all. These are only theoretics. Not worth to think about even for minutes only. Matthiasb (talk) 02:14, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

@Matthiasb: I saw some non-compliant content: as a very localistic one (the opening of a local bus station or ). Or simply I don't trust the project that publish a few random news, one also wrong (no survivors in the recently happened Air India AI 187 crash), a lot of football weekly reports, the day by day statistics of 2025 FIFA Club World Cup and a new article every time Sinner climb one step of the ATP ranking by the number of weeks at top. These are a user's passions, not a generic feed of what's happening in the world. Sometimes the published articles have spelling mistakes in the title that are only corrected after publication, so the bot in other channels spreads them two or more times. And the hundred backlinks present in Wikipedia are just garbage as thay provide no added value after ten years from the writing of the articles. If they were "external" I would have removed them on sight. -- ZandDev (talk) 00:38, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Piszesz tu o dwóch kwestiach, o błędach i o pasjach. Co do błędów, to jest to spory problem. Dlatego ogólnie nie czytam newsów z polskich mediów, bo prawie w każdym newsie znajduję po kilka błędów językowych, niejednokrotnie też błędy merytoryczne. A nie ma w nich przycisku "edytuj", aby można było je poprawić, tym bardziej przycisku "przenieś". Jest jeden serwis, który czytywałem – kilkanaście osób piszących o wybranych problemach. Większość ograniczona do sytuacji w Polsce. Mam zakładać, że konfabulują, ponieważ specjalizują się w wybranych tematach? Sławek Borewicz (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

At Wikinews-pt, we create more than 150 news items per month, and our main page receives more than 30,000 views per month. I see no reason to close it. If you think that Wikinews in English is not important, close it but not all the others. (by DARIO SEVERI) 92.20.239.254 11:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

With commitment everything is possible

Last year I had set up a group to try to coordinate a relaunch of the various Italian-language projects. However, because of me and other users, the group was disbanded. Despite this, some ideas from the consultations I think are useful for relaunching Wikinews. In fact, I am of this position, with a good and targeted intervention it is possible to solve this crisis.

Here are some ideas:

• Promoting the various projects through awareness-raising and publicity initiatives (e.g. Facebook pages)
• Standardising some of the main sections of the various projects to make them easier to understand for new users and inter-project navigation
• Awareness through initiatives, also at inter-project level, in particular to make Wikipedia users aware of other sister projects, thus expanding their user base
• Propose events and initiatives concerning two or more projects
• Update the help pages, which in some cases date back to the birth of the project and do not help new contributors

Some problems in our language edition made me realise that in order to relaunch this project, it is necessary to ensure as much variety as possible (Wikinews should not be reduced to a kind of thematic blog) and constant updating (no one is interested in reading news from 10 days earlier). Only with these premises is a relaunch possible, otherwise failure is guaranteed. Another thing that had arisen was the essentiality of obtaining press accreditation and badges in order to attend events. In order to achieve this, however, we needed a lot of help from the foundation and also from the local branches. In addition, in some states being a recognised media outlet is necessary, although it might be almost impossible for projects like this. DBBBL (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Through the years in the German WN we discussed and to some extant tried following ideas:

• WN as an international news in German language, i.e. covering themes from abroad which aren't covered in the mainstream press.
• WN as a news for Germans abroad
• WN as a periodic, i.e. producing a PDF of all news of the week each weekend

None of this ever was formalized and the change if any never resulted in a kind of success or another. Matthiasb (talk) 07:25, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Support for closing / archiving Wikinews

Wikinews is an interesting idea that hasn't worked out, and there's no indication that it ever will. I can see some minor benefits of Wikinews still existing (e.g. being an instructional resource for journalism students or an easy-to-use news blog for Wikimedia affiliates), but the drawbacks (e.g. taking up resources or harming Wikimedia brand by being easily prone to self-promotion and bias due to the lack of active communities) massively outweigh the benefits. Aced (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

You appear to have suffered from that? How much did you duffer? -- Ssr (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Please show when/re Wikinews indulged self-promotion harmed Wikimedia. Please show which resources Wikinews took up`. Which WN language versions are biaseddue to the lack of active communities. Please name examples vor biased articles. But then, most of the problems rather are problems within Wikipedia.

Matthiasb (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

You can’t just keep pretending Wikinews uses no resources. It obviously does just by existing. Dronebogus (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

So name it? If it costs money there must be a line in the financial report,in the book keeping. It is easy. Each housewife is capable to manage her budget. So tell ist: How much money WN costs each year. Then compare to WP. Then look how much spending is generated from within WN. And the come back and tell me about resources. Matthiasb (talk) 02:10, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I’ve already said I’m not the accounting department. I’ve also already said I’m mainly concerned with issues like it causing server crashes or providing bots with slop fodder. Dronebogus (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia didn't have its critical functionality take down all WMF wikis on Monday 10:30 UTC. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

This is such a bogus claim. I'd love to see you resolve the problems your comment is suggesting – especially with all missing images, Wikidata entries, links to text sources etc. A09|(pogovor) 18:37, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I was referencing Proposal for Closing Wikinews#Notable difficulty with technical and community relationship, a section of the report most people here have read. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:24, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

There had been several instances in which alle WMF wikis (or at least those on the affected server cluster) had to been taken down for Wikipedia problems as well. For example in the case of the Dackelvandale back in 2007 or so. Back then when a young EN WP sysop deleted the English mainpage. Proposal for Closing Wikinews#Notable difficulty with technical and community relationship is of total irrelevancy because of it is wrongdoing (if ever, I would oppose, but not here) of one single account and not a systemic wrongdoing of Wikinewses and their editors in summary. Matthiasb (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

The "can't delete the main page" incident didn't take down any WMF servers.
The systemic issue is frequent errors and excessive maintenance work with the DPL extension. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikinews should be kept in as many language versions as possible. About the claim it uses not enough resources – this is definitely untrue. If the (indeed) low overall degree of activity is the main issue, it's imaginable other smaller WMF (Wikiquote, for example) should be closed for similar reasons. About the risk of self-promotion: I think this is a less common phenomenon on Wikinews than it is on Wikipedia, anyway it is banned consistently. The Dutch version (on which I'm mainly active myself) is 100% free of it. De Wikischim (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Proposal to close Sister Projects Task Force (SPTF)

Instead of closing Wikinews, I propose to close Sister Projects Task Force (SPTF) that proposed closure of Wikinews. -- Ssr (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC) UPDATE: okay, maybe not close, but archive it --Ssr (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

 Support This Task Force works absolutely intransparent, its findings are biased. Arguments are made up on RU WN as a talking pount, which cannot be compared to any other language version at all due to the situation in which the community tried to save non-guvernmental news archives. There are no meaningful considerations presented on other language versions. Matthiasb (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't disagree here; so far I've yet to see anything good come out of this task force. //shb (t • c) 22:19, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

The same: good idea - bad realization. As a active user in ruWikiversity and ruWikibooks I haven't seen any ideas from them in order to develop these sister projects. Kylain Aixter (СО) 22:42, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

@Ssr: I don't think that doing sarcastic proposals could relieve Wikinews' problems and I don't see how it can avoid the polarization of the community feedback. -- ZandDev (talk) 11:03, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Community feedback is already polarized between close supporters and keep supporters. I lean close in part because the keep voters are generally just making arguments based on what WN is on paper, or attacking the proposal itself as morally outrageous (as here), or saying close supporters have no right to comment because they aren’t part of a WN community, etc. Dronebogus (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

What really is polarising is that SPTF came with a clear agenda to close down Wikinews and they were met with opposition. Nothing wrong with that, but don't call it consultation then, but straightforward a request for comment before closure.--A09|(pogovor) 13:59, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

You make it sound like they were somehow trying to hide that when the main proposal is literally called Proposal for Closing Wikinews; this is called “community consultation” because that’s also just what it is. The two are also clearly linked to one another. This is another problem I have with the “keep” arguments I’m seeing— generally arguing around the problem rather than addressing the issues raised by both the SPTF report and “close” supporters. Dronebogus (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes. If the committee is essentially proposing a project closure then why did they chose to make such a page that's hard to moderate instead of taking an already established approach through appropriate venues?--A09|(pogovor) 17:57, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

What appropriate venues? An entire sister project has never been closed before. This is literally unprecedented. Dronebogus (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Unprecedented? Exactly, one more good reason to keep Wikinews alive. They are not a spam-infested virus-filled swamp - they are merely a small project that needs more reviewers than others. In Wikibooks, contributors could work on a book for as long as they like before publishing it - if such a peer review step even exists - I wouldn't know, I haven't contributed to Wikibooks much. In Wikinews, contributors and reviewers have to finalise the article and publish it within one week after event - and it would be nice to shorten that deadline, but that's not feasible given how low the numbers of contributors are, and especially of reviewers - and a couple of weeks later, it will already scroll off the main page as new articles are published. So, each Wikinews article has to be written very quickly, and doesn't get seen by many readers, unless there are very good links between articles and between Wikipedia/Commons and Wikinews. And it should not be the goal to get a million reads on one article; but it should absolutely be a goal to publish at least one article every day. And if a reviewer goes through the articles in Newsroom and does not find anything worthy of publishing immediately, they may as well sit down and write an article to as high a standard as they can, in hopes that in a few hours a reviewer from another timezone will wake up, go through the list of articles in Newsroom... And publish the article! Wikiwide (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Right. In the German WP had (officially still have) even a two hours rule which says that article have to be published if there isn't any further development of the articlr (or deleted if the article does not fulfill some criteria. As a "young" wikinewsean that rule was quite stressful for me either to finish the article within that time or at least add at least such content which prevented publishing for another two hours. I am glad that that rule isn't enforced anymore in the German WN. (It has shown that the redaction process itself, as in spell and grammar proofing, copy editing, verifying content with the sources does need much more than those "two hours".

When talking of other time zones: while big projects like wikipedia have a pool of editors around the world in quite a number of languages other than english there are only some if any users on the other side of the world active in these smaller sisterprojects. So, speaking about DE WN, normally creating and editing an article on the late evening fits best for getting it approved and published the next morning by an user breakfasting. When you create an article during other times of the day most likely you'll have to publish it yourself.

But and that is an problem, a serious problem, you'll have to look up through Commons for images, and Commons user's tend to have all the time of the world. They are visiting sports events for example and are loading up the images weeks later! Matthiasb (talk) 14:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

@Dronebogus: Some users here are clearly pushing for keeping the project, contrasting the users, their opinion and SPTF. I think that the focus should be refocused specifically on Wikinews, as seen from the internal contributing members, from others WMF projects community and from outside. -- ZandDev (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

The Wikinews community hasn’t and seemingly doesn’t want to address any concerns raised about their project. Unlike (for example) Enwiki, where a fair number of active users are critical of the project, only people who are extremely enthusiastic about Wikinews and its prospects contribute to it. Normally this is a good thing, but it also prevents people from having a neutral viewpoint. Dronebogus (talk) 01:28, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

What you said may not be quite accurate as well. At least, I have also seen quite a few contributors reflecting on themselves and the plan(Including administrators and some active users), also readers raising questions in the zhWn group. So, yes, our community is relatively small, and after group discussions, not many people went to WM to support the deletion or to criticize it, but we also denied a lot of things, knowing that there is no creation without destruction. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 05:43, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, I am at WN since 2008. So I know the issues. They had been discussed over and over and over again. Some of those issues WN can resolve (For example: aside of adopting Vector and Vector 2022, the official WMF wiki skin, the DE WN did oerhaul the appearance of Wikinews at least twice, against to nul in DE WP, for reflecting different users' needs.) Others we cannot resolve, for example adopting the way in which you can insert citation templates in EN WP for Wikinews by adapting it on n:en:Template:Source (n:de:Quelle and others in other lv's) could facialiate article creating/editing/publishing by ten to fifteen minutes per source. I have no clue, where I could „order“ it. Phabricator? WMF?? The next parking meter??? Santa Claus???? I can't travel to Wikimania just to search for a dev willing to talk to me. We began to use the stock market indices template maintained by a spanish bot user. But maybe that should be an own sub-project maintained on Wikispore which the funny committe wants to close either. What about re-introducing the temperatures bot? At one time we lost the toto/lotto bot and could not replace so far. There is probably a bunch of things which could be working spores. Another idea proposed by members of the DE WP was to produce a weekly PDF. Aside of the problem to provide such a PDF each week on the same day if this would be a work of one person I already failed producing a zero number due to the lack of new news articles in that week. I also asked at some point wether ther DE WN could use the EN WN review extension but that was denied categorically since the WMF at that time did not want to distribute the extension at all. I am so fed up with addressing any concerns if the WMF does not hear to the concerns raised by the different WN communities. But hey, at least we got tons and tons of UCOC stuff into our press room, w:de:Pressestammtisch, which stopped to be a place editors would meet to discuss any problems as a result of WMF spam. Sorry. Matthiasb (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

 Support, this is definitely a better and more sensible idea. BZPN (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

 Support We should take this process back into the hands of the community. Existing Proposals for new projects mechanism already works and the Sister Projects Task Force is an unelected "supervote" committee that overrides and vetoes the Wikimedia community's desires. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:53, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

 Support At the moment, this group is nothing but a budget saving tool that was spun out of thin air and ignores all volunteer involvement, there is no seriousness or support. If I have the right, I will definitely vote for this. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 06:32, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

 Strong support It is not only wasting time but also the value of wikimedians (Specially for Wikinews reporters) Mobashir - 🇧🇩 (talk) 06:41, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose 1) the community doesn’t control the WMF, this is a moot point; 2) this group is nothing but a budget saving tool— the WMF has a right to manage where their finances are going, especially if they think their money is being wasted on something that isn’t meaningfully serving anyone. This is a straw poll so my vote is just as meaningless as the supporters, but personally I think the Foundation is being generous by not just axing Wikinews outright with zero community input like a profit-oriented corporation would do. Dronebogus (talk) 10:46, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

What you said is absolutely true. But as a volunteer-supported foundation group, I think SPTF is not doing well enough, at all. Many wns editors and even administrators suddenly learned that WN was being considered for closure, which makes me have to feel that it lacks seriousness, transparency and efforts to solve the problem. Thats why I used some exciting language in the "straw poll".~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 05:26, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Also, as you know, WMF is a non-profit charitable organization, so this really shouldn’t need to be pointed out, right? ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 05:30, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Non-profit isn’t free, and a charity should be doing what it’s actually supposed to do. In Wikimedia’s case that’s providing free knowledge. I don’t think Wikinews is meaningfully doing that. Dronebogus (talk) 09:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

In Wikimedia’s case that’s providing free knowledge. Do they? Can you point out on one single thing where the WMF has provided free knowledge (as in advise or any non-monetary help) to Wikinews as a whole? Wait, they allowed the modification of the review tool for the English WN, and from time to time they granted help to fix software problems caused by software modifications and changes of the user interface ordered by them themselves. Matthiasb (talk) 15:24, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

So, don't change the concept, having said all that, what does "not profit-oriented" mean? One of the reasons a nonprofit does well(generous) is that it is not profit-oriented. Is that your logic? ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 07:02, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

This deserves to be a quote for sure—it's such an incisive critique of social issues and critical realism lol ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 07:08, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

 Support Sister projects commission has not been working along the lines of strengthening communication with the community like it´s parent is supposed to do. Requests for further information and proof of their claims have been met with unexplained claims of attacks, which IMO makes that attack claim unfounded and false. Another way those inforrmation claims have been answered is by "just trust me bro" on the basis that the inforrmation was written by a board partner. It does not matter who wrote it, anyone is subject to taking accountability for their actions. Not notifying the wikinews communities is a major infraction of community guidelines, and wikinews community are legally allowed to respond to any claims Sister projects commission makes against them. I find Sister projects main spokesperson in violation of the "universial code of conduct", which is intresting given that she has spoken multiple times to communities on following those rules, but then can not follow them herself. Snævar (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Struck some of this due to n:ru:Викиновости:Форум/Общий#Фонд_обсуждает_с_сообществом_будущее_Викиновостей.--Snævar (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

 Strong support Several members of the Sister Projects Task Force (SPTF)—even key speakers—frequently misspoke during the public consultation Google Meet sessions, repeatedly referring to Wikinews as Wikipedia. This is just as absurd as the UK’s Cass Report, which barred transgender minors from accessing hormone therapy: the authors of the Cass Report never even interacted with a single transgender child, and similarly, SPTF’s frequent mix-up of "Wikinews" and "Wikipedia" reveals their lack of basic understanding. Worse, SPTF’s own report even implies there were internal attempts within Wikinews to shut down the project, which ultimately failed. What’s striking is their pattern: they claim some Wikinews reports—especially original ones—violate NPOV, yet this is pure hypocrisy. If SPTF itself violates NPOV, shouldn’t it be shut down entirely, just as they propose for Wikinews? This SPTF, which flouts NPOV, deserves to be shut down outright, mirroring their approach to Wikinews. I also call on other projects that may be targeted by SPTF next year to cast their support here. Alternatively, we should archive SPTF instead.Kitabc12345 (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Procedure-wise, I think we need to start a stand-alone RfC page for closing SPTF instead of a vote being buried in a page with many sections containing other discussions. Regarding your comment on other projects potentially in the crosshair of SPTF in the future, even if SPTF continues to issue their recommendations, we can point back to the RfC page that SPTF might not be properly representing the community's views. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:09, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Please inform me and other users if there is a RfC so we don't miss it. -- Ssr (talk) 04:23, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

@Ssr:Request for comment/Closure of Sister Project Task Force started. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 06:55, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

We might move some comments here over there. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 06:57, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Voted. --Ssr (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Glad that the someone got the ball rolling. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:15, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

@Wikiwide Sorry, seems I forgot ping you. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 23:57, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

So they kept making mistakes in the second meeting as well. It seems they didn't take my advice to pay attention to this.😔 ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 06:58, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Neutral - I don't think the concept of a SPTF is bad; it just has problems inside it. And I think that can be fixed. Leaderboard (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I started Request for comment/Closure of Sister Project Task Force. BR, A09|(pogovor) 12:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Truth becomes clearer through debate 真理越辯越明 ~ 07:14, 26 July 2025 (UTC) Sheminghui.WU (talk) 07:14, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

•  Support Seems OK. --نوفاك اتشمان (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

 Support +1 At the moment, the SPTF-group is nothing but a budget saving tool that was spun out of thin air and ignores all volunteer involvement, there is no seriousness or support.

Sorrowly multiple cases like "Proposal for Closing Wikinews contains false statements" can be found on this talkpage for request.

If I have the right, I will definitely vote for closing SPTF instead of Wikinews. Ｔｏｍ (talk) 14:55, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

@Ｔｏｍ The community is always open to expressing their views, and you can participate in the discussion at RfC. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 23:55, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Sunk cost fallacy

One theme I see in the comments here and elsewhere sounds like this:

"We must keep Wikinews for the future, because years ago, volunteers spent a lot of time working on it."

This is a common way for humans to think. However, it is not always a good way to think. In English, businesses call it the sunk cost fallacy (see simple:Sunk cost fallacy). We also say that people are "throwing good money after bad". In this case, we are not talking about throwing away money. We are talking about throwing away future volunteer time.

Sometimes projects work, and sometimes they fail. There is also a middle point: Sometimes projects work for a time, and then stop working. I think Wikinews was a good idea in 2004. However, it is probably not a relevant activity in 2025. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Business is irrelevant to Wikipedia. -- Ssr (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikimedia (Wikipedia isn’t Wikimedia) isn’t free— as in “no cost”. It has both material and monetary cost just to stay online. And unlike useless Wikipedia editions in languages nobody actually uses in everyday life, it’s not a trivial cost. Dronebogus (talk) 01:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Can you tell us how much the costs are? Matthiasb (talk) 07:08, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I’m not the Wikimedia accounting department. But I do remember someone mentioning that Wikinews crashed the servers once. There’s a cost other than money. Dronebogus (talk) 13:24, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, since certain background working of Cat-a-lot crashed Commons and subsequently sometimes Wikipedia, should we close down those as well? No. I think a multilingual Wikinews project is a much better, heck, even best solution to the polarising situation we're in: a heated discussion between closure and staying sides.--A09|(pogovor) 14:06, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Twice, Dronebogus. And Ssr can tell you all about it, since he was involved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes =))) -- Ssr (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, Commons is serving one billion images every day. It's uncomparable to wikinews. The whole discussion here is cost-benefit (or cost vs impact). Amir (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Volunteering input by typing keyboards can be unlimited under this base conditions of this non-profit organization. It can't be counted, it's already granted from beginning and people can type as much as they can, they not accounted, just moderated (i.e. even more keyboard input). -- Ssr (talk) 08:10, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

No Wikimedia project is usually useless, even more so if the language is endangered. @Dronebogus: Volunteers are not expendable and we should treat their work with upmost care. I agree there are costs, but if we were to give any weight to argument of sunken cost, then we can close basically all wikis – something that'd pose an existential threat to the mission of WMF and dentrimental to everything various Wikimedia Associations had done in underdeveloped areas. A09|(pogovor) 11:18, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I don’t really like the “it’s useful to SOMEONE” argument. Otherwise we would have no standards. And there’s a huge gradient between hugely useful to a vast number of people (English Wikipedia) down to “I want names besides active editors” (Volapük Wikipedia). Dronebogus (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Your argument is just gatekeeping knowledge behind a language barrier and is against the mission goals. If you don't like Wikinews or any other small wiki language that's okay, but don't project down on their closure. --A09|(pogovor) 14:06, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

There is no “language barrier” for languages nobody speaks as a first, let alone primary or only, language. And Wikinews primarily exists in some of the most popular languages on Earth. Contributing to Wikimedia primarily exists as a hobby, but it’s not a free host FOR your hobby. It has to serve a realistic educational purpose to an outside audience. Wikinews and many of the smallest language editions of Wikipedia do not in my opinion realistically reach or benefit any non-trivial outside audience. They are essentially insular hobbyist projects, made not just by their volunteer community but almost exclusively for them. Dronebogus (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I see there will be no way we would agree so I'm ending this here as you're diminishing everything small wiki communities outside of your preferred wikiprojects had done. A09|(pogovor) 17:50, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

"we are talking about throwing away future volunteer time."

Volunteers volunteer their time. If volunteers wanted to volunteer their time on other projects, they'd volunteer their time on other projects. They've chosen to invest their time on Wikinews. That's their choice. They're unlikely to switch to another project. -- 149.115.70.138 21:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

That's mostly not true. If you want to contribute to journalism specifically, you will probably not switch to writing dictionaries. However, if there were no WMF-hosted news site, you likely find a non-WMF-hosted way of contributing to journalism. Maybe that means you would start your own (e.g., a w:Substack newsletter). Maybe you would volunteer for your local newspaper.

Therefore the question in my mind is not "How do we keep these volunteers on a WMF-hosted site?" The question is more like "Is this something the WMF should be hosting, given that we're not doing a very good job of it?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

People confuse volunteer enthusiasm for suitability for Wikimedia and broader utility to the point where the latter two issues are treated as irrelevant to existing projects, as if projects exist primarily to serve their editors and any value they have to outside readers is secondary. Dronebogus (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree that this sometimes happen.

I think that, particularly in the case of the Russian Wikinews, its supporters are aware that the world needs an unbiased source of news. This is a laudable goal. However, the fact that the world needs this doesn't mean that Wikinews is filling the need. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I think the question rather is: "If the WMF considers to throw away my Wikinews voluntary work, why I should keep up with my Wikipedia voluntary work, which altogether is much more. This proposal destroyed a lot of trust into the foundation. Okay, they betrayed us several times, If they close Wikinews that will most probably trigger many people to leave other WMF projects because all think about: which project they close next. I my work safe for future? Actually that is a promise broken Jimbo made when the WMF was formalized..., I don't remember the original wording but somehwat like ensuring the existence forever was implied. When they break is unwritten promise, they ultimately loose trust in them. Don*t they even see that they're going to break their integrity? Matthiasb (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

"Ensuring the existence forever" does not mean "ensuring that you can continue posting new articles forever". Your past work is safe for the future.

Look at the stats for the Polish Wikinews. About 90% of their "voluntary work" is making a mirror for content that they copied from other websites. Do you remember Jimbo promising you that the WMF would be your webhost forever? I don't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Huh, that's an interesting claim, about around 90% of Polish Wikinews being a mirror of other (presumably suitably licenced) web sites.

Especially given that another person on this Meta page was praising Polish Wikinews for being very active and publishing lots of news articles.

On one hand, that's yet another argument to encourage original reporting on Wikinews - that makes it stand out from Wikipedia and reduces the "mirror of other web sites" aspect.

On another hand, I do not wish to cease publishing news based on articles from external sources. As long as Wikinews article includes at least two external independent sources, and presents unbiased view of an event, including different points of view, there should be no danger of "mirroring" of external websites.

Wikiwide (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing My personal impression was that Kontrabanda website was started by Wikinews contributor. Yup, @OliwierJaszczyszyn! See their topic "Wikinews should not be shut down in entirety". So please stop claiming that Polish Wikinews are copying content from somebody else! This is blatant disinformation. Wikiwide (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

>Kontrabanda website was started by Wikinews contributor.

That's right. Kontrabanda launched 8 February 2025 while my first contributions to Wikinews date back to October 2024. And, in the midst of eventual Wikinews closure pending, I have voluntarily decided to allow Polish Wikinews repost technological news from Kontrabanda as I have eased the licencing terms on some sections of my website. I'll of course repost technological news from Wikinews if these will adhere to quite strict rules I have set in motion (unfortunately, this document is only in Polish). OliwierJaszczyszyn (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I sure that full potential of Wikinews is still undeveloped yet. And the same for other sister projects but may be excluding Wikispecies. Kylain Aixter (СО) 22:45, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Agree. Do not close Wikinews! Look into ways to increase numbers of reviewers on the Wikinews that have a particularly high contributors to reviewers ratio? Wikiwide (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Piszesz o marnowaniu czasu? Marnowanie czasu to jest sprzątanie wielkiego śmietnika w encyklopedii, który powstał +/- między 2005 a 2010, gdy zrobiła się wielka górka aktywnych użytkowników, niestety niepotrafiących pisać haseł do encyklopedii. To sprzątanie będzie trwać jeszcze przez dekady. Pisanie newsów jest zadaniem o wiele łatwiejszym niż sporządzenie dobrego hasła dla encyklopedii. Marnowanie czasu to jest zabieganie o kolejnych nowicjuszy, którzy szybko zderzają się z tym, że niespecjalnie potrafią w encyklopedii działać, a ich wkład jest kasowany. To jest gonienie w piętkę. A wystarczyłoby ten cały wysiłek ukierunkować na to, aby mogli znaleźć się w mediach, w których są w stanie działać i nie dostają za każdym zrazem po uszach. Sławek Borewicz (talk) 05:26, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Czy masz na myśli, że Wikinews mogłaby być dobrą stroną gdzie można by zapraszać nowicjuszy którzy jeszcze nie nadają się do tworzenia encyklopedii? Wydaje mi się że wiele osób przychodzi na pl.Wikipedię pisać jednej sprawie która ich zainteresowała. Np pojedynczy mecz zdaje się interesować nowicjuszy ale nie jest dobrym materiałem do encyklopedii. Na pl.Wikinews jest taka wiadomość o meczu mile widziana. Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 07:07, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Dotyczy to wszelkich wydarzeń, czy jednorazowych inicjatyw, także pisania o programach przyszłych wydarzeń, niezależnie od rangi. Sławek Borewicz (talk) 04:22, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is not business. BilboBeggins (talk) 11:01, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

So? Businesses use the name "sunk cost fallacy". People use the idea for everything. The idea is not solely for business. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, but there is always extent to which we can use a certain metaphor, or comparison. I personally do not like Wikinews compared with Vietnam war. BilboBeggins (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

The sunk cost fallacy is not a metaphor, and it does not require comparison.

The sunk cost fallacy says: People work hard. They spend their time and money on projects. Sometimes, the project is doomed to failure. When you decide whether a project is succeeding or failing, the amount of hard work, time, and money spent on the project does not matter. Success and failure are decided by the results, not by what you spent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

But in Wikipedia and Wikinews, results is the efforts and resources we spent.

In Wikipedia article, we see edits and history of article. Result is what we were doing the whole time, and also the process. BilboBeggins (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

No. The desired result is readers being educated. No (human) readers = no good results.

Wikinews creates some costs or "inputs", such as:

• Volunteer time
• Website maintenance costs
• Legal liabilities

Wikinews is supposed to create some benefits, or "results", such as:

• Readers read things that they could not read on other websites.
• Readers learn new things.

"What we are doing the whole time, and also the process" is not "results". That is costs or "inputs".

What are the results?

From what I see, the results are "almost nothing". There are relatively few human readers. At the Polish and Russian Wikinews, almost everything is copied from another website.

There are a few "original" articles, but those are summaries of news reports from other websites. For example, you wrote this news article but it only summarizes other news articles. The reader learns nothing new from your article; if they read the other articles, written by ordinary reporters, they would learn the same things (or more). You did no original news-gathering. You interviewed no witnesses. You contacted no sources.

You end your article: Действительно, а какая ему разница? [Really, what difference does it make to him?] I ask you: Really, what difference does your article make? Readers can find the same facts in the same places that you found them (and maybe without the non-neutral rhetorical flourish at the end). I agree that it is an important, news-worthy subject, but it is not an improvement over the six other news websites and nobody has read it (except editors). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Co do różnicy, to styl NPOV, dostępność w archiwach, możliwość czytania całego tekstu bez logowania, brak nachalnych reklam może być wyznacznikiem. Co do tego, że nikt nie czyta, to ten argument jest bardzo słaby. Wybierzmy przypadkowe kilka tekstów, które powstały kilka dni temu w encyklopedii i w serwisie newsowym w wersji polskiej. Statystyki odwiedzin, agent=user: pl.wikipedia, pl.wikipedia, pl.wikipedia, pl.wikipedia, pl.wikinews, pl.wikinews, pl.wikinews, pl.wikinews. A teraz jakość. Porównaj ten news i jak ta informacja jest przedstawiona w Wikinews. Dostrzegasz różnicę? Sławek Borewicz (talk) 04:22, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Let's compare similar articles, such as last month's national election in Poland:

• Wikipedia: 117,000 page views in the last month
• Wikinews: 175 page views in the last month

Or the release of the Nintendo Switch 2:

• Wikipedia: 4,200 page views in the last month
• Wikinews: 2 page views in the last month

Or the election of the new pope in May:

• Wikipedia: 44,350 page views over a month
• Wikinews: 309 page views over a month

WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I wszystkie te artykuły w pl.wikipedia.org powinny być pisane nie w momencie, gdy wydarzenie trwa, tylko, gdy powstaną odpowiednie źródła wtórne, nie prasowe. Dyskutowano o tym wielokrotnie. Poza tym porównania nietrafione. W pl.wikinews.org jest opis wygranej przez Nawrockiego, a nie całego procesu wyborczego, zapowiedź premiery Nintendo, a nie cały opis produktu, przedstawienie samego wyboru papieża, a nie całego procesu konklawe. No i wybrałeś je bardzo selektywnie, ja przypadkowo. Większość przypadków jest taka, jak wskazałem wyżej, hasła encyklopedii mają relatywnie mało wejść. A te nieliczne przebitki to akurat problem z tym, że newsowe wydarzenia idą na stronę główną w pl.wikipedia.org, no i promocja tych haseł przez Google. Co ciekawe, jest wyraźne skrzywienie w stronę wydarzeń sportowych, bo mało kogo ta rubryka z wydarzeniami interesuje. Były już dyskusje, aby tę rubrykę usunąć ze strony głównej, bo miejsce na opisy wydarzeń są właśnie w Wikinews. Bieżączka to nie jest coś, co jest dobrze widziane w encyklopedii. Dlatego jak zobaczysz, co jest w tym miejscu, to zazwyczaj nie znajdziesz w hasłach o wydarzeniach linku do wersji polskojęzycznej. Sławek Borewicz (talk) 05:47, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I chose them because:

• They were news events, and
• I could find an article about (approximately) the same subject in both wikis.

This is important because comparing the same subject is fairer. News events are popular briefly. An article about an old church building might see only 10 page views in the first week, but it might also see 10 page views every month for years to come. That is just 10 page views in the first week, but it is 1,000 page views in the next 10 years.

An article about a news event quickly becomes unimportant. If it gets 10 page views in the first week, that could be all: just 10 page views in the first week, and still just 10 page views in the next 10 years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Zgadza się, i taki artykuł o wydarzeniu nie powinien być opisywany na bieżąco w encyklopedii. Potem zostają na lata gnioty, których nikt nie aktualizuje, albo nawet nie sprawdza, na bazie jakich tabloidów dane hasło powstało. Tu masz przykłady prasówkowych haseł w encyklopedii, które zostały usunięte, własnie z argumentacją, że nie do tego służy encyklopedia: w:pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2025:05:08:Atak na Uniwersytecie Warszawskim (2025), w:pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2025:05:15:Anomalia na Morzu Bałtyckim (w wersji angloęzycznej pojawiły się nieco poważniejsze źródła, nie tylko tabloidy), pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2025:03:11:Afera korupcyjna w Tarnobrzegu, w:pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2025:03:28:Atak nożownika w Amsterdamie (wersja naglojęzyczna nadal oparta wyłącznie na prasówce), w:pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2025:01:28:Reakcje międzynarodowe na wojnę domową w Syrii (w wersji anglojęzycznej, mimo że źródła to prawie sama prasówka, to jednak hasło ktoś aktualizował). A tu znajdziesz więcej argumentów, że takie hasła powinny trafiać do Wikinews. W wersji anglojęzycznej także. Sławek Borewicz (talk) 06:29, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I am not telling Wikipedia what they "should" include or exclude. That is their decision. If they choose to include something, then that is a reality that Wikinews must live with. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

A to comparing jest zupełnie źle zrobione. Tu masz kategorię haseł o wyborach prezydenckich, prawie 100 newsów n:pl:Kategoria:Wybory prezydenckie w Polsce 2025. Każdy z nich ma po kilkadziesiąt wejść. Oczywiście, że bez wsparcia Googla to się nie może sumować do 100 tysięcy, ale to nie jest tylko 175 odwiedzin. Sławek Borewicz (talk) 06:45, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Google will not "support" any website that copies 90% of its content from other websites. Google prefers original content and rejects websites that copy other people's work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Te 90% to masz z tych statystyk, co nie potrafią odróżnić bota od człowieka, czy tak sobie rzucasz, bo może się przyklei? A jak bardzo Google nie preferują kopii to się dowiesz, jak będziesz kiedyś próbować poprawiać hasła encyklopedii i szukać jakiegoś źródła do terminu, który występuje w wielu jej forkach. Sławek Borewicz (talk) 04:47, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I get the ~90% statistic by counting the recent Polish Wikinews articles myself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Aha, podałeś, że prawie 300 newsów zostało skopiowanych, a podałeś tylko 1 przykład, akurat legalnego skopiowania z serwisu na wolnej licencji. No to sprawdźmy, co tam ci się wydawało, że jest copy+paste:

• n:pl:Adriana Porowska w kanale Zero: pomyliła miasto Police z policją, mówiąc o Ruchu Obrony Granic - to nie jest copy+paste
• n:pl:Tydzień Artykułu o Wydarzeniach w polskojęzycznej Wikipedii - to nie jest copy+paste
• n:pl:Leszno: Prezydent Rusiecki z wotum zaufania i absolutorium - to jest bliskie copy+paste, słabo przeredagowano treść
• n:pl:Podlaskie: pociąg pasażerski zderzył się z ciężarówką w Sokółce - to nie jest copy+paste
• n:pl:Śląskie: 47-latek zderzył się hulajnogą elektryczną z 15-latkiem, który również poruszał się na hulajnodze. Obaj byli nietrzeźwi - to nie jest copy+paste
• n:pl:Microsoft zapowiada cięcia w zatrudnieniach w sektorze gamingowym. 9.100 pracowników zostanie zwolnionych - to jest copy+paste ze źródła na wolnej licencji
• n:pl:Zmarli 2 lipca 2025 - to nie jest copy+paste
• n:pl:Statystyki Wikinews: czerwiec 2025 - to nie jest copy+paste, materiał autorski
• n:pl:Statystyki wikiprojektu „Czy wiesz” na Wikipedii: 26 czerwca-2 lipca 2025 - to nie jest copy+paste
• n:pl:Zmarli 1 lipca 2025 - to nie jest copy+paste
• n:pl:Kanada wycofuje się z wprowadzenia podatku cyfrowego - to jest copy+paste z serwisu na wolnej licencji
• n:pl:Warszawa: 24-letni obywatel Francji wspiął się bez zabezpieczeń na szczyt elewacji Hotelu Presidential - to nie jest copy+paste
• n:pl:„Kontrabanda” liberalizuje licencję, na której publikowane są materiały w sekcji „Informacje” — od 2 lipca 2025 roku jest to CC BY 4.0 International - to jest copy+paste z serwisu na wolnej licencji
• n:pl:Zimowa superkomórka w Brazylii tworzy chmurę jak tornado - to raczej nie jest copy+paste, materiał autorski (nie znam portugalskiego), jedną ilustrację zgłosiłem do skasowania w Commons - akurat copyvio
• n:pl:Centrum Lokalne Żoliborz - 27 tydzień 2025 - to jest copy+paste ze źródła na wolnej licencji
• n:pl:Internet Archive przewiduje osiągnięcie progu 1 biliona zarchiwizowanych stron w Wayback Machine do października 2025 roku - to jest copy+paste ze źródła na wolnej licencji
• n:pl:Zmarli 30 czerwca 2025 - to nie jest copy+paste
• n:pl:Lukasz2 w audycji Polskiego Radia, jako autor z Wikimedia Commons, został przedstawiony jako Wikipedysta, mimo trwałej blokady w projekcie - to nie jest copy+paste
• n:pl:Nowości na Wikiźródłach: czerwiec 2025 - to jest copy+paste ze źróðła na wolnej licencji, ale nie tożsamej, powinno być to oznaczone poprawniej, albo przetworzyć należało listę
• n:pl:Sąd Najwyższy uznał za ważne wybory prezydenckie z 2025 roku - to nie jest copy+paste
• n:pl:W aplikacji mObywatel zostanie uruchomiony asystent AI - to nie jest copy+paste
• n:pl:Zmarli 29 czerwca 2025 - to nie jest copy+paste
• n:pl:Na krakowskiej Nowej Hucie odsłonięto tablicę pamiątkową poświęconą Bogusławowi Schaefferowi - to nie jest copy+paste
• n:pl:Rozpoczął się trzeci sezon serialu Squid Game - to nie jest copy+paste
• n:pl:Mazury: 67-letni mężczyzna utonął w jeziorze Niegocin - to nie jest copy+paste, ale można było lepiej przeredagować
• n:pl:Lubelskie: w miejscowości Sobiska dwoje nastolatków zostało rannych w wyniku wypadku z udziałem hulajnogi elektrycznej - to nie jest copy+paste, ale można było lepiej przeredagować
• n:pl:Akcja „WikiChełmoński” na polskiej Wikipedii została przedłużona do 13 lipca 2025 roku - to nie jest copy+paste, materiał autorski
• n:pl:Czterdziesty drugi Quiz na polskim Wikinews - to nie jest copy+paste, ale to też nie jest news
• n:pl:Kamienie milowe Wikimediów – 26 tydzień 2025 - to jest copy+paste z serwisu na wolnej licencji, ale innej i należało to oznaczyć, albo przetworzyć należało listę
• n:pl:Statystyki zatrzymań w ruchu tramwajowym i autobusowym w Krakowie - 26 tydzień 2025 - to nie jest copy+paste

Nijak nie wychodzi mi 90%. Jeden z tych newsów proponowałbym napisać od nowa dla uniknięcia podejrzeń o copyvio, a kilka poprawił, bo dużo pracy nie trzeba włożyć, aby przeredagować tekst. Sławek Borewicz (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Artykuł Wikipedii należy porównywać z kategorią Wikinews (w sensie suma wyświetleń wszystkich artykułów z odpowiedniej kategorii) a nie pojedynczym artykułem Wikinews. Prawie żadnej artykuł w Wikinews nie opisuje całego tekstu zawartego w artykule Wikipedii. Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I just checked: The Nintendo article, with 2 page views, is the only article at plwikinews that contains the word Nintendo and was written in the last year.

Even if we say that there are 5 or 10 articles, and 10 small Wikinews articles = 1 bigger Wikipedia article, that's still much lower page views than the corresponding Wikipedia article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

You are not at TikTok to count article likes. Encyclopaedic and sister-project content should be served regardless of number of visitors. We are not chasing for banner clicks or such. You cannot delete an article from Wikipedia because it has little pageviews. It's so silly. --Ssr (talk) 06:48, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Agree! Given how transient Wikinews are, you cannot take number of views for an article as measure of success. Rather, you could take total number of views for all articles published within the last day/week/month as a measure of success. Either lots of small articles, or one high-impact article, would bring up the score. Wikiwide (talk) 17:35, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

┌─────────────┘
Rather, you could take total number of views for all articles published within the last day/week/month as a measure of success.
We're seeing a trend that may support that with our Monthly top article challenge. As more articles are published we see increases in both page views and site views. We're also at the highest number of active users we've seen in three years[22] with the trend pointing upwards.

I'm not saying page views, site views, or total active editors are the end-all metric. But you can't deny they provide a measure of results, especially when they all are trending in the same direction. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Compiling news reports from other websites is still useful. The problem is its update frequency on Wikinews sites is to low to feed a news source (if Wikinews focuses on in-depth report then the activity requirement may not so high like this for volunteers though). dringsim 12:01, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Useful to whom? Useful to readers, who could read the news reports on those other websites? I disagree.

Maybe they are "useful" to Wikinews editors who want to deceive themselves about their success. The editors produce too little information to fill the news feed, but we copy other sources to make ourselves look good.

How would you feel about the Polish Wikipedia, if 90% of its articles were exact copies of Encyklopedia Internautica, which readers could read at https://encyklopedia.interia.pl/? Would you say it is "still useful"? I wouldn't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:44, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Agree! Compiling news articles from external sources is especially useful when Wikinews presents a fresh, unbiased view of an event that's covered with great bias in external sources. Seeing the greater picture and showing it to readers.

Also, I adore templates. I haven't seen anything remotely similar in external websites. Related news section is too opaque?..

Wikiwide (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

And I am tired of "sunk cost fallacy" presumption. I already had people trying to pull that trick on me in regards to my bicycle. "It is old, why don't you get a new bicycle instead of repairing that one? Is it a souvenir, or something? A keepsake present from a dear relative?" No. I just happen to see beauty of potential in things, enough to put work into them, instead of abandoning them due to the current descent into a poor state. Yes, English Wikinews hasn't published an article in a week?.. I am horrified by the main page. It can be worse, Persian Wikinews hasn't published an article in years?.. Nevertheless: English Wikinews was doing very well just a few weeks ago. It will do well again. I just need to dedicate time to it again. Just, between being overwhelmed at work and sick at the same time (yes, I am working while sick; my choice, not my employer's choice; I am just trying to outrun consequences of my mistakes, I don't want them to bite my employer, that would reflect poorly on my ability to keep them in check), I have at best reported broken traffic lights to local authorities, instead of dedicating much time to Wikinews. Wikiwide (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

"Sunk cost fallacy" isn't about repairing something. Compare:

• The bicycle is not working. The front tire is flat. The chain is rusty. It will cost $100 in parts and time to fix it. But if I fix it, it will work properly. I could buy a new bicycle, or I can fix this one. I choose to fix this one. This is not "sunk cost fallacy".
• The bicycle is not working. The front tire is flat. The chain is rusty. It will cost $100 in parts and time to fix it. I could buy a new bicycle, or I can fix this one. I choose to fix these two things, but now the brakes are broken. Fixing the brakes will cost another $100. I fix the brakes. Now the headlight has been stolen. A new headlight will cost $20. Well, I've already spent $200, so I might as well spend another $20. This – only this last bit, when my justification for spending more money is that I've already spent other money in the past – is "sunk cost fallacy".

WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Process and analysis seem flawed

I have not been engaged in Wikinews, but as I was invited, I will comment on the process. After all the proposal was made, in part (according to the invitation), "to work through and demonstrate the review process".

The procedure for closing projects seems to be (summarised from Wikimedia Foundation Community Affairs Committee/Procedure for Sibling Project Lifecycle):

1. A group – any group – writes a formal proposal, including
   1. List of responsible initiative group(s) or entities
   2. Identification of the need for closure
   3. Community consultation – "Extensive consultation with the affected community is crucial"
2. Submitted proposal is made public
3. There is a final decision (the page doesn't specify how this decision is to be made)

This process doesn't include a public discussion on the proposal. I am glad we are having a public discussion, but I cannot see that the affected communities would have been consulted extensively. The report mentions a Wikimedia Conference (a chapter meeting) and mailing list threads. Those are not venues to reach out to the communities themselves.

So everybody was invited to the community consultation. As community insights weren't used in writing the proposal, it does a poor job of presenting the challenges of Wikinews. I would have much preferred that there had been a discussion on how to solve the problems, comparing approaches from different language versions. The arguments in such discussions would have been important in the current consultation, and could have been presented in a structured way instead of being scattered among comments.

The discussion in the proposal is weird. The premise is sound:

"These proposals have stemmed from concerns regarding the platform’s effectiveness, engagement levels, and ability to fulfil Wikimedia’s mission of providing freely accessible, high-quality, and widely utilized educational content."

"Given these ongoing concerns, the SPTF has requested a comprehensive assessment of Wikinews’ activity and impact. The evaluation aims to determine whether the platform serves a meaningful purpose, attracts and retains contributors, provides valuable news content, and aligns with Wikimedia's broader goals."

Then statistics are used to prove that the project isn't viable.

• Google doesn't direct too much relevant traffic to the site. This lessens the project's impact, but are we rally going to let Google decide whether to close projects?
• Usage is limited to a few countries: Over 70% of Wikinews’ read traffic comes from these. Similarly about traffic distribution between language versions. OK, but that reasoning means that if Wikipedia in English would multiply its read traffic tenfold, then Wikipedia should be closed down. No discussion on the actual volumes. The bias is used also to dismiss empowerment and engagement of people – I don't think bias between countries is a valid metric for that.

There are also qualitative assessments, which may hold true, but as the proposal is made to close the project, the analysis may be biased, especially as it seems that the nature of the project hasn't been taken into account. I would also had expected a separate analysis on each of the largest language versions, as it seems that rules and dynamics vary between them.

I don't agree with the claim that the news content needs to be well-rounded to be educational. I would assume that Wikinews, with its limited editor base, would seek to cover niches, and I see nothing non-educational in that.

It seems that synergy with other Wikimedia projects has been taken as a criteria. I understand that a project with high synergy shouldn't be closed down light-heartedly, but not having synergies is no reason in itself to close a project.

There remain the low editor numbers, quality aspects and inherent problems with the project's mission, which are discussed to some extent in the report (and also on this page). Lacking insight, I'm not going to share any opinions on them right now.

–LPfi (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much and please read this link n:ru:Участник:Ssr/Wikinews_goals_autotranslated that analyzes the topics you want to read about. -- Ssr (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

@LPfi, I think this discussion is that "Extensive consultation with the affected community". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes. But it is odd to see all the Wikimedia family regarded as the affected community. Project-specific discussions could easier have had a focus on finding the fundamental problems and possible solutions. Here issues on one language version get mixed up with the general question, and the larger community has to read about issues that might not be relevant at all (as they were presented according to misunderstandings, which could easily had been solved in those primary communities). –LPfi (talk) 07:53, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps there will be later consultations with (primarily) Wikinews editors ("primarily", because if they happen on any public wiki, we can't keep non-Wikinews editors out). Nothing says "We will have extensive consultations with Wikinews first, and only later will other community members be allowed to say anything" or "We will have separate consultations with Wikinews and non-Wikinews contributors". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

This has led to misunderstandings and is clearly directional. Even Wikipedia editors who are more familiar with the Wikimedia structure have written in the Wikinews entry that "As of June 28, 2025, the Wikimedia Foundation has proposed closing Wikinews." (Although the discussion has ended, I see people from SPTF are still talking to each other, so it doesn't matter) ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Project Restructuring: Sequential Events Chronicles

This proposal outlines a unique, low-effort approach to building a Creative wiki. Instead of traditional news coverage, It will serve as a dynamic, community-driven chronicle of any sequential event, from a historical battle to disaster updates, or even the development of an invention.
The core idea is to allow users to document events as a series of timestamped "snippets," each residing on its own dedicated page, allowing for detailed documentation. These snippets, collectively form a comprehensive, chronological narrative.
The site will function as a "collaborative timeline" or an "open-source living history book." It's not about providing analytical news, but rather acting as a repository for news briefs, milestones, and perspectives related to any event that unfolds over time.
This approach is inherently low-effort for contributors, as they're only responsible for a small piece of the larger puzzle. All content will be under a Creative Commons license, making it a valuable, freely usable resource for anyone – researchers, other journalists, or simply curious individuals – to piece together a broader narrative.

• All snippets linked to a specific Chronicle Page will be displayed in chronological order, provide a clear links to jump to specific points in the timeline.
• Previous/Next Snippet" Buttons: On each individual snippet page, prominent buttons to effortlessly navigate to the immediate preceding or succeeding snippet in the sequence. --Mohanad (talk) 03:30, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Nie jestem pewien czy dobrze rozumiem (tłumaczenie maszynowe). Ale chyba taka wizja Wikinews jest mi bliska. Minimalne wymogi dla konkretnej informacji. Krótkie monotematyczne strony. Całościowy opis tworzony przez grupę artykułów (obecnie kategorie). Czy Twoja propozycja opiera się na jakimś wzorcu? Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 06:56, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

@Marek Mazurkiewicz Actually no. This has been a vision of mine for Wikinews's development for quite some time --Mohanad (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Question in the DE WP

A number (formerly known as IP) in the german WP asked:

Nichtsdestotrotz frisst das Projekt ja wohl nahezu kein Gras. Also ist schon die Frage, warum pauschal alle Sprachversionen gelöscht (bzw. genauer: archiviert) werden sollten. Könnte das mal bitte jemand hier begründen? Was für Argumente werden dafür vorgebracht? --~2025-110807 (Diskussion) 00:48, 2. Jul. 2025 (CEST)

ENG: Nevertheless, the project probably eats almost no grass. So the question is why all language versions should be deleted (or more precise: archived). Could someone please justify that here? What are the arguments presented for this?

--Matthiasb (talk) 07:05, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

@Matthiasb, die erste Annahme (Wikinews frisst ja wohl nahezu kein Gras) ist wahrscheinlich ein bisschen falsch. Wenn Wikinews eigentlich erfolgreich wäre, wäre es total falsch.

[English: The initial assumption (Wikinews consumes few resources) is probably not quite true. If Wikinews were actually successful, it would be totally wrong.] WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. If you look up my comments above, I exampled multiple cases of cost of wikinews (the extra extension, the outages, etc.). Amir (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Not to mention all the bots scraping Wikinews for slop fodder. Remember those old propaganda posters— “if you ride alone, you ride with Hitler”? If nobody reads your page, then you’re writing for bots. Dronebogus (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

OMG....the bots.... aren't there any bots scraping Wikipedia? And the bots still are there if the project gets archived. However: you obviously cannot name how much bucks Wikinews cost a year? 1000? 10000? 38729? Let it be 100000 yet it would be 0,0 percent of the whole WMF's budget.

You cannot add the outages into the bill since this are costs been caused accidentally; even German Wikipedia once caused a total halt to the WMF servers, and we're not shutting down Wikipedia because of it, aren't we?.

@Dronebogus: If nobody reads your page, then you’re writing for bots. I think most of us are writing for themselves nevertheless which project they are involved to. Wikipedia, Wikinews, Wikisource, Commons, Wikidata... that are hobbies not businesses. Or did you ever calculate how many dollars one single edit in Wikipedia costs economically? All together? From server costs to the electricity costs of the user's computers? I can tell you it is much more effectiv to run Wikinews than Wikipedia. Matthiasb (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

@Matthiasb, unfortunately, we can and should blame the Russian Wikinews for those outages, because the devs warned them to stop using a particular, non-standard software system due to the risk of it taking down all the servers. They refused to do so. They knowingly took down the servers.

We say "Don't worry about performance", (Sorge dich nicht um die Server) – but the right to not worry about the server means you have to accept the limits that the devs give you. When the devs say "Stop it, this is causing big problems", you can't say "I don't care. I will do what I wish". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

First of all it was a problem of communication. I wasn't happy how that escalated. But true the problem was caused in RU WN. However this problem now is blamed on all other languages as well. This problem was not my mistake as a DE WN admin, and there was nothing I could have be done to advert it. We could have, maybe, since in some kind it was a similar problem to what the Dackelvandale did 2007 on the DE main page but we did not.

Nevertheless, the argumenting is somewhat unstraight:

• We must close WN.
  • Why?
• They cause a problem.
  • How?
• They are not very successful.
  • That is a minor problem.
• No, no, it is a big problem if WN would suddenly grows
  • ...???
• If they are growing the cannot control spam anymore.

…

First of all: I don't see a sudden growing near and beyond the horizon. Then this line of discussion applies to each and every of the 300+ WP language versions and to each and all of the other sister projects in any language. It does not make any sense. Matthiasb (talk) 02:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikinews use mw:Extension:DynamicPageList. This means that there is a fixed cost to the WMF's Product and Technology department for Wikinews (any of them) continuing (in their current form). This cost does not apply to any Wikipedias, Wiktionaries, etc. because they do not have this software extension. If we did not have Wikinews, we could throw away this old software, just like we are throwing away mw:Extension:LiquidThreads (also used by Wikinews).

So it seems (to me) that your questions and answers sound like this:

• We should probably close or change Wikinews.
  • Why?
• They cause a problem.
  • How?
• By being expensive and complicated, due to the non-standard and complicated software.
  • But it's worth it!
• Even though they are not successful, because they have few readers?
  • But it's worth it!
• Even though they are not successful, because they create little original content, and the "big" Wikinews are mostly unnecessary mirrors or archives of other websites?
  • But it's worth it!
• Even though they are not successful, because they have few contributors?
  • But it's worth it!
• How much is it worth to you?
  • ...I meant "I like it!", not "I'd pay money for it" or "I'd be willing to run a separate website for it".

Yes: Maybe 1 in 1,000 experienced users prefer contributing to Wikinews. But maybe you could like it with standard software? Or maybe you would like it enough to make it a separate website? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:29, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Matthiasb. De Wikischim (talk) 07:47, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

If the problem lies in a specific extension (or a few), why was it not mentioned in the report? Have there been discussions on ways to get around using that extension? –LPfi (talk) 07:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the creaky old software extension is the only problem. But the way to "get around" that extension is (e.g., in the view of the Russian Wikinews editor who crashed the servers twice, because the damage was done by overloading this software) to make Wikinews stop being a news website.

I believe there are ways around this specific problem. I believe that solving this specific problem would remove the organizational urgency around Wikinews' future.

But I also wonder: When none of the languages produce much – when majority (90%?) of the project's content would be considered by the broader community to violate w:en:WP:NOTWEBHOST – what's the point? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

DPL przestało być właściwie potrzebne, od kiedy kategorie są sortowane po dacie utworzenia newsa (tzn. od kiedy najnowsze trafiają na górę kategorii) - dotyczy wersji polskojęzycznej, ale można ustawić w innych (zobacz DPL i listę newsów np. w katagorii n:pl:Kategoria:Polityka). Właściwie DPL dubluje treść kategorii (poza tym, że dodaje datę). Jedyny mankament, który pewnie dałoby się załatwić, to przeniesienie podkategorii na dół strony, aby czytelnik trafiał na listę najnowszych newsów w danej kategorii (dlatego chwilowo DPL jeszcze nie znika). A ustawianie tego, co ląduje na stronie głównej, można ustawić szablonami i botami (np. nie listowanie newsów "w tworzeniu" - nieukończonych). W pl wikinews strona główna i portale, które jeszcze nie zostały zmienione na przekierowania do kategorii, obsługuje właśnie bot. Sławek Borewicz (talk) 08:18, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to remove that software from your wiki. It is still in use on your wiki.[23] Follow the process for Requesting wiki configuration changes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

To nie jest moja wiki. Sławek Borewicz (talk) 04:23, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: There isn’t really any sense in arguing with supporters here; if you support an inherently impractical project like Wikinews, no cost is too high even if that cost is unnecessary and has little obvious benefit to show for it. It’s a symptom of a broader philosophical dispute across Wikimedia between a practicality-and-rules oriented mindset favoring consistency, cost-benefit analysis, and usefulness to readers; and a romanticist view that contributors are the most important part of Wikimedia, their work has inherent value simply by existing, and they have a right to be auteurish about it. Dronebogus (talk) 14:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Wręcz odwrotnie, włączanie newsów do encyklopedii, co się tu proponuje, to właśnie dążenie do podtrzymywania robienia z niej śmietnika, bo się pozwala tam robić wszystko. Nie każdy nadaje się do tworzenia encyklopedii, a newsy na tematy takie jak wybory, konklawe, wydarzenia sportowe, trwające konflikty zbrojne powinny być tworzone poza encyklopedią. Nowicjusz może sobie więc poćwiczyć pisząc newsy albo cytaty, zanim zabierze się za pisanie haseł w encyklopedii. Natomiast w encyklopedii hasła o wydarzeniach powinno się pisać dopiero, gdy powstaną odpowiednie opracowania naukowe. Sławek Borewicz (talk) 04:35, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

That is your opinion. AFAICT it is not an opinion shared by any Wikipedia community. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:45, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Nie znasz wszystkich community. Prawdopodobnie znasz tylko angielską. Sławek Borewicz (talk) 16:53, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I’m not arguing against someone in a language I don’t speak. Dronebogus (talk) 01:30, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Meta-Wiki is a multi-lingual wiki. Use machine translation to get the gist of the comment (https://www.deepl.com/en/translator is good for most European languages), and expect others to do the same for what you write. Short, simpler sentences are translated more reliably. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Encyclopedic article and news report are two different kinds of articles… Practising writing one kind of article may not be very helpful for writing another kind… dringsim 06:14, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Zgadza się, to są inne bajki, ale możesz poćwiczyć pracę ze źródłami, neutralny opis, no i przede wszystkim tu i tu trzeba opanować dobre pisanie we własnym języku. Pod tym względem pisanie newsów jest znacznie łatwiejsze niż pisanie haseł do encyklopedii, tak samo jak napisanie reportażu jest łatwiejsze niż napisanie hasła, które będzie featured. W realnym świecie licealistów zatrudnia się do pisania tekstów w gazetach, ale nie w do tworzenia encyklopedii. Kiedyś było takie przekonanie, że każdy może tworzyć encyklopedię. Niestety nie każdy. A sterty kiepskich haseł trzeba będzie sprzątać na pewno dłużej niż do połowy tego stulecia. Była niestety zbyt duża tolerancja na tworzenie haseł przez każdego. Sławek Borewicz (talk) 09:42, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I don't know what we are talking about.The DPL had been implemented when Barack Obamas was POTUS. More or less all of the Wikinewses language versions made oder make use of it. The costs of inventing and implementing are long amortisized. Does DPL uses WMF technical resources in a way which is unreasonable? Or, maybe better asked, if I look to Wikinews, I see two differences between it and Wikipedia, DPL and the comment pages. I don't takethe reviewed versions (EN WN has it, DE WN not) as different because of DE WP and several other WP use a similar feature, so it might or might not be only some onfiguration of the same or similair extensions. The same is with Wikibooks and Wikiquote, even wikiversity. I don't see big differences in the software for these projects. Maybe there are but I am not aware of. Wikisource is another thing. Most versions for newer pages work with the "Text" - "Index:Text" and "Page:Text (1 to end)" construction, i.e. there is an edit window on the left and there is a preview window with a scanned page to the right. Also there must have been installed an OCR. The lack of any of them would render Wikisource useless. It is safe to say Wikisource differs to Wikinews or Wikipedia in whole bunch of details. If looking for costs and maintenance costs we should rather close wikisource.But it would be dumb beause the Wikisources are a hgih quality product. We should not close Wikinews becaus of costs for a tool invented 15 years ago. Evern more so, that the PDL was miused not abused. The problem was not using it. The problem was creating 100,000 article one day. And there has been a reasonable reason for doing so. Matthiasb (talk) 13:07, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

You've talked about three separate issues here.

1. Software doesn't age well. No software gets better as it gets older, and due to external infrastructure changes (e.g., different hardware, different web browsers, different operating systems, different security systems...), they normally get worse. As users, we think "Oh, it has been here for years. That means it is tried and true; it is tested and proven." However, the fact that DPL is so old suggests that it has problems. Think "old, creaky, slow, and at risk of falling over". DPL was started in 2005, when Microsoft Windows XP was popular, and you should expect, from the technical side, for it to be just as desirable today as a laptop with a 20-year-old copy of Windows XP.
2. This particular software also doesn't scale well. You might already know that there are many MediaWiki tools that work on smaller wikis, but not at the English Wikipedia (i.e., the biggest wiki in the history of the world). The reason the Russian Wikinews was told to stop importing articles so rapidly is because this software has, in practice, a maximum number of articles it can process. Even if we say that it "should" be able to scale well, it presently doesn't, and it would cost millions of dollars and several years to change that fact.
3. Every "special" thing imposes costs. The costs may be big or small or in between; the benefits can be big or small or in between. The costs can also be direct or indirect. But these costs exist, even if we don't see them. In this case, the costs are mostly indirect and mostly small, but there is a constant drip-drip-drip of costs every time widely used software gets changed, someone has to make sure that it doesn't break DPL, and if it does, to either adapt the change or patch DPL so the creaky old system doesn't fall completely apart.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

ad 2.) I remember that there was a reason to import articles so rapidely – actually because the closure of those external projects by the Russian internet administration was imminent within hours or days. There had been other solutions I guess. On software-I am not very knowledgable man I would have started by slowing down DPL. Matthiasb (talk) 08:33, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

The Russian Wikinews bot op was given many opportunities. For example, if the other websites need to be copied, could their contents not be stored offline for a few days? Could DPL not be turned off at that one wiki for a while? Could an actual archive site not be used for archiving? But no: The only solution they would accept was doing what they wanted to do, with no regard for anyone else. They posted everything as rapidly as possible, crashed all the wikis, and then insisted on doing it again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I was there. I followed the discussions at the time. I experienced another narratation. Matthiasb (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Then you may remember that I was part of some of those discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware. Matthiasb (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Final conclusion

As an 18-year experienced Wikinews voulnteer, I can say what to do. I have been saying this for decades. The English Wikipedia has a rule: w:WP:NOTNEWS. This is a fundamental rule from the beginning of the project. It says that NO NEWS ACTIVITY IN WIKIPEDIA is allowed. And Wikinews are directly named there as a place where news activity should go according to this base rule. Since early years, we, the Wikinews volunteers, are keeping conformation of this rule. While other users, with growth of the Wikipedia, began to tend to violate it, more and more. As a result, we see Wikipedia heavily stuffed with [forbidden] news, and how it gets big kicks for it from general public.

All that time, Wikinews volunteers are stuck with the base rule: news in wiki → wikinews. And what did they come with? They came with: WMF SPTF comes suddenly in June 2025 and tries to kill them, emphasizing they are all fools and lazybones. So close (archive) them. The problem of violation of NOTNEWS at Wikipedia stays unattended, despite astronomical WMF salaries in an expensive location. Instead, they destroy sister projects. So, nobody will notice catastrophic NOTNEWS violations at Wikipedia so they are legitimized without rewriting the NOTNEWS.

Aside from SPTF incompetence, what would be the right conclusions to the consultation? Strictly according to WP:NOTNEWS: all Wikipedia news-related activity should be redirected to Wikinews. In all languages. Forcibly by WMF. SPTF must be suspended until reorganized. -- Ssr (talk) 07:18, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Strongly  Support De Wikischim (talk) 07:43, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

There's nothing to do with WP:NOTNEWS, otherwise WMF should host a blog, a web hosting service, a social networking service, etc. When Wikinews exists (as a sister project), WP recommends Wikinews. When Wikinews does not exist, WP may suggest other platforms (or not). dringsim 08:21, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

How not? Wikipedia and Wikinews inherently are not compatible due to WP:NOTNEWS – which I'll admit it exists only on a handful of projects however WP:5P still dominates with encyclopaedic content, something that news usually are not. A09|(pogovor) 08:41, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, sister projects are made for the purpose of hosting content that was intended to be placed in Wikipedia, but doesn't fit the general idea. That's how most of projects were born. When too many quotes of a man were inserted, then WMF created Wikiquote, so CONTENT IS NOT LOST. When texts of songs and manuscripts were inserted, the WMF created Wikisource, to place this useful content outside Wikipedia, but within Wikimedia. This is how Wikimedia Commons was born, and how Wikinews was born. So quotes to quotes, sources to sources and news to news. -- Ssr (talk) 08:49, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

If you really believe Wikinews has a reason to exist, then you shouldn't take Wikipedia into account. Yes, sister projects are made for the purpose of hosting content that was intended to be placed in Wikipedia, but doesn't fit the general idea. That's how most of projects were born.[...]so CONTENT IS NOT LOST. Historically it may be true, but after development for 10+ years, each project has different scope and mission. They should be self-contained and not depend on Wikipedia. English Wiktionary community consider the transwiki system to be obsolete. Chinese Wikinews community is discussing how to save Wikinews, and I'm sure they definitely don't view Wikinews as a “project...so CONTENT IS NOT LOST”. dringsim 11:25, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

An opinion from Chinese Wikinews:

It is very important to allow Wikinews to publish personal opinions, readers' letters or editorials. In fact, no media can do without the most attractive opinions. I think at least in Chinese Wikinews, these reforms are also needed. I feel very good about the current approach of Russian Wikinews, including the global language project and allowing opinion articles/news with personal views. This is a sustainable way and change for Wikinews -- Участник:Kitabc12345

Thank you Kitabc12345! -- Ssr (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

"If you really believe" Commons "has a reason to exist, then you shouldn't take Wikipedia into account." -- Ssr (talk) 11:36, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

What's your point? Commons receive various kinds of media files to build a free media repository, not just here to only receive content that was intended to be placed in Wikipedia, but doesn't fit the general idea. And Wikinews also exists to serve as a free news source, not just here to receive content from Wikipedia. dringsim 11:49, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

What's your point? Instead of collaboration you are throwing contributors away. That's not a Wikimedia approach. That is an approach societies of hostile to Wikimedia. -- Ssr (talk) 11:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

If you like do develop Chinese Wikinews please help to elaborate n:zh:維基新聞可能關站 -- Ssr (talk) 11:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

So CONTENT -- __brought to Wikipedia__ -- is not lost, not any random content -- Ssr (talk) 11:44, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

And if you think Wikinews is only here to make "(educational) content not lost", please read #Project Restructuring: Sequential Events Chronicles. dringsim 11:34, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Not "only" -- Ssr (talk) 12:05, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

And still violate -- Ssr (talk) 08:43, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

@Ssr, you have misunderstood the "NOTNEWS" rule. You must read the sentences, not the UPPERCASE. The English Wikipedia's policy says:

"In principle, all Wikipedia articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Even when citing recent news articles as sources, ensure the Wikipedia articles themselves are not:

1. Original reporting. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source. However, our sister projects Wikisource and Wikinews do exactly that, and are intended to be primary sources. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information.
2. News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage (see WP:ROUTINE for more on this with regard to routine events). Also, while including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews
3. Who's who. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.)
4. Celebrity gossip and diaries. Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overly detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goals scored warrants inclusion in the biography of that person, only those for which they have notability or for which our readers are reasonably likely to have an interest."

What is allowed at the English Wikipedia?

• Current information (e.g., updating an article about a notable building to mention a fire in that building)
• Citing news sources
• Writing encyclopedia articles about "significant" current events (e.g., a sports championship, a terrorist attack)

What is not allowed at the English Wikipedia?

• Information that has never been published anywhere else (e.g., I see a fire in a notable building, and I write my own description; I contact a witness to the fire on social media and ask for a quotation)
• Separate articles for "insignificant" current events (e.g., a separate article about a fire in a notable building)
• Articles that sound like a newspaper article (e.g., "Early this morning, a fire broke out in a notable building. Witnesses said that the fire began in the basement. Contacted later by this reporter, Mayor John Smith said 'We appreciate the quick, skillful response from our city's firefighters to prevent a tragedy'.")
• Information about minor individuals (e.g., the names and descriptions of the the firefighters and witnesses for that fire)
• Ephemeral trivia (e.g., Where did the celebrity each lunch today? Which athletes scored a goal today?)

In short, Wikipedia actually is allowed to have articles about important news events. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

but not all of them, only about some of them, directly stating twice that users should go to Wikinews when an unallowed topic appears. --Ssr (talk) 17:59, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not heavily stuffed with forbidden news; Wikipedia rejects forbidden news. The only "news" that appears in Wikipedia is the allowed news (e.g., major events). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

No, WP is full of forbidden news. w:en:Category:School massacres is full of forbiddden news. w:en:Category:School massacres the same. Also [[::w:en:Category:Axe attacks]]. The English WP violates the NOTNEWS rule each and every day. Matthiasb (talk) 09:52, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Those news subjects are not actually forbidden at the English Wikipedia. Maybe they are at the German-language Wikipedia?

In practice, the English Wikipedia keeps some articles, deletes some articles, and redirects some to a list. But merely saying "it's news; therefore, it's forbidden" is wrong. See, e.g., w:en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amish school shooting, w:en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Oakland school shooting, and w:en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxford High School shooting. These are articles in the category you link, and editors strongly affirmed that they are acceptable content for the English Wikipedia. You can see all the deletion discussions that mention NOTNEWS and school shootings. At a quick glance, I estimate that only 30% of the linked discussions ended with deletion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:54, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Encyclopedic articles about events and news reports are different. dringsim 04:16, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Gorąco popieram. Na Wikipedii nie powinno być newsów. Czyli artykuły o wydarzeniach powinny powstawać na Wikipedii PO wydarzeniach. Gdy już szum medialny ucichnie. O ile dane wydarzenie przeszło do historii. Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

 Strong support! But, Why they want to kill Wikinews? Mobashir - 🇧🇩 (talk) 04:29, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

As I say below, because of a strong (and irrational) anti-humane attitude, that is a disaster for global community and is contrary to all WMF nominal values. -- Ssr (talk) 04:51, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

@Ssr There's a section above which calls for the closure of SPTF. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:57, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

• Complex support I see this as one viable option that could work if we give it our all, but it is not the only one. I see WP:NOTNEWS as meaning that the primary goal of any edit made to Wikipedia must be to support Wikipedia's mission, being an encyclopedia, but if it also serves the secondary goal of providing access to the news (and sometimes it does it very well; let's be honest), then that is okay. Being news is okay on Wikipedia if the content is never not encyclopedic.

Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Darkfrog. Only some (e.g., historical) events belong on Wikipedias. Only some content (e.g., summaries of published sources) belong in those event-related articles. But there isn't, and won't ever be, a rule that says "Oh, Wikipedia can't say anything about the death of the pope until the media frenzy dies down". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Quotes

There is a big text: The First 50 Mistakes of a Wikipedian by Jake Orlowitz aka Ocaasi. It was released under CC BY-SA 4.0 license but it is now unfortunately under paywall. Then we can rely on Russian translation of the text, take the needed quotes and re-translate them back to English. So some initial paragraphs:

• "Mistake 2: Neglecting small communities because they have few active editors. It's unwise to provoke small communities and try to inflate the effect of this. And it's also unwise to forget about them altogether, because they may become a significant force in the free knowledge space in the future.
• Mistake 3: Neglecting "brother projects," particularly Wikimedia Commons, Wikisource, Wiktionary, and Wikidata. Wikimedia is actually bigger than Wikipedia, and their contributions are very significant on a global scale, and have enormous potential for growth.
• Mistake 4: Thinking of the "global south" as a single entity, rather than the 100+ different countries that are actually there, each with its own culture, customs, politics, religions, mores, languages, needs, and resources. Whether you call it developing countries, or developing communities, or the "global south," be explicitly aware that it is not a single entity, and that these communities are as diverse as they have been under-resourced and under-attended in the past.
• Mistake 5: Thinking that everyone around you has a Western language, tools, time zone, freedom, and future. Wikimedians will think you are good and worthy if you stop lumping everyone together.
• Mistake 6: Thinking that all Wikimedia projects operate like the English Wikipedia. Many communities have developed their own methods and their own cultures — the way they communicate, make decisions, and collaborate. These can all be very different and even surprising. Also remember that these communities don't like being belittled or disparaged in relation to the English Wikipedia, and they are quite right to do so - but what would you think if you were in their shoes?"

The author of the text is User:Ocaasi. --Ssr (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

The original post is accessible through Wayback Machine, definitely relevant, thanks for drawing our attention to it. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Examples

• As cited from here: "Wikinews texts can be used to create Wikipedia articles. Their free licenses allow it. For example, the Russian Wikipedia article "The Law on Bloggers" was written based on the literal text of Wikinews. In the opposite direction, everything is not so simple: Wikipedia's CC-BY-SA license does not allow you to freely copy text into a CC-BY licensed project. To do this, a "workaround" is used, when a separate publication is assigned a separate license, about which a warning is placed at the top. Example: article "The Wikipedia strike in Russian is over."
• The article w:Wikigrannies uses Wikinews as a reliable source and survived AfD with that. There are more such articles both in English and in Russian wikipedias.
• According to the page n:ru:Викиновости:Пресса о Викиновостях (Press Coverage), there are lots of mentions of Wikinews in general media. E. g. when mass media reported on death of a prominent Russian Wikipedian user:NoFrost, such media as w:Forbes and w:TASS used Wikinews as primary source for the event. Hyperlinks are provided.
• There are loads of this stuff. This is just what I briefly remembered. --Ssr (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

  I asked Google News about Wikinews. It gave me only 6 links:

  • 2025 article that names Wikinews as the source of a photo originally uploaded to Commons [24]
  • 2022 academic article that says they used 70 Wikinews articles to test something about Arabic [25]
  • 2020 article saying the Persian Wikipedia and Persian Wikinews were temporarily blocked in Iran [26]
  • 2018 copy of a Wikinews article, re-posted on another website (without mentioning the CC-BY license) [27]
  • 2018 article using a 2007 Wikinews article as a source [28]
  • 2017 article saying Wikinews is failing [29]

  I would not describe six links, only two of which address Wikinews as a real news source, as "lots of mentions of Wikinews in general media". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

  Google News doesn't index Wikinews. But despite of that, you managed to find a bunch! Please do not limit to English language. There are other languages. -- Ssr (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

  If Google News indexed Wikinews, that would not result in "lots of mentions of Wikinews in general media". You claimed "lots of mentions of Wikinews in general media". I found the opposite of that. Perhaps you meant "lots of mentions of Wikinews in Russian general media"? Or perhaps you think that "six, mostly unimportant" should be called "lots"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

  Russian general media. n:ru:Викиновости:Пресса о Викиновостях is in Russian language and talks about Russian general media. By the link you may see some examples from 2021, 2020, 2008—2009, 2008, 2007 2006 and 2005 and 2004. Only a little number of examples.

  Read the links you arte talking about before discussing them. I gave this link priorly to your comment. -- Ssr (talk) 07:15, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

  On English Wikipedia, Wikinews is not regarded as a reliable source (w:WP:RSPWIKINEWS). Note that most wikis are not reliable sources (w:WP:UGC), including Wikipedia itself (w:WP:RSPWP). There are more such articles both in English and in Russian wikipedias. These articles violate w:WP:RS. dringsim 23:51, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

  "On English Wikipedia, Wikinews is not regarded as a reliable source"

  Just because you are too stuck to this stupid idea. You forged the source, and made serious violations with that. You are disruptive user with anti-community mood. You should be stopped. --Ssr (talk) 03:28, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

  Replaced the reference with the correct URL. Also, if you think "wikis are not reliable source on Wikipedia" is a stupid idea please consult w:WP:RSN instead of harassing other Wikimedians, thanks. And again, if you really believe Wikinews has a reason to exist, why do you place so much importance on "being used as a reliable source on WP"? I'm sure that we the Wiktionary, Wikisource, Commons, Wikidata, Wikispecies and Wikifunctions communities don't think like this. dringsim 05:55, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

  They SHOULD think like this. -- Ssr (talk) 06:53, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

  I didn't and won't ever think that most sister projects would be reliable sources of Wikipedia. They better deserve in the "External links" (or "Other websites" in Simple English) section. Wikisource, scanned files, and e-documents can be used and WP:PRIMARY sources, but we still rely on non-WMF websites to demonstrate whether the sources are WP:VERIFIBLE or not. Even the articles on WMF projects themselves require third-party reporting for verifiability. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:22, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Ssr: I am very skeptical about the use of Wikinews in articles like Wikigrannies, as Wikinews is not considered a reliable source (WP:RSPWIKINEWS). The survival of the AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikigrannies potentially violates the spirit of WP:CON. Although the Russian article ru:Закон о блогерах was based on Wikinews, it cites various reliable sources (primary or secondary) other than Wikinews. Many of the goals of Wikinews can be subsumed to other projects (WMF or non-WMF).

  • News about wiki activity – Meta-Wiki is a good place for this, especially for WMF wikis, as it is more visible to wiki users than Wikinews.
  • Interviews with not very famous people – I will suggest a new wiki called "Wikiblogs" for this, either as a sister project or as a Miraheze wiki.
  • Blogging platform for authors – I will suggest a new wiki called "Wikiblogs" for this, either as a sister project or as a Miraheze wiki.
  • A tutorial for aspiring journalists – Wikibooks and Wikiversity are good alternatives, although I suggest Wikibooks as it is more visible.
  • Portfolio – The authors are feel free to use the interviews to build a portfolio for employment, whether hosted in Wikinews or "Wikiblogs".
  • Investigative Journalism Website – Launch a news startup for this.
  • A political battering ram – Please don't do it, and I won't let any platform being misused for it, regardless of the nature of government. We can rather point out the limitations of government neutrally without invoking the opposition.
  • Archive of free news from other sources – Wikisource is the best alternative for this, and I will work on archiving free news from other sources there.

  Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 03:24, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

  You are all here very skeptical.

  That's anti-community, inhumane, approach, just like that of authors of the PDF. You are here not to help, but to destroy. WMF should stop you from that.

  I am very skeptical about you becoming a true Wikimedian in the future, as your mood is to destroy work of other Wikimedians. -- Ssr (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, I was blocked in English Wikipedia for my teen disruptive behaviour back in 2020-21. However, I have since grown adult and worked on other projects productively, especially Bengali Wikipedia, Bengali Wikisource, Commons and English Wikivoyage.Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:25, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

  Also, I have suggested a new wiki for interviews and blogs, and that will forge a new community. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:12, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

  You're suggesting a new plethora of new projects, to replace one? -- Zanimum (talk) 18:29, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

  I have only suggested Wikiblogs as a new project, and most of the goals would be subsumed under other existing projects instead. I have also suggested launching a startup for investigative journalism. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 01:49, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

  I rather would suggest to make use of Wikispore for developping spores which can be used as mainpage modules like weather summary, stock exchange indices, sport results, see further below this page. That would also produce further effects like using data from Wikidata (or even the other way around, creating Wikinews content by a sporte which gets stored in Wikidata for later use. Matthiasb (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

  Disagree. Fracturing Wikinews like that could shatter the community. Whenever a relocation from one platform to another is proposed, a significant percentage of active users don't make it through, be it due to technical difficulties or aversion to the new platform or dislike of change. We already have too few participants as it is; but at least, we can still help each other out. Fracture one website into several, and visiting several websites instead of one would be so much trouble that people would visit none.

  Fracturing Wikinews into separate projects could work... If there were too many people and articles on Wikinews. Then sure, it would be neat to spin-off interviews, and things like that.

  Wikiwide (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

  How many people does it take to have "a community"? Wikinews#Wikinews Statistics says that two Wikinews projects have had only one (1) person edit during the last 30 days. Is one person "a community"? How about two people?

  There is a traditional definition that says 10 people is the smallest size for a community. If we followed that definition, 18 out of 31 (58%) Wikinews already do not have a community.

  If there is no community present, then it is logically impossible for us to "shatter the community". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Znam przypadek użytkownika, który chciał poprawić biogram na swój temat w encyklopedii i w tym celu poprosił dziennikarzy o wywiad w lokalnej gazecie. Źródło było, więc potem poprosił kogoś, aby zmienić treść hasła. To nie jest dobre podejście. Dlatego też zresztą źródła prasowe są źródłami słabymi i powinny być zastępowane opracowaniami najlepiej naukowymi. Serwis newsowy natomiast może zamieszczać informacje o jakichś nowych koncepcjach, odkryciach, wynalazkach opartych na pojedynczych doniesieniach, które jeszcze nie zostały szeroko przyjęte w nauce, sztuce itd. I najlepiej, gdyby to nie były własne odkrycia, tylko oparte na dobrych źródłach, np. czasopismach naukowych. Treści można byłoby uzupełniać o komentarz innych osób związanych z daną dziedziną, gdyby to pozwalało na lepsze zrozumienie kontekstu. Sławek Borewicz (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Marzę by istniał Wikinews o każdym artykule naukowym. Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

When I am googling my last Wikinews article (I am googling mine due to the lack of an actual other article), n:de:Verheerende Sturzflut mit vielen Toten in Zentraltexas in the whole web, I get exactly the page I created with that title. If I am changing from "web" to "news" (as in Google News) I still get a result, but that is the DE WN mainpage, where the abovementioned article is linked from. If this is standard behaviour then is clear why WheareamIdoing gets only a bunch of results. But then there is noting Wikinews users can do here. Matthiasb (talk) 15:38, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Remove article count from Wikinews portal

If Wikinews continues to exist, article count should be removed from https://www.wikinews.org/. A site created in 2018 can't report events in 2008. Comparing amounts of articles between language versions is not meaningful and may encourage vicious competition. dringsim 12:15, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

That makes no sense. There is no “competition” between Enwiki and Zhwiki because there’s no userbase overlap. Why would there be competition between ennews and zhnews? Dronebogus (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I think this was motivated by a concern for the reader ("There are 22,000 articles – oh, wait, there are only 8 new ones from the last month.") A desire to look big and successful might encourage editors to create low-quality articles, or to copy/paste non-Wikinews articles into their site, rather than creating good new content.

Updating that page is a little difficult, but if we wanted to encourage desirable behavior, then "8 original articles in the last month" is probably a more reader-friendly metric than "22,000 articles [most of which are years old or copied from other sites]". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

In any case this is clearly bike-shedding. Dronebogus (talk) 23:33, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is what has happened on Russian Wikinews. According to wikitech:Incidents/2021-07-26 ruwikinews DynamicPageList there were rapid bot imports (~100k pages in 1 day) on ruwikinews on 2020-09 and 2021-07. How can a news website publish 100k+ reports a day (~1 article per second)?! dringsim 10:35, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

That seems like a fantastic argument for a central oversight to lightly put the breaks on the actions of language editions, not a reason to penalize every language edition. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Agree! Check what's happening. And perhaps consider cleaning out rubbish - but consult the existing procedures on Wikinews for dealing with the archived articles. Wikiwide (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

As a member of the zh community, I have never noticed any such competitive tendencies... ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 06:16, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

While wikitech:Incidents/2021-07-26 ruwikinews DynamicPageList does get the incident technically correct in no way explains correctly why it happened for. They (whoever "they" are) wanted to preserve news published on russian news servers before the Putin regime was able to pull the plug of the news servers. Matthiasb (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

This is not in Wikinews's scope. Consider Wikisource and Internet Archive. dringsim 21:18, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

No. Wikisource is for transcribing a historical source (Q3750478) – that is printed paper. Not for electronic texts. Not for news. "News" in Wikisources are pamphlets like this. We're going into libraries and archives, and nowadays' newspapers are not within the scope of Wikisource.

And, sorrily, I'll mark out, the the Internet Archive is all but not really an Internet Archive. Despite of archiving web pages fragmented: did you already see what happens to an properly archived website when the new owner of the doman puts "no archive" into his HTML header? The IA's version of it is gone in a New York second.

According to meta the scopy of project is: Wikinews is a project which aims to collaboratively report and summarize news on all subjects from a neutral point of view. (…). The precise implementation of the Wikinews requirements is left up to these individual communities. If the russian community want's to make use of other news reports publisher elsewhere under a free licens that is up to them. Matthiasb (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

...and if the WMF's devs say the servers can't handle 1 new page per second, then that speed regulation is up to the WMF's devs, even though Russian Wikinews didn't like it.

...and if the WMF's Board says being an archive for other news reports published elsewhere isn't what they want to support, then that's up to the WMF's Board, even if Wikinews doesn't like it.

The Wikimedia movement requires collaboration. Anyone who wants to have everything be "up to them", with the needs and constraints of other people not mattering, needs to get (and operate, and pay for) their own website. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:00, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

...and if the WMF's devs say the servers can't handle 1 new page per second, then that speed regulation is up to the WMF's devs, even though Russian Wikinews didn't like it. Correct.

...and if the WMF's Board says being an archive for other news reports published elsewhere isn't what they want to support, then that's up to the WMF's Board, even if Wikinews doesn't like it. Wrong, because of The precise implementation of the Wikinews requirements is left up to these individual communities. is a long-standing rule. If The WMF's Boards wants to change that they have to consult it with the communities and have to reach a new consensus. Matthiasb (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

No, we can't force the WMF's Board to host (and pay for) projects that they don't choose to host. They can't force us to host content that we don't want, but we can't force them to host content that they don't want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

If the intension of Wikisource are originally printed documents, why is there a category of 2025 works? -- Zanimum (talk) 01:45, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Because those are still third party public domain things, mostly US executive orders? Dronebogus (talk) 10:36, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

X articles published in the last month is a great idea, I agree. Copying from other websites is not just unoriginal - it should not have passed review, should not have been published.

Wikiwide (talk) 18:08, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Concerning article count I would like to know how it comes that the serbian WP does have more articles than DE; EN, ES and FR rogether. Any ideas? --Matthiasb (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

How many contributors in Russian Wikinews

Proposal_for_Closing_Wikinews#Russian_Wikinews contains: Most Russian Wikinews articles are imported as-is by a bot without any human curation or written by one of 6 non-bot authors. This statement is false.

All the time the Russian Wikinews has been edited by 5976 non-bot users and 29 bots. Last year the Russian Wikinews has been edited by 507 non-bot users and 9 bots.

• 
  Last year contributors in Russian Wikinews (as of July 3, 2025)
• 
  Last year edits in Russian Wikinews (as of July 3, 2025)

Butko (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

The PDF is filled with falsehood and hatred to community and humanity. Calling live people bots seem like a special pleasure for the authors of this shameful PDF. --Ssr (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I have no idea what you’re talking about. Even if the authors of this report got the statistics wrong nobody is calling anyone a bot. On the contrary, the only extreme hostility towards other humans I see in this discussion is coming from you. Dronebogus (talk) 23:48, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

You are wrong with "nobody is calling anyone a bot". Victoria literally said: "имеем проект, который наполняется преимущественно ботами и читается ботами, а людям-читателям он не нужен". So you have written untruth here.

As for hostility, it's no suprpise that I am hostile to people who 1) first interest me in volunteering (Victoria was the one who made me a patroller) 2) later ignore what I do as a volunteer 3) after 18 years finally come to me and try to destroy my work and my collective of other volunteers saying I am a bot. No surprises here. -- Ssr (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I don’t speak Russian, but based on machine translation nobody outright said “[person] is a bot”, they said the project is mainly used by bots. If you think they are wrong about the bot:human ratio, that’s reasonable. But nobody is calling anyone a bot. That’s a very strange argument you are trying to make. Dronebogus (talk) 01:35, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

No, it's very strange argument they are trying to force. While the argument is false. -- Ssr (talk) 03:23, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

But how would they get the statistics about Ruwikinews that wrong, considering that the amount of montly editors, as depicted in January 2024 wiki comparison snapshot, published in Section 8, is 69. The amount of monthly new active editors is 2. BilboBeggins (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

@Butko, could you run those statistics just for articles/mainspace edits, just for the last 12 months, and just for people who made 12+ edits to articles during that time (averaging at least one mainspace edit per a month)?

For example, your query names User:Victoria as a contributor to the Russian Wikinews, because she made 83 edits (total/all time) and 14 edits in the last year. But she has made no edits to articles since 2022, so her edits tell us nothing about whether "Most Russian Wikinews articles are imported as-is by a bot". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

1) If I succeed, I will make a statistics with the specified conditions. 2) The number of edits of Victoria did not prevent her from indicating on the page Wikimedia Foundation elections/2024/Candidates/Victoria Doronina that she is an active contributor to the Russian Wikinews. --Butko (talk) 06:25, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Done. 59 non-bot users who made 12+ edits in main space last year and 6 bots who made 12+ edits in main space last year.

• 
  Last year contributors to Russian Wikinews who made 12+ edits in main space (as of July 13, 2025)
• 
  Last year edits in Russian Wikinews in main space by users who made 12+ edits (as of July 13, 2025).png

--Butko (talk) 07:12, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

NB. We've removed from statistics users who made less than 12 edits, but don't forget about the Long tail --Butko (talk) 07:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

So, looking at editors who could – by the very weak standard of just one article edit per month (on average; it could have been 12 on the same day) – be said to be "part of the news-gathering community", there could be 59 community members writing news articles, and they make 34% of the article edits (including edits that merely copy/paste from somewhere else, but also including nearly all of the original content creation).

The "long tail" editors aren't realistically part of "the community". The long tail is where you find most of the spammers, vandals, test edits, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Worldwide read traffic for Wikinews projects

Proposal_for_Closing_Wikinews#Appendix contains statistics about of read traffic to Wikinews projects. Source of this statistics is not specified. But stats.wikimedia.org show statistics which very different with Proposal_for_Closing_Wikinews#Appendix. For example only en.wikinews has 10M readers from Brazil in last month. So the summary of the analysis: Over 70% of Wikinews’ read traffic comes from the US, Russia, and Germany is wrong because it based on incorrect statistics Butko (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

As it has been mentioned above multiple times, stats.wikimedia.org has issues because of automated traffic being classified as human. Amir (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Skoro narzędzia prezentujące statystyki nie są nawet w stanie odróżnić użytkownika od bota, to nie powinno się ich uwzględniać w raportach. Sławek Borewicz (talk) 06:18, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

That issue is recent. Doesn't affect the report time span. Amir (talk) 11:43, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Skoro to jest recent, a według tego dokumentu dotyczy to maja, to popatrzmy na marzec. 3 M z Brazylii. Ale może ten recent zaczyna się w marcu, a może jeszcze wcześniej. Ktoś wie, od kiedy mamy to recent? Załóżmy bezpiecznie, że problemu nie było do września 2024. To porównajmy liczbę wejść bez botów na serwisy en wikinews - solidne 1M, pl wikinews 200k, pl wikibooks 300k, da wikibooks 40k, na wikipedia 30k, vo wikipedia 200k, kk wikiquote 50k. Tych mających milion+ będzie zdecydowana mniejszość, także tych mających 100k+. Nawet jeśli to jest tylko 200-300 tysięcy wejść w miesiącu, a więc około tysiąca dziennie, to tego nie generuje 5 użytkowników, którzy w tym dniu piszą newsy. Sławek Borewicz (talk) 12:38, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I wish that community members would have the same access to the supposedly correct stats, as insiders. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

All 10M readers from Brazil automated traffic? Where is Brazil in report? Where is other countries present in stats.wikimedia.org but absent in report (Proposal_for_Closing_Wikinews#Appendix)? Where is transparent and reliable sources of statistics? --Butko (talk) 12:16, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikinews Pulse: Proposal for data-enabled multilingual service supported by Wikimedia NYC chapter

Wikinews Pulse: A data-enabled multilingual service for Wikinews.

I'd like to share a proposal for Wikinews Pulse as a multilingual service to be hosted at https://wikinews.org, and to serve the various language editions of Wikinews.

This fits under the Restructure option but would be complementary to the existing language editions, as an additional layer that could serve to support them better. The concept is inspired by #What could a fantasy wiki news site be? and numerous similar ideas that have been bubbling up in recent years.

Wikimedia New York City is interested in stewarding development of this project, and you are welcome to express your individual support as well in the section for Wikinews Pulse#Endorsements. Pharos (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Proszę opowiedz więcej. Czy chodzi o generowanie newsów/szortów na podstawie Wikidanych? Jeśli tak to jest wspaniałe! Co na to społeczność Wikidanych? Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Here is an example from a few years ago: World AIDS Day 2019 (Q75666795). In this case, I chose a commemoration day because they are easier to write largely in advance, and it links out to wikispore:Event:World AIDS Day 2019. See also: Public consultation about Wikispore! Pharos (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Great idea. I supported it. Thanks Gryllida 11:38, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

What will be the difference compared to Wikinews? BilboBeggins (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

It will be an additional multilingual service layer, that could co-exist with the existing language editions of Wikinews, with its headlines drawn from Wikidata. It would superficially resemble en:Portal:Current events or ru:Портал:Текущие события. Pharos (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

a.) Wikidata has news, beyond recent deaths? For instance, English Wikipedia has NBA Finals results on the front page, but Q134463405 hasn't been updated. Even the previous finals (Q124566055) doesn't mention which teams played, and there's no date that the finals were played. b.) So those headlines would intermingle with links to the actual human-written Wikinews articles?

I'm in favour of it, anything that puts new wind into Wikinews' sails, I just don't honestly "get" it. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

You're right, Wikidata does indeed fall short in supplying much of this information currently. That's why much of the investment should go toward defining a way to model such data fully, and actually filling it out for current events topics, in order to generate the headlines that then link out to human-written Wikipedia and Wikinews articles. Pharos (talk) 02:45, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

That "news problem" on Wikidata is immanent. Even after six months after inauguration days. For most 435 congressional districts there is no elect in Wikidata, and/or the results are missing. There is no runner-up. And on and on. Why? Wikidata isn't sexy, and it is in no way convenient and effeciently – unless you are a bot. (And as a second step, Wikipedias in several languages are entering data in tables for their articles wasting time very much needed for other things.

Years ago we had bots which actualized some kind of weather maps using free NOAA tables. True, I don't know the post-DOGE situation on the NOAA's website but some open source temperture pages might have survived. It should be easily to make the "weather bots" active again. It should work as skripts on toolserver rather than the result of a single user's own bot to prevent failure. Actually Wikiweather could be one subproject working on Wikispore. The same is valid for stockmarket indices and foreign currency values. Actually it is the same kind of bot, only different data. Again a new subproject on Wikisport. But, sadly, they also do not want to develop Wikispore further up. There might be other spores which can be implemented for the use by (or on) Wikinews main pages. The Bundesliga, Premier League, Champions leage or the North American major leagues. Let's make the Wikinews mainpage a webpage of relevance on the weekend and through the week.

I have no clue, what is technically possible, but there are enough people outside smart enough to get the things started. Matthiasb (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

portal current events? that is a portal of fear, michael moore described US news in "bowling for columbine" :) only attacks, killings, police, but on superchargers, collected worldwide, instead of cool new peaceful stuff. better not have it then. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

You are describing the problem of w:sensationalism, which is a deep issue within crassly profit-driven media worldwide. The US is hardly a stranger to it, and American companies have certainly led the way to the rot evident in much of current social media. But that's exactly where the Wikimedia movement can and should do better. I think the format of portal current events is alright, as in short neutral headlines, but its diversity beyond disaster-related topics should obviously be a lot better, and I believe this is possible with increased investment. Pharos (talk) 02:40, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

pharos - the kids are all right. ;-) Slowking4 (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Interesting, we can therefore close all non-English Wikinewses by merging these contents into one www.wikinews.org, right? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:38, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

But it would also be a dishonour thing for some editions e.g. arwikinews, where they converted to use CC BY-SA 4.0 since January, where could result license conflicts if merging into one site. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:40, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

The footer of the page for English Wikinews notes "if it was published from _ to _, it's _," so theoretically we can just make a really long footer, explaining the article-specific licenses. -- Zanimum (talk) 02:09, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm an editor for Wikinews in Portuguese, and I liked the idea and purpose. I hope that this, if initiated, will remain within the scope of collecting data to restructure Wikinews and a way to convert it to a multilingual version by replacing the separate language versions, assuming there is still significant traffic to these local versions. Juan90264 (talk) 08:26, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

• Na pl.Wikinews mamy już dziś bota który odnotowuje osoby zmarłe na podstawie Wikidanych. https://pl.wikinews.org/wiki/Zmarli_5_lipca_2025

Czy już dziś istnieją na Wikidanych inne systematycznie uzupełniane dane? Może wyniki jakiegoś turnieju sportowego? Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 04:32, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Synchronizowane spotkania

Widzę że zostały stworzone dwa wydarzenia. Synchronizowane czasowa spotkania nie powinny prowadzić do żadnych konkluzji. Trudno zebrać zainteresowane osoby w jednym miejscu. Dyskusja na stronach Wiki jest najważniejsza. Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 13:37, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Dlaczego Proposal for Closing Wikinews nie ma możliwości tłumaczenia?

Dlaczego tłumaczenie nie zostło przygotowane przed konsultacjami? Dlaczego nadal nie ma technicznej możliwości dodania tłumaczenia? Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 13:43, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Daß es keine Übersetzung gibt, zeigt mal wieder den Stellenwert der Communitymitglieder bei der Foundation. Es ist Mißachtung pur. Matthiasb (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Where are the other numbers?

The proposal contains the following sections on RU and ZH WP considering the number of links to Wikinews, Wikisource, and Wiktionary as well as number of links to news outlets relevant for Russia and the severals Chinas. It reads:

Links from Wikipedia to sibling Projects

Wikipedia Project	Wikinews	Wikisource	Wiktionary	Links to Major News Sites
RU	880	5,984	2,700	10,900
ZH	948'	2,013	5,733	19,425

Where are the numbers for EN, DE, FR, ES which are largest language versions with sister projects in their language? We cannot base a decision on all Wikinewses based on information to two language where the main country the languages are spoken, have no free press at all while the main countries in which the named languages (DE, EN, ES, FR) are spoken do have a free press in most of them. That includes English speaking countries like Canada, India, the U.K. and the U.S:, Germany, Austria and Switzerland, France and Canada, Spain and almost all of South America, respectively. So please provide data for the missing languages ASAP. In the way the table is presented it deems to be manipulative. Matthiasb (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

At enwiki, Special:LinkSearch finds about 15,000 links to "en.wikinews.org", including ~800 automatic links in the Portal: namespace, a few thousand in User: space, and mostly links on various talk pages. As far as I can tell from skimming a list of hundreds of links and searching for the URL more directly, only 1% of these links (~150) are in articles. If we include any mention of Wikinews anywhere in the wikitext of any article (e.g., the article w:en:Wikimedia Foundation mentions that Wikinews is one of the WMF-hosted projects), then out of enwiki's 7,019,080 articles, about 0.05% – one in 1,750 articles – says something about, links to, or otherwise contains the string "wikinews" somewhere in it, including as an unused parameter in a template that is actually linking to other sister projects.

The numbers for the other sister projects are:

• Wikinews: Article contains "en.wikinews.org": 150. Wikitext contains "wikinews" anywhere: 4,000.
• Wikisource: Article contains "en.wikisource.org": 5,000. Wikitext contains "wikisource" anywhere: 50,000.
• Wiktionary: Article contains "en.wiktionary.org": 1,670. Wikitext contains "wiktionary" anywhere: 83,000.

You could repeat these searches at other Wikipedias, if you wanted to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

For comparison, what're the relevant stats on zhwiki? Aaron Liu (talk) 02:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu

zhwiki links to zhwikinews

zh.wikinews.org	wikinews	维基新闻 (zh-hans)	維基新聞 (zh-hant)
44	1287	40	103

zhwiki links to zhwikisource

zh.wikisource.org	wikisource	维基文库 (zh-hans)	維基文庫 (zh-hant)
1316	30298	533	359

zhwiki links to zhwiktionary

zh.wiktionary.org	wiktionary	维基词典 (zh-hans)	維基詞典 (zh-hant)
26	4297	156	116

--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

That's not a linksearch. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:26, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu: And why not do so? I'm just simulating the WhatamIdoing's search methods. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:47, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Special:链接搜索 result told me 184. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:50, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Many links to sister projects use interwiki links (s:, n:) that don’t show in Special:LinkSearch. Data from Special:LinkSearch is so biased and incomplete that I consider invalid. Midleading (talk) 08:26, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Indeed that is a problem. I am not aware of a method to find interwiki links to sister projects like [[:n:<foo>]]. And that is the way most language versions link from WP to WS oder WN or vice versa. We might count how many articles do use (assuming we're in the German WP) Template:Wikinews or a similar template in other languages but that won*t be exact since the template might or might not be uses twice or trice in one Wikipedia article. So I hoped that the proposal's authors had another possibibilty to find out but again the whole section does not contain correct numbers. As far as I know there is no method to find out except for looking in every article and make a stroke on a piece of paper. For example in the German WP the Template:Wikinews is used on 2379 pages; in the English Wikipedia it is used on 3518. Only 352 times in ES. And only 11 in FR.

For Wikisource the mileage is (in order DE, EN, ES, FR) 17083, 19622, 13476 and 1003.

Considering all this, I guess, the assumptions made in the proposal on the usage or relevancy of Wikinews and other sister projects are just as wrong as the prediction of sunny weather in my hometown for today would be: wrong. Matthiasb (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

There appear to be 233 articles that contain [n: at the English Wikipedia today. Some of these will be false positives. The ones using [wikinews: will have been caught by the above search.

There are about 45,000 such links for Wiktionary.

The equivalent search for Wikisource timed out. https://grep.toolforge.org/ might work, but I don't know how to use it (simply pasting the same search string into the box doesn't work). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Ask developer @Jarry1250:? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Agree. This number on 03:03, 7 July 2025 (UTC) by Liuxinyu970226 is totally ineffective. In addition, some strips of may use other types Wikinews-inline Wikinews category. Kitabc12345 (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

请问这个搜索结果包括

Wikinews has news related to this article:

Public consultation about Wikinews

吗？据我个人的WP阅读经验这是绝大多数的用法，如果不包括，我仍然相信WN的被连接量不少于zhwikibook和zhwikivoyage ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 10:39, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Focus on original content?

The most unique thing about Wikinews is its wonderful original reporting, as many have mentioned above. It's not just interviews and has articles too, and although the requirement for notes means one can't just walk in and edit unlike other wikis, this reporting still often turns out wonderful. And interviews can be cited on sites like the English Wikipedia as statements from the interviewees. Meanwhile, I have no idea what synthesis articles add to the internet. They simply repeat what one can find in any one or two articles from traditional outlets, and they obscure the original reporting by sheer volume. Looking at the current articles frontpaged on the English Wikinews—all of which are synthesis—I see no reason I should read them instead of any of the more in-depth, long and trusted reporting from trusted outlets cited. Though I am an outsider, I think something that can be done is making Wikinews focus exclusively on original reporting, highlighting the value of Wikinews to external observers, refining existing original reporting processes through more attention, and thus hopefully attracting more contributors to make more of the content that makes Wikinews unique. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Nieoryginalne doniesienia są częścią sumy ludzkiej wiedzy dla tematów aktualnych co do których jeszcze nie wiadomo czy powinny być w Wikipedii. Np. wypowiedź polityka może być tematem artykułu Wikinews a dopiero po latach wiadomo czy warto ją odnotować w biogramie Wikipedii. Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Given the non-original "synthesis" articles:

• A quotation from a politician is reported in a regular newspaper.
• Wikinews copies the quotation from the regular newspaper.
• Years later, someone finds the quotation significant.

Why, in such a case, would a Wikipedia editor choose to cite the Wikinews copy instead of the newspaper original? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:04, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Nie mówię że Wikinews ma być źródłem dla Wikipedii lecz uzupełnieniem Wikipedii. Będzie to dobre dla czytelnika bo:

• już dziś będzie miał dostęp do neutralnej, zweryfikowanej treści (np gdy prasa pisze dziś o zmianach w prawie nie podaje numeru dziennika ustaw o których mowa) bez klikbajtów
• nie straci dostępu do informacji z powodu martwych linków (dzisiejsza prasa potrafi kasować stare artykuły
• aktualności które nie wiadomo czy będą pasować do Wikipedii będą osadzone w ekosystemie Wiki
• na Wikinews dzięki kategoriom łatwej zobaczyć czy jakiś temat jest chwilowym zawirowaniami czy dłuższą historią

Dodatkowo edytorzy mogą ćwiczyć się w obsłudze MediaWiki przed przystąpieniem do encyklopedii (pl.Wikipedia jest dziś bardzo wymagająca jako dojrzały projekt) Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 04:24, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• I do not see such information on Wikinews and it seems trivial to find such information oneself. Simply note down the publication date and find the relevant issue for that date.
• See below
• The information exits the wiki ecosystem after the article is archived, as in the Wikinews policy that forbids future edits. It becomes just like any other link to any other news article.
• Good news outlets mention that and often have their own categories. Thanks to DynamicPageList glitches Wikinews categories are hard to use in the way you described at least on the English Wikinews as many articles, especially older ones, get assigned the same, incorrect date in the category view.
• There are far better ways to learn MediaWiki such as local tutorials. I doubt that prospective contributors to other sister projects would choose Wikinews as a starting point instead of doing the same things on the sister projects.

Aaron Liu (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Why, in such a case, would a Wikipedia editor choose to cite the Wikinews copy instead of the newspaper original? – Because of link rot. Let's assum your scenario takes place in, say, 2075, 50 years from now. There existing numbers about how many percent of web pages are statistically to be lost each year but I don't know them. How probable it is that the editor would find the original? That the Wikipedia editor would find Wikinews entries is almost safe assuming that if the Wikipedia editor still exists probably the servers including Wikinews might have survived as well. Making WN a source for everyone able to work with it. Alternatively the user would have to visit an archive. Are we confident that people can choose between archives to visit in reasonable distances? Or would she have to visit the LoC, assuming that Trumpists did not arson it because not liking the content in the books and newspapers in the library? Remember what Hedgseck did to the library at West Point. Matthiasb (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

The original news can delete articles; so can Wikinews. (If you want a percentage, then I estimate that the English Wikipedia has deleted about 5% of 'real' articles from the main namespace over the years. This does not include speedy deletions of copyright violations, attack pages, test pages, etc.)

How probable is it that the editor would find the Wikinews article? About zero, if present behavior continues. I don't remember the last time I saw an enwiki editor recommending Wikinews to someone else. Also, any such outdated news article would, 50 years from now, fall under both w:en:WP:UGC rules and w:en:WP:PRIMARY rules, and thus be highly undesirable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

There is no reason to believe that rules cannot be changed. the German version of this rule within de:WP:Belege does not exclude any wiki as a souce but allows such wikis in which texts are "signed" by the name of its author. Other language versions might have such rules or might not. So again this is not a reasonating valid for every language version. For examle the German WP does not have a policy comparable to w:en:PRIMARY at all. There is no reason to exclude primary spurces like the publications of the United States Census Bureau on population numbers. This is probably true for statisticle offices publications in most of the states. Aside that I am not sure wether that what you call "primary source" in English is the same as "Primärquelle" in German. Finally I can imagine that if Wikinews improves its factchecking process before it could be ackowledged as a reliable source like German WP uphelds Wikisource. Matthiasb (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm fairly Wikinews's synthesis articles are in fact secondary sources, just not necessarily reliable. WP:SECONDARY: It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources Aaron Liu (talk) 14:46, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Old (e.g., 50 years old) news reports are always treated as primary sources (due to their age). This is true for everything. For example, encyclopedias are tertiary sources, but ancient encyclopedias are primary sources. You use them to say "what people knew/believed back then", rather than "what people know". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Not by enwiki's definitions IIRC. According to WP:RS ancient encyclopedias would be tertiary sources so outdated as to be unreliable. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

It's in the footnotes: "medieval and ancient works, even if they cite earlier known or lost writings" are primary sources, without exception. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Huh, interesting. I don't think 50 years is "medieval [or] ancient", though. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

The relevant timeline depends on the nature of the source. The general theory (speaking only to enwiki's views) looks something like this:

• Most news is a primary source to begin with. To give an example of this, I've just checked the "News" section of an ordinary daily newspaper. I see: two articles about two unrelated car wrecks, information about a road being partially closed for repairs this week, an update on a city program, an note about an upcoming local election event, a report on local public health inspections, and an announcement that a small business will be opening soon. 100% of today's news from that newspaper is a primary source.
• The kind of long-form, in-depth, analytical news that a Wikipedia editor is more likely to cite (e.g., from The Times or Wall Street Journal) might be a secondary source, but it has an unwritten "expiration date". At some point, we need to stop understanding that analysis as "the facts" and start thinking of it as being "what one source said at the time" – in other words, as a primary source. The most aggressive standard for this transition is "as soon as better sources realistically exist". The most widely used standard is when scholarly sources have written about it as if it were an event that happened in the past, instead of a recent event (and someone else is willing to do the work of replacing the sources). That can be a brief window; this source gives an example in which a scholar started historicizing a current event just 6 years after it happened. Another traditional definition is that history is anything that happened 50+ years ago; by that point, most people alive will have been born after the event. (A few years ago, older people were expressing surprise that none of the young adults remember 9/11, because they were all born after it happened.) For comparison, "within living memory" (i.e., someone who is alive remembers experiencing the event first-hand) is about 80 years.
• For more serious analysis of history, there are two key dates: One is the scholarly revolution set off in the late 19th century by w:Leopold von Ranke. Basically (by enwiki's standards) anything written about history/events before Ranke (or that rejects his methods) is only usable as a primary source. The other key date is somewhere in the middle of the 20th century, maybe around 1960 or 1970, when historians figured out that differing perspectives might be valid, so you cannot write, e.g., about immigration without considering the experience of the immigrants, the families and communities they left behind, the nations and economies they emigrated from, the nations and economies they immigrated to, and the communities and families they joined and formed. While a newspaper article can tell "a whole news story" about what this one immigrant experienced, or what this one employer said, or how this one law was changed, no single perspective tells the whole story of immigration; those articles cannot be the whole story of immigration. A single news article can't even be the whole story of immigration between two countries at a particular point in time. However, a single, high-quality scholarly publication, written to modern standards, could probably provide a summary of that whole story. So we might say that a 1975 news article has to be handled as a primary source (even if it provides analysis, etc.), but at the same time, possibly accept a 1975 scholarly work on the same event (though, realistically, I wouldn't recommend that anyone try to build a whole article about a historical event on a 50-year-old source. I would, at most, suggest using that only for an occasional detail, and instead use more recent source).

WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:25, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Interesting. At least in deletion circles, news reports save breaking news and interviews (including pure witness reports) are considered secondary sources. And good articles like w:The Robesonian takeover rely a ton upon contemporary news reports. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's typical. This is partly because the notability rules were written back when editors used a different (non-scholarly/made up) definition of "secondary source". They meant "second-hand" (e.g., the journalist interviews the eyewitness for a breaking news article), but they wrote "secondary". The solution has been for editors to twist the definition of the words at AFD to match what was intended, rather than to match what it says. I have called these "please don't delete" sources (e.g., in early versions of w:en:WP:PRIMARYNEWS). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

That's a job for librarians and increasing archival. Britain and many other countries archive all domestic online publications. All of the synthesis articles on Wikinews by-requirement meet the general notability guidelines for a Wikipedia article, and most of them do not have reasons to be entirely excluded from Wikipedia. Thus you find nearly all of Wikinews synthesis content somewhere on Wikipedia—which is also far easier to search through—where all new external links get automatically archived by the Wayback Machine thanks to GreenC. Not to mention when outlets start deleting a ton of previous publications, data hoarders start bulk-archiving the website. I believe information that would've been lost to link rot if not for Wikinews is extremely rare. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I wrote it elsewhere in this discussion: there is no copy of any content if the provider of a website has set "no archive" as a parameter in the website's "robot.txt" file, and to make it worce, if a provider or later owner or a hacker of a website puts "no archive" into the website's "robot.txt" after a short time the Internet Archive is deleting thos content from the Wayback Machine. Matthiasb (talk) 14:48, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

That's outdated information: Internet Archive will ignore robots.txt files to keep historical record accurate (2017) Aaron Liu (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

It was never really true. They didn't "delete" the contents; they just "hid" the contents ("unavailable for viewing", to use their language). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, @Aaron Liu, in that case I stand corrected. I wasn't aware of that change. But did critizize the former behaviour when that mess with webcitation.org started. Matthiasb (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Upstrzenie cytatami haseł w encyklopedii to nie byłby dobry pomysł. Można to zrobić inaczej. Masz na przykład pomysł na hasło o odkrytym nowym gatunku. Jest publikacja, więc można napisać newsa. Możesz skontaktować się z kimś z autorów z prośbą o wywiad na cc-by. Wywiad prowadzisz zdalnie i nagrywasz. Na początku osoba, z którą prowadzisz wywiad oświadcza zgodę na cc-by, może nawet wkleić odpowiednią formułę do czatu na udostępnionym ekranie, aby to było widoczne. W wersji finalnej można wgrać drugi plik z wyciętym tym początkowym fragmentem. Nagranie przesyłasz (oba pliki) na Commons i umieszczasz w artykule o gatunku, jeśli powstał. Transkrypcję wywiadu zamieszczasz w Wikinews (niektórzy wolą jednak czytać, niż odsłuchiwać wywiadu). Transkrypcji można tez użyć w Timetext i przetłumaczyć dzięki niej wywiad na inne języki. A co miejsca, w których chcesz czytać newsy – nie przeszkadza ci spam, z którym trzeba walczyć adblockami? Sławek Borewicz (talk) 04:36, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how any of that is relevant to what I said. I'm not proposing interviews be merged into Wikipedia; I'm saying that Wikipedia articles can already cite (as in citation, as in reference, as in mw:Help:Cite/pl) interviews even if they're hosted on Wikinews and that this is the cross-wiki interaction the task force seems to be looking for. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Hasła encyklopedii nie powinny powstawać na podstawie źródeł pierwotnych, gdy nie są to proste fakty. A w wywiadach nie rejestrujesz prostych faktów. To byłby zresztą wytrych: jeśli nie można zrobić OR, to sobie zrobię ten on OR w serwisie newsowym i użyję go do zacytowania. Sławek Borewicz (talk) 04:55, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Personal admissions are citeable for straightforward and uncontroversial claims about oneself. The Wikipedias already cite interviews for this purpose and I see nothing wrong with that. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Original reporting is definitely a unique selling point, and something that at times Wikinews has excelled at. But the caution with that proposal, Wikimedia's report is concerned with volume of articles, of views, and of contributors. All numbers will inevitably drop further, at least in the short-term.

They're also dismissive of niche audiences, calling out the interview with a juggler. Yes, a lot of people wouldn't care to read that, but it would be of great interest to that niche; one Facebook group alone has 28.9k people with an interest in juggling.

It's also a case that a big fish in a small pond can get seen a darn lot: while the Shimon Perez interview -- an amazing score for Wikinews -- has had 20k views since the current page views tracking began in 2015 (the article itself is from 2008), the juggling article has had 14k views since it debut in April 2024. The most read article this month? It's a 2019 interview with a planetary scientist discussing martian brines.

In summary, interviews need not be with world leaders or rock stars to grab eyeballs, though it certainly doesn't hurt when they are, but Original Reporting only would mean lower numbers. -- Zanimum (talk) 02:08, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Celebryci mają parcie na szkło i powiedzą cokolwiek, by zaistnieć w mediach. Takie wywiady będą oczywiście popularne, podobnie jak fotorelacja z plaży nudystów, ale ich wartość informacyjna nie będzie duża. Zrób wywiad z dyrektorem NASA na temat szacowanego budżetu na następne kilkadziesiąt lat i konsekwencji dla przyszłych odkryć w nauce. Sławek Borewicz (talk) 04:55, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

How is that relevant to what we're talking about? Aaron Liu (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we should or have pursued sensationalist headlines for stats? Because again, the most popular article this month begins with a lead section talking about the moles of oxygen needed to sustain a simple sponge. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:53, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Wręcz odwrotnie, napisałem, że wartość informacyjna wywiadów z celebrytami nie będzie duża. Zakładam, że przy newsach dotyczących odkryć, czy też np. kolejnych planów eksploracji Marsa można by poprosić o komentarz takie osoby jak Vlada Stamenković. Niekoniecznie musi być to wywiad rzeka, ale mogą być to uwagi do wyników badań itp. Sławek Borewicz (talk) 04:18, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

You may doubt the informational value of celebrity interviews, but that's simply because they're not a subject that interests you. Restricting the topics that can be covered simply serves to limit the audience and contributors. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think they'll decrease. Looking at two recent-ish interviews, such articles consistently perform better than the average contemporary front-page article while being slightly overtaken by just one front-page article on a popular topic: juggling, Staffordshire Aaron Liu (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I would expect the number of (imported) articles to decrease (to zero), and the number of page views to probably decrease (in proportion), but the number of contributors might go up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I feel like they may decrease in total but increase on average, judging by the stats I linked. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Most of my own work on Wikinews is not original reporting as we define it, but I could support this nonetheless. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, as y'all define it is what I meant. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:33, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

However, the problem is that producing excellent original reporting inevitably requires financial investment, including travel expenses. Otherwise, our original reporting cannot achieve significant growth. If Wikinews can secure financial support from the WMF or reader donations, I believe this initiative will improve dramatically. There have been previous proposals to establish a Wikinews user group, and if such a group existed, it could also help secure funding. However, what I really feel compelled to say is that in recent years, apart from Chinese Wikinews, other original reports do not actually have global news value or educational significance—they are very niche content. I think the Chinese edition has done an excellent job, while 90% of original reports in other languages have no news value at all. (Most original articles on Russian Wikinews are better than those on English Wikinews, and there are indeed some good original reports on Wikinews overall, but this is the fact when making comparisons.) Examples include coverage of a certain photographer’s works, the opening of a museum or exhibition, short interviews with acrobats or singers, and interviews with some little-known small political parties, among others. Kitabc12345 (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

In fact, as a free news source, it is definitely beneficial for WN to have more original reports. If it is considered too niche, then it is better not to put it on the homepage or in the broadcast channel (if there is one).

The influence of WMF and WP is obvious to all. Even without a funded professional team, it is possible to obtain some original news reports through the Internet. Non-financial support is important as well~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 04:13, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@Kitabc12345, what "financial investment" beyond travel expenses do you want? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing Thank you! That should cover it, but there are practical needs to address: If our reporters have to travel to interview people—including internationally—costs for passport applications and international travel will be incurred, along with transportation fees. Otherwise, our Wikinews journalists would have to sleep on the streets or rely on others for a place to stay. Beyond that, there are other necessities. For example, when conducting interviews at restaurants or other venues, there’s the need for reimbursement of restaurant or venue expenses. Then there are AI tools that could assist us—such as converting interview recordings into text. The Associated Press already uses AI for writing, and as noted in the Reuters report I mentioned earlier, many mainstream media outlets we know also use AI. To a certain extent, this can help our editors produce better content, though we won’t rely entirely on AI-generated content—after all, we have human judgment. That said, many media outlets do use AI entirely and have achieved good results. These tools are part of recent reforms in media, aimed at addressing news avoidance, driving innovation, and developing social media presence. Based on what I’ve seen in the Reuters report, AI could help us with tasks like automatically filling in the {{source}} template for Wikinews citations. Other equipment we need includes voice recorders, computers, smartphones, cameras/video cameras, phone tripods, video editing software, dedicated email accounts for Wikinews journalists (like the former @wikinewsie), and servers for storing original reporting materials. Many original materials may not be suitable for direct upload to Wikimedia Commons, as they might contain copyrighted content or require privacy protection in line with Wikinews’ ethical guidelines. Each reviewer also has access to passwords (you could ask English Wikinews admins or members about this). If we want to develop TV news (after all, more people watch YouTube than read text these days, right?), we would also need teleprompters, lighting, and so on. Kitabc12345 (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the email address example above should be https://wn-reporters.org/. This is a server that an administrator of English Wikinews opened with his own money. Kitabc12345 (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. So you mostly want money for:

• travel expenses
• AI tools
• photography and video equipment and software

and you want things that are already available to the movement (though you probably didn't know that):

• mw:Citoid and similar tools to autofill citation templates
• private mailing lists with dedicated e-mail addresses
• private wikis that you can upload non-public information to

Most of the expense is based on assumptions about the answers to two questions:

• Does the Wikimedia movement want to pay for a few people to travel to many places, or does it want volunteers to work in their local area?
• Does the Wikimedia movement want to move towards video?

If we were asking the analogous questions at the English Wikipedia, the answer to both questions would be a resounding "no!" See, e.g., w:en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not YouTube. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Take the incident we plan to cover—the lead poisoning case at Heshi Peixin Kindergarten in Maiji District, Tianshui City, Gansu Province—as a concrete example. This is a public health crisis involving 233 children with abnormal blood lead levels, preliminarily traced to the kindergarten kitchen’s use of non-edible decorative pigments in making pastries. To give this story the depth and credibility a news outlet demands, remote information-gathering alone is insufficient. We need to visit the kindergarten to verify the source of the pigments, interview parents of affected children to understand their kids’ current health status and demands, and press local disease control authorities and educational institutions for answers on regulatory failures. The logistics here are unavoidable: traveling from Shenzhen East to Tianshui, even the most basic hard seat on train Z230 costs 263.5 RMB and takes 26 hours and 57 minutes. This isn’t an “extra expense”—it’s the same foundational cost that drives reporters from The New York Times or BBC to rush to disaster sites: firsthand sources are non-negotiable for truthful reporting. Without this trip, how can we confirm the exact composition of the “non-edible pigments”? How can we capture the subtle emotions in parents’ accounts that reveal the true weight of the story? Worse, skimping on such costs forces impossible choices. If a journalist can’t afford even 263.5 RMB for a train ticket, they might skip the trip entirely. If they can’t cover accommodation fees, they’d be forced to sleep on the streets—hardly a condition for conducting clear, empathetic interviews with exhausted parents. This case also can show on in n:zh:無處遁形的噩夢：中國「特訓學校」暴行揭露.Even remote video interviews, a fallback, require reliable tools: the free version of Zoom cuts off every 60 minutes, but a deep conversation with a parent might last longer. A paid subscription to avoid interruptions isn’t a luxury; it’s how mainstream media ensure critical details aren’t lost mid-interview. This distinction matters because Wikinews, unlike Wikipedia, is a news outlet. Wikipedia curates and consolidates knowledge; we document current truth. Truth doesn’t materialize on a screen—it requires being present, listening carefully, and ensuring stories reach those who need to hear them. And “being heard” now demands adapting to how audiences consume news. The Reuters Institute’s 2025 Trends Report notes 74% of publishers are investing heavily in YouTube (+52 net score) and TikTok (+48 net score) because younger audiences increasingly get news via short videos. A text-only report on the Tianshui kindergarten case might fail to reach parents concerned about public health. But a fact-checked short video—with on-site footage and parent interviews—posted on these platforms could amplify calls for long-term health support for the 233 children. This requires basic equipment: phone stabilizers, editing software—tools BBC uses daily on TikTok to drive public attention to social issues. This isn’t about competing with YouTube; it’s about fulfilling a news outlet’s role: making vital stories accessible. Even post-interview, AI tools are essential—transcribing hours of interviews accurately, organizing conflicting accounts from authorities and parents—tasks Financial Times and NYT already streamline with AI, freeing journalists to focus on analysis, not grunt work. In short, the 263.5 RMB train ticket, the need to avoid sleeping on the streets, the Zoom subscription, the video gear—these aren’t “extras.” They’re the cost of doing news. No mainstream outlet questions why its reporters need travel funds; for Wikinews to fulfill its mission as a free, independent news source, these basics are just as indispensable. (Source: https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/news/ai-and-future-news-2025-what-we-learnt-about-how-its-impact-coverage-newsrooms-and-society, https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/calendar/event-ai-and-future-news-2025 https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/journalism-media-and-technology-trends-and-predictions-2025 , https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/journalism-media-and-technology-trends-and-predictions-2024, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/07/reader-center/how-new-york-times-uses-ai-journalism.html. See more on https://generative-ai-newsroom.com/keeping-track-of-ai-use-cases-in-the-newsroom-1811b8cb606f) Kitabc12345 (talk) 00:12, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

The 2004 archived page explicitly notes that while Wikinews initially relies on volunteers, a long-term vision includes a research fund within the Wikimedia budget to support "expensive research"—exactly the kind of costs we’re discussing. The 263.5 RMB train fare to Tianshui, avoiding sleeping on the streets to conduct credible interviews, and tools to cover the kindergarten lead poisoning case? These are precisely the "expensive research" expenses that fund was envisioned to support. Far from contradicting Wikinews’ mission, addressing these costs aligns with its original intent to enable meaningful, on-the-ground reporting. Kitabc12345 (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Sure, but the question isn't "Would it be helpful to have a volunteer conduct an interview in Tianshui?"

The question is "Should someone who lives in Shenzhen travel to Tianshui to conduct the interviews, or is there a different approach, such as recruiting a volunteer who already lives in Tianshui?" Surely the residents of Tianshui are just as capable of conducting meaningful, on-the-ground reporting as residents of a city that is 2,000 km away. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:12, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

"Small" interviews even if conducted online and local original reporting also have news value. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:47, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

True. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 06:13, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

True. We have lots. -- Ssr (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Foundation for Decisions

It seems to me that in order to make a decision, you first need to get reliable information for analysis. The proposed SPTF review in this regard makes a depressing impression, has anyone even checked it? On the Russian Wikinews forum, Victoria accused the local community of bot-uploads (ботозаливки or "автоматическое создание статей ботами"), and the last one, according to her, took place in February 2023, referring to page 12 of her report. [30] But if you look at the statistics not by the number of edits, but by the "Net Byte Difference", you will see that in February it was NEGATIVE (by 20 MB).[31] Oh, what a bot-upload. Further, the review says: "The peaks correspond respectively to the publication of Putin’s “Historical Unity” essay and the capture of the nuclear power plant in Ukraine". What is this even for? The first peak on the graph is in October 2022, Putin's idiotic essay was published in July 2021. The edits in October 2022 were indeed made by a bot [32] - this was the assignment of categories and correction of errors, what is the connection with the essay? It seems that Wikimedia doesn't need a fight against Sister Projects, but a Brotherhood of Fact-Checkers. Nicoljaus (talk) 11:02, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with your conclusion. As I showed above the report even wasn't able to produce correct numbers concerning linking of sister projects. (Worse it even seems impossible to find such numbers at all.) Not to mention the statistical mistake of taking RU WN as a red herring to explain the proposal to close all Wikinewses. But not enough, the proposal contains other flaws having been addressed above. ^Most embarassing between them "Additionally, by most measures, it is the least active Sister Project, with the greatest drop in activity over the years." where this is not Wikinews but Wikibooks (if we would speak of the German language sister projects). Matthiasb (talk) 07:51, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

What a shame -- Ssr (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

How do you know they're incorrect? Did you use the same link-dump methodology?

Though RU seemed like the only WN to disproportionately have bad social relationships with the sysadmins, DynamicPageList is something used by every Wikinews I've seen, not just RU.

I don't see what you see from that graph. Wikinews is clearly the website with the least activity there by userbase (total, active, and admin); by pages, edits, and images it's only better than Wikiquote. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:23, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Wszystko będzie zależeć od wersji językowej i jakie statystyki bierze się pod uwagę. Miara "aktywnych edytorów" też niekoniecznie jest wystarczająca, bo może być jeden bardzo aktywny i kilku mających nieco ponad 5 edycji. Ale jak spojrzeć np. ilu jest takich, co mają ponad 50 edycji, to sytuacja się zmienia: 5 w pl wikinews (nie licząc botów), ale 1 w pl wikibooks i 1 w pl wikivoyage. Jeśli weźmie się pod uwagę non content, to ten stosunek wygląda jeszcze gorzej. Wikiquote w wersji polskiej akurat wyglądają lepiej niż trzy powyższe. Sławek Borewicz (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Your metric doesn't necessarily reflect content activity either. Previous studies have found that most content is written by users or IPs with very few edits. I get your point though. The task force needs to consider that plnews has outlier levels of activity compared to other Polish projects. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu: What I see is the following: Wikibooks started at 4.2 million views and was end of 2024 ending up at 2.2 million views. That is a loss of more than 40 percent. At Wikinews we must start in July 2016 for the reason that just before the German Wikipedia removed the direct link to the Wikinews main page from the "in the news box" on it's own main page which destroyed about 80 percent of the traffic before that. In July of 2016 Wikinews has 195,000 page views. End of 2024 it had 368,000 edits. That is not a loss but a net gain of about 85 to 90 percent. Wikinews does not doing well at all but has not lost since when German WP threw it under the bus. Matthiasb (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Matthias, "activity" is not "page views" (what you linked, showing the the German-language Wikibooks has had 7.7x as many page views as the German-language Wikinews [between 2016 and 2024]). "Activity" is more like "edits".

Consider, e.g., that the German-language Wikibooks has had 58 non-bot registered editors in the last 30 days, whereas the German-language Wikinews has had only 17. The German-language Wikibooks has made ~1,065,000 total edits ever, whereas the German-language Wikinews has made ~853,000 total edits ever. And, of particular importance, in the last week, the German-language Wikibooks made 259 edits to "all content pages", whereas the German-language Wikinews made only 26 (and two of those were from a bot). On most days (e.g., 22 of the last 30 days), no editor edits the mainspace at the German-language Wikinews at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I know our numbers. But what does edit count tells? Nothing. For example, I have 200+ thousand edits in DE-Wikipedia but many many of them in category-structure building discussions (some call me an expert on that field) with dozens of edits on one topic. I also have done thousands of edits adding a category or relinking links to disambiguation pages. But I also made translations of articles counting tenthousands of bytes (the "record" is a 132k article) while entering the ready article into wikipedia with one single edits. I also already wasted five edits to get a single word straight because of it wasn't my day. My latest WN article from last night, n:de:Überraschend starker Rückgang der deutschen Exporte in die USA was created with one single edit as well (and still does need some formal editing but it can be finished with two or three more edits. On the other hand, n:de:Papst Franziskus ist tot was Breaking News and thus written using the interface multiple times. There is also a different writing culture comparing German and English Wikinews. I would say that English Wikinews articles tend to have a lot more edits than in DE WN, and there is more collaboration writing the text whereas in the German WP authors write the most of the text for themselves and other only copyedit their work. In my opinion the number of edits does not have any meaning at all, they are Schall und Rauch as we say in German. I don't know wether that has a translation.

I also can tell that the overall activity in ther DE WN is poor for a year or two. There exists some disharmony between commmunity members which are not resolved. My mother has dies three years ago what reshuffled by overall wiki activities. In 2021 I did the 100 wikidays effort as first and only DE WN user but since then maybe 20 in five years together, who cares. WMF legal utterly failed in the question of the license updating with most of the languae versions updating to CC-BY 4.0, two or three got updated to CC-BY-SA 4.0 which already is a mess hindering for example reuse of French content in other language versions. And, for some reasons notwithstanding the beforementioned disharmony in the german WN community the DE WN has been left behind on CC-BY 2.5 which further added to frustration and disagreement. --Matthiasb (talk) 10:14, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I think Whatam's point is that page views are way less useful for activity than even edit counts, and even by page views denews is at the bottom, or at least very close to it. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

That is not the point. Viktoria wrote that Wikinews [as a whole as I understood] is Wikimedia's biggest loser. Okay, she has used other wording but still said that. Well, according to the statistics Wikibooks lost most of its traffic in the period while all other projects show a net gain. Editcountitis does not have a meaning at all. Yesterday I wrote two articles in DE WN. The abovementioned de:Überraschend_starker_Rückgang_der_deutschen_Exporte_in_die_USA with six edits so far, and later wikinews:de:Misstrauensvotum gegen Ursula von der Leyen gescheitert with 13 edits so far. Is the second article double as well as the first? Nope, surely not. I guess they are pretty much on the same standard. I just wasted a handful edits because I didn't hit the wrong categories firstly due to spelling mostly. The German-language Wikibooks has made ~1,065,000 total edits ever, whereas the German-language Wikinews has made ~853,000 total edits ever. If that would be true as an argumentI just would have to make more mistakes and therefore waste more edits to male Wikinews a more active project than Wikibooks. Of course it is not. I would be a waste of resources. When we compare pages numbers, we have 14.217 in Wikinews against 33.525 in Wikibooks so broadly spoken, Wikibooks is twice as big as Wikinews. That does not say much because we must look from where we come. For each content page the Wikibookians do need 14,31 edits, the Wikinewsians do need 13,68 edits. Speaking in number of edits per content page, Wikinews does better than Wikibooks. But even this statistics in nonsense. We don't have a clue how many time users spend in editing their article. I spend about 1:10 for both of the articles mentioned including reading the sources, after that I reproduce the event in my own words, then I am going through the chance parts which are narrow to the source(s), then adding the souces templates, normally in the order I have read the sources and finally doing formatting anc copyediting. How many time do Wikibook users need to conclude one page? I dunno. I need about 20minutes to create a Wikisourcepage like s:Seite:De Kunstdenkmäler Baden 6 113.jpg, but I am far faster when correcting pages like that. Except for sources using some bad quality scan of fracture. I am already typing this single reply for more than an hour because of it needs research and linking and going there and back. We see: edit numbers also say nothing about quality of a project, of if we come to it, of an author. I can also say that when I started in Wikipedia in 2006, almost by the day, I was way faster. It's easier to edit when you're 39 than 58. Matthiasb (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Though I'm only a near-native speaker of English, I'm pretty sure that "activity" in this context means editing activity, not traffic. Edit count has its problems, yes, but it is probably the best rough quantitative estimate of editor activity out there besides byte counts. Not saying the latter doesn't have problems but it probably has less. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@Matthiasb, what does the edit count tell me? It tells me that almost nobody is writing articles at the German-language Wikinews.

As you explain, "10,000 edits" of one kind could be very different from "10,000 edits" of another kind. But I tell you: 26 mainspace edits in a month can't be more than 26 articles for readers. Zero edits to any articles at all on 73% of days can't be any readers finding about today's news on those days. Das kann nicht sein.

The existence of a high level activity does not prove high-quality, high-volume work. However, the near-total absence of activity proves that high-quality, high-volume work is not happening. There might be a little bit of high-quality, low-volume work happening, but it is impossible for a mere 26 edits to be a high volume of any quality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I won't argue at this point. But true is, that that is not the point from where we came here. It was you saying: The German-language Wikibooks has made ~1,065,000 total edits ever, whereas the German-language Wikinews has made ~853,000 total edits ever. and not 26 mainspace edits in a month can. And what I wrote surely is not false when comparing the numbers 800,000 and 1,200,000 or so in different projects with different editing usances. True is also that the DE WN is dependent on the rate of activity of a quite small numbers of editors. That could be a problem if the DE WN community was biased in one way or another but it isn't. True is also that my own activity nowadays is not comparable to what I was used to in the earlier 2010's. Something we call life made things more complicated. and I am still struggling with some issues which overcame me with the illness and death of my mother. According to my editcounter a created 619 pages in NS:0, between 4 and 5 percent of all 14,000+ news articles in the DE WN? The DE WN is probably more than any other language version dependent on a few users only. The goal was and ic to produce more than five articles a day which we are far from, admittingly. —

What is disturbing to me and also other commenters did point out on this: the report of the funny committe is in utterly contempt of the communties now or formerly involved into Wikinews. None of those communities is guilty of any wrong doing, we all worked in best faith all the time (and I hold this for true even for the RU WN during its disagreement with the server administrators. Normally would have been to consult the communities for their needs, regularly, but since I spoke to this Frenchman who was memeber of the board around 2014 in Cologne (I mentioned that elsewhere) at no point the WMF reached out to us to find out what is needed. Even after that Cologne talk, maybe I should say even though. This is disappointing. i made some constructive proposal in other sections of this messy discussion what can be done mostly by centralizing standards in several language versions be it Wikispore be it the possibility to realize that elsewhere, be it Commons or be it Wikidata. I don*t agree and won't agree ever to a closure of the Wikinewses as I am the opinion that in present we need. Perhaps we'll need it even more. There is fake news, there is the pest of pay walls everywhere. Most Wikimedia folks just didn't get it yet. Matthiasb (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

@Matthiasb, when you say that we need it, what do you mean?

• Who is "we"? The world, the Wikimedia Foundation, the contributors to Wikinews, the contributors to other WMF-hosted projects, someone else?
• What is "it"? The Wikinews brand, unbiased/less-biased news, news without paywalls, news without advertisements, news that is written and controlled by people with no training or experience, summaries of news posted by other media organizations, news that is rarely fact checked at the source (a Wikinews reviewer might check whether a quotation matches a previous publication, but they don't contact the quoted person to see whether the original publication misquoted them), news posted on a non-profit's website, a project hosted by an organization that neglects the project, something else?

WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:53, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure wether my answer is exactly in English what I am thinking in German: We, the people (in the sense of people as a group of persons, not in the sense of American oder French people, but more in the sense of a democratic society or civil society). Probably a bunch of them editing Wikipedia or any sisterproject. [Me can't determine exactly where :n:User:Matthiasb ends and :w:User:Matthiasb starts and I am fan of the thesis that sister projects do not have exact "borders" but rather are all parts of the Big Puzzle.

It would be for me unbased/less-biased news, news without paywalls, without advertisements firstly. "It" is not about summaries of news posted by others (but I come back on this in half a minute) but it is fact checked asgood as we can. In an ideal world it is posted on a non-profit's website, what is clear, I guess, when we're talking about ad free articles and no paywalls.

In think it is a kind of misconception to speak of summaries of news by other media organizations and differ this question from the question of fact checking. Actually many news organizations make use of researches of own reporters as well as they rely on news agencies. For us CNN or the Washington Post are playing the same role as does reuters.com, even if there are differences in the way they are publishing news. In Germany Spiegel Online (spiegel.de) and the Zeit Online (zeit.de) tend to use nearly identical versions or absolute identical versions of news relayed to them by the DPA (DPA-Newsfeed; even some other newspapers use it on their respective webpages).

If I write an article I try to find in such cases yet another media organization; that might be a newspaper with own people on the ground or that might be a newspaper using another agency. But still, I am trying to check (even more: I am indeed trying to secure) that the facts had been reported from a least news organizations independently. Under the abovermentioned 619+ articles very likely exist dozens of articles in which I broke my own rules for reasons. It isn't very likely that news outlets do manipulate the results of a soccer match. Lack of time or lack of possibilities to double check might be a reason. But I try to check all the time if a quotation is matching the quotation in another news report. More frequently than not they are different. Then it is up to me to decide wether the different reportes heard the same but did not report the exact wording because of the circumstances (noise, the president spoke unclearly, they had to reproduce the text from their mind) or if the wording was manipulated by one side for a reason. That is a small and winding path over the cliffs of a hill chain.

What I can say (want to say): All Wikinews authors should cite best as well by their knowledge as by their abilities. (And in my believing there is no damned difference wether we're talking about Wikinews, Wikipedia or any other WMF project.) Matthiasb (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

It sounds like "we need it" means "Wikimedia contributors need ad-free, free-as-in-beer news reports hosted on a non-profit organization's website".

Are you familiar with https://www.propublica.org/? It is all of these things: no advertisements, no paywalls, run by a non-profit organization. The only formal difference between Wikinews and ProPublica is that Wikinews allows anyone to edit, and ProPublica is a real news organization, with proper journalists and professional editorial oversight. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Fina that you have a Texas based news organization like that. We don't have such organizations in Germany. (There are organizations working in similar ways in Germany but they are not neutral: there are leftist, antifa, or far-rightist. I don't know wether there are free news reporting outletsin Hungary. Or in Turkey. In China. We talk about free as in independent not as in free beer. Matthiasb (talk) 10:06, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Independent of whom?

There are two basic ideas called freedom in English; they are libre and gratis (frei und kostenlos). Neither of them have anything to do with independence.

In English-language journalism jargon, "editorial independence" means that neither the owner (e.g., Jeff Bezos) nor the advertisers (e.g., car manufacturers) are allowed to tell the journalists and editors what to write. The leftist, antifa, far-rightist, etc. organizations are still "independent". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

ProPublica is thought of as having a leftist bent. I would say Wikinews has the same thing. There's no way for an outlet to be truly unbiased. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Independent ≠ unbiased (Unabhängig ≠ unbefangen). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with these points. To evaluate this, stats for bot page creations should've been used instead, and that doesn't show much since in recent years all bot creations are just daily newsfeed fill-in-the-blank templates like n:ru:Лента новостей 4 мая 2025 года. I strongly disagree with this approach which really should have users create newfeeds with content (substitute the template by themselves) instead of risking publishing placeholder text, but that doesn't show the report's conclusion that bot mass creations (which did happen in 2021) dominate the Russian Wikinews. @Victoria Is there someone we could ask about this? Aaron Liu (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

What you're talking about? In DE:WN we have only two activ bots. One is doing archive pages in the talk NR only, and the other edits only the stock market indices template. There is no other bot usage in the DE WN. Matthiasb (talk) 10:17, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't talking to you. I was replying to Nicol who was talking about the Russian wiki. In fact I linked to the Russian wiki. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I can raise the issue with bot-created daily newsfeed on the Ru-WN forum. My personal opinion is that the bot's page creation can simply be replaced with an automatically updated (by date) link leading to the "manual" page creation. Nicoljaus (talk) 09:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikinews can be the WMF's test case for AI editing

In June 2025 the Wikimedia Foundation announced a plan to replace the lead text of Wikipedia articles with AI-written summaries. This was an unpopular proposal among English Wikipedia editors who reacted.

However, I think it would be a fitting proposal for the WMF to enter Wikinews with AI experiments.

Here is how that could work:

1. We track all Wikipedia articles on current events
2. We track pageviews of the most popular current events to identify high-traffic topics needing news stories
3. The WMF does its AI experiments by converting current-event Wikipedia articles into Wikinews stories
   1. AI can do language translation, making Wikinews multilingual
   2. We satisfy a need for readers who otherwise will not be served, and also move the AI experiments from a place with humans to a place where there are hardly human editors
4. Instead of recruiting human editors to interact with these stories, instead connect interested editors with either the related Wikipedia articles, Wikidata item, or Commons category

I also think it would be a good idea to connect Wikinews to the super-popular "Main Page" of Wikipedia, where we post current events. Because of the super high amount of traffic that the main page of Wikipedia gets, it could be worthwhile to convert all of Wikinews into a project which uses AI and humans to keep the current events list on Wikipedia up to date. The main page of Wikipedia is already a major world news source, but we hardly invest in it. We need a plan for managing that, and Wikinews could be the place where we coordinate that current event list for all main pages of all languages of Wikipedia.

Bluerasberry (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Bieżące wydarzenia w ogóle nie powinny być opisywane w encyklopedii ze względu na brak dobrych źródeł wtórnych. Encyklopedia nie jest portalem newsowym. A bieżączka trafia do AfD (w wersji polskiej to jest poczekalnia). Sławek Borewicz (talk) 04:39, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

In many cases AI content is bad, but in your case it may be good and useful for Wikimedians to detect unapplicable news that are posted on Wikipedia, remove them from there and redirect to Wikinews in a readable form (or at least making aware). When people post unapplicable news on Wikipedia, they usually support it with sources, as Wikipedia requires. So they are posted in Wikipedia format, but not allowed on Wikipedia, and then should be brought to Wikinews, as WP:NOTNEWS twice says. There processed and posted if sources are good (they are often good, but violate NOTNEWS). So I  Support your idea. -- Ssr (talk) 08:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia only disallows "original" reporting, like "I personally interviewed the celebrity, and I directly post the interview on Wikipedia". There is almost nothing added to the English Wikipedia that is suitable for transwiki'ing to the English Wikinews. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

False, as most of your arguments here. You didn't try, but talk about it. I tried since 2007, and know about it. Leave us, please. Go and do what you are experienced in. You are becoming irrational with your passion to kill us. -- Ssr (talk) 06:47, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Wikimedia should avoid AI as much as possible. Enwiki explicitly cracks down on AI. Commons is generally very hostile towards AI. I can’t speak for most others but I doubt they like AI much either. This is a horrible idea just to salvage a project that doesn’t need salvaging and will inevitably be salvaged by pure enthusiasm of its community. Making it an AI-centric project would change the attitude of every other project towards Wikinews from apathy or mild pity to outright contempt. Dronebogus (talk) 10:34, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

That's not a logical argument against this proposal. I once also believed in the simple equation that AI-generated content = bad content. However, turns out things are much more difficult than this, and I think making Wikimedia AI-assisted is a better approach than banning AI entirely. I have noticed a trend where not making something relevant in the AI age will get replaced by AI soon, including Wikipedia in some cases. An AI tool can generate a draft, and we can fix that draft before publishing it. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 10:50, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Commons is generally very hostile towards AI.

As a Commons user myself, I can say that Commons generally cracks down on AI-generated media that either have copyrighted content or are outside the project's scope. One useful case is the images in commons:Category:AI-generated images of historical figures. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

No, not useful, pretty =/= useful. Those are all probably wildly inaccurate or at the very least redundant or purely speculative and should be deleted. AI is 99% crap and should stick to illustrating itself. There are some things it can illustrate competently (speculative fiction mostly) but humans can still do those things better. Dronebogus (talk) 10:18, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

"AI" can apply to a wild variety of possible technologies, only some of which are really bad. Bluerasberry's proposal is actually more like a nonprofit community-driven analog of Google News, a w:news aggregator tying together evolving Wikipedia/Wikimedia content and journalistic reliable sources. Pharos (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

The theory of Wikipedia cannot be applied to Wikinews. One is an encyclopedia and the other is a news media. Kitabc12345 (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

When used properly, AI/LLM tools can be useful. at en.WN, we tentatively permit its transparent use through n:WN:AI, a proposed guideline. Our review process helps protect us against hallucinations, inaccuracies, etc. With the review process, we can consider AI/LLM as just another editor that still has to conform to our Policies and Guidelines. If it inserts a factual inaccuracy, our review process, when done fully and properly, should catch it. I don't speak for en.WN. But I would  Support en.WN being a test case for the WMF and AI/LLM use, if the WMF provided guidance and support for the testing process. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I also support Chinese Wikinews using the same idea as Bluerasberry, Michael.C.Wright and SSR. Kitabc12345 (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

 Strongly Oppose Per Dronebogus, allowing to develop an AI farm will only cause anti-consensus-ism, as this would simply let users randomly self-close any discussions on community's conflict of assets by just their "structured" form of "titles, cases, conclusions, ...", which would simply break each one of five pillars of wikis. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:10, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I can't understand how AI will let users self-close discussions on community's conflict of assets. But if AI is allowed to analyse a community discussion, there can be policies to override it with human analysis. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:08, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@Sbb1413 You can understand so by reading A09's comments below, I think. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose I dabble with AI form time to time, and can confidently state that even the best models available to the public (the ones we have to pay $$$ for use) are occasionally generating pure nonsense. At this point in time, the only use of AI without close human oversight IMHO is translation from one language to another. Викидим (talk) 05:29, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Yet another attack towards AI without proper reason on why it is not suitable for Wikinews. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:04, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

If a human user repeatedly generated pure nonsense, they would eventually be banned from the project. But at least while they're a contributor, the volume of output would be a manageable level for the reviewers to review. It's not sustainable to have volunteers act as the janitors for an AI. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Neutral If a sufficient and serious review mechanism can be established, some of the contents of this proposal can indeed be tried, But this really requires a very strict and reliable mechanism. However, this may not be suitable for some small WNs(even bigger one), which will become a semi-AI article distribution center. In addition, if the WP community is willing, I certainly support adding a WN link after the news on the homepage, which will be much more meaningful than a simple small "Wikinews" external link.

However, I am cautious about AI writing, and I don’t quite understand the use of AI translation. Although the convenience of translation does need to be improved, current translators can also use AI tools for assistance, as long as they don’t paste entire paragraphs, this is something we know. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 05:53, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Regarding your suggestion of “moving the AI experiments from a place with humans to a place where there are hardly human editors”, if this mechanism works well, we may be able to provide consultation to many users of minority languages. That sounds very good, but I think it requires very serious consideratio and it's quite revolutionary. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 05:55, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I often like to point out that many casual users (even myself in more obscure cases) are replacing Wikipedia with AI tools as their sources of information. While there are limitations of AI that I want the developers to address, it is something that can't be avoided forever. I wonder what will happen to Wikimedia if it shuts its doors to superintelligence in the far future. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:14, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - While AI might make it easier for contributor to write an initial summary, it will not solve the major problem of Wikinews which is slowness of writer-reviewer loop iterations. Unless you figure out a way for AI to respond to reviewer's comments, as well... Then yes, it might work. If reviewers don't quit out of frustration. Therefore, AI-written articles should be in a separate category/box? Wikiwide (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

If you have to quarantine it, it shouldn’t be there. I said something to this effect on Commons. Dronebogus (talk) 10:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

it will not solve the major problem of Wikinews which is slowness of writer-reviewer loop iterations.
It can certainly be a part of a larger solution. I routinely use AI as a reviewer to check for things such as neutrality and balance, ensuring the 5w's are answered, etc. When I use it as a language model to evaluate language, it can speed up the review process. It is not yet effective at writing a full article that complies with en.WN PaGs (but it is getting closer). It is great at copy editing, which could be very helpful to writers with English as a second language, poor grammar, smaller vocabularies, etc.

And as long as we have reviewers performing the full review process, the risks of AI-generated content is no different than the risk of human-generated content. It's already nearly indistinguishable. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Horrible idea. Wikinews is meant for storing and presenting news, something that is not immediately added to LLMs hence they could not be reliably used for content creation on the Wikinews. There are other problems too, like checking AI generation results that would take much more time than actually writing articles. A09|(pogovor) 19:40, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I strongly oppose using AI in all Wikimedia projects except for helping with fact checking and defending vandalism. I am not sure wether AI already is capapble to do so. Matthiasb (talk) 13:24, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

You guys a lot of are not Wikinews community users, so you don't know about Wikinews. Even English Wikinews has issued AI usage rules (say by Michael.C.Wright), and some news reports on Chinese Wikinews, where AI has participated in creating some content, are of very high quality, have good pageviews, and there have been no reader complaints about them. I think you are so fixated on criticizing AI purely because you have not tried using the best AI. You opponents have never participated in Wikinews or published news reports—how can you represent the entire Wikimedia movement, let alone the ideas of the local language communities within the Wikinews community? How can you apply Wikipedia's failed examples to Wikinews? There is a huge difference between news media and encyclopedia entries. Many mainstream media outlets, especially in China, already use AI summaries. Don't try to constrain Wikinews with the entire Wikimedia framework—you must respect Wikinews itself. Kitabc12345 (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

The Dilemma of Wikinews Demands Bold Reform

Wikinews is facing an especially tough situation. If we treat it as a "conventional" news website, we’ll find its core goals hard to achieve—unlike encyclopedia entries or dictionary definitions, news is highly time-sensitive, often becoming obsolete within hours or days, leaving only historical value (see a typical example). However, this is also a strength: many mainland Chinese and Hong Kong media outlets have disappeared, making such records invaluable. Thus, mainstream news sites rely on paid editorial teams to publish content in real time. As a volunteer-driven project, Wikinews—with unpaid editors and flexible creation schedules—cannot compete with main-stream media in terms of "timeliness."

But this is not a dead end. The core issue lies in Wikinews’ positioning: blindly competing with traditional media on "breaking news speed" will reduce it to "fast-food news" (like Taiwan Sanli News) that becomes "old news" after a week. Shifting focus to in-depth content, however, could create unique value.

In fact, the vitality of news does not depend solely on speed. The New York Times Chinese Edition’s report on "the arrest of Chinese BL writers," published months later, still attracted readers due to its depth and unique perspective. Quality WeChat public accounts and video creators like "Zhiwei"(知危) also break through time constraints with solid content. This shows that excellent, unique, newsworthy content can transcend timeliness. I’ve made this point many times before, which is why most of my reports follow this model—either covering stories ignored by mainstream media (see a typical example), a practice exemplified by Hong Kong’s Jizhi She.

Wikinews should focus on areas mainstream media struggle to cover: original reporting (e.g., n:zh:巴以示威者麻省理工對峙 維基記者目擊激烈現場), in-depth investigations and analyses (e.g., n:zh:联合国会议：中国代表就性少数议题发言时发笑, n:zh:揭解中国相亲分析师背后), and feature stories (e.g., n:zh:无处遁形的噩梦：中国“特训学校”暴行揭露, n:zh:武漢疫情：公民記者張展 四年刑滿去向未明). Such content rivals in-depth programs like Taiwan Revelation or Hong Kong Insights, or text versions of 14–30 minute YouTube videos by creators like Laogao & Xiaomo or Cha Ji, while being more accessible for preservation and dissemination than videos. However, the problem is that producing excellent original reporting inevitably requires financial investment, including travel expenses. Otherwise, our original reporting cannot achieve significant growth. If Wikinews can secure financial support from the WMF or reader donations, I believe this initiative will improve dramatically. There have been previous proposals to establish a Wikinews user group, and if such a group existed, it could also help secure funding.

In terms of presentation, Wikinews needs to balance professionalism and appeal. It can learn from media like Storm Media and quality WeChat public accounts by highlighting key information with bold text (as in n:zh:东航空难调查报告为何“危害国安”？). Additionally, it can adopt the Russian Wikinews model by introducing comment sections or reader letters—strictly separated from news reports to avoid compromising objectivity, while offering diverse perspectives. This follows the logic of opinion sections and reader letters in outlets like South China Morning Post, Initium Media, Time Magazine, and Ming Pao. Such content—thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial opinion pieces or reader letters—aims to inspire reflection rather than promote personal views, which aligns with Wikinews’ principle of impartiality. This is a survival strategy for news sites and newspapers: opinion articles never represent the media’s own stance—that’s basic common sense.

Moreover, short videos and AI are irreversible trends. As noted in a Reuters Institute report, short videos and AI are growing rapidly in news. The Associated Press uses AI to assist writing, and the BBC expands its reach via TikTok. Wikinews could explore combining text with video: not everyone wants to read long articles, and diverse formats can reach broader audiences.

A more critical step is breaking the shackle that "Wikinews must be absolutely neutral and ban all opinions." The Russian Wikinews model is instructive—they operate more like a "magazine" (see Example 1, Example 2) and allow opinion pieces (Example 1, Example 2, Example 3), not to promote personal stances but to inspire reflection. As WMF senior official Asaf Bartov stated (Google search: Цели и задачи Викиновостей), "A wiki magazine can definitely play a role." The success of Russian Wikinews suggests transforming into a "wiki magazine" could be a way forward—focusing on depth over speed, balancing opinions and facts, maintaining the openness of wiki projects while building differentiated competitiveness. Wikinews should not replicate the encyclopedia model but become a platform that "complements mainstream narratives and offers unique perspectives."

After all, Wikinews’ core competitiveness should never be "who’s faster," but "who’s irreplaceable (we can host news reports that Wikipedia cannot). While commercial media chase trending topics, Wikinews can focus on "reports worth remembering"; amid fragmented information, it can provide "interpretations that shape understanding." This may be the real way to avoid the trap of becoming "just another media outlet."

A review report claimed Wikinews lacks viability in the Wikimedia ecosystem, arguing it has no useful content, readership, or volunteer engagement, and that news is ill-suited to the wiki model—but this is untrue. We can indeed provide practical, valuable content to global readers. The real bottleneck is Google’s ranking mechanism: regardless of quality, Wikipedia pages rise in search results once created (even if later deleted), while Wikinews never gets this treatment, limiting its influence. An English-speaking administrator and I are wanna pushing for WMF to help include Wikinews in the Google News program to address this. Can anyone help improve the SEO of Wikinews? Because the content of our Chinese Wikinews is actually quite good. I think it’s probably a Google problem.

We should also allow journalist bylines to boost their sense of achievement. Compared to Wikipedia, Wikinews has a smaller community, making it hard to foster a sense of belonging. CNN, which also uses collaborative journalism, often features bylines of five or six reporters without issue. For pieces with more contributors, bylines can be listed at the end like Reuters. In practice, most Wikinews articles are edited by one or two people—even ten wouldn’t matter. Reporters deserve more freedom: like some Australian metropolitan newspapers, bylines (even full names) can be placed prominently, with the most logical position being the bottom of articles.

Currently, Wikinews already has many quality reports that point to a path beyond timeliness and toward core value. With continued optimization in content depth, presentation formats, and interactivity, it can carve a unique path distinct from traditional media. We must create our own path based on Wikinews’ needs, not follow rigid rules. --Kitabc12345 (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@Kitabc12345 By following ruwikinews' they operate more like a "magazine", We should therefore consider Renaming this very project (and their language editions) to e.g. WikiMagazine, as by this way, the competitors of de facto Wikinewses are no longer the New York Times, the Washington Post, the AP..., but to be the Kadokawa, the Viz Media, the Disney, the Viacom-CBS... Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:20, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Don't you know there is a thing called a "news magazine"? It is news first, and magazine or newspaper second. Not all newspapers are news newspapers as well. This isn't really important at all.~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 06:19, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia model relies on volunteer work of unpaid (and mostly non-professional) contributors. Your proposal, at least in part, is to out-compete real news publishers (focus on areas mainstream media struggle to cover). How would one expect non-professionals to take on professionals - and win? The news are original research (like science) and for quality need editorial oversight. In science, there is a model of a repository for non-reviewed works (say, en:arXiv); this can be done, but does not require any wiki or even group work (news can be submitted to such site as PDF and indexed). Викидим (talk) 05:25, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this proposal is suggesting focusing on areas the mainstream media doesn't have the resources to cover, but rather areas that it chooses not to cover, because it's too niche. As I've said in other threads, some of our top articles deal with obscure scientific studies. For instance, the mainstream will inevitably cover the "alcohol prevents cancer" / "alcohol gives you cancer" sort of science story, as it's relatable and "useful" to readers, but we've had Featured Article quality contributions about organisms in oxygen-less environments. Or on a weird news note, when a finger was "found" (planted intentionally for purposes of fraud) in a Wendy's chili, we had 15 articles as details were learned about the "victim" became a suspect. Hundreds of papers in the US covered the initial incident, and few ever followed up that it was just a scammer. All of this is very achievable. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

 SupportI have reservations about neutrality, because "neutrality" is one of the important differences between Wikinews and other media and citizen media. It's just that in practice it doesn't need to be as strict as Wikipedia, because this is news writing, but it's still necessary to have this pursuit and banner. Moreover, most of the excellent non-original reports on Wikinews are integrated from multiple sources.

我对中立持有保留态度，因为“中立”是维基新闻与其他媒体和公民媒体重要的区别之一，只不过在实务上没必要如同维基百科那般严格，因为这是新闻写作，不过有这个追求和旗帜还是应该的。而且维基新闻的大多数优秀非原创报道都是综合多家不同观点来源而成。~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 06:29, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Crediting indeed may help encourage participation, but we should make it optional, as it might discourage others. That said, it has been allowed for Original Reports throughout the years, not sure if that's currently allowed, but there's definitely precedent. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I think so too and yes, We have always allowed it, at least in fact. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I do actually really like the idea of a “WikiMagazine” similar to National Geographic or New Yorker, with a focus on in-depth articles and maybe monthly or bi-monthly issues. “News” in the sense of breaking news is incompatible with the Wikimedia model and arguably wikis in general; a “news magazine” model would just be shifting the focus towards the kind of material everyone (including me) agrees Wikinews has historically been good at. However, I don’t like the idea of allowing opinion pieces (even if RuWN already does) because that to me defeats the purpose of Wikimedia as a provider of knowledge. That knowledge doesn’t have to be purely objective (see: Wikiquote, Wikivoyage) but veering into polemic is crossing a line. The internet is full of people with no credentials spouting their opinions on literally everything; turning the structured, positively gatekept model of Wikimedia into yet another place where anyone can post anything cheapens the brand. Dronebogus (talk) 10:10, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

 Strong support -- Ssr (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Example

During the administrations of conservative leaders Lee Myung-bak and Park Geun-hye, MBC once became a mouthpiece of power. Its employees launched a strike in protest, successfully forcing the pro-conservative management to step down. Under Yoon Suk-yeol's administration, MBC regained public reputation with its critical reporting style.

MBC's leading anchors Jo Hyun-ryong and Kim Su-ji added comments at the end of news segments, questioning tendencies toward militarization and authoritarianism. In response to criticisms that public television expressing comments undermines neutrality, Jo Hyun-ryong directly refuted, arguing that news should not merely maintain "mechanical neutrality." Kim Su-ji also voiced expectations as a media professional, believing the media should say what the audience wants to say and provide them with a sense of liberation and comfort.

As early as September 2022, a news story about Yoon Suk-yeol's U.S. visit brought MBC widespread attention. Despite pressure from the presidential office, which claimed it would "cause diplomatic issues," MBC was the first to air reports of Yoon Suk-yeol using emotional vulgar language, sparking domestic criticism of the Yoon government. MBC reporter Lee Ki-joo recalled that after the vulgar language incident, the presidential office accused MBC of producing fake news, refused to let MBC reporters board the presidential plane for coverage, and a presidential secretary even had a heated argument with Lee Ki-joo.

Following the escalation of the incident, Yoon Suk-yeol abolished the Q&A session. Lee Ki-joo faced personal threats, defamation charges, and a prosecution investigation. However, this confrontation with those in power earned MBC massive support: subscriptions and views on MBC News' YouTube channel surged, and its evening news became the nation's highest-rated. For a time after the incident, MBC News' YouTube channel even became the top news brand globally.

Prosecutors later confirmed that on the day Yoon Suk-yeol abruptly announced plans for martial law, he instructed to cut off water and electricity to media outlets including MBC, though this was not carried out as the martial law plan failed. Regarding the emergency martial law, Han Dong-soo, head of MBC's News Division, stated that the principle of abandoning journalistic neutrality and engaging in reporting with strong values was adopted, emphasizing that the media should play an active role in setting things right during major events.

MBC, as a "public broadcaster with a stance," has become a big winner. In contrast, KBS, the largest public broadcaster, has fared very differently, with declining viewership. This is an example of being non-neutral yet winning public support. It’s believed many people watched MBC’s evening news anchor commentary that day. Korean TV news is really much better than Chinese news. What’s more, even though they aren’t absolutely neutral like Wikipedia, they remain credible and trusted neutral news media.--Kitabc12345 (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

WN can go further in this neutrality issue, and should do so. We don't have to "follow the trend" like the media you mentioned, although I think its report this time is very correct. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 23:27, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikinews

waa in la xidhaa wikinews Bashiir faarah (talk) 02:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Why? A statement by itself without reasoning does not further the discussion. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

What would it take

@Kasyap, Noe, Billinghurst, Galahad, Sj, and Victoria: — From your perspective, is there still a viable path to keeping Wikinews open, or is closure already the default outcome?

What kinds of input or outcomes from this discussion would meaningfully challenge the recommendation to close all Wikinews editions, or is the focus now more on how to implement that closure constructively? Michael.C.Wright (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

My personal opinion that so far I don't see any proposals that would drastically change the course for the Wikinews. I see:

• Proposals to keep Wikinews as is, because there are people who like it as is.
• Proposals for the WMF to invest more money, redesign the Wikinews, support the communities etc. without specifying why or how.
• Small tweaks such as opening the wikinews articles for editing where they are not available.
• https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews_Pulse - a very preliminary proposal to replace (?) Wikinews with something, which in my opinion would need to go through the new Sister Projects application. Howver, I might've misunderstood.

I'm not listing various discussions where the non-wikinews wikimedians agree with the conclusion of the document that Wikinews failed in their mission, doesn't share many of the wikimedia projects values etc.

I must say that I didn't have time to review everything, so I maybe missing some discussion gems.

There're three community calls (two listed on the top of the page + one organised by the CEE hub for the Russian speakers, which I know) coming. Than there will be a workshop at Wikimania, whichcould change things. And lastly, SPTF will have a meeting to discuss the results of the consultation. Victoria (talk) 11:04, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, @Victoria. Your summary is helpful, and I appreciate your candid perspective.

I want to clarify that many of the more combative or dismissive comments in this discussion do not reflect the views or tone of English Wikinews. The users making those remarks are not active contributors to en.WN or part of its core community. I think I can speak for most of en.WN and say we regret that some of the feedback here may come across as adversarial rather than constructive.

As for your observations, I agree that much of the feedback so far may appear scattered or incomplete. That said, from the en.WN side, some of us are trying to move beyond general appeals and toward practical reform, whether that’s revising our review process, loosening post-publication restrictions (archive policy), experimenting with cross-project collaboration (e.g. Pulse), or addressing internal process rigidity that has hindered publication and retention.

If there’s any clearer way for us to engage that would make a difference at this stage, either to show viability or propose concrete alternatives, we’d be grateful for your guidance. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Proposals to keep Wikinews as is, because there are people who like it as is. Wromg. Nobody likes Wikinews at it is and we, who do not want to dump it are well aware of the problems. They should be adressed, one after another. Some of them can be resolved quickly some take more work.
• Proposals for the WMF to invest more money, redesign the Wikinews, support the communities etc. without specifying why or how. Wrong. there was no proposal to invest more money. There has been some critique that the WMF spent a lot of money for journalism and/or journalist where as the result of this (if any) never was published in a free license. There was the critique that the WMF did not support the communities in the past what should be self-explaining that they would. The WMF just did not show any interest at all.
• Small tweaks such as opening the wikinews articles for editing where they are not available. What Victoria even talks about? I have no clue. I listed several measures, some of them are re-inventions, like the weather bot, the lotto bot which should move from a rather erratic source to a more stable source to Wikispore (which Victorias team is proposing to shutdown as well) or Wikilabs or Commons tables. I never tried out the latter, I don't know how it works and wether that be useable in the sense of the proposal. I am not a tech freak so I am not aware what is the standard in 2025, and I am pretty much educated in MediaWiki 2006 but 2025. Yet, whatever I was talking about, I am meaning the best solution available for nearly no money. I also discussed the possibility of maintaining a 140 byte version of news for re-users of news contents. I not know how the exact name for this is; I am talking about such TV screens on public spaces which inform on weather, sport results and the latest news. There might be a market since at my local super market they show still the same news report of a horror crash in Australiawhich occured around Easter. I also critizised that DE WP harmed the the WN back in 2016 when they removed the link to the WN Main page from their "In the news" box. It cost the German WN more than 80 percent of the traffic. The WMF let it happen without raising even an eyebrow. That is not the way one handles a trademark in a project they own as well. I never ever asked for money for the projects.
• Victoria's statement lacks even the smallest piece of self critique on this desastrous, in phases totally wrong, and overall harmful, insulting, and injuring proposal. We're in Wikinews are people which worked in Wikinews in a very engaged way and also very hard on putting articles together, in cases for a decade or two, and it is disrespectful how the proposal handles with our feelings and experiences and the fate of the project we got to love during these years. For the WMF Wikinews might only be a number, but we are people not numbers. That is very disturbing.
• I appreciate the proposal "Wikinews Pulse" by WMNYC which I learned about just here literally minutes ago but I do not see how that could help WN on the short track. If that faciliates translating and coworking between the language versions I will be fine with.

Matthiasb (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikispore (which Victorias team is proposing to shutdown as well) - wrong, I suggest you (re)read the Wikispore document.

I'm not going to collect diffs to argue with you about the rest as I don't enjoy being insulted. Victoria (talk) 09:30, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand. Getting adressed for faults and flaws is insulting. Thanks. Matthiasb (talk) 10:23, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your constructive and courteous replies. I hope that a few more workable proposals will emerge in the next two weeks, please, ping me id you become aware of them. Victoria (talk) 09:26, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

The English Wikinews community has prepared a community response to the closure proposal. We invite the Task Force to read it and consider our perspective: n:Wikinews:Response to Proposal for Closing Wikinews. Thank you in advance. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I think the following wikinews languages should be closed after looking at their statistics:

Fewer than 5 editors a day on average or fewer than 150 editors a month: Limburgish, Romanian, Shan

Bots more than 30% of daily editors: Serbian, Dutch, Korean, Spanish, Esperanto, Czech

Both too few users and too many bots: Finnish, Albanian, Tamil, Bosnian. Snævar (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Karelia Wiki Expedition of Petersburg Wiki Historians

Please say what is horrible with a particular publication: n:ru:Karelia Wiki Expedition of Petersburg Wiki Historians and its Russian counterpart n:ru:Карельская экспедиция вики-краеведов Северо-Запада России? There are HUNDREDS of such publications in Wikinews. E. g. n:ru:Pessimist2006: у нас нет того АК, который рискнёт тронуть этот гадюшник и назвать вещи своими именами.

What is so bad with such publications that WMF is going to kill us? We thought that our volunteering is good and we did what WMF said — organized wiki-events and usergroups, provided illustrated reports on activity.

Only to finally know WMF is going to kill us? We thought WMF is a good and kind organization. Until it tried to kill us. -- Ssr (talk) 05:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

In Enwiki we have a saying, “more heat than light”. It means you’re making a discussion more hostile (“heat”) than productive (“light”). This applies to you in this discussion. There is also the principle of w:wp:BLUDGEONing, which also applies to you here. Dronebogus (talk) 07:00, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

First, I don't see how an enwiki policy is applicable here and second – BLUDGEONing is inherently tied to being uncivil – something Ssr is not. Sometimes, a long comment or replying multiple times is perfectly acceptable or needed for consensus building. A09|(pogovor) 07:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I don’t think Ssr is consensus building; preaching to the choir is not forming consensus. Dronebogus (talk) 20:16, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I searched for "Dronebogus" at this page and it gave 57 results. I think it is you who are actually BLUDGEONing, and you just try to make me guilty while it is yourself who are really guilty but you are trying to portray that other people are guilty but not you. A normal thing for Enwiki. -- Ssr (talk) 03:09, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

You have posted 100 times. Matthiasb (100) and WhatamIdoing (75) have both posted far more than me. Additionally I’m actually commenting on distinct proposals and ideas while you are just turning this discussion into a battleground. Dronebogus (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Because as a whole it is initially an attack, so battleground is a default position here (which is extremely regrettable). -- Ssr (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

You are the one making it that way. Nobody else is. Stop bludgeoning, insulting, and self-admittedly engaging in battleground behavior. Dronebogus (talk) 22:17, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Stop teaching me what to do and talking about me and start talking about development of Wikimedia projects, not of their closure. We are here not to discuss me. So your comments about me are irrelevant and misleading. Forget about me please and do non answer me any more with teachings. I am not your apprentice and will never be. --Ssr (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

It looks like few people noticed above that Forbes magazine uses and directly names Wikinews as its source (along with many other media such as New Statesman (UK)). Please look at it again and think about if we are really so useless and unheard as attackers try to pretend? Remember what Matthias said above: this is a plain attack on the free press. Attacks should be neutralized by counter-attacks otherwise an attack may succeed which is unacceptable for those who are attacked. --Ssr (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

IMHO, you are trying to conflate 3 absolutely different things, all unrelated to the topic at hand and unnecessarily inflaming the discussion:

• a particular news item. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. However, it could have been published anywhere else, and, on many other platforms, arguably have even more visibility.
• free speech. It is a great thing to have. However, there seems to be no rationale for the WMF sponsorship of the free speech rights of a very small group of particular editors.
• calling your opponents "attackers". We are not at war here, we are simply discussing the practicality (or the lack thereof) of keeping a particular project within WMF, so let's stay WM:CIVIL.

If anything, I feel like a "defender", trying to keep the "no original research" stance of the most successful project here. Since we are almost all amateurs, our original pieces - en masse - cannot reasonably be expected to be good, n'est-ce pas? Викидим (talk) 01:52, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Unsolicited attempt to shut down a 20-year old active Wikimedia project is definitely an attack. Wikinews suffer from regular attacks for many years and should be defended by WMF. Calling volunteers of this project useless fools and trafficless bots (not worth consulting before shutting down) is even more an attack. And saying an attack is not an attack, while attacking, is even even more more an attack.

Saying "could have been published anywhere else" means to be out of scope of the discussion. We discuss publishing HERE, not "anywhere else".

If you wish to fight with "original research" then you should close Wikivoyage or Wiktionary which consist ONLY of original research. Wikinews provide sources. -- Ssr (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikivoyage and Wiktionary are based on the model of collaboration that is close to the successful one of Wikipedia: while individually volunteers are no match to professionals (for simplicity of argument, I am setting aside here the fact that contributors to the Wiktionary in mostly know what they are doing), acting as a group we have a chance. News are different: how a large group of non-professionals is supposed to conduct an interview, for example? Викидим (talk) 10:14, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

In the meantime, the topic is called "Karelia Wiki Expedition of Petersburg Wiki Historians". But nobody discusses it, though SJ said long ago: "It might be easier to talk about concrete examples of this, i.e. specific WN articles". The focus of the discussion is in another trend: how bad people at Wikinews are and how much they should be closed. The trend of "talk about concrete examples" is ignored and cloaked. -- Ssr (talk) 04:54, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Other examples to evaluate

• n:ru:Где на самом деле умер академик Велихов? (14.12.2024)
• n:ru:Прощай, Юрий Лущай. Викиновости почтили память коллеги (21.04.2024)
• n:ru:Администратора Белорусской Википедии будут судить по уголовной статье (22.07.2025)
• n:ru:В Костроме прошла IX Международная Вики-конференция 2015 (13.10.2015)
• n:ru:Первые студенты России с корочками Викимедиа и ПетрГУ (22.02.2018)
• n:ru:Михаил Грузнов: Мы не понимаем, что происходит в Википедии (15.07.2019)
• n:ru:Dimie Ogoina: Everyone is at risk of mpox infection (14.09.2024)
• n:ru:Казанда татар вики-волонтёрларны котладылар (10.01.2023)
• n:ru:2019 Languages of Russia Wikivoyage Leaders (25.01.2020)
• n:Russian Wikipedia "a top internet community" (23.05.2008)
• n:Russian Wikipedia reaches half a million articles (26.02.2010)
  • n:ru:Russian Wikipedia now has over 2,000,000 articles (13.12.2024)
• n:125th New York International Auto Show (1.05.2025)
  • n:ru:Олдтаймер Галерея 2023 прошла в СПб в Экспофоруме 14-16 апреля (24.04.2023)
• LOADS of more such items

What in Wikimedia such articles disrupt? SJ asked for examples to discuss, examples are given. Where is discussion about it? Only destroy seem to be discussed. No creation seem to be discussed. Where is Wikimedia creative spirit? Gone with Jimbo's lies? --Ssr (talk) 04:33, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Rudeness in Proposal

Personally, I'm quite disappointed in some of the language that's being thrown around by Foundation staff. It feels like it's a foregone conclusion that Wikinews will be closed. There's no path forward offered beyond "get out of our hair."

"If some contributors feel, despite the overwhelming evidence, that a wiki news site is a viable project they want to put time into," is incredibly disrespectful to the people who are trying to build something.

"Wikinews was not included in the consultations; Wikinews was notified of the proposal outcome on June 2025." shows that the Foundation has no real intent to engage the Wikinews community, which is supported by the complete lack of any positive metrics on the project.

Finally, it is disingenuous to imply that there's broad-based community support. In the proposal, you say that there was a proposal to close English Wikinews "which gained some traction but did not result in any action," and then pivot to saying that your own biased proposal "also support[s] the community's concerns about Wikinews." How does a proposal which results in no action support "community concerns"?

I'm sad to see that Wikimedia is throwing it's people under the bus. I think it's perfectly valid to constructively criticize a project and offer solutions, but this simply feels like the Foundation's made a decision and then plugged it's ears. I am deeply disappointed. --2605:A601:A6E2:DC00:9810:4ADF:103:2C6C 06:08, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I should also note that the proposal to close English Wikinews which this committee is relying upon for it's proposal was closed by LangCom as "harmful, with no reasonable possibility of a decision to close the wiki". --2605:A601:A6E2:DC00:9810:4ADF:103:2C6C 06:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Maybe the real proposal should be to close the SPTF more than Wikinews, but I digress. //shb (t • c) 10:18, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

 Strong support -- Ssr (talk) 06:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

The independent review is valuable. I don't think an independent committee tasked to find out whether a department is a waste of resources, start by asking the department itself "Are you a waste of resources?" Midleading (talk) 10:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

That’s fair. They have the authority to close or keep projects open. Still, they could have chosen to consult more directly with the language communities to better understand why some are struggling and to encourage flexibility around practices like “no wiki process after publication.” While many points in the report are valid, the overall process feels performative. A strong warning or directive from the Foundation, delivered through the Task Force, might have been more effective and better received. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you that the report and closure threat was clumsy and flawed. But I also doubt a “strong warning or directive” would have received a much better response. The WM community in general dislikes the Foundation interfering at all, and small communities are particularly hostile to outside interference. Dronebogus (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

What this report said is mostly true, from a reader or outsider perspective. Why criticize SPTF for producing such a valuable report? Why not collaborate with SPTF to correct this report and add important insights from the perspective of editors? Midleading (talk) 04:07, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

What this report said is mostly true...

I agree.

Why criticize SPTF for producing such a valuable report?

The report provides a mostly accurate assessment, but draws a single conclusion, closure, without documenting serious consideration of alternatives or reform paths.

Why not collaborate with SPTF to correct this report and add important insights from the perspective of editors?

Many editors have tried to do exactly that in this discussion. I appreciate the few Task Force members who have engaged. This process cannot be easy, especially under unclear expectations. The consultation has lacked a defined structure or process for how input will be used. Direct questions about alternatives have received little or no response from members of the Task Force.

The report’s recommendation and the uncertainty around the process have already disrupted English Wikinews. Some contributors appear to be waiting out the decision; others may have already walked away. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

 SupportThis is why I have said in many places that the Sister Task Force is not doing a good enough job. Some people say that this consultation itself is to solicit the opinions of the community, but this is not the case. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 06:08, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

 Strong support Never mind—I’m sorry, but I still want to repeat what I’ve said. I should post this comment here.: Several members of the Sister Projects Task Force (SPTF)—even key speakers—frequently misspoke during the public consultation Google Meet sessions, repeatedly referring to Wikinews as Wikipedia. This is just as absurd as the UK’s Cass Report, which barred transgender minors from accessing hormone therapy: the authors of the Cass Report never even interacted with a single transgender child, and similarly, SPTF’s frequent mix-up of "Wikinews" and "Wikipedia" reveals their lack of basic understanding.

Worse, SPTF’s own report even implies there were internal attempts within Wikinews to shut down the project, which ultimately failed. What’s striking is their pattern: they claim some Wikinews reports—especially original ones—violate NPOV, yet this is pure hypocrisy. If SPTF itself violates NPOV, shouldn’t it be shut down entirely, just as they propose for Wikinews?

This SPTF, which flouts NPOV, deserves to be shut down outright, mirroring their approach to Wikinews. I also call on other projects that may be targeted by SPTF next year to cast their support here. Alternatively, we should archive SPTF instead. Kitabc12345 (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

@Kitabc12345 A page has been created to centralize the discussion on shutting down SPTF. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:31, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

我已经Ping了所有讨论前身【Proposal to close Sister Projects Task Force (SPTF)】的参与者，包括这一位。您不必再一一ping人，以避免拉票嫌疑并像SPTF的某些失误一样损害程序正义。感谢。 ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 02:57, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia already covers current events

I will be very short in why I think that Wikinews is redundant: most of the current events are already covered at Wikipedia, in many languages. An earthquake? An election? Sport results? A mass shooting? We can make articles at Wikipedia if there are sources, which normally happens. We are already covering current events, so having a separate and less known project for that could be a good idea two decades ago, but not now. Theklan (talk) 08:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Reporting the event in Wikinews and explaining what or why it happened are different sides of the same coin. While Wikinews would tell details and in some cases would include graphic descriptions by eyewithnesses, Wikipedia only would inform about the number of persons who died. Wikinews would tell that the moisture of tropical storm Barry caused the disaster in Central Texas but Wikipedia would tell how that developped. (Well, at least that would have happened before Musk gutted NOAA.) The result are totally different narratives, which even in writing styles are different. I made a study on this many years ago with the German WP article Zyklon Nargis and the three Wikinews articles on this event. Link is somewhere above. Wikinews and Wikipedia is like apples and oranges. Matthiasb (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, "current events" in Wikipedia is much better than Wikinews. But it should not be separated from Wikipedia. GZWDer (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Cancel the rule w:WP:NOTNEWS in EWP and you will be happy -- Ssr (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree this gets at the heart of what has changed since WN was founded: a) we found ways to cover major news quite well in Wikipedias, and b) most WPs also added a 'not news' policy to avoid having to wrestle with less evergreen topics that are (traditionally in the news media) dominated by recentism and the opinions of pundits. Finding a way to fill in the gap left there, and possibly linking that to WN as a concept and project, seems like one important branch of the evalution. –SJ talk  04:43, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

And I've been saying this for years. Russian AfD is flooded with nominations that say "NOTNEWS", "NOTNEWS", "NOTNEWS". Russian AfD is a very big trouble, as well as the whole RWP is a big trouble. Victoria's de-sysop in RWP shows this problem very clearly. She is an example of how things should not be done. She and several other admins made RWP a place filled with terror and battlefield (Wikipedia prohibits w:WP:BATTLEFIELD). This attempt to kill Wikinews is a spill-out of their terror from RWP. And WMF does nothing with that despite complaints to T&S. Instead, WMF produce PDFs that enlarge troubles. While admins at Wikinews try to maintain healthy collaboration in normal Wikimedia style that we used to before. -- Ssr (talk) 07:21, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Why GZWDer claim that "current events" coverage on Wikipedia is "much better" than on Wikinews? At least in the case of Chinese Wikipedia, only major events are included in its current events sections, and these are all third-party information—essentially no different from copying the Associated Press. In contrast, Chinese Wikinews produces in-depth, original reports that hold news value and address what readers care about. By comparison, Wikipedia’s inclusion of such current events content lacks global educational significance and even harms the news industry (as a saying in Hong Kong’s media circles goes: "炒稿"—rehashing news drafts). Kitabc12345 (talk) 00:44, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Basic eligibility criteria on Chinese Wikipedia: Since Wikipedia’s goal is to build a comprehensive encyclopedia, "Current Events candidates" must adhere to the following: News content should simultaneously possess "significance" and "encyclopedic value"—this is intended to encourage the addition or updating of related entries, not to serve as news reporting. We can observe that events like the blood test scandal of National Taiwan Normal University women's soccer team and the 2025 Macau Legislative Assembly election have not been included in Chinese Wikipedia’s current events section for now. Moreover, comparing these to the headline news that anchors spend the first few minutes covering on outlets like NBC Nightly News or other local news stations, the current events content in Chinese Wikipedia—such as "Zdeněk Štybar and Iga Świątek won the men's and women's singles titles at Wimbledon respectively; UNESCO’s 47th World Heritage Committee session added 26 new World Heritage sites; Jennifer Hermans-Simmons took office as Suriname’s first female president; the French government reached an agreement with New Caledonia to grant it more sovereignty; Chelsea defeated Paris Saint-Germain 3-0 in the FIFA Club World Cup final to win the title again"—really cannot replace Wikinews. Just imagine: how many regular news readers, especially those who usually follow newspaper headlines, are interested in such news? These entries are included purely because of their "significance" and "encyclopedic value," not because they hold substantial news value from a journalistic perspective. They may not be what most global readers care about. Thus, Wikipedia’s current events content can never truly replace news websites; it is merely a repetition of, say, United Nations news sites. For this reason, Wikinews should not be merged into Wikipedia’s current events section. Wikipedia’s current events cannot cover all of Wikinews—especially since the headlines on Chinese Wikinews typically focus on issues that Chinese language news readers care about. What’s more, as noted, Wikipedia’s current events are meant to encourage the expansion of related entries, not to function as news reporting. Kitabc12345 (talk) 01:10, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree that Wikinews trying to cover major events is pointless since Wikipedia already fills that role in Wikimedia and far better; at minimum even if Wikinews stays open without any meaningful changes it should try to adopt this as a best practice. Dronebogus (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

GSK is a company of international significance, as is Unilever. Unilever tried three times in 2022 to buy GSK. Wikipedia has 43 words on the attempts, and Wikinews has 673 words. Wikipedia says which companies and how much, Wikinews puts it in context as to market response, activist shareholders, statements from the company, etc.

Both of these are the correct approaches. Wikipedia takes the long view -- in the end, it's just a blip in the 26 year old company, with roots back to 1873 -- but Wikinews treated it with the depth that it deserved as a major company trying to take over a major company. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:44, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes. A similar example is that of citizen journalist Zhang Zhan. Chinese Wikinews offers comprehensive, in-depth coverage of the White Paper Movement, China’s COVID-19 pandemic and press-freedom issues, with numerous articles directly or indirectly related to her and the Wuhan outbreak, including: “Citizen Journalist Zhang Zhan Completes Four-Year Sentence; Whereabouts Unknown”, “Citizen Journalist Zhang Zhan Sentenced to Four Years for ‘Picking Quarrels and Provoking Trouble’”, “Zhang Zhan, Chen Qiushi and Li Zehua: Citizen Journalists Expose the Truth Behind the Wuhan Outbreak”, “Lawyer Detained, Mother Missing: Zhang Zhan Again Held for ‘Picking Quarrels and Provoking Trouble’ for Over a Month”, “Kaifeng’s Bao Gong Statue Sparks Campaign to Redress Wrongful Convictions”, “2023 NPC: Deputy Zhu Zhengfu Proposes Abolishing the ‘Picking Quarrels and Provoking Trouble’ Law”, “The New York Times Exposes China’s Manipulation of Pandemic Narratives”, “Study Warns That Lifting Wuhan Lockdown with Many Asymptomatic Carriers Could Reignite the Outbreak”, “Exiled Doctor and AIDS Whistleblower Gao Yaojie Dies at 95”, “CNN Publishes ‘The Wuhan Files’: An Exclusive Investigative Report on China’s COVID-19 Response”, “Dr. Li Wenliang Dies; Remembered as a COVID-19 Whistleblower”, “One-Year Anniversary of Yu Wensheng’s Imprisonment; His Children Attempt Suicide Again”, “2022 News Review #1: Shanghai Locked Down for Over Two Months”, “2022 News Review #2: Sitong Bridge Protests Demand ‘No Lockdowns, We Want Freedom’ and Call for Xi Jinping to Step Down”, “2022 News Review #3: China’s Sudden Reversal of Pandemic Policy Strains Medical and Funeral Systems” In fact, browsing a dedicated news site gives a far richer experience than reading a single Wikipedia article. You can check out this detailed, in-depth report here: (link and more). Our Chinese Wikinews articles—written in a true journalistic style—often offer more of the context that news readers seek, as well as greater news value, than encyclopedia entries like Zhang Zhan. For someone who knows nothing about a person, it is better to read our reports than the chronological biographies on Wikipedia. That’s because our articles are easy to read: news reports are crafted to let people who know nothing about an event understand it through a single piece, much like telling a story. In contrast, encyclopedia entries aim to be comprehensive, which means they end up providing a lot of unnecessary information to most readers looking for news reports. I believe that, viewed from a paradoxical angle, this actually serves as an example of the kind of global educational significance that Wikipedia cannot offer. Kitabc12345 (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Read w:WP:NOTNEWS if you like to be short -- Ssr (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Kolejny zwolennik dużych kwantyfikatorów, ale bez rozeznania, jakie newsy są tworzone w serwisie newsowym. Który z tych newsów mógłby być opisany w encyklopedii? Sławek Borewicz (talk) 04:39, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Supplement: Wikinews will also include some interviews and original reports, including some local trivia that will not be included in the encyclopedia ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 06:09, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

"We are already covering current events" - And this is a problem. For example, in the English Wikipedia, there were two articles about the same event for a long time (half a year!): Nuseirat refugee camp massacre and 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation. And the side that violates the WP:BATTLEGROUND more aggressively usually pushes its POV and then they pronounce their narrative in WIKIVOICE, although usually everything is not as clear-cut as they try to present. WIKINEWS can give everyone who wants to speak out just on the spot the opportunity to do so (and this can be useful - while people are emotionally involved, they are interested in working through sources, collecting links, etc). While Wikipedia can present all the valuable views on an event when the dust settles and truly reliable sources appear. But, as we all understand, this is against the interests of the POV-pushers. Nicoljaus (talk) 08:35, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you that WIKINEWS can give everyone who wants to speak out just on the spot the opportunity to do so. Do you agree that many websites (including, but not limited to, social media, discussion forums, and blogs) also give everyone an opportunity to speak out?

What is Wikinews' unique value proposition (i.e., the benefit offered by Wikinews that cannot be offered by any other website)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, the unique value proposition would be that Wikipedia (not Wikinews) would restrict such activity more strictly. Instead of making forks on Wikipedia and pretending that it is not breaking the rules, POV groups would create articles on Wikinews. Nicoljaus (talk) 08:17, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

The Russian Wikipedia's rules about news are:

• Новостных репортажей. Википедия не должна служить первоисточником новостей о текущих событиях. Википедия — не первичный источник. Для этого существует наш братский проект Викиновости, который как раз и задуман в качестве первичного источника. В то же время в Википедии есть много энциклопедических статей на темы исторической важности, связанных с текущими событиями, что делает Википедию гораздо более приближенной к современной реальности, чем большинство иных справочных изданий, поскольку сообщество Википедии в состоянии обновлять информацию по мере поступления сведений о новых фактах и происходящих событиях.
• (English translation: "News reports. Wikipedia should not serve as a primary source of news about current events. Wikipedia is not a primary source. To do this, there is our sister project, Wikinews, which is intended to be a primary source. At the same time, Wikipedia has many encyclopedic articles on historical issues related to current events, which makes Wikipedia much closer to reality than most other reference publications, since the Wikipedia community is able to update information as information becomes available as new facts and events take place.")

Wikinews exists. You claim that Wikipedia is currently breaking its rules. You claim that Wikinews prevents Wikipedia from breaking its rules. This is not logical.

I notice that you have been blocked at both the Russian and English Wikipedias, which makes me wonder whether you understand their rules. But even if we assume your statements are 100% correct, it is not logical. In English, we have a saying: "Doing the same thing, and hoping for different results, is the definition of insanity".

I suggest this alternative is true: Wikipedia does not care about Wikinews. Wikipedia does whatever it wants now (=when Wikinews exists). Wikipedia will do whatever it wants in the future (=whether or not Wikinews exists then). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I oppose the opinion that Wikinews is useless because news articles (that openly violate neutrality, and even with forking) are already created on Wikipedia. I think this is not good and violates Wikipedia's basic rules. But if the WMF were more strict in enforcing the basic rules, POV groups would do the same thing not on Wikipedia, but on Wikinews. Of course, POV groups want to speak in WIKIVOICE, presenting their opinions as encyclopedic content, and are not interested in changing anything.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:48, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Deciding whether content is neutral is not the WMF's job. We control the content, not the WMF. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:30, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

The far-right who took over Croatian Wikipedia thought the same. Nicoljaus (talk) 09:03, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Cannot remember any other site that allows to create the free licensed news. Other sites, and social media, and blogs, simply do not care about free license. -- PereslavlFoto (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Sites that don't care about free licenses = sites that let you freely license anything you create. The Russian Wikinews crashed all the wikis a couple of years back precisely because they were uploading so many thousands of freely licensed news articles. If it weren't possible to have freely licensed news on other websites, then they would have had nothing to upload, right? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, I have asked some users from different social media about this question. Their usual explanation goes like this. They have never seen any licenses in social networks → never thought about any licensing → never licensed their content → cannot catch any reason to license. Could you please tell me a social network that moves people towards some free license, as Wikimedia sites do? -- PereslavlFoto (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

«Nothing to upload». — AFAIK, it was only 1 or 2 sites with free licensed news. And these sites never allowed people to create any free articles. -- PereslavlFoto (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Writing news-reporting type content requires a very much different set of displine than writing encyclopedic articles, and trying to host both at the same site is going to create a lot headaches. Sourcing and source quality, content decisions, etc. all are very different between newspapers and encyclopedias. We need to actually claw back at en.wiki to enforce NOTNEWS better, because we end with excessively detailed articles, unnecessary splits, and a whole mess of problems. Not all news events are topics appropriate for an encyclopedia Masem (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Imagine a scenario of mass closures in the future

Perhaps the closure of news projects is just a prelude to something bigger, which likely isn't planned yet, but it's possible that such a scenario will emerge. It can be put this way: The costs of maintaining small projects are rising and driving the expansion of WMF's administration. Why? WMF, concerned about its image, cannot afford criticism for insufficient communication with communities. Communities are dissatisfied with this lack of communication because messages aren't translated into local languages, even though many speakers of these languages work at WMF. They have other priorities than translation. Announcements of new improvements are becoming more frequent, and communities disagree with some of the changes intended to improve the functioning of projects. Super-rights are increasingly necessary to effectively prevent local communities from rejecting WMF's improvements. This requires additional teams responsible for building even better community support, teams to evaluate activities in the form of super-rights, teams to negotiate the terms of acceptance of improvements in local communities, teams to evaluate the effectiveness of teams' interactions with communities, and teams to assess the benefits and disadvantages of maintaining relationships with multiple communities. It may turn out that communities creating encyclopedias in less widely used languages will also decide to cancel one of the WMF's next improvements, and the WMF will no longer have the resources to communicate with such communities. PR problems could arise. To address this, a decision will be made to close smaller language versions of the encyclopedia, those producing no more than 1,000 entries per year, excluding entries created by bots. Arguments will be raised that such communities will not be able to reach the size of a normal encyclopedia (100,000 entries) even within decades. It will be emphasized that entries cannot be merely catalog entries, but rather broadly defining topics. This means that entries written by bots (including those without the bot flag) will be excluded. An additional argument for mass closure will be the existence of entries written by AI, the quality of which will not be monitored. As a result, approximately 200 language versions of the encyclopedia will be closed (expired), temporarily resolving the problem of WMF's poor communication with smaller communities. This, in turn, will help rebuild WMF's image in the long term. Sławek Borewicz (talk) 06:16, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Another very realistic problem is that if WN sets a precedent of being completely shut down, the content on Wikibooks, Voyage, Versity, etc. will also be in danger, which is un-thought before for many people. This is indeed a thing that needs to be considered. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 06:29, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Above there is a user:Красный that is active writer of Wikivoyage and he also wants to kill Wikinews. Strange approach, isn't it? Why kill Wikinews, maybe kill Wikivoyage instead if WMF is so stuck to killing its projects. Wikivoyage is not even Wikimedia's creation, and it is totally filled with unsourced material. So, maybe instead kill his Wikivoyage which is such a big trouble, да, Коля?

My opinion is that we should not kill anything, but develop it. Both Wikinews and Wikivoyage should be kept and developed. But a Wikivoyager user:Красный has another opinion: he wants to kill us because we are so bad in his views. But he don't want to kill himself! Because, while we at Wikinews are so bad, they at Wikivoyage are very good (despite small number of users).

As long as such users exist, Wikimedia movement will be in constant trouble as it is now. -- Ssr (talk) 07:49, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

The whole scenario sets precedense to shut down Wikipedia, get rid all of the editors and reopen it with AI. That is the big thing behind. That gets clearer and clearer. Matthiasb (talk) 10:28, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Yep, I mentioned this very earlier. In a sense, anyone who believes that sister projects other than WP should not be shut down should not support this action. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 11:07, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Agree. And still with high salaries for WMF staff with donated money. -- Ssr (talk) 13:19, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Hahahaha, I haven't noticed this person, but I personally don't want any sister project to be closed at the moment. I also contribute to Wikivoyage, and I'm also worried that this will become a domino effect. After all, Wv's activity, quality and reputation, well, are definitely not better than WN. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 11:10, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Sergei, I highly encourage you to not repeat your provocative behavior that led you to permanent block in Russian Wikipedia. Avoid personal attacks while trying to prove a point. Try to use some arguments instead of panicking ("That will lead us to closure of EVERYTHING") or personalisation ("User SomeName wants to kill us"). Красный^{wanna talk?} 12:25, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

It was not provocative behavior, it was struggle with harrassment, stalking and bullying in Russian Wikipedia that it heavily suffers from — making wikipedism dangerous in Russia. As it is largely occupied by cyberbullyers, one of them Victoria (read the evidence), I did not succeed and was sacrificed (T&S complaint filled). By standing by their side you are not improving the situation which strongly needs to be improved and make things even worse. -- Ssr (talk) 13:18, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I don’t know or care what did or didn’t happen on Ruwiki, but Красный is absolutely right you need to tone down your rhetoric here. Personal attacks are never acceptable. Dronebogus (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

If you don’t know or care, then do not talk about it, let talk those who know and care. --Ssr (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Also, stop wiki-stalking me please (together with Victoria) because this is strictly prohibited. -- Ssr (talk) 10:39, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

"totally filled with unsourced material" this is not a problem for a travel guide: travel guides rarely cite sources or make controversial claims and the goal is that travelers actually validate what is in the guide by actually going to the place and doing the thing. Wikitravel was based around collecting the lived experiences of travelers and they are the source. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I do not try to kill Wikivoyage, let it be an unsourced travel guide. It's just a comparison telling that there are various wikiprojects with different methods. I contributed to Wikivoyage and to Wikitionary. I don't want to close them down though number of participants of Wikivoyage is smaller than in Wikinews. Russian Wikivoyage also suffers from cyberbullying, as I heard. --Ssr (talk) 04:32, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

2 online events related to the consultation held on google meet (Tomorrow and tomorrow's tomorrow)

There will be two online events related to the community consultation on Wikinews (and Wikispore) held on Google Meet:

one on 16th July at 11 AM UTC,

and the other on 17th July at 4 PM UTC.

You can join the events to voice your questions or concerns.

(just forwarded from a colleague)

Best regards!

zh version中文版本：

将有两场有关维基新闻和维基孢子（Wikispore）公众咨询的在线活动在Google Meet上举行：

第一场在UTC时间7月16日上午11点,

第二场在UTC时间7月17日下午4点。

您可以参加活动以表达您的问题或关切。

同心同德！ ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 06:25, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Day one feedback

Below are responses from the first consultation: —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:07, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

The first meeting just ended. Thank you for your participation and suggestions. I think if you have anything to say about this meeting, you can put it in this discussion thread. There is also another meeting tomorrow, you can attend it, thank you! --Sheminghui.WU (talk) 12:40, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Good morning, and in case i don't in the same timezone with you, good afternoon, good evening, and good night. During this meeting, I spoke and raised two questions:

1. You mentioned precedents for closing language versions due to "inactivity." How do you define "inactivity"? Since closure due to inactivity is typically decided by the local community, how does this apply to the current consultation on closing the Wikinews project?
2. Does closing the Russian and English Wikinews (WN) primarily due to "inactivity" imply that the vast majority of Wikibooks, Wikiversity projects, etc., which are less active than these two WN editions, should also be closed? (Another colleague immediately expressed agreement with this question).

Ms. Victoria, a group member and organizer of the event, provided the following main responses (thank you for you patient answers):

She first stated that "inactivity" in fact already has many standards defined by local communities, though this doesn't necessarily mean they apply to Wikinews. Furthermore, she said that inactivity is not actually the primary reason; the Wikinews model itself has problems. Firstly, WN primarily consists of primary sources and original research, which cannot be reliably cited or used as references on Wikipedia. Secondly, WN content is time-sensitive; it loses its utility after a period. In contrast, content on Wikibooks / Wikisource retains its value and usability even after being stored for a while. (Also, she had previously mentioned in response to the decision-making criteria that "policy is above practice", which is correct.)

Regarding the second question, she also said that sister projects like Wikibooks and Wikisource have lower activity requirements but significant utility. For example, Wikisource essentially involves "uploading a bunch of material and then not needing to manage it anymore" (suddenly remembered I had said something similar before and was rebutted, lol). As for whether other sister projects are at risk of closure, she said she didn’t know (which is true and we understand, who knows) either, but this time it was the closure for WN.

Regarding her response(thanks), I mainly have two points of confusion. Unfortunately, the meeting time was a little bit too short, actually only about 20 minutes on wn or so, preventing further discussion.

Firstly, as another colleague also pointed out, Wikinews as a news platform isn't just about immediate reporting; it includes in-depth features, interviews, original reporting, etc. This type of content doesn't necessarily have a time-sensitive nature. This point has been raised multiple times in the discussion above. Also another mission equally important as qick reporting for wikinews is to provide a comprehensive, multi-source archive of current events for the future, for reference, reading, and research. (This is also what ruwn, who you mentioned in the discussion, has been doing, but you keep talking about robots and ignore this point. You can't say that even a newspaper is meaningless once it's out of date.) (For the "policy above practice", I want to quote "The Wikimedia Movement is based on distributed leadership. Starting with the base of volunteers, the Wikimedia Movement entrusts the vast majority of decisions and policy-making to individual and institutional members at the most immediate or the lowest possible level of participation."(From "the Charter"), which reflects the fact that the practice of local communities is the policy (In a sence).

Secondly, considering the issue of Wikinews not being directly usable on Wikipedia is a little bit strange. Primarily, in reality, the scale of Wikinews is disproportionate to Wikipedia's. Secondly, almost all (very likely all, I'm not certain) sister projects' content cannot be used directly on WP(as a wiki, even WP itself can't), especially things like Wikibooks and Wikivoyage (2 projects I also contribute to). Moreover, it could be argued that their reference coverage is far lower than Wikinews'(at least for most languages version), especially since Wikivoyage explicitly encourages original research in its policies itself(which I support), at all. Even Maybe, Wikinews is the closest to a reliable source among this whole group(except Wikisource and pedia). Additionally, as I've mentioned repeatedly in previous discussions, we already have the {{Wikinews}} template which is used extensively. How is this not a supplement to Wikipedia? (At the same time, I don’t quite understand why Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, needs our interviews and in-depth reports and other original news) Wikipedia's main page also has a link to Wikinews. This isn't just unilateral assistance from WP to WN; it's a collaboration between two sisters.

And most importantly: Wikinews is a sister project to Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is also a sister project to Wikinews. (of course WP is more famous and important, has a huge influence which eveeyone feels proud of) Is it reasonable or appropriate to use "whether it can contribute to Wikipedia or be used by Wikipedia" as a primary argument and justification? Is this overly "Wikipedia-centriism"? Or is the Wikimedia Foundation planning some major reform, intending to gradually turn all sister projects into mere appendages of WP?(Woohoohoo, so scary![just joking]) In fact, contributors from our project and many others from different projects have long discussed how WP content can be used on WN. Recently, multiple Wikinews editions, including zhwn, upgraded to CC BY 4.0, making them compatible with Wikipedia's licensing.

Thanks for your patience, and see you ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC) Good night from UTC+10

 Strong support Kitabc12345 (talk) 15:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I would also like to give a working suggestion to the group members. I understand that many people are using a non-native language to communicate(include me), which is hard work(very true), but I suggest that you try to reduce the number of slips of the tongue and do not frequently say Wikipedia instead of Wikinews(which is really close). This will not only help review the text and understand it, but also make everyone feel that the discussion is more professional. Thank youThanks!

In my native language:

在我的母语中：

我还要给小组成员一个工作建议，我理解很多人都在使用一门非母语语言来沟通，辛苦了，但建议尽量还是设法减少口误的次数，不要比较频繁的把Wikinews说成Wikipedia，这样不仅对回顾文本和理解有好处，也让大家觉得讨论更有专业性。谢谢Thanks!~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

The same thing happened the next day, and I really think it’s unprofessional. I’ve been involved in the Wikinews project since 2020, and I’ve never confused Wikinews with Wikipedia. Occasional verbal slips in daily life aside, their mix-up actually shows they need more time to observe and understand before making a decision. Right now, everything feels so rushed, as if they’re in a hurry to shut down Wikinews—without even fully understanding it. It’s similar to how the UK banned hormone therapy for transgender minors. That policy was based on a report written by a doctor who had never even met a transgender child, yet it was treated as valid evidence. The UK government claimed there was no proof that hormone therapy improves the well-being of transgender children, so they banned it entirely—making it illegal, and even equating it to child abuse. That’s exactly what’s happening with Wikinews today. They’re even mixing up Wikipedia and Wikinews, and it’s shocking—even after a review report was released. Honestly, I couldn’t help but laugh several times during that Google Meet. Kitabc12345 (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Overview of public consultation discsusion

What do you like about the Wikispore proposal?	What concerns do you have about the Wikispore proposal?	What open questions do you have about the Wikispore proposal?	What do you like about the Wikinews proposal?	What concerns do you have about the Wikinews proposal?	What open questions do you have about the Wikinews proposal?
Possibility for innovation in Wikimedia movement	Too similar to Wikiversity.	What role should grants and external funding play in approval process?	We have a proposal. (instead of just close it)	How will it be archived? i.e. will URLs be maintained forever?	Range of possibilities for existing language editions.
Incubator, experimental role	Unclear criteria for evaluating new activity		Recognition that current Wikinews model isn't working, but that a Restructure might have potential.	Well, how's the proposal works? like this is 1st time we have such a proposal for shutting down an old and whole project right	Why some local community have no ideas with this at all before the proposal, its just suddenly appears
Make sense, just like incubator, but might be unactive and we shouldnot set a goal like how many new project we are having for this year.				What is the process for devision-making after the consultation period?	What are some disadvantages or even challenges we will facing if we don't shut down the Wikinews, the whole project this time? Thank you.
Frames Wikispore as a viable model for niche topical content. (Non-notable in a Wikipedia sense, but presumably verifiable.)

Questions and comments from attendees of the first event on the collaborative document. A Chinese translation is available at the Teahouse (Including Day 2 one, translated by Kitabc. updated on July 18). 表格的中文版本在茶馆可用，包括第二天的。Sheminghui.WU (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

This document also has a voting (like) function, but it has little reference value. It is basically 0 or 1. Only the third item in the left column has two likes, and not many people participated. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 11:49, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

(Posted on Wikispore consultation talk page at the same time) ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Due to the time difference, I will not attend today's meeting. I wish all participants an meaningful hour! Good night again from UTC+10 ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2025 (UTC) I have to get up very early tomorrow to go to the hospital:(

Be well, friend. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:09, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

保重！ Kitabc12345 (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Ms. Victoria said in the first meeting that the video recording of the meeting would not be made public(or send to others) because "I don't know what people will use it for", and I understand. But now, to be honest, although there is not much content in the first meeting, since the video recording of the second meeting has been posted, SPTF might as well post the first one as well, there is no harm. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 10:37, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Can you direct me to this video? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:08, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Whoops. I see it up top. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:09, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for reply late, yes it's the top one, I think it's recorded by a volunteer and it's normal. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Day two feedback

Below are responses from the second consultation: —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:07, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for setting up these two subheadings!Thanks! ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 03:43, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Some thoughts/observations from call #2:

• A representative from the WMF noted that the technical drain that wn causes is not only server space (that is pretty trivial across the WMF's very large footprint), but occasional technical issues like the DPL problem with ru.wn and the fact that deploying new features needs to work across all WMF wikis, so some amount of human capital needs to into ensuring that future fixes/changes are compatible with all projects.
• The report calls out en.wn, ru.wn, and zh.wn because they have unique amounts of traffic (human and bot) and other language editions were significantly more dormant. Even with that, zh.wn only has three regular human editors (in addition to bot dumps that are not checked for quality by humans and not read by third parties). [Note: the bot-dumping may have been ru.wn and I misheard.]
• A colleague from zh.wn shared some cat scan view totals for the three listed above: en, ru, zh.
• A final decision would likely be c. December and there is no foregone conclusion. Some persons are working on efforts to revitalize wn, particularly en.wn.
• A thanks to everyone's effort, if they are working on the technical side, writing and researching this report, doing on-wiki work, etc.

Thanks all. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:08, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks you! Justin (koavf). Kitabc12345 (talk) 15:40, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Overview of public consultation discsusion

Category		Likes	Content
Wikispore Review
	What do you like or support in the review of Wikispore?	3	Recognition of the value of an experimental space.
	What concerns do you have about the review of Wikispore?	0	The question asked is a relatively narrow one, and most of the talk page involvement has been on larger questions.
	What concerns do you have about the review of Wikispore?	2	Wikispore seems specifically useful to help evaluate other project ideas, or even "re-incubate" projects that need more work. The review doesn't address the intrinsic value of having such a space as a top-level supported project.
	What open questions do you have on the review of Wikispore?	1	What is the timeline for when an application like this might be considered again?
Wikinews Review
	What do you like or support in the review of Wikinews	9	Closing the project and shifting resources to other projects
	What do you like or support in the review of Wikinews	4	Recognition of failures of existing model(s).
	What do you like or support in the review of Wikinews	2	Relatively useful metrics to support arguments
	What do you like or support in the review of Wikinews	2	Option of restructuring the project.
	What do you like or support in the review of Wikinews	1	Bringing focus to Wikinews so that it does not continue to languish in obscurity.
	What concerns do you have about the review of Wikinews	4	Not a neutral consultation to discuss all the different possibilities; it mostly suggests closure. We expect a fair treatment of all the potential solutions.
	What concerns do you have about the review of Wikinews	4	Seemed to lump all language projects together, despite widely different cultures and processes.
	What concerns do you have about the review of Wikinews	3	Seemed to be focused mostly on closure. Did not take into account active revitalization project in-progress on English Wikinews.
	What concerns do you have about the review of Wikinews	3	All language versions should not be treated under one umbrella; each language edition should be considered separately.
	What concerns do you have about the review of Wikinews	1	Seems to discount potential for valuable original reporting with additional professional support and structures.
	What concerns do you have about the review of Wikinews	2	The analysis felt somewhat in a vacuum. We have found excellent ways to cover news in many languages on Wikipedias. How should that inform thinking about Wikinews?
	What concerns do you have about the review of Wikinews	1	No discussion of the value and importance of this category of knowledge, and [the lack of] alternate places to collaboratively curate it. Any analysis of sister projects should do this well.
	What open questions do you have on the review of Wikinews?	5	If Wikinews is being considered for closure due to long-term sustainability concerns, should we be concerned about the future of other smaller or less active sister projects as well? What lessons are being drawn from Wikinews’s challenges, and how will those lessons help ensure that other Wikimedia sister projects continue to stay relevant and healthy?
	What open questions do you have on the review of Wikinews?	2	I would like to ask about the timeline following the consultation. Specifically, when can we expect an announcement of the decision or further action to be taken?
	What open questions do you have on the review of Wikinews?	2	What are the next steps, from the taskforce and other community stakeholders?

If this form is not good enough, please scrape it and write a new one. Kitabc12345 (talk)

• @Kanashimi: I am Kit Wong, admin of Chinese Wikinews. Our bots compile accurate newspaper headlines—automated lists, not full stories—with near-zero errors, making editor reviews unnecessary. (kanashimi, who a robot-writing user should know this topic more.) In Chinese online communities, headlines are crucial for those born before 1980— newspaper capturing 40% of Hong Kong's media market (2019), with nearly half the population, especially the elderly or 35+ years old, relying on them. They hold global educational value, offering reliable info to older audiences. Market shares have shifted: 2010 saw print at ~71.5%, web at 28.5% (no mobile editions then); by 2024, print fell to 40%, web to 25.3%, mobile rose to 34.7%. Now ~21% read print newspaper1. Since 2020, we've lost key sources like Hong Kong's Apple Daily, Stand News, and Taiwan's Apple Daily due to national security laws, bankruptcy, and censorship, amid China's political pressures and financial struggles. Even mainland china officials media archives from 2008 are scarce. Founded in 2006, our historical archives remain valuable if Google indexes our quality reports. But Google’s ranking is unfair—better, longer content doesn’t rise. As a non-commercial outlet, we can loosen standards: fewer stories are fine if content pleases Google and readers, even as a weekly/di-weekly/monthly (like Time Magazine). Like China Digital Times' 404 Archive, Chinese Wikinews can thrive as an independent source, akin to ProPublica or OhMyNews. China's censorship/Internet censorship, controlled by the Chinese Communist Party, is among the world's strictest, suppressing dissent on topics like the Tiananmen Square Incident, Uyghur persecution, Tibetan rights, Hong Kong democracy, LGBTQ rights, Falun Gong, and Xi Jinping's policies. Since 2012, under Xi, speech freedoms have contracted drastically; China ranks 172nd in the 2024 World Press Freedom Index as the top jailer of journalists. In Chinese contexts, old news from Taiwanese and Hong Kong TV archives still draws viewers for their historical parallels. Like Wikipedia or Wikivoyage, Wikinews documents history and should not be shut down for active languages with real readership. By following the above (Talk:Public_consultation_about_Wikinews#The Dilemma of Wikinews Demands Bold Reform、Talk:Public_consultation_about_Wikinews#Focus on original content?) route—differentiating from Wikipedia and other mainstream commercial real-time media—we’ll have a unique path. We should focus on analytical news—reporting that delivers in-depth, reader-relevant info, rarely covered by mainstream media. Such content is rejected by Wikipedia for violating its "not for news" policy. Kitabc12345 (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

  Wikinews may not be the best place to place a collection of newspaper headlines - (1) it is not machine-readable; (2) based on Wikinews's current scope, it is not intended to cover old headlines such as those in 2000. Instead, we can have a (multlingual) Wikibase instance for storing an index of every news article (this will overwhelm Wikidata, so not suitable to store them there. cf d:Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/Newswirebot). GZWDer (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

In fact, the Chinese-based Wikinews community has manually written newspaper headlines since 2006. These pages have long been among readers' go-to, as they’re highly practical. It’s reasonable to see major Chinese news headlines on media sites, right? Wikinews content isn’t well-suited for Wikidata. We have original reports, but they aren’t standalone news events—like my haircut due to school hairstyle rules, which doesn’t belong on Wikipedia. Moreover, the local community wants to keep these newspaper headlines. There’s long been discussion that Wikinews and Wikidata can’t integrate: Wikipedia’s encyclopedia-style entries aren’t designed to manage news reports, where one event can have multiple stories. This isn’t strictly a headline issue, but one of auto-generation when creating news in each language edition—especially exclusive reports, which lack corresponding Wikidata. Correct me if I’m wrong. Newspaper headlines, part of Chinese Wikinews, have global educational value. This is actually an issue with the Foundation and Wikidata, not Wikinews itself—Wikinews isn’t in the wrong. If I'm not mistaken, fully reworking Wikinews to operate via Wikidata would be massive—likely taking over a decade. And if done manually one by one, are news reports/articles even suited to this management model? Moreover, I don't get why it's not machine-readable—searching Google for the Chinese "報紙頭條" (newspaper headlines) always puts Chinese Wikinews high up. Kitabc12345 (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

See also: Talk:Wikinews_Pulse#Alternative_proposal:_Wikibase-based_Wikinews_Pulse for a proposal to replace Wikinews with a new news aggregator project. GZWDer (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Maybe replace SPTF with a new SPTF aggregator project, and then replace WMF with a new WMF aggregator project? --Ssr (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

 Strong support Ssr. Applying an encyclopedia’s rigid cataloging system to standardize news media is impossible. How could we possibly classify every news article that way? News outlets aren’t libraries. This is especially true when GZWDer claims that Wikinews Pulse refuses to accept much exclusive content—this is utterly damaging to Wikinews. Let me ask: How would you categorize the exclusive interview on the campus hair ban, which made the front page of Chinese Wikinews? In an encyclopedia, these might be trivial, low-attention items, but in news media, they’re newsworthy. Nearly every student in Hong Kong was talking about it. These proposals will ultimately reduce Wikinews to just another platform that copies content from third-party news sites, like Wikipedia does. This would strip it of any global educational value entirely. Kitabc12345 (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

 SupportStrongly. Both of you. This is absolutely true, which is different from "Wikinews won't be damaged, it will get more resources only", someone said this to me and everyone before on the discussion for "wikipulse". This will damage WN, I totally agree now. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

This is at most a supplement. In addition, as mentioned earlier, our local community wants to keep some things, and they are indeed useful. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 03:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

At least from the perspective of our local community (zh), this may distract readers' energy and attention and harm us. This is entirely possible.~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 03:44, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I transferred the chat records of my discussion about Wikidata in the off-site group:

"Currently, WN’s translation process is indeed quite inconvenient — this is something I’ve experienced firsthand (and the copyright agreements aren’t even unified). However, I still don’t quite understand how Wikidata could better correspond to WN articles. True, the current linking on WN is really inadequate. For example, international and general coverage of a news event could easily be placed under a single Wikidata item. Some articles are manually linked, while others aren’t. But news reports are too variable; it’s very difficult to have a clear, consistent subject of reporting, and the boundaries are too fuzzy."

A colleague (Comrade Moqin, Zauber Violino) suggested: "In that case, maybe we should create a 'small topic,' where various related news reports could be placed. Then the 'small topic' could be linked to other projects." I think the same way. I believe for news reports, it would be better to have something similar to a Category on the local site. For instance, if readers are interested in the Trump's assassination, they could find all related articles. But in practical terms, this would already be present in the channel templates on the local site (like the Politics channel).

Additionally, linking WN to Wikidata could mainly help editors with translation purposes.

by the way Kit and Justin, Thank you both for your concern for me~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 03:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Re: issue #1: isn't this something that can be easily resolved with a template that wraps around headlines with some ARIA role or something? Noting text as a "headline" instead of "article body" to a robot should be pretty trivial. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:47, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

 Strong support Justin (koavf) saying. Kitabc12345 (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

btw thanks for your table, your table is a lots better. It looks comfortable. (But the vote at the first meeting is really worthless, so no worries) ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 03:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Problem statement in meeting two does not pass fact checking - quotes are from meeting slide:

Was checked with superset.

• "most content non-verifiable": mainspace pages with external links compared to content pages from Special:Statistics on en.wikinews: 99.5% have external links (each page only counted once). Problem statement unlikely.
• "scarcity of editorial oversight": Not sure how this would be checked, skipping.
• "synergy with other projects" - cites links to wikinews: Interwiki links (iwlinks sql table) from en.wikipedia to en.wikinews: 3769+1321 (wikinews prefix + n prefix) (only mainspace, each wikinews title only counted once). Compared to content pages on en.wikinews, that is 23%. Did not find wikinews languages where this is okay, looked at en, bg, bs, cs, de, ar, ca. True statement.
• "limited use to people": We discussed this on my home project. Using traffic as a measurement of quality or usability, as is done in the report, is not the way to go. That would lead to clickbait, not quality. Needs a different metric.
• "Poor community heath" - cites count of bot edits to users: Recentchanges query shows 2707 bot edits and 4649 user edits on russian wikinews. That is 63% users, and 37% bots. That leaves the generalization. On en.wikinews 138 bot edits, 2270 user edits - that is 6% bot edits, 94% user edits. Problem statement not true.
• Result: One poblem statement skipped, one true, rest of problem statements are false or unproven. Reccomend discussing individual projects, not wikinews as a whole.

Snævar (talk) 12:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks to Snævar for the thoughtful, evidence-based analysis. Personally, I think claims that Wikinews has "poor synergies with other Wikimedia projects" are unfounded. Take Wikivoyage, for example—I’ve contributed to Chinese Wikivoyage, and its interactions with Wikipedia are far weaker. Wikipedia rarely links to Wikivoyage pages, except occasionally in entries about cities; other types of entries almost never include such links. What’s more, we can’t ignore the very real issue of news avoidance and fatigue among Wikinews editors—these are serious mental health challenges that affect even our own community, just like the general public. It’s completely inappropriate to dismiss Wikinews by claiming "Wikipedia updates faster"—this is nothing but a way to undermine us. To make matters worse, Wikinews has already been hampered by Google SEO issues. Yet the entire meeting that day was based on false data, and it ultimately led to conclusions like "Wikinews isn’t doing well in many aspects." I’m truly disappointed by this. I hope Wikinews can be preserved in the end. Everyone should take Snævar’s points seriously. Kitabc12345 (talk) 15:39, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

As another contributor to Chinese Wikivoyage, I used a Wikinews entry in an article display on the main page just right now([Port Vila https://zh.wikivoyage.org/wiki/%E7%BB%B4%E6%8B%89%E6%B8%AF]). When you really think about it, Wikinews has broader applicability than other sister projects besides Wikipedia, offering higher linking potential. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 10:51, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I am astonished how the funny committee and it clappeurs are turning and winding there own arguments. For instance like this:

1. Wikinewses are of no success.
2. ZH Wikinews does need to much ressources because it relies to much on bot.
3. ZH Wikinews has too much traffic.

Huh? Is too much traffic now a measure of failure? That is all bogus, non-brainer, non-sense, sorry. Matthiasb (talk) 10:19, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I do not see where anyone said Wikinews was a problem because it had too much traffic. Nobody's saying that zhnews's botting is taking up too much resources either; they're just saying that the Wikinews network as a whole (including zhnews) takes up too much resources for the disproportionately-limited amount of success it has. (Also, this is the multilingual Metawiki where you can communicate in any language. People who don’t understand such languages won't give a damn and will simply use the automatic translation tool in their browsers.) Aaron Liu (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

(This is a digression) as Ms.Victoria reminded that Wikimania2025 is coming soon. I hope you can attend. In addition, there will be a "Users with Extended Rights Convening" before the formal Mania, and all local administrators of Wikinews (including bureaucrats, supervisors, and interface administrators) can also participate. Warmest celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Wikimedia movement!!!With one heart and one virtue, We carry through until the very end. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 13:04, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

AI-Generated Report on day 2 Google Meet

WikiNews In-Depth Focus: Comprehensive Analysis and Key Details

This report is generated by artificial intelligence based on meeting records, focusing entirely on the WikiNews project. It comprehensively sorts out the project from its background, current status of various language editions, core issues, solutions to related figures' viewpoints. The content strictly relies on original records to restore the project's full picture. Due to limitations in information sources, there may be detailed omissions, and it is for reference only.

I. Background and Positioning of WikiNews

Founded in 2004, WikiNews was originally intended to be a "collaborative news platform" that allows original reporting, interviews, and citation of content under similar licenses. Its goal was to "enable readers to access information that is difficult to obtain through other channels, with educational value." As one of the Wikimedia sister projects, its positioning differs from Wikipedia: while Wikipedia focuses on "historical records and knowledge aggregation," WikiNews emphasizes "real-time news collaboration." However, after 20 years, the project has fallen into trouble due to multiple issues, becoming the core evaluation target of the Sister Project Task Force.

II. Current Status of Language Editions: The Disconnect Between "Data Scale" and "Practical Value"

1. Russian WikiNews: "False Prosperity" Dominated by Robots

- Content Scale and Sources: Approximately 1.5 million articles, far exceeding the English edition (20,000 articles). However, 90% of the content is bulk-imported by 3 robot accounts (from an obscure Russian news website with vague licensing agreements). Most content consists of "repeated reprints of pre-2010 news" (e.g., "2008 European Cup Review" was republished 17 times), with almost no manual review.

- Community Activity: Based on "edit records in the last 30 days," there are only 29 active editors (defined as "editing ≥5 times per month"). Among them, 23 only delete spam comments, and only 6 actually participate in content creation. In contrast, Russian Wikipedia has 2 million articles, 3,000 active editors, and 490 core editors, showing a significant gap in community health.

- Technical and Risk Hazards: In November 2024, a robot triggered a code vulnerability (infinite loop) by "submitting 100,000 modification requests simultaneously," causing an overload of Wikimedia's global servers, which were inaccessible for 3 hours. Subsequent troubleshooting and repairs consumed 150 working hours of the Foundation's technical team (approximately $18,000).

- User Data: From January to March 2025, the average daily visits were only 127 (compared to 2.3 million for Russian Wikipedia). 90% of these visits were "accidental clicks" (users were mistakenly redirected by algorithms when searching for "Russian news"), with no actual reading value.

2. English WikiNews: A Struggling "Relative Survivor"

- Content and Editing Model: Approximately 20,000 articles, mainly edited manually, focusing on "in-depth reports on regional events" (e.g., "Midwestern U.S. Farmers' Protests"). However, there is a lack of mature editorial oversight mechanisms. In 2024, a "municipal election report" falsely claimed that a candidate had won the Nobel Prize, which was corrected only 3 weeks after publication. During this period, it was cited by 2 local media outlets, triggering a small-scale credibility controversy.

- Community Resources: There are about 50 core editors (editing ≥10 times per month), but no full-time staff. It relies on volunteers' spare time for maintenance, leading to "delayed responses to hot events" (e.g., a 2025 natural disaster report was released 48 hours later than mainstream media).

- Technical Shortcomings: A misconfigured robots.txt file (incorrectly writing "Disallow: /draft/" as "Allow: /draft/") caused 137 unfinished drafts (including "unverified corporate scandal leaks") to be indexed by Google. When users searched for related keywords, WikiNews draft pages appeared on the homepage, criticized for "spreading unverified information," directly affecting domain name credibility.

3. Chinese WikiNews: A Niche but "Organized" Exception

- Content Review Mechanism: Approximately 5,000 valid articles (as stated by the community), implementing a "three-stage review system": first draft written by community editors, second review verifying sources (prioritizing government announcements and authoritative media), and third review calibrating neutral expressions (reviewers include 2 former media practitioners). Content focuses on "cross-border issues" (e.g., "Impact of Chinese Enterprises' Overseas Projects on Local Livelihoods").

- Community Scale: Only 3 active editors, all part-time, maintaining operations driven by "interest." There is no stable update rhythm (e.g., only 12 new articles were published in the second quarter of 2025).

- Traffic Characteristics: According to Google Analytics, the "4-hour visit peak reached 3,000 times in the second quarter of 2025," mainly from Chinese communities in Southeast Asia. However, "visits drop sharply during non-hot periods" (approximately 150 daily), and only Chinese, English, and Russian editions have certain traffic. Other language editions (e.g., Japanese, Spanish) have almost no visits.

III. Core Common Issues of WikiNews (Across Language Editions)

1. Content Quality: "Inherent Flaws" Violating Wikimedia Core Principles

- Lack of Verifiability: A task force sample of 100 articles found that only 12 cited "authoritative sources" (government reports, mainstream media), 67 relied on "anonymous interviewees," and 21 had no sources at all, completely violating Wikimedia's "verifiability" principle.

- Lack of Neutral Point of View: 38% of sampled articles showed "obvious positional bias." For example, a 2024 "environmental policy report" only cited environmental organizations' perspectives and deliberately ignored corporate responses, violating the basic requirement of "neutrality."

- Absence of Editorial Oversight: As a news platform, "editorial review" is a core mechanism to ensure quality. However, all editions of WikiNews lack full-time editorial teams. The English edition relies on "community mutual review" (with an actual implementation rate of less than 30%), and the Russian edition is entirely dependent on robots, leading to the proliferation of low-quality content.

2. Community Health: Coexistence of "Zombification" and "Imbalance"

- Gap in Active Editors: Except for the English edition (about 50), Russian edition (29), and Chinese edition (3), active editors in other language editions (e.g., French, German) are mostly in single digits. Some small-language editions (e.g., Icelandic) even have "no new editors for half a year," in a state of virtual stagnation.

- Distorted Contributor Structure: 90% of the Russian edition's content is generated by robots, and human editors only delete spam without substantial creation. The English edition has "aging core editors" (average age 47), with difficulties in recruiting young contributors. The retention rate of new editors in 2025 was less than 10%.

- Lack of Community Interaction: The monthly interaction volume on the "discussion pages" of each edition is less than 50 (compared to an average of 300 for similar-scale Wikipedia projects). User feedback channels are ineffective, making it difficult to form a "self-improvement" mechanism.

3. Accumulated Risks: From "Resource Consumption" to "Reputational Damage"

- Direct Economic Costs: From 2023 to 2024, the Foundation invested approximately $750,000 in technical support (server maintenance, vulnerability fixes) for WikiNews; the 2023 lawsuit over the French edition's "celebrity tax evasion report" cost $120,000 in legal fees; the Russian edition's server crash incident caused unquantified but significant indirect losses (user attrition, brand impact).

- Hidden Resource Occupation: The technical team needs to adapt new features for WikiNews (e.g., the 2024 "media upload tool" update), consuming an additional 120 working hours ($15,000); the security team spends 40 working hours annually cleaning spam comments in the Russian edition, accounting for 20% of maintenance time for small projects.

- Collateral Reputational Harm: In 2024, a right-wing media criticized "Wikimedia platforms for spreading false information" and specifically cited WikiNews' erroneous reports as examples, causing Wikipedia's score in the "public trust survey" to drop by 3 percentage points (from 82% to 79%), negatively impacting the entire Wikimedia ecosystem.

IV. Solutions and Controversies: The Game from "Maintenance" to "Archiving"

1. Four Solutions and Community Reactions

Possible solutions for Wikinews

Solution	Details	Supporters and Reasons	Opponents and Reasons
Maintain the status quo	Keep the operation mode unchanged; continue to provide server support by the Foundation	Core editors (e.g., Swinky from the English edition): "The project failed because the Foundation 'has not invested special funds for 20 years'; increasing funding can improve it"	Task Force and Foundation: "Investing $750,000 in 2023-2024 yielded no improvement, proving funding is not the key"
Restructure as "Wiki News Pulse"	Retain only the English edition, link to Wikidata to aggregate global events, operated by "professional editors + volunteers"; requires 5 full-time editors (total annual salary $200,000)	Some English edition editors: "Focusing on event linkage can enhance practicality; professional editors ensure quality"	Foundation: "No additional budget; other language editions oppose 'English priority'"
Merge into language-specific Wikipedias	Integrate high-quality content into Wikipedia's "news events" entries	Some Wikipedia editors: "Can use Wikipedia's review mechanism to improve quality"	WikiNews community: "News conflicts with Wikipedia's positioning and will disrupt entry structure"; Wikipedia community: "Increases maintenance burden and refuses to accept"
Archive (make read-only)	Preserve content for reference, stop new edits; follow the 2019 model of "Latin WikiNews"	Task Force and efficiency advocates: "Free up resources for potential projects (e.g., Wikidata) and avoid reputational risks"	Core WikiNews members: "Denies 20 years of community efforts; content has historical value"

2. Core Views of Key Figures

- Victoria (Task Force Member): "WikiNews is a unique case of 'failed goals + violated rules'—it has not achieved the goal of 'high-quality collaborative news' in 20 years and systematically violates 'verifiability' and 'neutrality' principles, regardless of scale (a 50-person Indonesian project is safe because it complies with rules). Archiving is a rational choice to 'admit failure and free up resources.'"

- Swinky (English Edition Editor): "The English edition is still salvageable. It is recommended to 'introduce cooperation with journalism schools (e.g., Columbia University) to train editors and establish review mechanisms,' but the Foundation needs to provide start-up funds (approximately $100,000)."

- Kitwang (Chinese Edition Participant): "The Chinese edition's content undergoes strict review and has actual user demand (Southeast Asian Chinese). Opposes 'one-size-fits-all' archiving and hopes to 'evaluate by edition and retain high-quality small-language editions.'"

- Mark (Senior Wikipedia Editor): "WikiNews' content does not even meet Wikipedia's entry-level standards, yet it bears the 'Wikimedia' title, continuously damaging the credibility of the entire ecosystem. 'Better to end the long-term pain'; it should be archived as soon as possible."

V. Follow-Up Processes and Timeline

- Public Consultation Phase: Conducted from June to July 2025, with comments still accepted after closing on July 27. 127 suggestions were collected (e.g., "editor qualification certification," "cooperation with journalism schools").

- Task Force Internal Discussion: Analyze consultation results at the end of July, initially screening feasible solutions (tending to "handle by edition": pilot restructuring for the English edition, archive the Russian edition and stagnant editions).

- Report to the Board: Submit the "Interim Evaluation Report on WikiNews" on August 15, with cost and risk analysis for each solution.

- Final Decision: The Quarterly Board Meeting in December will vote on the solution. If archiving is approved, a 6-month transition period will be set (allowing the community to export content).

Comprehensive Record of Persons Mentioned in the Wikimedia Sister Project Task Force Meeting

This report is generated by artificial intelligence based on the provided meeting records and relevant background information, aiming to comprehensively sort out all persons mentioned in the meeting, their roles, speeches, and impacts on the meeting. AI completed the collation through text analysis, information extraction, and logical integration, striving to detail each person's participation in the meeting. However, due to potential limitations in the completeness of original records, there may be omissions; please feel free to correct them.

I. Core Organizational Members (Task Force Members and Key Foundation Roles)

1. Victoria (Wikimedia Foundation Trustee, Member of the Sister Project Task Force)

- Role Positioning: The main initiator and core speaker of the meeting, responsible for introducing the task force's background, leading the analysis of the Wiki News project, and responding to key issues. She is the core driver of the meeting agenda.

- Core Speeches and Contributions:

- Detailed the background of the task force's establishment: Founded in 2023, it consists of 6 trustees, 5 publicly recruited wikimedians, and 2 staff members. Its goal is to establish a "project lifecycle assessment process" to provide standards for launching new projects and handling problematic ones (e.g., referencing the "read-only" mechanism of the Belarusian Wikipedia).

- In-depth analysis of cross-language issues in Wiki News: Enumerated the current status of the Russian edition (1.5 million articles imported by robots, only 29 active editors), English edition (20,000 articles, lack of editorial oversight), and Chinese edition (3 active editors, content reviewed), pointing out common problems such as "unverifiable content, lack of neutral perspective, and low community activity."

- Responded to key controversies: Regarding the question "whether other projects face the risk of closure," she clearly stated that only Wiki News is being evaluated due to "failed goals + violation of core rules," regardless of project scale (e.g., a language Wikipedia in Indonesia with 50 active users is still regarded as "medium-sized"). She explained the chaotic status of public consultation ("attacks were expected") and emphasized that effective suggestions (such as the "Wiki News Pulse" restructuring plan) have been extracted from the consultation.

- Clarified follow-up processes: The task force will discuss preliminary results at the end of July, report to the board in August, and the board may make a final decision in December, setting a clear timeline for the meeting.

- Impact on the Meeting: As the "information hub" of the meeting, Victoria's speeches ran through the entire process, directly influencing the understanding of the evaluation direction of Wiki News and the risks of other projects, and she was the main communicator of the task force's stance.

2. Lorenzo Loa (Wikimedia Foundation Chair-Elect, Member of the Sister Project Task Force)

- Role Positioning: A representative of the foundation's senior management and a core member of the task force, responsible for guiding and summarizing the meeting, reflecting the foundation's strategic attitude towards project evaluation.

- Core Speeches and Contributions:

- At the opening of the meeting, he confirmed the composition and goals of the task force, clarifying that the meeting would focus on two projects: Wiki Sport and Wiki News, setting the tone for the agenda.

- When discussing the evaluation criteria for Wiki Sport, although he did not lead the speech, he, as "Chair-Elect," implicitly approved the task force's conclusion of "postponing the project," strengthening the authority of the decision.

- In his closing remarks, he pointed out: "The case of Wiki News is a 'warning bell' for the Wikimedia ecosystem—we must dare to explore new directions and also have the courage to admit failure," elevating project evaluation to the level of "strategic reflection of the foundation" and providing guiding ideology for subsequent actions (such as refining new project standards and establishing health monitoring mechanisms).

- Impact on the Meeting: His status endows the meeting's conclusions with officiality, and his closing speech gives the task force's work a more macro significance, enhancing the persuasiveness of the decisions.

3. Natalia (Current Chair of the Sister Project Task Force)

- Role Positioning: The person responsible for the daily operation of the task force, in charge of meeting organization and process promotion to ensure orderly discussions.

- Core Speeches and Contributions:

- At the beginning of the meeting, she assisted Victoria in introducing the background of the task force's establishment, supplementing that the task force currently has 2 full-time staff members, and clarifying the core function of "formulating a project lifecycle assessment process."

- When discussions fell into detailed controversies (such as differences among Wiki News language editions), she promptly guided the topic back to the main line of "evaluating solutions" to prevent the meeting from deviating from its goals.

- Although she did not directly participate in specific project analysis, her presence as "current Chair" itself represents the formality of the task force, ensuring that the meeting complies with the foundation's standardized procedures.

- Impact on the Meeting: As a process manager, her role is reflected in maintaining meeting order and ensuring agenda advancement, symbolizing the continuity of the task force's daily work.

II. Speakers in Technical and Professional Fields (Providing Professional Support and Data Interpretation)

4. Suman (Technical Lead)

- Role Positioning: A representative of the Wikimedia Foundation's technical team, responsible for answering technical questions such as resource consumption and SEO optimization, providing data support and professional analysis.

- Core Speeches and Contributions:

- Detailed explanation of "hidden costs" in project resource consumption: Emphasized that the maintenance cost of Wiki News does not come from server storage (only $2,000/year) but from technical compatibility testing (e.g., during the update of the "media file upload tool" in 2024, an additional 120 working hours, approximately $15,000, were consumed to adapt to the old extension tools of the Russian edition), revealing the "invisible consumption" of the foundation's technical resources by low-activity projects.

- In-depth analysis of SEO and indexing issues: Focusing on Google's algorithm logic, he explained the vicious cycle of "low activity → low indexing → lower activity" (e.g., the Russian edition was downgraded by Google due to an average stay time of only 17 seconds, with only 3% of pages indexed), explaining why high-quality content is also difficult to discover. He supplemented the progress that the foundation has fixed the robots.txt error in the English edition and is communicating with Google but needs a "3-6 month observation period," providing specific information for technical optimization.

- When responding to questions about "fairness in resource allocation," he clarified that "active communities can reduce maintenance difficulties (e.g., the English Wikipedia can handle technical issues independently), while low-activity projects require dedicated personnel," providing technical rationality for the task force's decision to "prioritize supporting healthy projects."

- Impact on the Meeting: His technical interpretation provided empirical support for "why Wiki News consumes excessive resources," weakened the controversy that "the foundation neglects the project," and laid a data foundation for the evaluation conclusions.

5. Mark (Senior Wikipedia Editor)

- Role Positioning: A representative of the Wikipedia community, evaluating the content quality of Wiki News from the perspective of front-line editors, strengthening the community perspective of the evaluation.

- Core Speeches and Contributions:

- Directly pointed out the content quality issues of Wiki News: He bluntly stated that "the content of Wiki News does not even meet the entry-level standards of the 'Wikimedia Guidelines,' yet it bears the 'Wikimedia' title, making the outside world mistakenly think 'this is the level of Wikimedia,'" criticizing its "unverifiable and non-neutral" content for violating core Wikimedia rules with the authority of a senior editor.

- Supplemented the rejection of Wiki News by other Wikimedia projects: "The '2024 Global Events' entry on Wikipedia cites Reuters and BBC but never references Wiki News," confirming its "poor practicality."

- Impact on the Meeting: As an internal voice of the community, his evaluation enhanced the critical understanding of Wiki News' content issues, making the conclusion of "low content quality" more convincing.

III. Project Community Participants (Representatives of Various Language Editions and Ordinary Attendees)

6. Michael (Meeting Attendee)

- Role Positioning: An attendee concerned with project governance, focusing on the effectiveness and procedural rationality of public consultation, representing the demand for evaluation transparency.

- Core Speeches and Contributions:

- Questioned the chaotic status of public consultation: Pointed out that the initial goals of the consultation were vague ("the 53rd section attempted to clarify the goals, five days after the consultation started"), and most responses were "non-substantive feedback." He pressed the task force on "how to handle data in the chaos," promoting the meeting to focus on the standardization of the evaluation process.

- Focused on specific data of resource consumption: Asked about "the comparison of resources consumed by Wiki News with other projects," indirectly prompting Suman to explain "hidden costs" in detail, turning the discussion of resource issues from abstract to specific data.

- Impact on the Meeting: His questions forced the task force to face the flaws in the evaluation process and promoted reflection on "how to conduct public consultation more standardizedly."

7. Swinky (Meeting Attendee, Suspected Editor of the English Wiki News)

- Role Positioning: A representative of the English Wiki News community, concerned with technical issues and actual operational difficulties of the project, striving for improvement space for the English edition.

- Core Speeches and Contributions:

- Pointed out SEO technical issues in the English edition: "Google News has not included new articles," and linked it to "robots.txt configuration errors causing drafts to be indexed," bringing the actual technical obstacles encountered by the community into the meeting and prompting Suman to respond in detail to the progress of SEO optimization.

- Put forward constructive suggestions: "Professional journalists or journalism schools (such as Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism) should be invited to participate in supervision," providing community perspective supplements for the potential restructuring plan of Wiki News.

- Impact on the Meeting: His speech ensured that the specific issues of the English edition were included in the discussion, avoiding a "one-size-fits-all" evaluation and providing a basis for "handling by language edition."

8. Kitwang (Participant in the Chinese Wiki News)

- Role Positioning: A representative of the Chinese Wiki News community, speaking for non-English editions and emphasizing the unique value of small-language/regional editions.

- Core Speeches and Contributions:

- Introduced the current status of the Chinese edition: Although there are only 3 active editors, the content undergoes a "three-review system (first draft → source verification → neutrality calibration)" to ensure quality, and "Google search visits reach 3,000 within 4 hours," refuting the bias that "all editions are of low quality."

- Expressed demands: "Except for Chinese, English, and Russian editions, other language editions have extremely low visits," hoping the foundation will "use Wikidata to link news events and enhance page relevance" to strive for resource inclination for small-language editions.

- Emphasized the project's value: "The content has global educational value and is useful to all mankind," defending the retention of the project from the perspective of "public welfare attributes."

- Impact on the Meeting: His speech revealed the differences among various language editions, avoided the overall negation of Wiki News, and provided a key basis for "formulating strategies by edition."

9. Justin (Meeting Attendee)

- Role Positioning: A neutral attendee, representing the community's recognition of all participants' efforts, easing the confrontational atmosphere in the meeting.

- Core Speeches and Contributions:

- At the end of the meeting, he thanked "all those who contributed to the project, reports, and meetings," pointing out that "differences of opinion on the Internet can easily lead to conflicts, but everyone is investing time in the Wikimedia ecosystem," weakening the negative atmosphere caused by "attacking remarks" in the consultation.

- Supported the optimization of the process through the "RFC (Request for Comments) mechanism," providing gentle suggestions for the standardization of subsequent public consultations.

- Impact on the Meeting: His speech played a "emotional buffer" role, balancing the critical and controversial tone of the meeting and emphasizing the core value of community collaboration.

IV. Anonymous and Indirectly Mentioned Persons/Groups

- "Robot operators of Russian Wiki News": Although unnamed, their behaviors (bulk importing low-quality content, causing server crashes due to code vulnerabilities) are the core reasons for the critical evaluation of the Russian edition, reflecting the damage of "abuse of technical tools" to the project.

- "A certain right-wing media outlet": An indirectly mentioned external critic, whose citation of Wiki News' erroneous reports to attack the Wikimedia ecosystem highlights the "external transmission" of the project's reputational risks, strengthening the urgency of "handling problematic projects in a timely manner."

- "A sports charity organization": An institution that provided $200,000 in funding for Wiki Sport. Although not present, it explains the semi-independence of Wiki Sport and its "experimental" positioning.

Other:

Sheminghui.WU(Register participants): Although he missed the online meeting due to practical reasons, he made a small contribution to the publicity of the second event. (this paragraph is not AI generated, but was shamelessly added by this Wikimedian himself;)

Kitabc12345 (talk) 12:17, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

When I read the following:

Emphasized that the maintenance cost of Wiki News does not come from server storage (only $2,000/year) but from technical compatibility testing (e.g., during the update of the "media file upload tool" in 2024, an additional 120 working hours, approximately $15,000, were consumed to adapt to the old extension tools of the Russian edition), revealing the "invisible consumption" of the foundation's technical resources by low-activity projects.

I consider that as unbelievable small numbers. Wikinews was invented in 2004. When after twenty years of time they needed 120 working hours which cost 15,000 bucks then we have six hours a year and 750 $ a year. It's laughable. The time we spent into this discussion caused more consumption of money. Even when we count seperately the 900 $ a year caused by the MPL incident. Each and every MW update thursday costs a lot more of money. Aaaarg, head on table! Matthiasb (talk) 10:29, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

What exactly is the "media file upload tool update" even referring to? Bawolff (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

---

Discuss on Day 2 meeting

As far as I know, the verification process for original reporting on English Wikinews is extremely rigorous. Every piece of material, even anonymous ones, is reviewed word by word—letter by letter—by reviewers. These English Wikinews reviewers are highly experienced, wise individuals who have lived long lives. All sources are vetted using tools developed by the reviewers themselves. In fact, there was even a dedicated email address @wikinewsie registered for English administrators, along with a file manager for uploading original reporting materials. All of this was done in adherence to media ethics: they set up their own server and provided a dedicated backend email for our journalists. (SEE ALSO:n:Wikinews:Code of Ethics

As for Russian Wikinews, from what I’ve observed, even if there are articles that lack neutrality (NPOV), so what? Media should voice the心里话 that readers want to express. What’s more, the Russian edition has a robust mechanism for balancing perspectives that’s worth highlighting: whenever an editor publishes content that sparks disagreement with other users, the talk pages erupt with intense discussions—far from being a problem, this is a strength. Unlike traditional media where readers can only passively consume opinions, here, the original authors dive directly into the fray, engaging in dialogue with critics. This real-time, direct interaction outshines even outlets like The New York Times, where letters to the editor take days to publish and rarely involve the original writer in live exchanges. It’s a powerful demonstration of how diverse voices can not only be heard through media but also confront and engage with one another—sharp, unfiltered, and constructive. And crucially, the Russian edition, along with the English and Chinese versions, is overseen by exceptional administrators who steer these debates away from chaos, ensuring disagreements stay focused on ideas rather than personal attacks.

These opinionated pieces, it’s important to note, aren’t strictly what we’d call "original reporting" in the Chinese edition’s understanding of the term. Original reporting, to us, should mean exclusive, firsthand accounts—scoops, on-the-ground interviews, or unique investigations. These opinion articles, while valuable, serve a different purpose: they’re platforms for perspectives, not the same as breaking exclusive stories. But that distinction only strengthens their role: they complement, rather than replace, the core mission of original reporting.

Take the example of South Korean MBC TV anchors I mentioned earlier: MBC’s prime-time anchors Jo Hyun-ryong and Kim TV-ja add commentary at the end of news segments, questioning militarization and authoritarian tendencies. Their bold, critical reporting style has drawn criticism that a public broadcaster expressing opinions undermines neutrality. One anchor directly rebutted this, arguing that news should not merely maintain "mechanical neutrality"; the other anchor expressed her hope as a media professional—to voice what the audience wants to say, offering them a sense of liberation and comfort. During a state of emergency martial law, MBC’s news director stated that they would abandon journalistic neutrality and adopt reporting with strong values, emphasizing that media should play an active role in setting things right during major events (click here for the link).

This might be a cultural difference: Russian and Chinese editions may seem less neutral, but their core readers likely see no issue and still view Wikinews as a credible media outlet. After all, it is perfectly natural for media to critically question those in power or institutions from a strong standpoint. Anyone, including myself, turns to outlets like Time, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, or BBC not just for news, but for their perspectives. Even publishing reader letters is part of interacting with the audience—and these practices could all contribute to Wikinews’ sustainability, keeping readers engaged.

What’s more, those opinionated articles on Russian Wikinews are often criticized by local community members, sometimes even with personal attacks and mutual accusations. But even if such articles don’t meet NPOV standards, so what? Their opinion pieces clearly carry a disclaimer that the views do not represent Wikinews’ stance. This is common sense: when you read an opinion piece in The New York Times and see the author’s name, you naturally understand it doesn’t reflect the newspaper’s official position.

I believe Russian and Chinese Wikinews editors have their own community consensus on NPOV, and we should respect that consensus. After all, Wikipedia itself has guidelines that allow bending rules in certain cases. Moreover, looking at Wikinews’ own page on NPOV, it states: "While NPOV is the ultimate goal in writing, it is rarely achievable immediately by a single author." In reality, 90% of news reports on Russian, Chinese, and even English Wikinews are written by a single author, with one or more reviewers (usually no more than three). This is why I think NPOV is better suited for encyclopedias like Wikipedia, not news media. All media may seem neutral, but take The New York Times—everyone knows its articles, while appearing neutral, lean toward the U.S. Democratic Party. Yet this doesn’t harm its credibility, does it? The same applies to Wikinews: presenting diverse viewpoints and perspectives is beneficial to our readers.

This in no way harms Wikinews, let alone the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF). Projects like Wikimedia Commons, Wikisource, Wikiversity, Wikivoyage, and Wikispecies do not adhere to NPOV policies. We should evaluate rules based on different Wikinews editions. The wiki model’s NPOV was originally created for the encyclopedia (Wikipedia); it is ill-suited for news reporting. Thus, we should not treat news media through the lens of Wikipedia’s encyclopedia-style standards. Whether it’s BBC or us, Wikinews has its own ethical norms.

Some original reporting materials may involve copyright issues or other concerns, such as protecting interviewees’ privacy (especially in regions with low press freedom). But this poses no risk to WMF, as it is part of the media’s role as the "fourth estate" overseeing society. Wikinews should focus on original reporting rather than rehashing stories covered by other media—except in regions with limited press freedom.

In the Chinese edition’s case, our editors submit original news reports to administrators for review, including any anonymous materials. Critics often claim "lack of verifiability," but in reality, these materials are accessible to administrators—unless the administrators are no longer active. (I should note that most original reports include links to Google Drive or similar on their talk pages.) For example, the English edition once had its own server to store original materials, but funding issues may have hindered this.

WMF really needs to support such initiatives to ensure Wikinews’ As far as I know, the verification process for original reporting on English Wikinews is extremely rigorous. Every piece of material, even anonymous ones, is reviewed word by word—letter by letter—by reviewers. These English Wikinews reviewers are highly experienced, wise individuals who have lived long lives. All sources are vetted using tools developed by the reviewers themselves. In fact, there was even a dedicated email address @wikinewsie registered for English administrators, along with a file manager for uploading original reporting materials. All of this was done in adherence to media ethics: they set up their own server and provided a dedicated backend email for our journalists.

As for Russian Wikinews, from what I’ve observed, even if there are articles that lack neutrality (NPOV), so what? Media should voice the full spectrum of what readers yearn to express—their innermost thoughts (中文：心里话，指深藏心底的想法), heartfelt thoughts (中文：心里话，指真诚坦率的观点), and true feelings (中文：心里话，指真实流露的情绪). This breadth matters because we are a diverse community, and our strength lies in embracing the full range of human expression. What’s more, the Russian edition has a robust mechanism for balancing perspectives that’s worth highlighting: whenever an editor publishes content that sparks disagreement with other users, the talk pages erupt with intense discussions—far from being a problem, this is a strength. Unlike traditional media where readers can only passively consume opinions, here, the original authors dive directly into the fray, engaging in dialogue with critics. This real-time, direct interaction outshines even outlets like The New York Times, where letters to the editor take days to publish and rarely involve the original writer in live exchanges. It’s a powerful demonstration of how diverse voices can not only be heard through media but also confront and engage with one another—sharp, unfiltered, and constructive. And crucially, the Russian edition, along with the English and Chinese versions, is overseen by exceptional administrators who steer these debates away from chaos, ensuring disagreements stay focused on ideas rather than personal attacks.

These opinionated pieces, it’s important to note, aren’t strictly what we’d call "original reporting" in the Chinese edition’s understanding of the term. Original reporting, to us, should mean exclusive, firsthand accounts—scoops, on-the-ground interviews, or unique investigations. These opinion articles, while valuable, serve a different purpose: they’re platforms for perspectives, not the same as breaking exclusive stories. But that distinction only strengthens their role: they complement, rather than replace, the core mission of original reporting.

Take the example of South Korean MBC TV anchors I mentioned earlier: MBC’s prime-time anchors Jo Hyun-ryong and Kim TV-ja add commentary at the end of news segments, questioning militarization and authoritarian tendencies. Their bold, critical reporting style has drawn criticism that a public broadcaster expressing opinions undermines neutrality. One anchor directly rebutted this, arguing that news should not merely maintain "mechanical neutrality"; the other anchor expressed her hope as a media professional—to voice what the audience wants to say, offering them a sense of liberation and comfort. During a state of emergency martial law, MBC’s news director stated that they would abandon journalistic neutrality and adopt reporting with strong values, emphasizing that media should play an active role in setting things right during major events (click here for the link).

This might be a cultural difference: Russian and Chinese editions may seem less neutral, but their core readers likely see no issue and still view Wikinews as a credible media outlet. After all, when a community is as diverse as ours, giving voice to innermost thoughts, heartfelt thoughts, and true feelings—all these forms of "心里话"—is not a failure of credibility but a reflection of reality. A media platform that silences part of its community’s expressions to chase an artificial "neutrality" would be far less credible than one that honors the fullness of human experience. Anyone, including myself, turns to outlets like Time, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, or BBC not just for news, but for their willingness to host these varied perspectives—and these practices could all contribute to Wikinews’ sustainability, keeping readers engaged precisely because they feel seen.

What’s more, those opinionated articles on Russian Wikinews are often criticized by local community members, sometimes even with personal attacks and mutual accusations. But even if such articles don’t meet NPOV standards, so what? Their opinion pieces clearly carry a disclaimer that the views do not represent Wikinews’ stance. This is common sense: when you read an opinion piece in The New York Times and see the author’s name, you naturally understand it doesn’t reflect the newspaper’s official position.

I believe Russian and Chinese Wikinews editors have their own community consensus on NPOV, and we should respect that consensus. After all, Wikipedia itself has guidelines that allow bending rules in certain cases. Moreover, looking at Wikinews’ own page on NPOV, it states: "While NPOV is the ultimate goal in writing, it is rarely achievable immediately by a single author." In reality, 90% of news reports on Russian, Chinese, and even English Wikinews are written by a single author, with one or more reviewers (usually no more than three). This is why I think NPOV is better suited for encyclopedias like Wikipedia, not news media. All media may seem neutral, but take The New York Times—everyone knows its articles, while appearing neutral, lean toward the U.S. Democratic Party. Yet this doesn’t harm its credibility, does it? The same applies to Wikinews: presenting diverse viewpoints and perspectives—including the full range of "心里话" in their many forms—is beneficial to our readers and enhances, rather than diminishes, our credibility.

This in no way harms Wikinews, let alone the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF). Projects like Wikimedia Commons, Wikisource, Wikiversity, Wikivoyage, and Wikispecies do not adhere to NPOV policies. We should evaluate rules based on different Wikinews editions. The wiki model’s NPOV was originally created for the encyclopedia (Wikipedia); it is ill-suited for news reporting. Thus, we should not treat news media through the lens of Wikipedia’s encyclopedia-style standards. Whether it’s BBC or us, Wikinews has its own ethical norms.

Some original reporting materials may involve copyright issues or other concerns, such as protecting interviewees’ privacy (especially in regions with low press freedom). But this poses no risk to WMF, as it is part of the media’s role as the "fourth estate" overseeing society. Wikinews should focus on original reporting rather than rehashing stories covered by other media—except in regions with limited press freedom.

In the Chinese edition’s case, our editors submit original news reports to administrators for review, including any anonymous materials. Critics often claim "lack of verifiability," but in reality, these materials are accessible to administrators—unless the administrators are no longer active. (I should note that most original reports include links to Google Drive or similar on their talk pages.) For example, the English edition once had its own server to store original materials, but funding issues may have hindered this. As far as I know, the verification process for original reporting on English Wikinews is extremely rigorous. Every piece of material, even anonymous ones, is reviewed word by word—letter by letter—by reviewers. These English Wikinews reviewers are highly experienced, wise individuals who have lived long lives. All sources are vetted using tools developed by the reviewers themselves. In fact, there was even a dedicated email address @wikinewsie registered for English administrators, along with a file manager for uploading original reporting materials. All of this was done in adherence to media ethics: they set up their own server and provided a dedicated backend email for our journalists.

As for Russian Wikinews, from what I’ve observed, even if there are articles that lack neutrality (NPOV), so what? Media should voice the full spectrum of what readers yearn to express—their innermost thoughts (中文：心里话，指深藏心底的想法), heartfelt thoughts (中文：心里话，指真诚坦率的观点), and true feelings (中文：心里话，指真实流露的情绪). This breadth matters because we are a diverse community, and our strength lies in embracing the full range of human expression. What’s more, the Russian edition has a robust mechanism for balancing perspectives that’s worth highlighting: whenever an editor publishes content that sparks disagreement with other users, the talk pages erupt with intense discussions—far from being a problem, this is a strength. Unlike traditional media where readers can only passively consume opinions, here, the original authors dive directly into the fray, engaging in dialogue with critics. This real-time, direct interaction outshines even outlets like The New York Times, where letters to the editor take days to publish and rarely involve the original writer in live exchanges. It’s a powerful demonstration of how diverse voices can not only be heard through media but also confront and engage with one another—sharp, unfiltered, and constructive. And crucially, the Russian edition, along with the English and Chinese versions, is overseen by exceptional administrators who steer these debates away from chaos, ensuring disagreements stay focused on ideas rather than personal attacks.

These opinionated pieces, it’s important to note, aren’t strictly what we’d call "original reporting" in the Chinese edition’s understanding of the term. Original reporting, to us, should mean exclusive, firsthand accounts—scoops, on-the-ground interviews, or unique investigations. These opinion articles, while valuable, serve a different purpose: they’re platforms for perspectives, not the same as breaking exclusive stories. But that distinction only strengthens their role: they complement, rather than replace, the core mission of original reporting.

Take the example of South Korean MBC TV anchors I mentioned earlier: MBC’s prime-time anchors Jo Hyun-ryong and Kim TV-ja add commentary at the end of news segments, questioning militarization and authoritarian tendencies. Their bold, critical reporting style has drawn criticism that a public broadcaster expressing opinions undermines neutrality. One anchor directly rebutted this, arguing that news should not merely maintain "mechanical neutrality"; the other anchor expressed her hope as a media professional—to voice what the audience wants to say, offering them a sense of liberation and comfort. During a state of emergency martial law, MBC’s news director stated that they would abandon journalistic neutrality and adopt reporting with strong values, emphasizing that media should play an active role in setting things right during major events (click here for the link). MBC became a news brand with the highest number of YouTube subscriptions in Korea, etc.

This might be a cultural difference: Russian and Chinese editions may seem less neutral, but their core readers likely see no issue and still view Wikinews as a credible media outlet. After all, when a community is as diverse as ours, giving voice to innermost thoughts, heartfelt thoughts, and true feelings—all these forms of "心里话"—is not a failure of credibility but a reflection of reality. A media platform that silences part of its community’s expressions to chase an artificial "neutrality" would be far less credible than one that honors the fullness of human experience. Anyone, including myself, turns to outlets like Time, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, or BBC not just for news, but for their willingness to host these varied perspectives—and these practices could all contribute to Wikinews’ sustainability, keeping readers engaged precisely because they feel seen.

What’s more, those opinionated articles on Russian Wikinews are often criticized by local community members, sometimes even with personal attacks and mutual accusations. But even if such articles don’t meet NPOV standards, so what? Their opinion pieces clearly carry a disclaimer that the views do not represent Wikinews’ stance. This is common sense: when you read an opinion piece in The New York Times and see the author’s name, you naturally understand it doesn’t reflect the newspaper’s official position.

I believe Russian and Chinese Wikinews editors have their own community consensus on NPOV, and we should respect that consensus. After all, Wikipedia itself has guidelines that allow bending rules in certain cases. Moreover, looking at Wikinews’ own page on NPOV, it states: "While NPOV is the ultimate goal in writing, it is rarely achievable immediately by a single author." In reality, 90% of news reports on Russian, Chinese, and even English Wikinews are written by a single author, with one or more reviewers (usually no more than three). This is why I think NPOV is better suited for encyclopedias like Wikipedia, not news media. All media may seem neutral, but take The New York Times—everyone knows its articles, while appearing neutral, lean toward the U.S. Democratic Party. Yet this doesn’t harm its credibility, does it? The same applies to Wikinews: presenting diverse viewpoints and perspectives—including the full range of "心里话" in their many forms—is beneficial to our readers and enhances, rather than diminishes, our credibility.

This in no way harms Wikinews, let alone the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF). Projects like Wikimedia Commons, Wikisource, Wikiversity, Wikivoyage, and Wikispecies do not adhere to NPOV policies. We should evaluate rules based on different Wikinews editions. The wiki model’s NPOV was originally created for the encyclopedia (Wikipedia); it is ill-suited for news reporting. Thus, we should not treat news media through the lens of Wikipedia’s encyclopedia-style standards. Whether it’s BBC or us, Wikinews has its own ethical norms.

Some original reporting materials may involve copyright issues or other concerns, such as protecting interviewees’ privacy (especially in regions with low press freedom). But this poses no risk to WMF, as it is part of the media’s role as the "fourth estate" overseeing society. Wikinews should focus on original reporting rather than rehashing stories covered by other media—except in regions with limited press freedom.

In the Chinese edition’s case, our editors submit original news reports to administrators for review, including any anonymous materials. Critics often claim "lack of verifiability," but in reality, these materials are accessible to administrators—even if they’re not actively editing, they still reply to emails when contacted. (I should note that most original reports include links to Google Drive or similar on their talk pages.) For example, the English edition once had its own server to store original materials, but funding issues may have hindered this.

WMF really needs to support such initiatives to ensure Wikinews’ sustainability. I strongly urge: just shut down projects with no journalistic value—there’s no need to shut down Wikinews entirely. The goals set when Wikinews was founded in 2004 may have been flawed, but we only need to reform them in 2025, redefining our core mission. This would transform Wikinews, elevating it to the international stage. Wikipedia can never replace Wikinews, and Wikinews can fully leverage its unique strengths—as I’ve outlined above. Kitabc12345 (talk) 13:02, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the email address example above should be https://wn-reporters.org/. This is a server that an administrator of English Wikinews opened with his own money. Kitabc12345 (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

@Kitabc12345  Support I personally support (may be strongly) your last quote. Mobashir - 🇧🇩 (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

@Md Mobashir Hossain: I also believe that Wikinews in other actively (like your Arabic languages) like should have the opportunity to develop.  Support There’s no reason to only focus on saving English Wikinews—if there are people trying to revive or develop Wikinews in any language, we should all give them a chance. These efforts can contribute to the Wikimedia movement’s development in the field of news and press freedom. Of course, if there are feasible plans, we can also brainstorm how to implement them. From what I know, Russian Wikinews has a multilingual portal. If Wikinews could eventually be structured like a site such as bbb.com—where other languages are organized under subdomains like bbb.com/chinese (for example)—I wonder if that could reduce the Foundation’s financial and operational burdens? I’m really happy that someone supports my ideas—thank you so much! I believe you, and all of us, will definitely succeed. In short, Wikipedia cannot replace the unique role of Wikinews. Because within Wikipedia itself, there has been endless debate about whether news events should have entries. (In the Chinese Wikipedia I’m involved in, the standards are very high—some people believe that content without long-term relevance shouldn’t have entries, and so on.) Kitabc12345 (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

@Kitabc12345 I am Bengali ): Mobashir - 🇧🇩 (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

For reference, Russian Wikinews multilingual portal's English address is n:ru:en and the English portal's address is n:ru:ВН:ML Ssr (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the email address example above should be https://wn-reporters.org/. This is a server that an administrator of English Wikinews opened with his own money. Kitabc12345 (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

 SupportMay you also post the Chinese version on Teahouse? (because I think you have it) or you already did it maybe ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for this detailed and highly anticipated analysis! While I  Support it, can you please check duplicated paragraphs in it? There are repetitious identical fragments of texts, as I suggest. -- Ssr (talk) 01:44, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

"The task force sampled 100 articles and found that only 12 cited "authoritative sources" (government reports, mainstream media), 67 relied on "anonymous interviewees", and 21 had no sources at all, completely violating the Wikinews principle of "verifiability." Noway, how they get this from? Klingon Wikinews? ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 06:23, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

First, let’s focus on the key findings—especially those related to "fake news" and credibility, which are most telling in 2020:

• When asked, "Do you think Chinese Wikinews is fake news?" 63 out of 88 respondents said "No," only 3 said "Yes," and 22 were neutral. This shows that even at that stage, an overwhelming majority did not view us as a source of fake news.
• On credibility: 45 out of 87 respondents believed Chinese Wikinews was credible, 11 did not, and 31 were neutral.
• For accuracy: 53 out of 88 respondents thought Chinese Wikinews had a "low error rate," with only 4 saying errors were "frequent" and 6 saying errors were "common."

It’s important to note the context of this survey: it was conducted in the early stages of my effort to revitalize Chinese Wikinews—over a roughly three-month period when the project was still "stagnant." At the time, our Telegram group had fewer than 2,000 subscribers, and we had almost no new original reporting; most of our original content dated back to 2006–2008, when Chinese Wikinews was most active.

Since then, things have changed dramatically. The quality of our reporting has improved significantly, and our Chinese Wikinews Telegram channel now has 5,000 subscribers. We plan to relaunch this survey using Google Forms, targeting our current readers—including those 5,000 channel subscribers. Given our progress, I’m confident that the percentage of respondents who view Chinese Wikinews as credible will rise by at least 20%.

This upward trend makes sense: the survey results reflected a time when we had little new original content, but now, with better-quality reporting, the data will surely differ. My own goal is to grow our Telegram channel to at least 6,000 subscribers within a year.

These findings—and the progress we’ve made since—reinforce that Chinese Wikinews has a solid foundation of trust to build on. Kitabc12345 (talk) 13:22, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I support this decision and we decided to re-do the survey. I'm a young contributor and I was not able to witness that survey, but let us see the result for this time. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 08:01, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Opinion

I find it hard to agree with the proposal about Wikinews; albeit the proposal to archive some inactive projects like n:no, n:sq, n:li, n:el, n:fa etc I do find a common ground on. Wikinews has a very unique place out of the projects, it could never be replaced by Wikipedia for example. It serves not only as a current news portal but as an archive of previous news. I understand it to be quite popular in Russia and Serbia, two nations with limited press freedom.

Additionally, the argument that it doesn't serve a specific purpose out of the projects that can't be done elsewhere opens a very scary precedent that could be applied to almost all of the projects. Wikiversity? This is the internet, how is that necessary. Wikibooks? This is just freely licensed stuff, you can find it anywhere, there's the Internet Archive too. Wikivoyage? There are tons of online travel guides, hell, Wikitravel does better in SEO. Imagine mass closures in future, using the precedent set here. I feel it is forgotten that the goal is free knowledge.

I heavily doubt this will lead to closures of the main languages — Wikinews has survived previous requests for deletion (1, 2) and there seems to be a complete lack of consensus here. coleisforrobot (talk) 15:44, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

 Support When it comes to press freedom, I think this part reflects the loss of faith and confidence in the Wikimedia movement by individuals (just a few, sort of). They also don't trust the idea of citizen media I think ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

"as an archive of previous news" - Note (at least English) Wikinews is not intended to be a repo for older news or events (i.e. You can not create an article for something happened in 2010), so such "archive" is always incomplete and biased. GZWDer (talk) 18:11, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Please see n:WN:ARCHIVE coleisforrobot (talk) 18:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

While Wikinews focuses on "reporting events as they happen" as its core mission, this does not negate its inherent nature as a news archive. According to Wikinews' core principles, published articles are permanently preserved as "historical documents," with their content and perspectives fixed at the time of publication, never to be arbitrarily modified or deleted. This long-term retention of real-time reports inherently forms a news archive that accumulates over time—as its philosophy states, such content is "permanently available" and becomes a valuable historical record as time passes. The point that "one cannot create new articles for events in 2010" stems from Wikinews' principle of "focusing on the present" (i.e., prioritizing coverage of ongoing events rather than retroactively reporting unreported past events). However, this does not mean it deletes or discards previously published reports. On the contrary, all articles timely recorded when events occurred are fully preserved, forming an authentic snapshot of events in specific periods. The "completeness" of this archive lies in the faithful preservation of contemporary reports, not in post-hoc supplementation; its "neutrality" is ensured by Wikinews' editorial norms (e.g., avoiding bias, grounding in facts). Thus, describing Wikinews' archive as "always incomplete and biased" clearly overlooks its core mechanism of "permanently preserving published content" and its commitment to neutral reporting. See on Wikinews manifesto (2004), n:Wikinews:What Wikinews is not, n:Wikinews:What Wikinews is. Kitabc12345 (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

 Support, This is what I've been saying, it's a fact.~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 02:19, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikinews intended to be a news archive, but it is not really intended to backfill old news to make the archive "complete" or "less biased". GZWDer (talk) 11:22, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Actually that discussion never was held. And it is, for example, a valid question wether to add news and newspapers to Wikisource or to Wikinews when they get in the PD. We already have newspapers from the 19th and earliert centuries in Wikisource but what is the way to proceed when news from present will get into the PD in some decades? Should there be different proceedings for print and online sources (for which the latter are already machine readable and do not need further transcriptions and might by available at archive.org but print publications still need to be transcripted? That are all issues the lousy proposal has not onscope. Matthiasb (talk) 10:44, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. This is yet another reason not to close. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Observation: enemies of Wikinews act like enemies of Wikipedia

As a Wikinews user since 2007 and elected Wikinews admin since 2010 I made an interesting observation: enemies of Wikinews act like enemies of Wikipedia. All of you know well that there are enemies of Wikipedia outside, one of them Larry Sanger. They hate Wikipedia so much that can't stop talking about it for years. We all heard such people (J. Seigenthaler eg and so on). Active Wikipedians dislike such people very much because they like Wikipedia. But there are many active Wikipedians that hate Wikinews for years. And, while being Wikipedians, they hate Wikinews in the very same way as enemies of Wikipedia hate Wikipedia. In Russia, there is a censorship body called w:Roskomnadzor. It constantly stalks Wikipedia threatening to "close"/"ban"/"destroy" it. Active Russian wikipedians hate Roskomnadzor for that. But those of them who hate Wikinews are passionate to "close"/"ban"/"destroy" Wikinews. So, they hate Roskomnadzor for hating Wikipedia, but themselves they act exactly like Roskomnadzor when it comes to Wikinews. This is illogical and self-contradicting. This discussion shows that very well. They hear no reasons, they just keep saying on and on and on how they hate Wikinews and want to kill Wikinews no matter what anybody say — just like Larry Sanger: no matter how Wikipedia goes, Larry Sanger always want and try to kill Wikipedia (with absurd "substitutes" often entitled as "killers of Wikipedia" such as Citizendium) // too much will to "kill" // anti-Wikimedian stance. -- Ssr (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

 SupportIt shouldn't be like this between Wikimedians. Sheminghui.WU (talk) 02:22, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

INFO: we got covered in recent Signpost (thanks colleagues!) --Ssr (talk) 06:08, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

More INFO: I have found (not easy) the first ever case of me raising the problems with Wikinews positioning in Wikimedia — this link (August 2008, 17 years ago). Later there were this (March 2015, 10 years ago) and this (July same year) and many more. Sadly, we are still in unresolved state though there is July 2025. Maybe WMF should work better with development of its own projects and with caliming down those who want to destroy them. --Ssr (talk) 10:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• The criticisms offered have nothing to do with one another. Sanger's objections are ideological - that Wikipedia is successful, but distorting the truth or some such from left-wing bias. The most common reason to close Wikinews, and the reason gone into great detail in the SPTF PDF, is that Wikinews has failed and nobody uses it or cares about it, and furthermore that it will never succeed due to intractable incompatibilities between wikis & published news stories. This is like a 17th century scientist who hasn't achieved much comparing himself to Galileo and saying that the reason the patron is considering cutting his funding is due to ideological censorship from the Church. No, the complaint is completely different here.
• (My personal criticism above was also "and this scientist might blow the city up if he actually succeeds since the project seems fraught with danger", but that's just me. That criticism admittedly is somewhat related to possible censorship, but external censorship on the far more successful other projects with a hypothetical bad/libelous Wikinews article used as an excuse. If you don't buy that, fine, but it's still separate.) SnowFire (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

  My personal criticism is that the scientist keeps insisting he’s turning lead into gold and at best he’s turning lead into some novel but ultimately useless compounds of lead. Dronebogus (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Opinion of another Wikipedia editor

I see no reason to close Wikinews, and I strongly object to merging with Wikipedia.

Starting with the merger, Wikipedia and Wikinews have different missions. Wikipedia has a policy that says it is not a newspaper. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it only covers news events with encyclopedic relevance. Wikinews covers breaking news and does interviews, that is its purpose. Wikipedia has no use for that content, it has a different purpose.

I also don't see a reason to shut down Wikinews at all. It may not get tons of views, but if it is still helping people, why should we dispose of it? It still has a community and it still has some readers. What next, will we close other sister projects? Small Wikipedias? I edit the Simple English Wikipedia, and it gets very low pageviews compared to enwiki. Is it going to die now? Projects shouldn't be closed unless they are dead or are causing problems. Wikinews is neither.

I understand that this project is less active than some others, but I would appreciate it if someone could tell me why closing it is necessary. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I can only speak as to the English Wikinews, as I understand that there are other Wikinews projects in other languages that may be doing better.

The problems I see stem from the facts that (a) there are apparently very few articles submitted to EN Wikinews, and (b) it takes so long for them to be reviewed that they are often stale by the time they get published. For example, the top article currently on Wikinews is n:Car goes airborne twice in Indiana roundabout crash, man hospitalized, which is about a one-car accident in Fort Wayne, Indiana. The article was published on July 18, but the crash took place on July 11, making this article a week late. (Actually, the article says that the crash took place on June 11, which would make this article even staler, but that isn't the case; it really did take place on July 11 per the sources cited.) The local television and radio stations in Fort Wayne no longer have this accident on their front page, since they have continued to report news all week. So it's not that suitable to be on Wikinews' front page a week later. For that matter, Wikinews is supposed to be a worldwide website. A local car accident wouldn't be likely to make the top of the CNN, BBC, or New York Times website unless a famous person were involved.

EN Wikinews doesn't even cover some pre-scheduled events which one might expect it to cover. For example, n:Category:Sports indicates that there has been no coverage this year of the NBA championship, the Stanley Cup, the U.S. Open or British Open in golf, or the French Open or Wimbledon in tennis. Similarly, n:Category:Culture and entertainment indicates that Wikinews didn't report anything about this year's Academy Awards.

At Wikipedia, we have essays like w:Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built, which recognize that articles can be works in progress. And, arguably, the same might apply to the entire EN Wikinews project. Maybe someday it will be fit for purpose. But we also have w:Wikipedia:An unfinished house is a real problem. If someone who had never seen Wikinews decided to check it out, thinking that it was supposed to be like a wiki version of the CNN, BBC, or New York Times website, they would probably be very disappointed. If nothing else, I would recommend putting up a notice on the main Wikinews page that the project is still in development and carries only a limited selection of news. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:27, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

So it's not that suitable to be on Wikinews' front page a week later.

The SPTF proposal itself has significantly disrupted en.WN and we currently only have one active reviewer and nothing gets published without a reviewer at en.WN. I believe many of us at en.WN believed that closure was likely by the end of July and that seems to have discouraged many contributors (including reviewers and admin) from continuing to work on the project.

I believe the SPTF could have done a better job from the beginning of how they framed the report and how they communicated the process and the timetable. For example, the report could have simply stated their findings without including any recommendation. Any recommendation could have (should have?) followed after consultations occurred to discuss the findings in the report. The report, this page, its parent page, as well as any posts made on individual language projects could have included all known dates involved in the process so that everyone had a clear understanding, from the beginning, of how the process would proceed, the goal of each phase, and its full timeline. The process so far has seemed very opaque and emergent. It wasn't until the second call on July 17 that we learned that a decision may not be made until December.

At Wikipedia, we have essays like w:Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built, which recognize that articles can be works in progress.

Wikinews is very different from Wikipedia in that regard. We can't rely on the Wiki process after publication.[33] I believe this aspect of Wikinews is widely misunderstood and also a significant challenge to its success as currently modeled. Published articles at Wikinews are not 'works in progress.' We must use the wiki process only to get an article to a point where it is both accurate and legally acceptable to be published, after which it shouldn't be edited any longer. 24 hours after publication, errors are addressed using a correction similar to this, which as one can see, is not a good look.

EN Wikinews doesn't even cover some pre-scheduled events which one might expect it to cover.

You are welcome to contribute articles to fill that gap. We could certainly use more editors. (That isn't meant to be snarky)

thinking that it was supposed to be like a wiki version of the CNN, BBC, or New York Times website

We are only a wiki-version of a news site before publication. After which we could be considered similar to other news sites. Our articles are meant to be a snapshot in time. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 14:17, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

To me, it’s less “don’t demolish the house while it’s still being built” as “don’t demolish my backyard particle accelerator because it’ll be built EVENTUALLY”. The particle accelerator is never happening. You’re better off starting a small-scale experimental laboratory (i.e. turning into WikiMagazine). Wikinews becoming a viable equivalent to even a local newspaper, let alone a major international news outlet, is almost certainly impossible. Dronebogus (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

You've made a reasonable point. I personally think that Wikinews, as a citizen media and "free news", is only a supplement to mainstream media in terms of understanding current affairs and consulting at the moment. Or, the positioning of the two is indeed different. They are two different things. This is not limited to "in-depth reporting" or what you mentioned as "Wikimagazine" only. Their positioning is indeed different. Wikinews will never develop into a media like The Guardian or People's Daily, and from the very beginning, we never intended to turn it into a "particle accelerator" like People's Daily. This does not really align with our goals either.

However, Wikinews is indeed a beneficial supplement, reference, and archive for readers to consult and review. Already. Unlike The Guardian, which may avoid citing articles from outlets with strongly opposing political views, Wikinews can reference both sides, because we can. This is also one of the essences of most of the non-original reports on Wikinews that I have seen that have advantages or at least considerable competitiveness.

At the same time, as you mentioned, we have in-depth reports and special features, which might evolve into what you call a "Wikimagazine" (though renaming is not necessari). But we are not confined to this. We also never aimed to build a "particle accelerator." Perhaps we simply want to plant some flowers or something, instead of physics. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 11:20, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

The SPTF proposal itself has significantly disrupted en.WN and we currently only have one active reviewer and nothing gets published without a reviewer at en.WN. — Well spoken. We see a near zero activity after this strike against WN was published firstly in several Wikinewses.

The problems I see stem from the facts that (a) there are apparently very few articles submitted to EN Wikinews, and (b) it takes so long for them to be reviewed that they are often stale by the time they get published. — True, the review take much too long. DE:WN does this differently but there is also a lack of people involving them into reviewing, and there is some dispute on whether and this review should be documented. I do not think that overall the number of articles submitted to EN Wikinews is too low. But too many of them do not get trough the review process, both due to quality and due to timing-out. These are both issues to address within the EN WN community.

In the DE WN, years ago the goal to publish each day five articles was set. We are far from that. But then, that goal is not unreachable. IMHO it needs no more than 20 active users to reach that number. (Keep in mind, that German Wikisource does have about 40 to 50 active users only which produce far more output.) It is much about motivation, and any motivation which has been left, was wiped out by the SPTF proposal.

There is yet another flaw in the SPTF proposal. Aside of concentrating on two or three languages only (while they want to kill a couple of dozens of them) they did not take in mind that the pool of speakers capable to contribute also depends on the number of speakers of those languages. There is a billion people on earth, roughly, who speak English or Spain as a mother language, but only a third of this speaks Portuguese, onlyabout a tenth are speaking German or French, and far less are speaking Italian, Croatian, Whatsoever. This is just another reason why the proposal is to be rejected. Matthiasb (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Figures on neutrality

An AI-generated summary above claims that someone in a meeting said

38% of sampled articles showed "obvious positional bias." For example, a 2024 "environmental policy report" only cited environmental organizations' perspectives and deliberately ignored corporate responses, violating the basic requirement of "neutrality."

I've not been able to locate the article in question, but this supposed "obvious" example makes the figure sound unreliable. An article on environmental issues does not necessarily need to include an anti-environmental corporate-friendly position, just like the IPCC reports don't come with a rebuttal from the oil industry in every chapter. If one side makes claims based on scientific consensus and the other side is anti-scientific, you don't need to give them equal screen time. Whoever produced this 38 % figure may have fallen for the bothsideism fallacy, in which case they should not be assessing Wikinews's neutrality.

More generally, individual pieces in a news publication are not expected to present all sides of an issue. In an interview to the Beatles you're not expected to include some promotion for the Rolling Stones for balance. This is clear enough in Neutral point of view but local policies like n:en:Wikinews:Neutral point of view have some further information on how to apply the principle in practice, e.g."presenting conflicting views without asserting them" and unbiased writing.

Let's avoid arguments against Wikinews articles which boil down to "it's not a Wikipedia article". Yes it's not and it's not supposed to. Nemo 08:27, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes. I also want to say, sometimes deliberately adding a counterargument can actually reveal a biased stance, and this shouldn’t be treated as a rigid rule. For example, I once interviewed a highly radical and controversial figure who presented a highly unorthodox view on history. In the article’s headline, I added the word "so-called" before his organization's name (XXXgovernment)—that, too, is a form of (try to be) neutrality, You can't deny my neutrality by saying "why don't you recognize his thing as a 'government'", This is reasonable and appropriate, because if I just keep the name of his organization, even if I put it in quotation marks, I will show my support for him maybe. But if a person who holds a radical environmentalist stance is interviewed, and I add a sentence of opposition after each of his non-mainstream and somewhat radical statements, it will make people feel that I am not neutral at all, isn't? Because we have no power to modify the interviewee's words, nor can we influence his thoughts. We are a neutral media, not a modifier. We should indeed adopt different views in our articles, but this is not a mechanical thing. So sometimes it’s necessary to include counterpoints, and sometimes it’s not. This should be self-evident. Certain people equate neutrality with balance, envisioning it as two perfectly symmetrical halves—such a thing does not exist.~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 09:35, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikinews should be closed, because news with neutral point of view are almost impossible Fenikals (talk) 12:32, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

In fact, even purely theoretically, the vast majority of philosophy, sociology, and literary art theory do not believe that there is a truly neutral text without a stance, including encyclopedias and textbooks etc.. This is something everyone knows. But the pursuit of "neutrality" is what the entire Wikimedia has been doing. If you still have faith and confidence in the Wikimedia movement, you should not shut down a project for this reason, because "there is no neutral encyclopedia " either at all.~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 05:03, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Znowu te duże kwantyfikatory. No to zróbmy test. Gdzie ukrywa się bias w artykułach n:pl:Wolne Lektury publikują „Sokół morski” Rafaela Sabatini, n:pl:Zachodniopomorskie: w miejscowości Wyszomierz 11-letni chłopiec został ranny w wyniku upadku z motocykla crossowego, n:pl:Kraków: zakończyły się prace serwisowe rzeźby Smoka Wawelskiego pod Wawelem? Sławek Borewicz (talk) 06:23, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

In that case even Wikipedia would not mention the oil industry's statement. That would not be a violation of w:en_POV but rather an appropriate reaction, see w:en:UNDUE.

Also I would like to repeat a question from above by user Bawollf: What exactly is the "media file upload tool update" even referring to? I am not aware of any such measure but WMF is accounting it against Wikinews? Normal users evan cannot upload files to wikinews in the German WN language version. The link in the sidebar immediately redirects to Commons. One can upload files locally by using Spezial:Hochladen (likely somewhat like Special:Upload) but I don't know wether this is available Admin-only or for every user's usage.

@Fenikals_ According "news with neutral point of view" please refer to Wikinews:Neutral point of view#What is the neutral point of view?. If the unnamed right wing media outlet has problems with Wikinews' reporting then very certainly Wikinews did all well. --Matthiasb (talk) 01:25, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Do not miss Wikinews Pulse vote

Please everybody, who is concerned, do not miss (due to mess) the Wikinews Pulse vote: click here: Wikinews Pulse. --Ssr (talk) 12:03, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Some suggestions

Automated translation

Provide automated translation between languages. This will boost the impact of stories, and provide more content for each language.

Generate story suggestions

Scan global new-sites for story suggestions. Providing links to quality sources will help WN editors write and polish stories.

Find a way to keep the main page(s) fresh

Possible a custom homepage for each logged in user. Stories that have been read or been skipped move off the immediately available news. New stories arrive at the top/bottom of each section. Users can select locality and/or topic for each section on their home page.

HTH

Rich Farmbrough. 17:57, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Your suggestions I think fit pretty well within the proposal I have started for Wikinews Pulse. Pharos (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes -- Ssr (talk) 06:11, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Please for the love of God, give us more reviewers at English Wikinews

WMF, please find a way to get more reviewers for English Wikinews. Recruit them, train them, do whatever it takes. I don't care how you do it, just make it happen. So many articles go stale while waiting for review. When articles do manage to get published, it is lucky if they are published within two days of the article's focal point. New editors do not learn of problems in their articles until it is too late to make changes, and even if they do manage to make the corrections, the article is almost never re-reviewed in time before the article goes stale. Give us more reviewers. It's not even that big of a request. I have become skilled at writing for the project and they have even approached me to become a reviewer and I think increasing input on the reviewer side could see the site publishing dozens of articles per week potentially. Don't close the project down. Thanks. Lofi Gurl (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikimedia projects shall run by volunteers. 魔琴 (talk) 00:38, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Then make arrangements amongst volunteers. Lofi Gurl (talk) 01:35, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I believe what 魔琴 is saying is reviewers come from volunteers, i.e., contributors to the project. You could volunteer to become a reviewer. You don't have to wait to be nominated by someone. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 12:32, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes I think so, and this works for zhwn. I'm not really sure about enwn's mechanism. zhwn's policies state that reviewers need to be "experienced" journalists, but there are no strict, hard requirements. Wikinews requires a sort-of compact community, which currently appears to be the core of how Wikinews operates. Therefore, the review process runs within the community itself. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 07:28, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

So this is really more of a community thing, and it doesn't necessarily have to be a systemic issue. You know, the community handles it themselves. However, it is reasonable to seek more support when there is a problem. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 07:32, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. I also found this problem in enwn. This happened to Chinese Wikinews a while ago, and I was the only active reviewer at the time. But now we have three people taking turns now, which is enough. However, the review process of Chinese Wikinews is simpler. But I think it's mainly a community issue. anyway We can’t let WMF pay our salaries, we are volunteers~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 01:40, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Is there a help page or policy page that describes the review process you guys use there? I'd like to see what's different between the two. Thank you in advance. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 12:24, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

• I felt that I should weigh in here. I have been involved at English WN for well over 20 years now (as Bddpaux there). So much of the chatter here reveals just how little most people know/understand about WN overall. WN is a journalistic endeavour -- nothing else. I am an Accredited Reporter, a Reviewer and an Administrator there. While I have believed that having loads of WN projects under an array of languages in borderline silly -- WN is an important project. Instead of subjecting it to the hatchet, maybe some grognards within the WMF could seek to build it up and support it and help become something great. The stories there ARE NOT original research -- they are sourced journalistic articles.--Buddpaul (talk) 18:07, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

  Even if you think there's a lot of stupid chit-chat here, please join in the discussion, because the discussion has already begun. Welcome ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 08:05, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

In fact, zhwn editors sometimes envy enwn's mechanism, envious that you have enough reviewers to place a template on the discussion page and conduct strict reviews from different angles. Currently zhwn's review process is very simple; we merely finalize the review of an article by modifying the {review}} template within the entry itself. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 07:39, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Take the recent few articles as an example. After I finish writing an article, Kitabc or others will see it and make modifications and additions based on my article. Then, when I see Kit has modified my article, I may make some minor adjustments... In short, after everything is done, I may go to a third editor who is not involved and ask him to review and check the article and make comments. When we agree, we will approve it. The cooperation between us is relatively frequent and direct. The impression that enwn has given me in the past year is that you submit the article for review, and after waiting for a few hours or even a day or two, it will be returned almost intact. Then you modify it according to the review comments and submit it again. This time you may have to wait longer, or maybe not. In addition to the reviewers, only people occasionally say a few words on the discussion page. I don’t think zhwn’s system is better or more suitable for enwn. In fact, enwn’s strict review itself is more ideal anyway, but zhwn’s unwritten model is indeed suitable for zhwn at present. The community will handle these things themselves. This is not a strict pattern. The "three-person shift" I mentioned earlier only refers to the situation on zhwn in the past few dozen days. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 07:56, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

The review of Chinese WikiNews is not that strict in form, but it is also passed after several editors carefully read the article itself and the source and reach a consensus. As long as the volunteers are serious(All volunteer projects require this). ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 11:54, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

In addition, we will also make revisions after publication, which is very common, but they are usually entire page vertion-to-vertion edit (like changing the overall language style or typesetting logic) or just some minor edits, and will never affect readers' reading at any time (beacause there's no gap and fact itself won't change), only make it better. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Sometimes someone else's iteration of an article I create doesn't appeal to me or doesn't fit my aesthetic, yes, but I can fix it back close to my own ideas, and we gradually come to an unspoken consensus, which usually makes the article better. I haven't really thought about this critically, but it seems to be the case at the moment. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Maybe enwn is little bit too respectful of the author's "sovereignty" over his or her manuscript? (Or maybe it's simply because there aren't enough people. The data doesn't show that this is the case.) ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Support

As an administrator on Arabic Wikinews, I support the closure or archiving Wikinews.

Due to the very low activity levels, for example, Arabic Wikinews has unfortunately become a target for vandals, with little to no constructive contributions. In addition, the site traffic is extremely limited, and in today’s fast-paced digital era, readers turn to other platforms that provide news much faster and more efficiently than Wikinews.

For these reasons, I strongly support the closure or archiving of the project.-- Faisal ^talk 01:01, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

True. If there are only vandals and it is difficult to maintain, the community should decide to close it. There is precedent. However, this situation only exists on some WNs, such as your ArbicWN. Maybe we only need to close the Arabic WN as before.~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 01:44, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

With Wikinews Pulse, arabic community may benefit from exporting content from another languages even without active local community. --Ssr (talk) 06:31, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, if you are an administrator of Arabic Wikinews and see the problem in it, then support closure of your local project, not all the Wikinews, why overheneralisation? We don't have such problems. BilboBeggins (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

hi @فيصل, this is an issue in English Wikinews too. A lot of botspam. Maybe in any small wiki. Can you look for helpful vandalism fighters from Arabic Wikipedia to help you? They are usually not as separate as English Wikipedia from English Wikinews.

I am frustrated that i have to login to wiki to take an action. Each deletion requires 3 clicks. It would be nice if i had Android app for admin work and AI flagged suspected spam pages i just need to press "delete" and it moves to next recently created suspected spam page automatically where i can delete or keep with one button click. Would such a tool help you also? Gryllida 16:29, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I will not start another topic here because the whole talk page looks a bit like a mess already... The topic is calling 'Support' so I am here to (weak) support. I guess that initially, the idea of Wikinews should have been great -- as a place for publishing as less biased news as possible, contrary to how it appears in most of mass media, and as a platform for beginner or amateur journalists. Wikinews is a big work of a large number of editors. But in the end, I will not be upset if Wikinews will be maintained no more by the WMF. I have never used Wikinews in Russian, English or in any other language as my personal source of information. WN is even poorly indexing by the search engines like Google. Also, WN always has a huge risk to be a target for POV pushing due to, at best, too 'liberal' moderation principles, it is in fact utopia to see it as a source of unbiased news, if it was really supposed to be seen like that. --Wolverène (talk) 07:47, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Refer here about the bias. --Ssr (talk) 08:19, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

WN is even poorly indexing by the search engines like Google - What do you mean? Here I enter a query into Google "Мирослава Немцова фейк" and I see my last article on WN in the search results. Not in first place, but in the top ten results, next to Proverno.media and Stopfake.org (I think this is a good result). The difference is that WN is not blocked in the Russian Federation and anyone can read this news without any effort. This is what you and Victoria are trying to kill. Nicoljaus (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

how to get added into Google News? Gryllida 16:30, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I tried searching for a few news stories (news which had been reported on Wikinews), and WN’s articles were basically the second result in the search results, and at least they could be seen on the first page (zhwn)~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 11:40, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

But the SPTF proposal says if there are only few edits there is no vandalism but more success would result in vandalism. Who is right? Matthiasb (talk) 11:09, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

My opinion on Wikinews

To be honest, the closure of Wikinews would save money for the WMF to host other projects for longer. Due to lower activity levels, it may not be useful to continue operating Wikinews.

I support closure of the project, because these references found in every WN article could be useful for Wikipedia. This fast-paced digital era would not need Wikinews because there are better platforms to host news about rapidly changing current events. Ahri Boy (talk) 03:56, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Większość kasy WMF przejada na pensje dla administracji. Tu są prawdziwe koszty, które można by redukować. Utrzymanie serwisów to są promile. A better platforms to gadanie bez pokrycia. Ja nie znam takich, gdzie można wejść i napisać newsa. Sławek Borewicz (talk) 05:59, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Sławek Borewicz from Polish Wikinews, I am trying to improve some workflows in English Wikinews. The following interest me please:

• What social media do you post news to? Is this done by a bot or a human or a few humans?
• What social media?
• How do the users do 'real time communication' for collaboration?
• Are news being generated in audio or video format?
• Are end users presented with option to subscribe? How is this implemented?
• What utilities are you using to aid reviewing? Are reviewers assigned to regions?
• What software was coded for Wikinews and made open source?
• How are translations to other languages encouraged or facilitated?

Thanks. Gryllida 16:23, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Gryllida, nie bardzo wiem skąd te "from" i dlaczego z tymi pytaniami zwracasz się do mnie. Chyba, że mam je traktować jako pytania retoryczne. Ja niczego nie postuję. Sławek Borewicz (talk) 04:26, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I basically agree with Sławek Borewicz, it is absolutely true. First of all, there is no substitute for Wikinews, and secondly, I fully believe that the proportion of Wikinews' expenses is really small, unless WMF discloses all the details of its expenses. This expense of Wikinews will not affect the development of other projects,at all. It's like whether you go to the hospital with $100,000 or $10,000 will not make you get better from a cold faster, because the best medicine for a cold or even taking a train to the suburbs for recuperation immediately will not cost $10,000. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 06:46, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

The faster the pace of the times, the more it needs to be recorded and archived. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 06:48, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

"News about rapidly changing current events" are currently massively brought to Wikipedia and then much efforts are spent to delete it from there and to serve all procedures coming with it. WP:NOTNEWS, NOTNEWS, NOTNEWS, NOTNEWS, that's what is said constantly at AfDs. So using Wikinews to handle it will actually LOWER the expenses, not increase them (topicstarter tries to mislead us). -- Ssr (talk) 07:22, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Ssr from Russian Wikinews, I am trying to improve some workflows in English Wikinews. The following interest me:

• What social media do you post news to? Is this done by a bot or a human or a few humans?
• What social media?
• How do the users do 'real time communication' for collaboration?
• Are news being generated in audio or video format?
• Are end users presented with option to subscribe? How is this implemented?
• What utilities are you using to aid reviewing? Are reviewers assigned to regions?
• What software was coded for Wikinews and made open source?
• How are translations to other languages encouraged or facilitated?

Thanks. Gryllida 16:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I have no more time and energy for these consultations. Come back when you solve general problems. If Wikinews are kept and improved, then I will gladly consult you. If they are killed by wiki-enemies, this makes no sense and doesn't worth my time. -- Ssr (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

"HOST OTHER PROJECTS FOR LONGER"! Just think about it! As if Wikipedia is going to die.

Is it really going to die? And can be salvated for a bit longer by destroying some pieces of wiki-volunteer work? -- Ssr (talk) 07:34, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia won't live forether. That is undisputable for several reasons, we do not need to discuss this here. But some 10,000 oder 50,000 dollars will not make a difference on wikipedia life cycle. Matthiasb (talk) 11:12, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Salvaging Wikipedia content in the event of the possible shutdown might take a lot of time. What if militaries indiscriminately hit WMF servers? Ahri Boy (talk) 11:32, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

The WMF servers are not located all on the same places. They're dislocated in several countries on several continents. Salvaging Wikiepdia (and sister projects' content) is feasable quickly as all the content and all of Commons' files are stored in files shortfrequently and available all over the web.

In fact, if some crooked US president would attack WMF's US servers only half an hour later (or even faster) the WMF's servers in Singapore would deliver Wikipedia world wider. Or the WMF's servers in Europe would do. And users could edit without further disruptions.

The greatest danger would be to destroy Wikipedia and its sister projects from within. And the fear of such a danger has grown significantly since this proposal went online, IMHO. Wehret den Anfängen! Matthiasb (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

"What if militaries indiscriminately hit WMF servers" — please study thoroughly how Wikipedia works before voting against Wikimedia projects and support destructive and abusive users. Creative Commons licenses, which Wikipedia relies on, are created for very this purpose — to protect data by its wide distribution. A copy of selected Wikipedia articles, engraved in non-decayable metal, is already launched to the Moon and more to come. Better know what you are voting about. --Ssr (talk) 07:03, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Forgot to say about WP 1.0, an ongoing ENWP offline version for places with limited internet connection. The offline content is carefully curated. Ahri Boy (talk) 08:33, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

w:Kiwix -- Ssr (talk) 03:39, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Then we need to know from Wikimedia Foundation how much money it spends on Wikinews.

It is pretty clear to me that Wikinews editors spend more time, which is the main resource, than WMF.

For transparency reasons I ask how much resources would

osing of Wikinews free, where it would go and whether it would really help Wikipedia to operate and to be hosted for longer time.l BilboBeggins (talk) 12:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Request for comment regarding SPTF

I started Request for comment/Closure of Sister Project Task Force which is related to this proposal. Best regards, A09|(pogovor) 12:16, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

What is being discussed here?

I have been following this discussion, and have problems understanding what is happening here. The factual side is that SPTF used some indicators and came to the conclusion that (pretty much simplifying things) the Wikinews publishes news on various topics but does not cover any specific field (lack of focus), they do it irregularly and often with a long delay, and there is no indication that they are being read. This is happening after more than 20 years of their existence. I personally do not have any stake in the Wikinews, never edited any in any language, but I do not have a strong opinion on what should happen to the project. I see that a number of Wikinews editors here, some in good standing, some not, are understandably frustrated with what happened. However, to have this structured, I would have expected the rebuttal along the following lines:

• Are the indicators which have been used correct and relevant? This is IMO the weakest point of the report, like, for example, the number of links from the (English) Wikipedia to the (English) Wikinews is totally irrelevant and can not serve as an indicator of anything. However, I have seen this mentioned but not structurally discussed.
• Assuming other (relevant and reasonable) set of indicators have been used, would the conclusion still be the same or different? I do not see any convincing arguments on this page.
• Assuming the conclusions are valid, is there a way to refocus Wikinews that they could cover some specific area but comprehensively? (You know, grassroot journalism and all that). The answer seems to be no, there is no desire in the Wikinews community to shift focus.
• Assuming the conclusions are valid, can the workflow be changed so that Wikinews becomes efficient? I see a proposal for a new project, but otherwise nothing really useful on this page.

I think these are the issues which should be discussed. Instead, what I see discussed is whether the WMF has the authority to close the Wikinews, how Wikinews would work if it had 100x more contributors, whether users from others Wikimedia projects have a moral ground to opine, whether SPTF is generally a competent body, and other similarly irrelevant issues. This of course makes it an interesting discussion to follow but hardly addresses the issues from the report.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

You are right, this page does lack these discussions. Although some people have mentioned it, there are not enough discussions. However, many errors in indicators do not need to be discussed, because they have been pointed out and almost no one has refuted them, which may indicate that these indicators are indeed wrong. Many things, including some explorations and reforms of Wikinews, do not necessarily need to be discussed here. The local community has been trying to make things better, in the teahouse or WaterCooler. But we do lack some discussion articles here, it is true~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I think the most damning thing you can say about Wikinews is that the best defense anyone seems to be able to come up with is to attack on procedure and not defend Wikinews on its merits. Bawolff (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Oczekujesz, że ktoś będzie przedstawiać wartości projektu, o którego zamknięciu zapadła już decyzja, a jego twórcy mają się tylko wypowiedzieć, jaka forma zamknięcia będzie najlepsza? Spodziewasz się innych reakcji wobec tak perwersyjnej propozycji? To sytuacja analogiczna do grupowego zwolnienia, gdzie prosi się zwalnianych pracowników o napisanie sobie mów pożegnalnych, aby nie ucierpiał wizerunek korporacji. I oni mają teraz mówić o zaletach swojej pracy? A wracając do przedstawiania wartości, przecież i tak tego nikt decyzyjny nie przeczyta. Zresztą, to, co wyróżnia ten serwis, parokrotnie w tej dyskusji zostało przedstawione. Robienie kolejnego podsumowania i wskazywania zalet, ponieważ kolejny użytkownik (któremu się tej dyskusji nie chce czytać) ma swojej spostrzeżenia, to byłby masochizm. Sławek Borewicz (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Click here please for "addresses the issues from the report". Until clicked and discussed, your comments are as well a "hardly addresses" as other comments here. -- Ssr (talk) 03:46, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Click here please -- Ssr (talk) 03:53, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

BTW Ymblanter is a wiki-stalker who cyberbullyed me numerous times in EWP, many years before Victoria Doronina and Dronebogus started doing such things. They are members of a larger group of enemies of Wikimedia movement who tend to harass other users, primarily in RWP (except Dronebogus), coordinating their attacks via "Discord chat". Their strategy is to make Wikipedia an unpleasant place so people flee from it and they think they "overtake power" in Wikimedia projects, despite declared "equality" on 5P and stupid rules such as WPːBATTLEFIELD. Victoria is now "organizing Wikimania", as she says, and these "Wikimanias" spend so much donated money on expensive hotels and travels that overcome Wikinews server maintenance costs in thousands of times while regular Wikipedians suffer from oppression caused by disruptive editors who WMF allow to edit constantly. -- Ssr (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

This is pretty much exactly what i'm talking about. I clicked on your link and stand by my opinion. The persecution complex is childish and makes the close wikinews side look stronger. Bawolff (talk) 05:02, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Oh, yes, revenge is what drives you, it's so rational to "makes the close wikinews side look stronger" because of you personal desire to revenge. -- Ssr (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

...okay, I thouhght a little bit more and now I think that you hate me so much that you want to punish me by closing wikinews, because "side look stronger". Well, I am so tired of this conversation that I now will be glad if you close wikinews finally and leave me alone. Go and do it, show everyone how good you are. Doing this will definitely uprise you in all means, and I will finally be free from having to talk to your persistent group for years about this silly case. You are better and more clever than me. I have to go, you have to stay. Let it be so, if you want it this much. Farewell! -- Ssr (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

The above comment is total bullshit mixed with the outright lie. Ymblanter (talk) 07:16, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Did you file complaints against me personally? How many times? Were it successful?

Answer "no" to the 1st question indicates the outright lie instantly _from you_ (as usual for long time).

Answer "no" to the 3rd question indicates total bullshit instantly _from you_ (as usual for long time).

Since correct and true answers to 1st is "yes" and to 3rd is "no", it is _your_ "above comment is total bullshit mixed with the outright lie". --Ssr (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, I just asked you to declare paid editing, because you were a paid editor (for the Russian state btw). You refused, and I had to ask other people to remind you that this is not optional. The managed to explain this to you, in this sense it was successful. This is what you call "personal attacks" and "stalking". You are not a user in good standing, so I do not particularly care what you say here, how much you lie and what bullshit you throw on us, but casual readers may think you are a user in good standing, so a comment was needed. Ymblanter (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Otherwise you may have the last word as far as I am concerned. I have other things to do. Ymblanter (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Lies as usual. More over, utter lies. "You refused": plain lie, I did it 1) before you ask 2) before it was officially required. 3) You are utter liar. as usual. 4) You attacked me (vainly) more times but now are silent about it (as usual). 5) You were always first to attack me while I don't care about you and don't touch you (as usual, and as is right now). 6) Why are all Wikinews attackers so much liars, I wonder? --Ssr (talk) 03:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I think the report, and particularly its sole recommendation to close Wikinews, has had a significantly disruptive effect, at least on English Wikinews, where I am active and familiar. Before the report and this consultation, we had a small but steadily active group of contributors making modest but measurable progress. Our publication rate had increased over 2024, and user engagement, as reflected in user page views, was also improving.

Since the report’s release, however, participation has dropped sharply. For the past two weeks, we’ve had only one active reviewer. And without reviewers, nothing can be published. The chilling effect is real.

I acknowledge the valid points raised by @Ymblanter and @Bawolff: the response from our community hasn’t been structured, and that undermines our case. But part of the reason for that is also the disruption itself. It creates a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. A small and somewhat fractured group of contributors now finds it even harder to mount a coherent and confident defense of the project or articulate a unified path forward. That’s unfortunate, especially given that only recently has there been broad consensus among active contributors at en.WN that major changes are necessary. The big conversation up until this consultation was how to fundamentally reform the review process, if we even keep it.

If the SPTF had reached out first and said something like, “We see you’re trying to revitalize the project. If your goal is to stay viable, we encourage you to focus on X, Y, and Z, and we’ll review your progress in six months,” I believe that would have been far more constructive and more aligned with the movement’s broader goal of helping open projects fulfill their mission.

My hope is the process, however flawed and also truthful, serves as a shot across the bow of Wikinews that spurs productive action. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I totally agree with Mr. Michael.C.Wright's point of view. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

"Are the indicators which have been used correct and relevant?" — they are not.

For instance, conclusion that Eussian Wikinews has five active users is based on a number of editors who have made edits in short time span, they just counted how many people made 1000 edits.

And it contradicts statistics given in the image published in the very same report.

The report is of poor quality. BilboBeggins (talk) 07:28, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

It also is full of untrue claims. It's the result of issues Vitoria has with the RU WN communities and therefore all languages must go Matthiasb (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Gentle reminder: One day left until the end of this consultation

Dear Wikimedia colleagues, fellow Wikinews contributors:

This discussion will conclude in one day. Thank you all for your attention, suggestions, and efforts; kindly request those with unpublished perspectives to share them promptly. According to the SPTF's statement during the second online meeting, the final decision on Wikinews' future will be made by the end of December. I hope everyone continues to be diligent and brave.

Although this consultation was born with an unclear foundation(as many have criticized), it has indeed provided an opportunity for cross-language communication and the reform of Wikinews. Local communities, as always, have worked hard, publishing news articles and discussing new systems.

While not much lengthy expositions were available for this consultation, it still clarified many viewpoints from all sides. Currently, regarding the foundation of the consultation – the SPTF report – there are many questions that have received little to no positive response. Much data has been disproven and has not been re-proved. This is perhaps the most fundamental issue that should be seriously considered. As a public consultation, the SPTF should have widely participated in the dialogue, but authors of the document were absent (If intended to demonstrate non-interference, this seems rather unwise). If the SPTF does not choose to release a pile of counter-arguments that can no longer be countered the day after the consultation closes, then these questions might well be considered substantiated.

This discussion has also clarified many misunderstandings and myths, many who genuinely care about Wikinews participated. They provided introductions to their respective sites, shared their views and outlooks, providing more impetus for future cross-language collaboration among Wikinews sites. This consultation has dampened the motivation of volunteers and put pressure on the community, yet it brought together Wikinews contributors from around the world, even though the SPTF did not give notice (and some people still don’t know). I believe it can also provide reference for the future.

This process has also spawned many other proposals, such as closing the SPTF proposal and Wikinews Pulse proposal etc., discussions will continue there. Let us continue to watch and witness how the SPTF and other bodies will make their final decision in the spirit of the Wikimedia movement.

Meanwhile, Dear Wikimedia colleagues, Wikimania 2025 is approaching. Let us celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Wikimedia Internation Conference together.

Thank you for your efforts. With best regards! ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 05:23, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

The SPTF members participated in this discussion, I see at least three of them on this page, commenting extensively. Ymblanter (talk) 06:38, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, thank you for your correction, this was an oversight. (But I really haven't seen enough positive responses to the data doubts.) ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 06:48, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

This is ending in a day? I am from en Wikipedia and never received any notice that this was happening. I only found this discussion by chance as someone proposed deleting some photos from Commons, which pinged me on en Wikipedia as I was subscribed to all talk page discussion for an article, and then I decided to try to look at the other projects to find an old ping I had received months ago and couldn't find, ended up here at meta Wikimedia, and saw the notice on this project's front page. (Yes, for those keeping track, I found this discussion because someone pinged me to this project months ago and I tried to find it because of a separate discussion on a separate project.)

I am feeling blindsided here. How is Template:Wikinews and the related ones supposed to work in the future? Sorry if this is in the wrong spot, but this is so sudden to me and this discussion is apparently closing soon. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:57, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

@Super Goku V: Anyhow, Wikinews is not getting shut tomorrow – and at least not until December, however based on rereading this page for the umptillionth time I simply don't see consensus on Wikinews closure. You're right on absence of any notification by the committee – not even various Wikinews communities which would be the most affected here were notified of the outright closure proposal. Management and behaviour of the task force is subpar. Fear of breaking enwiki templates so far is irrational and no project is getting shut down any time soon. Best regards, A09|(pogovor) 07:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Again, I understand the frustration - but it is very easy to check that the English Wikipedia community was notified about this discussion in several appropriate venues, for example, a link was added to Template:Centralized_discussion and the link is still there. Ymblanter (talk) 08:09, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Again, let me ask When did the discussion started? This is no longer just an assault tactic—it's hyperspace assault. (and this is a discussion of the English-speaking community only) ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 08:41, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry Ymblanter but not notifying the communities that'd get closed is a failure of basic etiquette. Furthermore, link was added by Sohom Datta (talk · contribs) who is not part of SPTF. A09|(pogovor) 08:46, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

This notice was added on 27 June on the noticeboard which is specifically for that. The noticeboard is not always read very well, and this is why the notice was added to the template I linked to above, on 29 June, and the discussion was also featured in the Signpost which was published around 1 July. Nobody can reasonably complain that the English Wikipedia community was not notified of this discussion. as far as I am concerned, it is irrelevant who added the notice. Ymblanter (talk) 10:48, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

If the Task Force would really operate by their own rules I'd expect a notice from them alone, not the community side. Beside that, notifying enwiki is completely beside the point as the communities that are ought to get closed weren't. A09|(pogovor) 10:55, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

English Wikipedia community? How does this relate to Wikinews...? ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 00:09, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

May be you should start reading first and only then posting replies. Right now what you post on this page looks like random and disconnected from the context. Ymblanter (talk) 05:52, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Oh you were replying to the person above, sorry. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 07:06, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Please re-read this thread (to which you have already posted a bunch of replies), and you will see it, Ymblanter (talk) 07:08, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I was replying to this comment before it was modified. Ymblanter (talk) 07:10, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I indeed misread. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 07:29, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I don't use the Centralized discussion template because you cannot subscribe to it. Regardless, I just found out that this got extended by chance. The reason I am bringing this up is because the Centralized template has taken down the link despite the extension. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:35, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I have the template on my watchlist, and I recommend to do the same to everyone who is interested in meta activities on the English Wikipedia. Ymblanter (talk) 05:41, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the irrational worry then. If Wikinews needs fixing, then I get that. But hearing that it might be closed was a surprise to me. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:36, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Not letting people who want to join the discussion fully participate is truly sad. But this is how things are. Still, I believe the discussion will continue elsewhere, you can keep your attention. If you have anything to say here, it's not too late to post it now. Your reply is good, it's not wrong spot. Like you, I learned about this unexpectedly too. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 08:04, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Consultation Ended? ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you all. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Another RfC related to this has just been established: Requests for comment/Sister Projects next steps ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 02:55, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikinews: A failed experiment

Wikinews is a failed experiment. It has been problematic as long as I can remember, and the problems have not improved in recent years. Simply hoping for more volunteers is futile, and would not address the structural problems.

On English Wikinews, the most recent five news stories date back 17 days and two of them shouldn't even be on the website. A 20-year-old with a photography hobby and a good PR agent. A run-of-the-mill car crash. If that is the best Wikinews can create, it would be best to shut it down to eliminate continuing embarrassment, risk of vandalism, fake news, and legal liability.

For a model where only a handful of unimportant news articles are written cannot survive. Why is there an article on one Major League Baseball game from May 28 (one of hundreds from that month) but nothing about the NBA Championship, the UEFA Champions League final, Formula One, or anything else? Because that is the one someone happened to volunteer to write about. But, more critically, because the "important" events were covered on Wikipedia instead. The Wikimedia projects do not have to be everything to everybody. If a person wants to write about a baseball game they attended, a protest they attended, or a local criminal trail, they are welcome to ... but it is best for everyone if they do so somewhere other than a Wikimedia project.

While there are a few very-loud contributors to other-language Wikinews sites, I don't see any evidence that those sites are better. Chinese Wikinews seems to be a way for two Telegram users to archive their content. The Russian Wikinews activity seems to primarily be re-publication of Creative Commons content as well.

Perhaps the only original content of any value consists of interviews. However, this arguably isn't in-scope for Wikinews now. If some other project wants to import/manage interviews with experts, they can; I will not volunteer anyone for it. A complete rework of the project to focus on that type of content would probably be better accomplished by completely deleting the site and starting over under a new name in an incubator. 力 (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

"Russian Wikinews activity seems to primarily be re-publication of Creative Commons content" — lies, as usual. This page is so full of lies. You seem to be a next wiki-liar here as Jimbo Wales is (together with Lila Tretikov who wanted to sell us) and destructor as Victoria and Yaroslav are. "Re-publication of Creative Commons content" at RWN lasted a couple of months in the past, started and finished within fraction of a year while RWN functions for 15 years since 2005. By saying this, you repeat a very loud lies issued by other liars and destructors who decay community and spoil collaboration. --Ssr (talk) 03:16, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I haven't read the other articles, but the 20-something photography enthusiast? Isn't the main point of that article about the Saturn eclipse and the technical details of the photo? As an astronomy enthusiast, this is definitely an article that can be put on the astronomy channel, and photography channel, and we have also obtained the authorization of an excellent photographic work, and added a CC photo to the world. I don't know what's wrong with such an article. (Of course, this is by no means to suggest the article is perfectly crafted.) It's just that there are too few articles, and this article should not stay on the front page for 17 days, this is true.

But this public consultation has impacted the community, you can see how many people are busy answering various questions in this discussion, maybe some false accusations, elaborating on the mechanism, long-winded, could have written a lot of non-original articles at least. I have an original interview on enwn, but no one reviewed and improve it, and I have several articles I want to publish. Since my homewiki is not enwn, I sent private messages to several enwn reporters, but no one responded.

Do not attempt to blame the community's poor capacity to withstand impact. Such sudden consultation is no different from being unexpectedly betrayed by one's own sisters and brothers. The small size of the Wikinews community is an objective fact. I believe even Wikivoyage and Wikibooks would be affected if they were subjected to this unprecedented sudden consultation.Regarding the incentive issue mentioned earlier – how has this consultation improved it? By informing all active contributors that even the archiving method for their articles remains unclear? Before this consultation began, Gryllda from English Wikipedia and numerous active contributors (including myself) were passionately discussing improvements in full swing at the water cooler. Gryllida and some other users used newly trial-run template pings to notify our user group (including me) to help enhance articles. Now all these people are just disapear. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 06:37, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

For zhwn, "Chinese Wikinews seems to be a way for two Telegram users to archive their content" ?Where did you draw this conclusion from? It's utterly ridiculous. Firstly, ZhWikinews has few active users, but far more than just two(If this because using machine translation I understand). Secondly, if by "active users" you include me, I explicitly state that I only downloaded Telegram after publishing several articles on WN to facilitate better communication. Do you even know what Telegram is before making such claims? It's a streamlined messaging app. I don't understand what "Telegram user" means – by that logic, couldn't I describe everyone present as "email users"? "Public consultation seems to be a way for 100 gmail users to archive their content."

Additionally, Chinese Wikinews has multiple off-site social media reading channels – what's problematic about that? Our Telegram channel has 6,000 subscribers, which isn't insignificant on TG. That's positive, but this channel hasn't been updated in a month while site articles continue to be published. The focus of Chinese Wikinews has never been outside Wikinews itself. I'm sorry but your accusation puts the cart before the horse, 欲加之罪何患無辭. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 06:59, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

At least I personally have two interviews that I haven’t published yet that won’t be time-sensitive. I also have more interviews planned and opportunities. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 07:03, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

My apologies if my words came across strongly,I also acknowledge some issues you've raised, but I hope this can help move the discussion forward. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 07:09, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Look at Russian Wikinews main page content now, most news are original reporting, another article was also written by Wikinewsian. BilboBeggins (talk) 07:31, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Can you explain how you don't find interviews to be within scope? They're a very common format for news coverage. I don't know about other language editions, but English Wikinews deems them enough in scope that they're a good percentage of featured articles. -- Zanimum (talk) 02:37, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Please add here

Response to Public consultation about Wikinews Thanks Gryllida 15:26, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

@Sheminghui.WU Gryllida 15:26, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

🤔thinking ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

@Whatamidoing ^^ Thanks Gryllida 15:40, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

(cc @WhatamIdoing: – your ping was broken, Gryllida :)) //shb (t • c) 03:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

My 2 Cents as an administrator of de.wikinews.org, but in particular as an editor in the Wikinews community

This is a reposting of my post at n:de:Wikinews:Pressestammtisch from 11 July 2025. Some things have been mentioned in the meantime already on this page by others. --Angela H. (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

---

Die Prozesse sind äußerst intransparent. Hier sieht es so aus, als hätte sich 2023 das - wie Matthiasb es nennt - "lustige Komitee" (Sister Projects Task Force) entschieden, ein Beispiel für die Schließung von Projekten zu schaffen - und dann wegen "meiste Bedenken wahrnehmen" (woher?) für Wikinews entschieden. Nach ganzen zwei Jahren(!) informiert man dann erstmals die Wikinews-Communities darüber und dann auch gleich noch mit dem vorweggenommenen Ergebnis. Das fragt man sich schon, ob der Wikimedia Foundation nicht die Projekte doch soweit am Herzen liegen, dass sie nicht eher mal fragt, ob man was für diese tun kann und wo der Schuh drückt. Andererseits scheint es nach Proposal for Closing Wikinews offenbar gerade Wikimedia Staff gewesen zu sein, das irgendwie Kriterien aufgesetzt und überprüft/ausgewertet hat, die zum Ziel(!) die Schließung von Wikinews haben sollten. Darüber sollte dann darauf aufbauend das Komitee eine Entscheidung fällen, oder?

Wie auch immer: Gegen zielgerichtete Aktionen, Projekte schließen zu wollen, scheint mir kein Unkraut gewachsen.

Sinnvoll wäre es - mal abgesehen von der Frage, ob die Kriterien gut sind und die Auswertung o.k. oder einfach nur so, dass es zu den Fragen die passenden schlechten Ergebnisse liefert, indem man fast immer gerade passend die negativen Beispiele aus irgendwelchen Sprachversionen vorführt - gewesen, die Kriterien zu nennen und zu schauen, ob sich daran etwas schrauben lässt.

So kann ich nur sagen, dass es ein Unding gegenüber den Wikinews-Communities ist. Die Hoffnung, dass das die Beiträge zu anderen Wikimedia-Projekten erhöht, wenn man Wikinews komplett schließt, weil die Wikinews-Mitarbeitenden dann mehr Zeit haben, ist zumindest ein Irrglaube. Einzige Chance ist vermutlich: Auslagern und eigenständig weiterführen. Viele Grüße --Angela H. (Diskussion) 21:15, 11. Jul. 2025 (CEST)

Translation: The processes are, in my opinion, extremely mysterious. Here it looks as if the - as Matthiasb calls it - ‘funny committee’ (Sister Projects Task Force) decided in 2023 to create an example for the closure of projects - and then decided in favour of Wikinews because of ‘most concerns’ (from where?). After a whole two years(!), the Wikinews communities are informed about this for the first time, and then with the anticipated result. This makes you wonder whether the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't care enough about the projects to ask whether something can be done for them and where the concern lies. On the other hand, according to the Proposal for Closing Wikinews, it seems to have been Wikimedia Staff that somehow drew up and reviewed/evaluated criteria with the aim(!) of closing Wikinews. The committee should then make a decision based on this, right?

Whatever the case, it seems to me that no weeds grow against targeted actions to close projects.

It would have made sense - apart from the question of whether the criteria are good and the evaluation is okay or simply such that it delivers the right bad results for the questions by almost always presenting the negative examples from some language version - to name the criteria and see whether something can be done about them.

So I can only say that it is a complete farce towards the Wikinews communities. The hope that closing Wikinews completely will increase contributions to other Wikimedia projects because the Wikinews staff will then have more time is a delusion. The only chance is probably to outsource and continue independently. --Angela H. (Diskussion) 21:26, 11. Jul. 2025 (CEST)

---

Angela H. (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Aholtman from German Wikinews, I am trying to improve some workflows in English Wikinews. The following interest me:

• What social media do you post news to? Is this done by a bot or a human or a few humans?
• What social media?
• How do the users do 'real time communication' for collaboration?
• Are news being generated in audio or video format?
• Are end users presented with option to subscribe? How is this implemented?
• What utilities are you using to aid reviewing? Are reviewers assigned to regions?
• What software was coded for Wikinews and made open source?
• How are translations to other languages encouraged or facilitated?

Thanks. Gryllida 16:19, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

"Accountability

The Wikimedia Movement holds itself accountable through community leadership as represented within Wikimedia projects and Wikimedia Movement Bodies. This accountability is implemented through transparent decision-making, dialogue, public notice, reporting of activities, and upholding a Care Responsibility. ——The Charter" ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 23:14, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

None of that ever materialized. Au contraire. Matthiasb (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Thoughts from a lapsed Wikinews editor

(Disclaimers upfront: my experience has only been with the English Wikinews, not other languages. I am a staff member at the Wikimedia Foundation, but my work there has never involved Wikinews and I am writing here as an interested volunteer)

Many years ago I was a very active user on English Wikinews, writing over 50 articles and becoming a reviewer and administrator there. However over time I became disillusioned with the project and eventually retired. Part of that was due to user conduct issues. But a larger part was the realisation that the project simply wasn't viable without serious changes to its model. Since then I've occasionally looked in on the site, and been sad to see little has changed in terms of output despite many well-intentioned attempts. In fact it seems to have declined even further.

I do concur with the comments (in #Toward a more solution-oriented assessment) that the task force evaluation is disappointing in not really engaging with why Wikinews is failing. However the data presented makes it very clear that it is failing, and that either something needs to change or the project needs to be abandoned.

Wikinews as it exists today is still based on traditional "paper-based" modes of publication. Articles are generally written by a single person, reviewed by a single person, and then published and become all but immutable. Other than occasional minor edits, it largely eschews the wiki model of ongoing collaboration which has been so successful on Wikipedia. Even as traditional news outlets have adapted to online publication and reader preferences by updating articles with new information and using formats such as live blogging, Wikinews remains stuck in the past. Moreover because of the lack of active reviewers, publication often takes a long time. Obviously review backlogs are an issue on other wikis too (e.g. en.wikipedia's Articles for Creation process) but this is much more of an issue for news content where delays mean it will at best be covered faster in other outlets, and at worst be completely outdated.

The one way I could see Wikinews remaining a viable project is abandoning any attempt to be a comprehensive news source, and re-focusing on original reporting: citizen journalism, interviews etc. There have been successes here in the past, and these articles can often be less time-sensitive. However there are risks of non-neutral and promotional content to beware of, and more niche content might make it even harder to attract readership.

Finally I want to condemn the aggressive behaviour of some Wikinews editors on this page. And if this standard of behaviour is (still) considered acceptable on Wikinews, then that in itself should be considered in favour of closing. the wub "?!" 17:24, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

What you said about "one person writing, one person reviewing" does not apply to Chinese Wikinews. Many of our articles are contributed by two or three people. But on enwn, for some reason, my experience is indeed "one person writing, one person reviewing". In general, different language versions have different situations. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Also, I think Wikinews is not the least active sister project besides Wikipedia in some language versions, so this may be a meaningful fact, or it may not be, but for example, Chinese Wikinews produces more content and is more active than Chinese Wikibooks(which I also familiar with), so is there something wrong with the Chinese Wikibooks model? ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 22:59, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

You also mentioned 'citizen journalism.' I completely agree with this point. At least within the Chinese community, it’s deeply believed that Wikinews is a citizen media. The Chinese Wikipedia also categorizes Wikinews under citizen journalism, and formally speaking, it certainly is. I agree that for non-original news, most of the time Wikinews just requires someone willing to write to synthesize multiple sources into one lengthy piece of non-original news. Those short, unremarkable, non-original news pieces indeed aren’t very important, except in specific cases—as you know, if volunteers want to write them, that’s perfectly fine. What I mean is, they really don’t need to be emphasized. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 23:08, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your long-term contribution to Wikinews, and I hope you will continue to participate in the community's exploration in the future ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 23:17, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Mam nadzieję, że wynagrodzenie, jakie otrzymujesz z WMF zrekompensowało twoje straty moralne, jakie poniosłeś, angażując się w projekt, który nie spełnił twoich oczekiwań. Widzę, że osiągnąłeś moralną wyższość, która pozwala ci widzieć w tych serwisach newsowych inkubatory agresywnego zachowania, co z pewnością nie jest niczym dobrym. Na szczęście ład korporacyjny dba nie tylko o poziom komunikacji między WMF a społecznościami, ale ma znacznie większy zasięg. Nawet globalny. Dzięki wykupywaniu mediów przez Big Techy z pewnością ten poziom agresji w mediach zostanie zniwelowany do zera. A najgorsze byłoby, gdyby te negatywne emocje skierowane zostały przeciwko mecenasom wolnej wiedzy i informacji. Niestety takie ryzyko istnieje, a tematów, które mogłyby uderzać w politykę mętnej transparentności, nie brakuje. Żeby nie być gołosłownym, tu jest opisany pewien wątek związany z polityką zabezpieczania społeczności przed negatywnym wpływem użytkownika, gdzie ze względu na tę politykę nie można przez rok wyjaśnić, dlaczego trzeba chronić społeczności przed tym użytkownikiem (w pierwszej sekcji treści zostały zwinięte, trzeba kliknąć w [Rozwiń]). To z pewnością także ciekawy wątek do opisania i do dyskusji w tegorocznym międzynarodowym spotkaniu tych, którzy nie zostali uznani za agresywnych. Sławek Borewicz (talk) 04:46, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Well

The real reason why it seems like Wikinews is dying is because opening new wikis are much harder than it should be. English isn't the only language in the world, you know; there are lots of wiki user around the world that want to develop Wikinews in their own local language. Sadly, because of that, a wiki may stuck in "development hell"; not to mention gadget incompatibility, confusing prefixes, "unofficial" web domain, which could turn away new user and broke the spirit of those want to release it from Incubator. To make thing worse, you have to cleanup the template, module, category, and javascript messes after the release. Shoutout to @Amire80

But seeing as Wikimedia wants to launch "wikispore" that could lead to opening multiple "wikis", which has a chance to breed another news wiki, it would render this attempt to close Wikinews as an useless thing to do. Sithah charm (talk) 06:38, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Extending consultation?

There will be a workshop on this sister project consultation at Wikimania, and discussion is still active here. Perhaps the consultation can be extended for a month. –SJ talk  07:21, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

• The consultation is extended until after the Wikimania circa 15th August.--Victoria (talk) 08:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  May I ask where was this decision made? ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 09:30, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  This decision was made during yesterday's online SPTF meeting. As all SPTF meetings, it was recorded but will not be shared - as is the usual practice of the Board - associated committees, for example, Election Commiittee. Victoria (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  If you are sure and everyone has no objections, please change the date on the homepage. I will also delete the statement about the discussion deadline that I added at the top of the page. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  I politely request that you stop doing the general announcements on this page, as SPTF cannot be responsible for the accuracy of your actions. Victoria (talk) 10:46, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  When did I ever post an "announcement"? I only revised the preface based on the timeline you provided. Your own work is inefficient, yet you’re blaming me. If the timeline was changed, why didn’t you mention it earlier? If the timeline wasn’t finalized, why didn’t you remind everyone that the discussion had ended? Why should you or SPTF be responsible for the accuracy of my information? What does what I say have to do with you? It’s you who’ve been vague and selective in your replies, frugal with words. Now, what exactly are you accusing me of? 'Politely requesting' me? This is a fabrication! Have I violated Wikiquette or any community rules? I really don’t know what else to say. --Sheminghui.WU (talk) 11:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  Is this how you treat volunteers? Isn’t this discussion page meant for everyone to discuss? If I recall correctly, the notification SPTF sent to ENWN was also sent by a volunteer like me. What exactly are you doing? ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 11:38, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  What do you mean you 'can't take responsible'? Can't your team even take responsibility for the deadlines you yourselves set? Can you take responsibility for being called 'Victoria'? These things are clearly wrote on the paper in black and white! ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 11:41, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  And what else? What other supposed crimes have I committed that are so dangerous they require you to take responsibility? That discussion thread I started? Didn't you host online meetings precisely to practice "truth becomes clearer through debate" and uphold Wikimedia's spirit of distributed leadership? Why do you dislike open discussion? ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 11:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  Also, are you and your mates a little bit too exhausted lately? If you had objections to this, why didn’t you raise them earlier? I distinctly recall that after I opened the discussion thread, you even 'thanked' me in the edit history within just five minutes. You can’t only refrain from criticizing someone when they’re actively cooperating with your work, could you? ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 11:46, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  If you’re referring to the reminder I posted today, then I’m at a loss for words. How is this an ‘announcement’? What makes this one so different from other reminders that it suddenly qualifies as an announcement? Just because the subject line includes your name or something? I want to understand what possible so-dangerously misleading element could exist in my one-sentence reminder that warrants complete avoidance. I proactively verified the situation with you, and you proved you’re not just a lurker by replying to supplement the information. What exactly is the issue here? ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 11:54, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  My apologize for the intensity of my previous words, but apparently no one would speak to you like this unless you first escalate the issue to a higher level. You have made me feel offended, attacked my past efforts, and seemingly portrayed me as an overstepping authority. Yet where exactly is my authority? I'm just a polite ordinary volunteer! ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 12:02, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  If this is not your intention, please be more careful with your words, politely request! This is not a telegram and typing does not cost money. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 12:03, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  At the same time, if you now want to turn around and accuse me of overthinking or starting to fill in the blanks myself before you even speak—well, it’s precisely because you didn't speak well! If this was only about today’s Reminder post, why didn’t you just address me there? You replied there already, and I truly appreciate that! How could I possibly interpret your words as an attack on my past actions when you didn’t clarify directly? ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  This public consultation has been exhausting for everyone. You said you were preparing to participate in Wikimania, we all have real work to do too. Even if I were to directly accuse this extending the period as a fatigue tactic or some other strange things, what would that do? But I know that's groundless accusation, and I won't do it. Please also refrain from posting ambiguous information. As a volunteer: Thank you for your cooperation! ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 12:14, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  I said these words when I was excited. I believe you will respond in a rational and calm tone after thinking about it. Or still respond only one sentence. But it doesn't matter. You and I have nothing to do with each other. Best regards ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 12:16, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, how can I join that workshop, @Sj? I or another user. I can only do online but maybe someone can do in person. I may need instructions for either. Thank you :) Gryllida 10:49, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

@Kasyap, Noe, Billinghurst, Galahad, Sj, and Victoria:

About the workshop, I assume and hope that the SPTF will represent all the different points, proposals, and solutions put forward by the community in a neutral manner, and not solely focus on the idea that closing Wikinews is the best solution. An open discussion that includes all perspectives both in favor of and against closure would be much more constructive.

I'm not sure if any Wikinews community members will be present at the workshop, but it would be great if they could participate, so that this side is also heard. In any case, I put my faith in the SPTF that whatever decisions they make, they will also represent the community’s voice, and act in the best interest of volunteers' time and efforts.

This is a sensitive matter and I am hopeful that the task force will handle it with the care it deserves.

With the hope for a better outcome. -- Asked42 (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I think I will attend this meeting as a Wikinews reporter. I'm sure there are others, including Gryllida above. Victoria said this would be a discussion meeting, and according to the information on the page, there was no minimum requirement for attendees. I figured, since it was about Wikinews, the Wikinews community should make up at least half (you know) of the attendees. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 05:23, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I am travelling but will find out tomorrow how we can have remote participation. At the least we can have a section for the workshop feedback on this page, with input from all who can't make it but haven't been to previous workshops (including especially Wikinewsies). –SJ talk  23:04, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Okay -- @Gryllida: I'll at least run a zoom hangout from my laptop during the session; will update this page if there's a higher-fidelity option. Please pre-populate questions and comments you have so I can share them in the room even if the connection drops. –SJ talk  16:59, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

@Sj: We are still using Zoom, right? Where is the Zoom code please? Thank you. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

We have a hangout scheduled; and will update the event description appropriately. –SJ talk  15:24, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, see you at the meeting~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

A question to add to your list if you can (I can't attend virtually or physically):

• Are there any specific changes Wikinews could make that would lead the Task Force to reverse its recommendation to close the project?

Thank you in advance. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

@Sj By the way, isn't this Wikimania meeting 1 hour and 20 minutes long? Google Meeting has a one-hour limit. Just to confirm, you're a paid user right? Thanks for that. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 03:51, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

@SjNow is Sydney time 14:54, still no one accept my join request. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 06:54, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry Sheminghui for the confusion about joining, I didn't see the request during the session. We are posting notes from it and will answer all questions or comments you have later today. –SJ talk  12:19, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

That's OK. May I ask how many people participated in the Google Meeting? Sheminghui.WU (talk) 12:41, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

@Sj I heard there were other people who wanted to attend but were not able to get in (for example Gryllida). May I ask approximately how many Wikinews reporter attended the meeting? ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 02:24, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I was the only one I saw in the hangout, alas. We had 10-15 people participate locally (not all could stay the whole time) including 1 person from each of it:wn and en:wn; the others from other sister projects, other than WP. A number had edited WN but not often. Points raised included a) that WN wasn't working well under the current system anywhere, b) that the active communities wanted a clear way to see and work on the health of their projects, c) proposals either boiled down to "changing the concept or implementation so as to bring in new participants" or "being good stewards of the projects as activity wanes and they are eventually archived", and d) proposals for refactoring should be clear about expected cost and impact. Also e) that the Wikispore proposal to run a trial at spore.incubator.wikimedia.org was in theory compatible with the feedback to the project so far. –SJ talk  12:20, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your introduction to the meeting. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Reminder: SPTF extend the discussion until August 15

She will also give a speech on the matter at Wikimania. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 09:39, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

It won't be a speech but a workshop with a discussion. Victoria (talk) 10:41, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

That's great. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 11:15, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

May I ask is this your personal decision, the SPTF's decision, or the community's decision? ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 09:41, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

See above.--Victoria (talk) 10:53, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 11:16, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I noticed you'll be giving a talk on this topic at Wikimania. What are some online discussion channels available for us? Will your presentation involve any information that expressed controversy during this public consultation? Thanks. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 09:49, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

See above. --Victoria (talk) 10:53, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 11:16, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, will the public consultation for Wikispore be simultaneously extended? Why haven't I seen any information related to it? ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 09:54, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

The consultation for the Wikispore wasn't very active and will be superseded by the upcoming RfC, we don't see the point in extending it.--Victoria (talk) 10:53, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 11:17, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I call upon all Wikinews reporters to actively contribute to their respective language editions while following discussions. As several experienced contributors from different sites also said, we have already said enough and raised numerous valid concerns (such as some data-related issues). However, for some reason, the SPTF and its members seems have not provided us with enough adequate and substantive responses for some concerns.

A productive discussion should follow a cycle of questions, answers, more questions, and more answers, ultimately leading to consensus among all parties. If one link in this chain breaks before consensus is reached, then unfortunately, the discussion loses its space to progress. Should this situation remain unchanged, introducing new questions or arguments would hold little significance(Regarding the public consultation itself only). Nevertheless, I still encourage everyone to speak freely. (We can also pay attention to the workshop hosted by Ms. Victoria on Wikimania, which may be a good place for real-time communication)

Personally, I urge you to trust Wikinews and, even in the worst-case scenario, the WMF will at least find a good home for your work. Contribute to improving the language versions that have inevitably (and legitimately) suffered since the consultation began. Thanks (Machine Translation)

I also invite you to actively participate in reform discussions in various local communities (if any). In response to the legitimate concerns of SPTF colleagues, zhwn and enwn, whom I am familiar with, have already had targeted discussions on this issue. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Fork

Przyglądając się dyskusji nad propozycjami przedstawionymi przez wysłanników WMF, można już lepiej ocenić, jakie będą spodziewane efekty. Decyzja ma być przedłużona do grudnia. To raczej za mało czasu, by kilka osób, które działają w serwisach newsowych zrobiły restrukturyzację, w takiej postaci, jaka byłaby zaakceptowana przez WMF. Połączenie z encyklopedią nie wchodzi w grę. To propozycja-wydmuszka. Te "others", to głównie "nic nie zmieniać", co nie będzie do zaakceptowania, bo nie po to rozpoczynano tę hecę, aby nic z tego nie wynikło. Zostają więc dwie opcje, zamknąć, albo sprzedać, i zakładam, że to jest prawdziwy dylemat. Owszem w założeniu jest mowa o przekazaniu jakiejś fundacji, ale znacie jakąś fundację, która byłaby zainteresowana przejęciem tytułu, a nie byłaby powiązana z wielkim biznesem? Duża firma, która powiedzmy ma jakąś tam fundację, mogłaby rzucić sporo kasy, aby przejąć tytuł. Byłby wówczas mocno propagowany jako wspierający dziennikarstwo obywatelskie w czasach globalnego kryzysu dziennikarstwa. Z pewnością byłoby to dla takiej fundacji i prowadzącej jej firmy prestiżowe. Idąc dalej, uruchomiono by pewnie różne gamifikacje, aby rywalizujący ze sobą dziennikarze mogli wygrywać jakieś materialne profity, jeśli ich tytuły byłyby wykopywane na stronę główną. Byłaby zabawa, wciąganie ludzi do gry, jakaś tam niewielka kasa z reklam, ale przede wszystkim poprawa wizerunku dla firmy będącej nowym świętym Jerzym. Z czasem zaczęłoby się obsmarowywanie wewnętrznych konkurentów i wszystko by siadło, bo obsmarowywać innych można równie łatwo w social mediach (tak padły własnościowe Wiadomości24.pl i pewnie wiele innych tytułów). Ponieważ większość wersji językowych teraz działa na licencji cc-by, nie byłoby problemem, aby przejść na cc-by-nc-nd i realnie zablokować możliwość zarabiania na mirrorach, a więc nikomu by się nie opłacało kopiowanie tych treści (w warunkach licencji zawsze można dodać, że należy wstawić wielki baner z linkiem do firmy / fundacji nad artykułem). Jeśli taka miałaby być alternatywa, to najlepiej od razu przejść na cc-by-sa dla wszystkich wersji, które jeszcze tego nie zrobiły. Prędzej czy później wątek zamykania i przekazywania tytułu wróci.

Drugi aspekt techniczny jest jeszcze bardziej zagmatwany, a nie widzę, by było to wytłumaczone. Jeśli tytuł miałby być przekazany razem z zawartością, to także z informacjami o autorach treści. Czy nowi użytkownicy mogliby zakładać konta w taki sam sposób, czy dotychczasowi musieliby zakładać nowe konta, czy też potwierdzać, że pod swoimi kontami działali. Nie wszyscy musieli podać e-mail, aby to uwiarygodnić droga mailową. Serwery zewnętrznego podmiotu nie będą połączone z serwerami WMF, więc jak miałaby wyglądać kwestia kont uniwersalnych? Jak potwierdzać własną tożsamość jako autora? Jeśli to byłoby technicznie nie do przeskoczenia, to sprzedany mógłby być jedynie tytuł z treścią jakoś tam zarchiwizowaną w subdomenach. To wymagałoby mimo wszystko sporo działań, aby do takiej transakcji mogło dojść. Zewnętrzny podmiot nie miałby też dojść do tych wszystkich narzędzi utrzymywanych na serwerach WMF, z których korzysta się w serwisach. No, chyba że kolejna transakcja, w co wątpię. Łatwiej będzie po prostu serwisy zamknąć bez przekazywania ich na zewnątrz.

Chyba nie pozostaje wam nic innego, jak założyć forka. Polskojęzyczna encyklopedia też tak zaczynała, ponieważ nie było zgody, aby była utrzymywana na serwerach Jimbo. Wystarczył taki serwer w takiej serwerowni, wymyślenie nazwy dla projektu i opłacenie domeny. Sławek Borewicz (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

👍👍👍Putting aside the details of your views, I personally admire your talent. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Links from Wikipedia to Wikinews

Proposal for Closing Wikinews contains false statements about links from Wikipedia to Wikinews. It approves Other Wikimedia projects are not relying significantly on Wikinews and Russian Wikipedia has only 880 links to Wikinews. It is not true. The creators of the report did not count the links in the sidebar. For example only category People by alphabetical order in Russian Wikipedia (ru:Категория:Персоналии по алфавиту) contains 19170 links to Wikinews Butko (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

 Strong support Ssr (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Links from Wikipedia to Wikinews: w:Russian_Wikipedia#External_links -- Ssr (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

As I said above, no one responded to the doubts. We have raised the core issues. Of course, they are still just questions. Maybe we are wrong, but no one responded. If no one responded, how can the discussion proceed? ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 05:18, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Extended content
Strong support --Ssr (talk) 20:07, 2 August 2025 (UTC) Kiedyś znalazłem nieco czasu na dodawanie linki do projektów siostrzanych w kategoriach: pl:Kategoria:Archeologia. Tego narzędzie pewnie też nie wyłapuje. Sławek Borewicz (talk) 06:28, 2 August 2025 (UTC) All over the discussion, NUMEROUS evidence were provided definitely proving Wikinews are VALID (such as this). They turn out to be simply and completely IGNORED by WMF staff and the destructive group, who keep saying their initial words DESPITE EVIDENCE. I suppose this is becauise of a TRICKY nature of these people who wasn's going to change their mind from beginning no matter what evidence are. A common thing for Western civilization. --Ssr (talk) 02:45, 3 August 2025 (UTC) Ssr, don't be anxious. Although I personally don't like their procrastinating attitude, but if they keep refusing to respond, everyone will realize these things. There is no need to criticize them so thoroughly at the moment. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 09:26, 3 August 2025 (UTC) Another WMF lie in a row is that they reduce carbon dioxide. In reality, they travel to their expensive Wikimanias in business class that produce enlarged carbon dioxide. But they simultaneously keep saying that they kill Wikinews to save money on servers while Wikinews consumes microscopic server capacity compared to their general activities. Jimbo is liar, and his organization is also full of liars. --Ssr (talk) 04:28, 4 August 2025 (UTC) By "links to Wikinews", I think it's clear that the report means links which appear in the content of a page of another project. Interwiki links do not constitute one project "relying on" the other. Omphalographer (talk) 02:13, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

My two cents

There are several problems with Wikinews that explain the reduced traffic, including:

• Lack of use on Wikipedia: Wikinews articles are not considered reliable for sources of information on English Wikipedia.
• Format: Almost all Wikinews articles are protected as part of "archival" where pages are protected to "preserve history". This kind of format is incompatible with a wiki. It may work better if the software were a microblogging service similar to Tumblr or WordPress.
• Redundancy with Wikipedia: Wikipedia is a de facto collection of all news sources. Despite Wikipedia not being a newspaper, people visit Wikipedia to learn about recent news events. The column "In the news" is redundant to Wikinews's homepage.
• Activity: English Wikinews has very few administrators. It has more than many of the popular Fandom projects, but the list is enough to fit on one page.

I think because of this what should happen is we should either merge Wikinews with Wikipedia because Wikipedia has a clearer objective and better summarizes news events or we should archive/delete Wikinews entirely. Aasim 02:26, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for putting forward these ideas; they are helpful for us in figuring out how to improve Wikinews. Below are some of my thoughts on your comments:

• 1. Wikipedia is indeed the sister project with the highest pageviews. But first, Wikipedia itself is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards either. Currently, no sister project meets the definition of a "reliable source" because we are all "Wikisisters". Regarding the number of links, as mentioned earlier in the discussion thread, the conclusion that "Wikipedia hardly uses Wikinews" is highly debatable. However, personally, I haven't seen anyone from SPTF respond to this data issue yet. We cannot substantiate it.
• 2. As I and many others have stated earlier, Wikinews archives content simply because it is Wikinews; that's the format it requires, similar to how classical Chinese texts in Wikisource aren't frequently modified either. Perhaps the software you mentioned would be more suitable for Wikinews, but Wikinews clearly has a distinct Wiki workflow. As I mentioned before, during my time on zhwn (Chinese Wikinews), almost every news draft has involved input from others. Moreover, articles on Wikipedia, Wikivoyage, and almost all other sister projects are also primarily completed by one or two main editors. Otherwise, we wouldn't have concepts like "main editor" or DYK(Did You Know?) counts.
• 3. Regarding "Redundancy with Wikipedia", I think you might not be a reader or editor of Wikinews before. If you were, perhaps you wouldn't say that. If you open the main page of zhwn or enwn (English Wikinews), most articles are on topics not covered on Wikipedia; this has always been the case. For example Wikinews articles include a lot of local news or news on specific topics (e.g., astronomy), as well as original reporting, interviews, etc. In terms of content, we don't lag behind any sister project.
  • "Many news items not on Wikipedia" – This is quite understandable. For example, suppose a city in China forces all female students to shave their heads. If such an event happens, people could come to Wikinews to read about it. But I don't know how to find this information on Wikipedia – what would I search for? Would there be an article? Unless the event becomes significant enough to warrant its own Wikipedia entry. As for things like how many seats the UK Labour Party won in an election, yes, you can find that on Wikipedia, or look at The Guardian or The Morning Star – Google's homepage might even show it. These things aren't particularly crucial for Wikinews. Maybe a short bulletin is posted initially, and then a volunteer writes a news article later. At least on Chinese Wikinews, we've never focused on such events. (Of course, if there's a well-sourced, in-depth, non-original article synthesizing multiple sources, that could also have great supplementary value.)
• 4. Personally, I indeed feel enwn has been significantly impacted by this public consultation since it suddenly began. Before the consultation, at least I see administrator Gryllida and some other experienced users were actively discussing reforms, at water cooler, you could search it by your self. Now, there are fewer of these users. However, recently I've seen several enwn reporters applying to become reviewers or preparing to run for administrator positions, so perhaps the situation is improving(I believe). At least on Chinese Wikinews, the administrators have remained active and sufficient in number. Again, the situation differs across language versions.

Personally, I certainly do not favor the idea of deleting Wikinews at the moment. However, this is both my position and my current assessment. I hope to discuss this further with you.

Best regards, ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 06:06, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Piszesz wyłącznie o wersji angielskiej, a ta dyskusja nie dotyczy tylko świata anglojęzycznego. Sławek Borewicz (talk) 06:22, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Russian, Chinese and English Wikinews cannot be closed (or transformed into other projects), because they are widely used and lead in comparison with other language versions. Proof: Graphic from Proposal for Closing Wikinews – Виктор Пинчук (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the Redundancy with Wikipedia part, there are times where something is removed from en.Wikipedia because of the Wikipedia is not a newspaper rule. Perhaps in those situations and on other Wikipedia languages where similar policies exist, those pages should be instead be allowed to be reviewed by Wikinews editors to see if an article is possible. Food for thought at the least. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:45, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Collapsing some unfriendly and unhelpful discussion.

Extended content
"Wikinews articles are not considered reliable for sources of information on English Wikipedia" because of oppression and agression against them that totally contradict with Wikimedia values. In fact they can be used this way, but, in contradiction to base Wikimedia principles, enemies of Wikimedia movement, such as user:沈澄心, agressively disrupt this process obstructing develompent of Wikimedia movement with ignorance from "watchers". --Ssr (talk) 06:33, 4 August 2025 (UTC) User-generated content is inherently unreliable on Wikipedia. Can't understand why you're making such a fuss about this. dringsim 06:53, 4 August 2025 (UTC) I repeat: this is because of oppression and agression that totally contradict with Wikimedia values. w:Forbes and w:New Statesman magazines don't mind using Wikinews as a source, because they think rationally, and you think in terms of opression and agression, what totally contradict with Wikimedia values. I am defending Wikimedia values, which you disrupt, that's why I am making such a fuss about this. --Ssr (talk) 08:21, 4 August 2025 (UTC) BTW, in terms of w:WP:5P4 your activity in w:Wikigrannies article is a direct violation of the base rule "w:Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point". But nobody punished you for that! Because "nobody" of you "cares", as Victoria is used to say. --Ssr (talk) 08:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC) Forbes has a feature called sites that is also user generated. People are welcome to do whatever they want, but reliable sources have a reputation for quality and fact checking. Not that information at unreliable sources isn't true, sometimes it is, but that information is usually being presented when the source has no reputation within that area. Aasim 16:46, 4 August 2025 (UTC) Can you provide a link to this? I'd like to see how its implemented and what it produces. Thanks in advance. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 00:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC) Actually strike that. I am misremembering. Anyway this is the situation with articles written by "Forbes.com contributors": W:en:Wikipedia:FORBESCON Aasim 01:20, 5 August 2025 (UTC) My link is not «written by "Forbes.com contributors"». -- Ssr (talk) 03:36, 5 August 2025 (UTC) You realize circular reporting is also a problem with user generated content, right? Wikinews is not considered reliable because it is user generated content. It is the same reason YouTube and TikTok and essentially every talk show host is not reliable. You are misreading "reliability" and "verifiability" to mean truth when they both have to do with reputation rather than accuracy. I can guarantee that there is a lot of true stuff on Wikinews. There is also a lot of true stuff on Daily Mail, but because the quality tends to be more sensationalist much of that truth wraps lies. this is because of oppression and agression that totally contradict with Wikimedia values No, it's because of consensus, weighted on arguments grounded in Wikipedia policy. If consensus decides that tomorrow CNN is not a reliable source, then CNN will be treated as generally unreliable, regardless of how true or untrue CNN articles actually are. And consensus can change, so if CNN were decided to be unreliable tomorrow maybe the day after tomorrow it is decided that yes it is reliable. Aasim 04:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC) Stop talking banalities. YouTube is reliable if it is a YouTube of a notabe person or entity. TikTok and Facebook is reliable if it is a TikTok or Facebook of a notable person or entity. Loads of encyclopedic content in Wikipedia is based on Trump's and Mask's Twitters. This is banality and regulated by w:WP:SELFSOURCE. No need to talk about it so much here. -- Ssr (talk) 05:03, 5 August 2025 (UTC) Arbitrary break I want this matter resolved before things get out of hand as I am noticing w:WP:BLUDGEONING which is not going to help in the formation of consensus here. Aasim 00:02, 6 August 2025 (UTC) I hope things don't get out of han, Ssr, please calm down at the moment. In the meantime, the page you reference seems irrelevant here(However, it provides a relevant discussion) and has only 4 languages version. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 01:41, 6 August 2025 (UTC) Ssr has bludgeoned this discussion to death (their name appears almost 170 times) and has also been incredibly hostile to everyone who disagrees with them. If this was English Wikipedia or even Commons they’d have been blocked at this point. I reported it to the closest thing Meta has to a user problems board but the sysops refused to take action. @Ferien: you said you would keep an eye on this discussion; could you please review this user’s conduct again? Dronebogus (talk) 06:36, 8 August 2025 (UTC) They are currently blocked for a week for exactly this behavior. Ymblanter (talk) 06:49, 8 August 2025 (UTC) I somehow didn’t see that. The consultation should hopefully be closed by the time they’re allowed back so that sounds perfect. Some of the things they said were still pretty egregious though, which makes me wonder if they should be allowed to edit at all. Dronebogus (talk) 09:05, 8 August 2025 (UTC) In fact, Ssr has also made many constructive contributions here. What really messed up the discussion was not number of name but many questions hadn't been answered by anyone from the SPTF yet. So a bunch of people, unable to convince each other and without the authority to prove their data, kept discussing. But I also saw that he had reposted some unsubstantiated accusations. He also called several users "Wikipedia scammers," which is certainly inappropriate. but you're absolutely right that Ssr's stance is that "closing Wikinews is borderline evil", He truly believed that this would significantly damage the Wikimedia movement. I condemn his attacks on user personal, which I think are completely unnecessary and unhelpful, is wrong. But I don't think you should attribute "this discussion is a mess" to Ssr. Nor do I think Ssr is "uninterested in discussing the issue." You can see that he provided valuable information above, and he's definitely interested in the issue. Now anyway, he was banned for a week. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 08:07, 8 August 2025 (UTC) I do not see these “constructive contributions”. Everything I saw from them ranged from off-the-deep-end furious at best to completely irrelevant and borderline libelous at worst. Demonizing the WMF and lashing out at everyone who disagrees with you is not going to save Wikinews; it’s just going to make Wikinews supporters look bad. Dronebogus (talk) 09:14, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

@Sheminghui.WU: Ad 4.) Yes, very certainly this discussion has affected the daily work in Wikinews. DE WN died down totally since this catastrophe appeared firstly in the German Wikipedia's Kurier. The WN community was informed much later. It affected also me myself. I used to be an very active editor but calmed down for personal/family reasons some years ago. Slowly those problems have started to clear out and I kind of doubled my last year's activity at this point or so. It is still too little to save the project. No person could do this alone. The other users all went away. Some of them being Wikipedia users for years I don't observe they're doing more Wikipedia work now. None of us is doing that. I'll tell you what happened. We all lost our basic trust into the foundation. They promised us for years that the purpose of the foundation is to ensure that the projects stay free projects and that the contents will be preserved. That promise is valid for Wikipedia and the sister projects and I hold Jimbo Wales for responsible for that promise. That was part of the deal when they invented the WMF. They intend to break this promise willingly. So I am asking myself: what about other projects? Are they safe? Or will they close Commons because it grows to expensive? Wikidata? What about Wikisource? The German Wikiquote is kind of defunct, due to copyright laws. Hey, with this blueprint they also could close Wikibooks or Wikiversity. Even Wikipedia. I don't trust the WMF anymore, not for the sake of the black under my finger's nail. My trust into the WMF is gone, as a result of this mess. I am desillusionated and thus my Wikipedia contributions might tickle down as well. What the foundation seems to ignore: We the people involved into the projects have invested for years and years the most expensive thing we can invest: our time and our knowledge. And quite a share of health as well, mostly wasted in needless discussions. Among those discussions had been discussions on the image filter and Superprotect, on cat images and Flow. On UCoC and now on the work of this sis projects committee. What a waste of time! Again and again and again. And still the WMF does not understand the community. They even don't try it. --Matthiasb (talk) 02:51, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

:Reply to the individual:

Matthiasb, Your actions and perseverance are visible to everyone; those who haven't seen them can check your contributions page. You have consistently and persistently contributed to the Wikimedia movement. Your additions were undoubtedly correct, and your concerns are valid.

I want to say "don't laugh at me," but personally, I've never been as active in Wikimedia affairs as I have been this past month. I haven't even participated in the Chinese Wikipedia's Campaign and Editathon, I could have used this time to write several good articles.

It seems everyone remembers Jimmy Wales' promise. As a founder, he still holds generally good standing within the community. Yet it's true that the Wikimedia Foundation, without consulting the community, violated the promise of its own founder. And currently, Jimmy Wales himself clearly hasn't intervened. Jimmy Wales, ultimately, is a role model and spiritual leader for many passionate Wikimedians. He founded a movement with grand ideals for free knowledge. Honestly, I think that promise wasn't just an offhand remark from him personally; it has long been an integral part of the Wikimedia spirit, one of the foundational stones of the Wikimedia movement. As an active editor, I am also shocked by the SPTF's recent action(it's too quick anyway). But there's nothing we can do. We must believe that volunteers and communities can decide things, believe that truth emerges through discuss – we have no other choice.

The public consultation has reached its final day for another time. Let me also digress a bit. If projects in similar situations(de facto) – Wikinews, Wikibooks, Wikivoyage; new sister projects neglected by the SPTF like Wikijournal, or an incubator like Wikispore – if these projects, "unimportant" to the WMF as a "company," these sister projects with "low achievements" compared to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, were closed (sometimes called "archived"), would the Wikimedia movement still exist? What is the ideal and the work of the Wikimedia movement? Is it merely an encyclopedia?

This time, closing Wikinews based on such a hastily prepared and, to date, unverified document – is this a pragmatic decision, or is it a test to see if they can change the entire movement? This is indeed a normal concern. The SPTF, or anyone else, has yet to explain the disadvantages of not closing Wikinews, apart from some trivial, insignificant maintenance cost that everyone knows about. So then? Why? Is it just to save costs by eliminating WN? Or is it due to the legal concerns someone mentioned earlier? I can't figure it out, and no one is speaking up.

Why does the WMF (and the SPTF members they employ) want to close Wikinews? Is there something else we haven't discovered in the past month and a half? Why create this strange document? Why hold workshops no one could attend? Why is everyone so silent, even often remaining tight-lipped? Scroll up and look – the SPTF is fundamentally silent, and the document author always has excuses. If you ask her on the talk page, she'll tell you she's busy. And after she's busy, she'll be busy again.

I believe in and support the goals and values of the Wikimedia movement. But the Wikimedia movement doesn't belong solely to the WMF's few hundred or few thousand employees; it also belongs to volunteers, to you and me. I understand your feelings and mood. But I think Wikinews won't be closed; judging by the RfC situation, even Wikispore might not be. In comparison, based solely on community sentiment, the SPTF itself seems the one that most likely candidate for closure. But I don't think the current situation is enough to judge that this Wikimedia movement has lost its value for contribution. However, it's true that it somewhat hasn't respected volunteers, and this time it's revealed to us, mostly this small group within WN.

Therefore, I respect and support whatever choice you make. Please take a good rest for a few days. The public consultation is ending; don't refresh the page daily or get angry because of stubborn people anymore. Get some proper rest. Things will be what they will be. Nevertheless, regardless of what the WMF is, we should probably still try to trust their handling of this matter. If the WMF actually disregards community objections and supports (and of course, personally executes) the SPTF's closure of these sister projects, then I can only say everyone has gone mad, everyone has become foolish.

I'm not condemning the act of closure itself. I'm just stating the obvious facts: that there is no community consensus, and that volunteers (this time, it's our part of them) have been harmed. Yes, this can absolutely be called a fact now. Scroll up and you'll see – far from consensus, and substantive harm.

Having said all this, I'm also tired.(this entire Response is machine translated) This time, we have done enough for the Wikimedia movement, with our hearts, for the projects we've volunteered contribute. If the entire edifice is really collapsing, none of us can prop it up. Still, we have a clear conscience. Things will be what they will be. I don't want to make any more appeals, I've given up on calm thinking. I'm only speaking to you alone now. I hope you rest early today (we always say this in Chinese), and Good night. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Request for comment on Wikinews and Wikispore next steps

An RFC has been launched, please review and comment on the questions here, note that each question is independent of the others: Requests for comment/Sister Projects next steps. Pharos (talk) 08:21, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Expression of Interest open for Training

Hi all, Please check out the page at n:Wikinews:Training/Members. Based on your notes from Wikimania workshop, or your experiences, please add or note which parts should be given priority from your point of view. Thanks Gryllida 02:07, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

A Wikinews contributor of more than 10 years gives his opinion

For now, I am the only active editor in a year in Spanish Wikinews, and I feel an enormous weight on my shoulders every time I see the empty front page. So, with great detachment, I can say: yes, let's close it down.

In a world that is rapidly moving towards fake news and post-truth, I would say that Wikinews is still a very valuable project, atypical in the world of journalism, especially because of how it constructs its news and how the writing process is done. No other media outlet offers this transparent process that can give people certainty about whether what they are reading is true or not. Wikinews supports what the renowned journalist Ryszard Kapuściński said about distancing the journalism from business and profits. In today's world, that is invaluable.

I can say that the main problem for me as an administrator and news editor is the cumbersome system for both validating and publishing content. This system is really cumbersome for voluntary work. So here's the first idea: redesign the editing process to make it more public, with more administrators accepting or deleting content. Fewer templates and more automated buttons.

Secondly, Wikinews has not received the same boost in publicity and work with external stakeholders. There are no news edit-a-thons, no writing contests, and no promotion of grassroots journalism by Wikimedia affiliates. Wouldn't it be appropriate for everyone to try to redesign and relaunch such a long-standing project, which is still active in some languages, before simply deleting it? ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Hey ya, I am an admin in the German WP since 2010. I fully understand your feeling, especially the bolded statement. Matthiasb (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

ProtoplasmaKid you write: "Wouldn't it be appropriate for everyone to try to redesign and relaunch such a long-standing project, which is still active in some languages, before simply deleting it?" <-- yes, one of the primary options in the current community RfC is to try to redesign something different, to make use of the history and site traffic and notability (and vision of transparency!) of this long-standing project, while recognizing as you say that the current system is too cumbersome and isn't working. Please encourage people you have worked with on past news efforts to participate in that RfC and in framing what a redesign experiment could look like. –SJ talk  15:37, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Re "There are no news edit-a-thons, no writing contests, and no promotion of grassroots journalism by Wikimedia affiliates", there were such initiatives in the past, at least at the older chapters like Wikimedia Italia. Naturally, as affiliates are volunteer-driven, such initiatives generally need to come from Wikinews active editors, so they become increasingly unlikely to happen as such population decreases (and burns out). Nemo 06:19, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I also think we heard from some of the people who ran such events in the past and found that the didn't lead to continued participation in the same way as other projects. Which isn't to say that we don't have groups of people gathered to do very news-like things that have worked :) Wikiportraits is essentially editathons to capture photos and cover the news of film festivals and awards ceremonies around the world. It focuses on an evergreen output that will always be useful across the projects: high-quality photographs of individuals and events that can be used in news, encyclopedia, or book articles. To your point @ProtoplasmaKid: that uses a much less cumbersome system for validating and publishing :) The unit of publication is a photo and caption. Something similar where the unit of news publication is a hook and a link to work elsewhere on the projects, could be useful with much lower bars to participation, fully public and with few templates involved. –SJ talk  15:37, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Very good point about Wikiportraits! As I wrote elsewhere, I support the idea behind Wikinews, i.e. that Wikimedia projects include a focus on making news reporting more freely licensed and cooperative, but we should not assume that text-centric articles are the way. Indeed one could argue that Wikimedia Commons original photographs are Wikimedia's main contribution to the objectives of Wikinews (as the reuse of Commons images in news reporting is vast). Nemo 11:56, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, good points BUT, first, very likely there is a mismatch between the pool of photographers' ponts of interests (POI) and the Wikinewsians' POIs; second it seems that the pool of flickr contributors using CC-BY-SA or CC-BY gets smaller, significantly and as a result there a less topics which can be illustrated with photo material, see example 1; third there is a time lack between the moment in which a wikinews users would need photo material from an event and the moment the photographer is able to upload his/her files. It happened to me that I abandoned wikinews articles becaus could not find photos in a reasonable span of time and lost motivation over that. Actually that is a point where the WMF and the other chapters will have to work on neverthelesse how the fate of wikinews will be. This is an issue also for Wikipedia. It's only wikinews who gets hit by this problem faster and earlier. Matthiasb (talk) 17:45, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I would like to offer a third-party opinion.

Japanese

私は閉鎖に賛成します。日本語版Wikipediaでは編集が大量に行われているのに対しは日本語版wikinewsは1日の編集回数は少なく編集者は少ないです。wikimedia commonsは画像をアップロードに頻繁に使われますがwikinewsを使いなにかするというのは聞いたことがありません。（私が無知なだけかもしれませんが、）wikinewsのメインページの最新のニュースにはなにもない、ある記事はすべて1ヶ月以上も前、wikinewsは過疎的な状態にあると言ってよいでしょう。ですので閉鎖に賛成します。 wikipediaとの統合ですが、wikinewsで行われた今までの編集回数、管理者権限等はどうするのか疑問ですがwikinewsのみ編集してきた人もいると思うのでその人達がやってきたことが報われる形での閉鎖が良いと思います。

English

I support the closure. While the Japanese Wikipedia sees a large volume of edits, the Japanese edition of Wikinews has very few daily edits and very few active contributors. Wikimedia Commons is frequently used for uploading images, but I’ve never heard of Wikinews being actively used for anything (though that may simply be due to my own lack of knowledge). On the main page of Japanese Wikinews, there are no recent news articles at all, and the ones that do exist are all over a month old. It’s fair to say that Wikinews is in a state of near abandonment. Therefore, I support its closure. As for integration with Wikipedia, I do wonder what will happen to the edit history and admin rights accumulated on Wikinews. I imagine there are contributors who have worked exclusively on Wikinews, so I hope any closure will be handled in a way that acknowledges and honors their efforts.

This text was generated from Japanese using a translation tool. Hdialk (talk) 12:16, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm also an editor for Jawn. Actually, as mentioned before, I've long wanted to translate news articles about the public consultation into Jawn to bring them to our community's attention. Unfortunately, the Chinese translation has yet to be completed. I personally don't have high hopes for Jawn either, but regardless, this should be shut down through local procedures, just as the dozen so inactive versions were previously shut down, rather than through external intervention. (Machine translate) ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful comment, Sheminghui.WU.

I understand your concern about ensuring that any closure is handled through local procedures rather than external intervention. I agree that respecting the autonomy of each language community is important.

My support for closure is based on the current inactivity of the Japanese Wikinews, as well as the lack of recent content and contributors. However, I also believe that any decision should be made carefully, with proper consultation and respect for those who have contributed to the project.

If closure proceeds, I hope it will be done in a way that acknowledges the efforts of past editors and preserves relevant content or history where appropriate.

Also, if you speak Japanese, I’d be happy to continue this discussion in Japanese as well.

Thank you again for raising this important point.

This text was generated from Japanese using a translation tool. Hdialk (talk) 06:45, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

ただ申し上げたいのは、日本語版ウィキニュースの活動停滞は、多くても日本語版ウィキニュース閉鎖の理由に過ぎず、必ずしも十分な理由とは限らず、現地コミュニティによる検討が必要だということです。いずれにせよ、これはウィキニュース全体（姉妹プロジェクト）の閉鎖の是非を議論する本題とは関連性がありません。とはいえ、ご意見を共有いただき感謝しております。このページで同じ東アジアの国の方、そして馴染み深い言語を目にでき、大変嬉しく思います。終戦記念日ですね。平和を願います。 ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

返信ありがとうございます。

確かに私が言ったものは日本語版のウィキニュースの閉鎖の理由であり、ウィキニュース全体（すべての言語版）に目を向けたものではありませんでした、ご指摘ありがとうございます。全体に目を向けた発言をもう一度したいと思います。ここまで返信で話してくれたことに感謝しています。私もこのページで日本語が話せる方、東アジアの国にお住まいの方にあえて大変嬉しく思っています。私がこの文章を書いているとき日本時間では1日遅い終戦記念日です。平和を願います。 ℍ𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕝𝕜 ^{(𝕥𝕒𝕝𝕜)} 01:25, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

So we now have a consensus. どうぞお元気で。~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

議論ありがとう。今後の活躍をお祈りいたします。どうぞお元気で。 ℍ𝕕𝕚𝕒𝕝𝕜 ^{(𝕥𝕒𝕝𝕜)} 01:28, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

On “not a good fit to wiki model”

维基媒体的各个姊妹项目，以及其它开放协作项目，其参与者主要为志愿者。贡献者利用空余时间作出贡献。任何人在任何时候都可暂停或重新参与，忙碌时可以少参与，空闲时可以多参与。没有最终期限，整个项目可以逐步完善。即便整个社群都暂时沉寂，已经发表的内容仍能长期保有价值，仍能吸引用户使用。然而维基新闻（若以摘编可靠媒体报道的形式运作）则不然。新闻报道需在一定时间内撰写完成、发表并触达读者，并维持一定发表频率以吸引读者订阅。随时参与、随时休息的志愿者社群无法做到这一点——一旦社群稍有不活跃，维基新闻作为新闻源的价值便会迅速大幅衰减，读者会转向其它新闻源。贡献者不均匀的空闲时间无法支撑稳定的出版频率。

诸如维基百科（百科全书）、维基词典（词典）、维基语录（语录集）、维基文库（文献库）、维基共享资源（媒体库）、维基数据（知识库，knowledge base）、Wikifunctions（函数库），以及OpenStreetMap（地图）、GlyphWiki（汉字字形数据库）、iNaturalist（生物多样性数据库）等项目，单打独斗的力量有限，社群协作的力量远强于各个贡献者个人力量的总和。当项目发展到一定程度，便可如滚雪球般不断吸引志愿者参与，进而形成某种垄断，将相关领域的大部分爱好者吸收进社群——一小群人另起炉灶无法与既有项目抗衡，不如加入到既有项目中，读者也会优先选择既有项目。在维基词典的不同语言版本之间就有类似的情况——编者多集中在英语版，小语种站点大多只有寥寥数人在苦苦支撑（同时高强度参与不同语言版本的编者较少）。然而，对于有意参与公民新闻的志愿者，维基新闻并非首选，利用社交平台开办自媒体显然可以更有效地触达读者，除了“维基媒体”的招牌外，似乎没有什么理由能把人吸引到维基新闻。即便维基新闻如愿建设成有效运作的新闻源（可能需要持续的资金投入，而非单纯依赖志愿者），似乎也难以形成排他的存在。维基新闻的性质更接近连续出版物，其发展模式并不是像百科全书、词典等参考工具书一样不断丰富内容，逐渐“发展壮大”，然而维基新闻的首页却赫然如维基百科一般显示着文章总数，从这一点便可看出维基新闻从一开始就定位不清了。

要求志愿者社群持续活跃的同时又难以吸引志愿者，维基新闻的失败是可以预料的。

English translation by DeepL (edited)

Wikimedia's various sister projects, as well as other open collaboration projects, its participants are mainly volunteers. Contributors use their free time to contribute. Anyone can pause or rejoin at any time, participating less when they are busy and more when they are free. There is no deadline, and the whole project can be improved gradually. Even if the whole community goes silent for a while, the content that has already been published retains its value in the long term, and can still attract users. This is not the case with Wikinews (if it operates as an excerpt from a reliable media report). News stories need to be written, published, and reach readers within a certain period of time, and be published frequently enough to attract subscribers. A community of volunteers who are always on and always off cannot do this - the value of Wikinews as a news source quickly and dramatically diminishes when the community becomes slightly inactive, and readers move on to other news sources. The uneven availability of contributors cannot support a steady frequency of publication.

Contributors such as Wikipedia (encyclopedia), Wiktionary (dictionary), Wikiquote (collection of quotations), Wikimedia Commons (repository of literature), Wikimedia Commons (repository of media), Wikidata (knowledge base), Wikifunctions (library of functions), as well as OpenStreetMap (map), GlyphWiki (Chinese character database), iNaturalist (biodiversity database), etc. The power of a single person is limited, and the power of community collaboration is much stronger than the sum of individual contributors' power. When a project grows to a certain level, it can attract volunteers like a snowball, and then form a kind of monopoly, absorbing most enthusiasts in the relevant fields into the community - a small group of people can't compete with the established projects, so it's better to join them, and the readers will give preference to the established projects as well. A similar situation exists between the different language versions of Wiktionary - the editors are concentrated in the English version, and most of the smaller language sites are struggling with only a handful of people (and fewer editors are intensely involved in the different language versions at the same time). However, Wikinews is not the first choice for volunteers interested in engaging in citizen journalism, and there seems to be little reason other than the “Wikimedia” label to draw people to Wikinews when it is clear that it can be more effective in reaching readers by utilizing social media platforms to start their own media outlets. Even if Wikinews were to be built into a functioning news source (which would probably require sustained funding rather than relying solely on volunteers), it seems unlikely that it would be able to establish an exclusive presence. The nature of Wikinews is closer to a serial publication, and its development model is not like encyclopedias, dictionaries, and other reference tools, which are constantly enriched and “grow”, but the home page of Wikinews shows the total number of articles, just like Wikipedia, which is a clear indication that Wikinews has been poorly positioned from the very beginning.

The failure of Wikinews is predictable, as it requires a volunteer community to remain active and at the same time has difficulty in attracting volunteers. dringsim 10:13, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

维基新闻从没局限于“以摘编可靠媒体报道的形式运作”。“新闻需要时效性，而志愿者无法保证时效性，因此维基新闻注定失败。” 这忽略了新闻的多元形态。新闻远不止于争分夺秒的快讯，它还包括深度调查、背景分析、数据追踪以及历史回顾等延时性内容，这些内容天然适配志愿者的协作模式。更重要的是，维基媒体服务器的存档功能，使维基新闻能作为存证，记录并保留商业网站上随时可能被删除或修改的内容，个人随时可能注销、编辑或清空的账号，这种价值是任何社交平台自媒体都无法提供的。根据创始人的说法，只要WMF一天不倒，这些存档就会百分百的原封不动在那里，这无比珍贵。（我猜您提到的文章计数设计也与此有关，不过其本身说明不了什么） “收集和发展以自由许可证或公有领域授权的教育内容，”

“除了‘维基媒体’的招牌外，似乎没有什么理由能把人吸引到维基新闻。” 在一个虚假新闻泛滥的时代，维基媒体基金会的背书，代表着中立、开放和可验证的知识生产，这还不够珍贵？有很多民调指出WMF项目的公信力比社媒高吧。WMF和其他姊妹项目特别是WP的存在也有力的提升了维基新闻的竞争潜力。维基新闻就是蓬勃发展的维基媒体运动中的新闻平台组成部分，随着维基媒体运动发展维基新闻也会有着越来越强的竞争性和吸引力，包括对受访者和其他媒体、政府机构的吸引力。去中心化的报道能力也是维基新闻的特点之一，我们显然有很多传统媒体不会注意或不愿报导的内容。（不过多赘述，请自行查阅前面讨论） “授权并吸引全世界的人们，”

“对于有意参与公民新闻的志愿者，维基新闻并非首选，利用社交平台开办自媒体显然可以更有效地触达读者”，我个人还没在市面上见到维基新闻这样方便低门槛的公民新闻网站。至于“社交平台开办自媒体”，这根本就不是一回事，参与维基新闻的人都是也只能是认同维基媒体运动理想、价值观，务实的说目标和规矩的人，志愿者们很显然是在给维基新闻这个项目和维基媒体这个运动做贡献，不是想自己出名或赚钱，否则我们早就普遍署名并开设打赏了。而且，开设公民媒体网站而不是让每个人自己发博客，这怎么可能是没意义的？把内容和人们集中起来用同一块招牌和平台的好处我就不过多赘述了。 并在全球范围内有效传播这些内容。

最后，我承认维基新闻有很多不足，但我们需要的是改革而不是关闭。

夜深了，很疲惫。 此致， ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

在一个虚假新闻泛滥的时代，维基媒体基金会的背书，代表着中立、开放和可验证的知识生产，这还不够珍贵？你可能误会了，WMF并不为内容背书，它只负责托管内容。 dringsim 15:18, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

是可供查证、非原创研究和中立观点三项核心内容方针赋予维基百科声誉、为WMF背书，而非反过来由WMF为维基百科背书。维基媒体基金会的背书，代表着中立、开放和可验证的知识生产这样的想法反而会被利用以传播虚假资讯——Croatian Wikipedia Disinformation Assessment-2021和Proposals for closing projects/Deletion of Bulgarian Wikinews。

English translation by DeepL: It is the three core principles of verifiability, non-original research, and neutral point of view that give Wikipedia its reputation and endorse the WMF, rather than the other way around. The idea that “the Wikimedia Foundation's endorsement represents neutral, open, and verifiable knowledge production” could instead be exploited to spread misinformation - see Croatian Wikipedia Disinformation Assessment-2021 and Proposals for closing projects/Deletion of Bulgarian Wikinews. dringsim 00:15, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

“是可供查证、非原创研究和中立观点三项核心内容方针赋予维基百科声誉、为WMF背书”，当然是这样，但反过来一个WM项目也必然具有“可供查证、非原创研究和中立观点三项核心内容方针”不是吗？这不是事实上的一种保障吗？当然，错误也会发生，“维基媒体基金会的背书，代表着中立、开放和可验证的知识生产这样的想法反而会被利用以传播虚假资讯”，很显然我们绝大多数情况下传播的是有利于人类的自由知识，而不是您列举的这些事情。这些案例也恰恰证明了维基媒体模式的核心优势，社区自我纠正的可靠性。 ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 02:58, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

否，这完全是社群自主事务，基金会不插手（也当然管不好）内容编写。据我所知粤语维基百科就不严格排除不可靠来源。有的站点还会用无人监管的bot灌垃圾。基金会不得不下场整治的时候，已经属于最极端的状况了。 dringsim 13:21, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

那你是否同样认为只有“基金会不得不下场整治的时候”才应该自上而下的关闭维基新闻？而目前来看，不关闭维基新闻似乎并没有什么明显的坏处，至少还没人给出来。另外，我不懂粤语，但Wikipedia:求證得到似乎只是定义了自己的来源引用标准？这难道违背了“可供查证、非原创研究和中立观点三项核心内容方针”吗？据我所知，中立、开放和可验证性的确是维基媒体项目的普遍要求，也是运动的要求，这和“一个站点有没有得到良好的监管”没有必然联系。而且维基新闻是一个姊妹专案而非某个站点。当然有些专案会因其性质而具体政策不同。我所接触的各WN（中英日朝）也都严格执行着这些方针。回到我们这里讨论的，维基媒体运动的公信力也来源于这三项方针，你也说了“是可供查证、非原创研究和中立观点三项核心内容方针赋予维基百科声誉、为WMF背书”，有公信力的WMF是以这个遵循自身精神的姿态面对外界的，怎么可能做不到反过来为自己的一个姊妹项目做声誉背书？我也承认我背书一词用的不好，它常作为法律术语，而WMF并不直接对内容负责。但WMF首先满足了这个词的一半，既为这个目标提供引导和支持。另外WMF对姊妹项目构成了外界视野下的非正式背书，立起了一杆旗帜，如前所述，让大家一看就知道这个网站是遵循着哪种精神和基本要求，在朝哪个方向努力，维基新闻也不是例外。另外，维基媒体运动确实是要对自身负责的，这没有问题吧。~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

维基媒体商标方针：“如果我们确定某个商标的使用不符合我们的使命，或者可能损害社群成员、运动组织或维基媒体基金会，我们根据本政策可以随时以任何方式提供通知，撤销使用维基媒体标记的权利。” “维基媒体标志只能用于促进我们使命的活动”。（WN是个商标）~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

扯远了，我只是在说明基金会不为内容背书，那么“基金会为内容背书”对社群的发展就没有特别的作用，因为它本来就不成立。 dringsim 14:34, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

我从来就没有说过“基金会为内容背书”，这句话是您“扯进来”的。而我在上面所说的内容对我的论述已经足够，这显然已经满足了“在一个虚假新闻泛滥的时代代表中立、开放和可验证的知识生产”。我尊重您不回答我第一个问题的选择，但我无论如何不认同“对社群发展没有特别的作用”的说法，一个“扯远了”可不能把事实驳倒。 ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

如前所述，“WMF对姊妹项目构成了外界视野下的非正式背书，立起了一杆旗帜，让大家一看就知道这个网站是遵循着哪种精神和基本要求，在朝哪个方向努力，维基新闻也不是例外。” 这对我的论述已经足够。我们现在不使用法律术语了，片面的说，基金会作为项目的背景，对社群发展没有好处吗？ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 15:00, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

阁下应该没有多少参与其它开放协作项目的经验？我所列举的几个项目，它们的共同点在于都类似于参考工具书，汇集各种资料供读者在需要时查阅，每一个版本都是在原有版本基础上完善（只不过线上平台可以滚动更新而取消了版本号的概念）。如果我想参与编纂词典，最好的办法当然是参与维基词典，而不是另起炉灶做一个多语言词典。我所认识的新人参与英语维基词典较多，虽然都会中文，但是反而较少参与中文维基词典（人太少，完成度也低）。同样的，如果我想汇集文献，最有限的选择是参与维基文库。在维基文库之外，一小群人可以组织法律或者法院判决等专题的整理，但如果是收集一切公有领域文献，首选还是维基文库。但维基新闻的情况与其它几个项目大相径庭，它更类似于期刊，不同期数是相对独立的，新一期期刊的内容是全新的，并不是在先前刊期上完善。“认同维基媒体运动理想、价值观，务实的说目标和规矩的人”想参与公民新闻，并不需要利用过期刊物，也因此维基新闻无法压倒其它选择。“把内容和人们集中起来用同一块招牌和平台的好处我就不过多赘述了。”我并未否认这一点，我所谈论的一直是能够“把内容和人们集中起来用同一块招牌和平台”的能力，而维基新闻本质上缺乏这种能力。2019年的邮件（关站提案中已列出）中就提到维基新闻缺乏一种“临界质量”（critical mass）。

English translation by DeepL: You probably don't have much experience participating in other open collaboration projects? The projects I mentioned all have something in common: they are similar to reference books, compiling various materials for readers to consult when needed. Each version is an improvement on the previous one (except that online platforms can be updated continuously, eliminating the concept of version numbers). If I want to participate in compiling a dictionary, the best approach is to join Wiktionary rather than start a new multilingual dictionary from scratch. Among the newcomers I know, most participate in the English Wiktionary, even though they all speak Chinese, but they tend to participate less in the Chinese Wiktionary (due to low participation and low completion rates). Similarly, if I want to compile literature, the most limited option is to participate in Wikisource. Outside of Wikisource, a small group of people can organize the compilation of specialized topics such as laws or court rulings, but if the goal is to collect all public domain literature, Wikisource remains the top choice. However, the situation with Wikinews is vastly different from the other projects; it is more akin to a journal, where each issue is relatively independent, and the content of a new issue is entirely new rather than an extension of previous issues. Those who “share the ideals and values of the Wikimedia movement and are pragmatic about goals and rules” do not need to use a journal format to participate in citizen journalism, and thus WikiNews cannot overshadow other options. “I will not elaborate further on the benefits of bringing content and people together under the same banner and platform.” I do not deny this. What I have been discussing is the ability to “bring content and people together under the same banner and platform,” and WikiNews fundamentally lacks this ability. The 2019 email (listed in the shutdown proposal) mentioned that WikiNews lacks a “critical mass.” dringsim 01:34, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

As a Wikipedian, I contribute to Wikipedia, Wikinews and Wikivoyage. You probably don't have much experience participating in Wikinews. Unfortunately, we are doing wiki collaboration on Wikinews. “想参与公民新闻，并不需要利用过期刊物”，按照这个说法，想发社论的人也不需要利用过期《人民日报》了。你说有人提出“维基新闻本质上缺乏把内容和人们集中起来用同一块招牌和平台的能力”，但这显然未曾取得过共识。 ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 03:44, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Citing sources and reusing content are not the same concept. dringsim 04:33, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

And you still don't understand the difference between reference books and periodicals. dringsim 05:16, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

我不知道您在说什么，我根本就没有提过您说的这两句话中的任何内容，您这种突然蹦出来的话我无法读懂。另回您之前的话，维基新闻是否具有“排他的垄断性”我不确定，但维基新闻的独特性和不可替代性已经在前面各种冗长的讨论中得到了论述。我明白您可能担心不垄断的项目的发展问题，但独特性和不可替代性已经赋予它足够的竞争力、生命力和意义，从维基媒体运动层面来讲，也已足够契合维基媒体2030的目标。我再次强调这一点。另外我对垄断是否是一个项目的必要条件甚至重要条件表示怀疑，我不认为目前的维基导游或维基语录具有垄断性，如果说中文互联网，连维基百科都没有您所期望的垄断性。（当然如您所说“谈论维基教科书等项目的前途问题也并非禁忌”）其他的问题已经说过。 此致，~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 11:48, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

至于时效性问题，这是个非常老和常见的论点，虽未达成共识，但已经被广泛讨论，希望您能自行查阅前面的讨论，我不在这里做从头再来的重复。简而言之，维基新闻从一开始就没有试图成为一个追求时效性的传统新闻媒体（也根本就不是），它也不适合成为，这点你我都赞同。它的目标是建立一个自由新闻知识库，不是路透社或美联社的竞争对手，是维基媒体运动的一块拼图。 ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 12:09, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

對於閣下在站外群組發布的連接至此的「維基新聞怎麼能與人民日報相提並論」以及接下來有關「維基新聞發社論」的討論，這是我的回覆：

我作為一個大陸背景的華人想到新聞媒體第一個就是《人民日報》所以我拿人民日報作類比，我也可以拿《小說月報》發小說來類比，我從未表達過維基新聞要用來發社論的觀點，是《人民日報》可以用來發社論。（這已經是第幾個稻草人了）此前把WN和衛報、華爾街等大新聞媒體作類比和比較的不少，閣下也提到了其他新聞源，這裡換成人民日報為何就有意見？（而且這個類比是什麼重點嗎？）我覺得「維基新聞怎麼可以和人民日報相提並論」這種評論應該在站內發出來才有助於討論，將話題延伸至求聞百科和愚人節之類的東西也沒有幫助（當然那是在開玩笑）。另外之前聽其他人說Ruwn確實是允許發類似社論的東西的，不知道是否準確。此致，

English version:

Regarding your message in the off-site group linking here about "how can Wikinews be compared to the People's Daily" and the subsequent discussion about "Wikinews publishing editorials," this is my reply:

As a mainland background Chinese, the People's Daily is the first news outlet that comes to mind when I think of news media. That's why I used it for comparison. I could just as easily have used Fiction Monthly publishing fiction as an analogy. I never expressed the view that Wikinews should be used to publish editorials; it's the People's Daily that can be used to publish editorials.

Comparisons and contrasts between Wikinews and major news organizations like the Guardian, Wall Street Journal, etc., have been made quite often before. You also mentioned other news sources yourself. Why is there an objection specifically when it's changed to the People's Daily here? I personally thinks that comments like "how can Wikinews be compared to the People's Daily" should be voiced within the site to be more conducive to discussion.

Additionally, I've heard others say that Ruwn does indeed allow content similar to editorials to be published, though I'm not sure if that's accurate.

Sincerely, ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

我也诚挚的邀请阁下参与现在和未来的维基新闻有关改革讨论，阁下提出的维基新闻类似于连续出版物而非工具书是一个好的话题，我也并未予以否认，欢迎您继续表达您的想法以供他人参考。~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 06:00, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

另外Dronebogus之前说过“没有人拿WN来看报纸头条”，我觉得是对的。很显然WN的读者（假设有（）一部分是先在浏览器首页看到“XXX企业拖欠工资”然后再去WN的，所以对于非原创报道一直说要综合多个信源写的长一点才好。反过来读者也会在维基新闻频道和首页看到一些他没看过的新闻，但很少是大新闻，大新闻读者们都已经看过了。所以我想说“稳定的出版频率”当然重要但不绝对重要，读者不一定会因为WN没有告诉他昨天共和党赢了多少个席位而转向其他新闻源，因为读者根本就不拿维基新闻当做获取这件事的平台，维基新闻也确实无法成为《朝日新闻》。但确实，在WN查找“XXX企业拖欠工资”发现没有后会令人失望，这种情况就像你在维基百科查找一部艺术电影或在维基教科书查找“现代诗歌”后发现没有一样，现有的社群规模确实不让人满意，维基新闻与其他项目相比也确实有大得多的时效性要求，但不存在稍有不活跃价值就大幅衰减的情况，只要有一定的内容产出就有一定的价值，毕竟维基新闻无论如何是个有独特性（前面有人讨论过）和补充性的公民媒体，而非全面时讯获取的频道。WN并非绝对不适合于志愿者模式，至于社群如何发展的更好或者是否有能力发展（您对这点有顾虑）是另一个应该被探讨的话题了。~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 06:33, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

“But what about Wikibooks?”

此种反驳并不具备说服力。其一，如#On “not a good fit to wiki model”所阐明的，维基新闻与维基教科书（或其它项目）的情况并不等同。其二，谈论维基教科书等项目的前途问题也并非禁忌。维基媒体基金会的使命是：授权并吸引全世界的人们，收集和发展以自由许可证或公有领域授权的教育内容，并在全球范围内有效传播这些内容。如果一个项目未能实现这项使命，应当作出相应的调整，乃至宣告项目终结，将有限的资源集中到更具潜力的项目上。在维基百科存在着这样一群人，他们并不阅读维基百科的条目，连自己写的条目都不会读，撰写条目只为了刷取成就，甚至认为供人刷存在感——而非向读者提供知识——就是维基百科存在的目的。这些人的意见是不值得考虑的。

English translation by DeepL (edited)

This rebuttal is not persuasive. For one thing, as #On “not a good fit to wiki model” makes clear, Wikinews is not in the same situation as Wikibooks (or other projects). Second, it's not taboo to talk about the future of projects such as Wikibooks. The Mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. If a project fails to achieve this mission, it should be adjusted accordingly, or even declared closed, to focus limited resources on more promising projects. In Wikipedia, there are groups of people who don't read Wikipedia's entries, don't even read their own entries, and write entries only to earn achievements, or even to be seen as providing a sense of presence - rather than providing knowledge to readers - that Wikipedia exists to serve. -is what Wikipedia exists for. The opinions of these people are not worth considering. dringsim 10:39, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

先不说别的，请问你引用维基百科:站务精（“维基百科存在着这样一群人...”）是何意味，和这里的讨论或者前文有什么联系吗？我这现在是深夜，可能头脑不太清楚了，但我没看明白，这是哪跟哪？你能给出更完整的有逻辑可循的发言吗？“这些人的意见是不值得考虑的”，OK，但和这个讨论到底有什么关系？我不明白 ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

English granslation by GT (edited)

Putting aside other things, what do you mean by quoting Wikipedia:站务精 ["WP:Station Management", e.g. rules-lawyers who only police articles for compliance with policy] ("There is a group of people on Wikipedia who...")? How does it connect to the discussion here or the previous article? It's late at night, and maybe my mind is not clear, but I don't understand how this connects to the other. Can you give a more complete and logical statement? "These people's opinions are not worth considering" is OK, but what does it have to do with this discussion? I don't understand. ~ Sheminghui.WU

News Pulse prototype?

A number of people have indicated interest in seeing Wikinews Pulse realized. Others have mentioned above and in the ongoing RFC that it would benefit from a prototype that demonstrates how it could work, how it would interact with Wikidata and other projects like Wikinews. This is something that could start right away, and having a working example would clear up most of the questions raised about that idea. @Pharos: is this something you could see starting on Wikispore? I know there was a tentative proposal to eventually host such a thing at wikinews.org but that seems contingent on a number of future decisions and on what the idea actually turns into. –SJ talk  22:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

• Someone made a prototype of a news feed on Meta at the Wikimedia Hackathon this year - prototype (scroll to the bottom of the page), phab task.--Victoria (talk) 09:00, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks, I was also quite pleased to learn at Wikimania about this parallel WMF project: mw:Wikimedia Enterprise/Breaking news. I do think some of this could potentially be started at Wikispore, ideally in a way that can integrate closely with APIs/Wikidata, and in coexistence with activities elsewhere where new ideas about writing Wikinews original reporting could be prototyped. Pharos (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

  I notice that the "Trending" section in the prototype shows this on the English Wikipedia's Main Page. I doubt that the English Wikipedia would accept any automatically selected content for their Main Page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Just calling this out as promising: "some of this could potentially be started at Wikispore, ideally in a way that can integrate closely with APIs/Wikidata, and in coexistence with activities elsewhere where [Wikinews] original reporting could be prototyped."

As many people have commented above, giving people a way to capture original reporting under a free license, without necessarily using the current WN editing framework, seems important. Most coverage of news on the wikis does not happen on Wikinews, but it certainly happens. And we already have OR in various forms on the projects, covering current events, real-time news and cultural and scientific phenomena, &c: people post photographs and video of events as they happen, including awards ceremonies covering hundreds of people and projects (cf. WikiPortraits); people post photos from the physical location of current events, and photos of new research, under a free license; we accept original freely-licensed monographs on all topics [on Books/WV]; we accept preprints about new research for community peer review under a free license [on WikiJournal]; &c. –SJ talk  15:37, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Important source of independent journalism

The reading traffic shows that Russian and Chinese Wikinews appear to be an important source of independent journalism. And you want to shut them down? Sinuhe20 (talk) 05:51, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Sinuhe20: can you say more about how Chinese Wikinews is a source of independent journalism? We do have a solid flow of traffic to the popular sites, the question is what to do with it. –SJ talk  15:37, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@Sinuhe20, as far as I can tell, the Russian Wikinews does very little "independent journalism". They copy and paste news articles from other websites. Why should we host duplicate copies? Copying and pasting someone else's article is not "independent journalism". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:31, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I regularly write original cultural reports for the Russian and Chinese news sections. @Sinuhe20: is right, these two language sections are important in terms of receiving and disseminating information. Виктор Пинчук (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

It looks like you have posted 20 articles at the Russian Wikinews this year. How many such original articles do you think get posted each day at the Russian Wikinews? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

If you really go and see for yourself, you will see that the Russian Wikinews homepage is entirely filled with original reports. Russian Wikinews has its own local flavor, but on this point alone, we have no doubts. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 12:34, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I see 4 featured articles. One is from last month. None are recent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Addendum/clarification

1. Above I might have used the word argument both as a verb and a noun which are false friends between German and English. While in English to argument means to dissent with eacht other or even to fight each other verbally in Germany it means simply to reasonate, and argumentas are reasons. —
2. In the proposal a lack of synergy is lamented. While I showed above that take the numbers of links as a measure for synergy – because they don't take in account the quality of the links, e.g. is there a link to one article only or lies a whole category with a bunch of subcategories behind the link? The link to n:de:Category:Berlin is amending the Berlin theme in w:de:Berlin by hundreds of articles, while the links in w:de:Zyklon Nargis amend the cyclone description by three very specialized descriptions from other angles. More than that because in of linkage in "external links" normally leads the reader away from Wikipedia when each Wikinews article links back to (mostly) the very Wikipedia article the ready arrived from or another "main article" appropriate to the content.
3. However when talking of synergy we must also take in account that Wikinews covers events which are not notable for the corresponding Wikipedia article. For example each municipality article in Wikipedia names the mayor of the town but, aside from very big cities, Wikipedia does not cover the election of the mayor (as are results of the candidates and other developments around the election). Examples are to be found in n:de:Kategorie:Bürgermeisterwahl (because they span more than 15 years their standard may vary).

Matthiasb (talk) 07:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)