Talk:Wikimedia Foundation Community Affairs Committee/Sister Projects Task Force/Results of the consultation about Wikispore and Wikinews

Well

Only a resolution. No feedback on concerns. No analysis of opinions. No estimates for alternative paths. No consensus conclusions. The appendix? It is basically a record of discussions that seemingly contributes nothing to the final decision. --魔琴 (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I mean, come on, if any of the admins in my community close cases like this, we will definitely see him/her in an arbitration case. --魔琴 (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Here is an analysis from ChatGPT of what I want to say. It guessed quite right so I'm just going to post it here:

The resolution is surprisingly thin considering the volume and depth of the consultation. It presents a major decision (“archive Wikinews”) without addressing the core disagreements, the procedural concerns, or the alternative pathways explored by participants.

The appendix summarises the discussions but appears disconnected from the final recommendation, giving the impression that the arguments had little influence on the outcome.

In most communities, a closure with this level of explanation would not pass scrutiny. This makes it difficult to understand how the resolution reflects community input or how future consultations will avoid the same gap between discussion and outcome.

Apologies for being sarcastic, but that's what I can manage after seeing this thing after hours of Wikipedia work. Thanks. --魔琴 (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify: this is not a resolution. A resolution may be voted at the next board meeting, but it's not there yet. As you correctly noted, this page is mostly a summary of the consultation, in addition to the recommendation made to CAC. - LLosa (WMF) (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Are you going to show this to the board? Did you know that because someone elsewhere said, "Basically, this reads as 'we used ChatGPT to summarize the discussion and decided simply continue with our predetermined conclusion without taking any of it into account'", I gave the public consultation pdf to many AIs to make unbiased summaries. None of them concluded that it should be closed; they all either "forced reforms" or maintained the status quo, because they all clearly stated that "there was strong opposition from the community." This is Wikimedia. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 04:21, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

and Judging solely from the voting results, We actually got 18support vote and 16oppose vote for "No Change" RfC Sheminghui.WU (talk) 08:55, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Just for curiosity, why are there two almost identical sentences in the appendix?

Restructure may involve moving back to the Incubator, even for large projects.

• Return smaller projects to Incubator. Discourage creating new language editions while exploring restructuring.
• Compare what happened to WikiTribune (Question: how were its articles archived?)
• Return smaller projects to the Incubator and discourage the creation of new language editions while exploring some restructuring.

dringsim 12:25, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Are we looking at the same page? I see an "Appendix: Results of public consultation on Wikispore and Wikinews" with a rather reasonable summary of the discussion. The recommendation is also sensible, given it's the only concrete proposal which has emerged so far (other than "do nothing"). As the appendix says, no alternative hosts for Wikinews have come forward yet and the language committee has not suddenly acquired the tools to decide on a partial archival either. Nemo 19:54, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Co jest nie konkretnego w propozycji by nie przeszkadzać wolontariuszom w dalszym prowadz prowadzeniu projektu? Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 04:48, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Sprzeciw

Zamykanie Wikinews, i to jeszcze w taki sposób, bez szacunku dla społeczności je tworzących, podważa zaufanie do całego ruchu Wikimedia. Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Machine translation:
Opposition
Closing Wikinews, and doing so in such a way, without respect for the communities that create it, undermines trust in the entire Wikimedia movement.
For those who don't speak Polish. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 06:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Please take a look

"There was also an in-person meeting at Wikimania, attended by the SPTF members and community members, including a Wikinews administrator."

You held a closed-door meeting for public consultation participants. Mr Sj promised to livestream the meeting so that everyone could participate remotely. According to Sj’s own words, “Sadly, I didn’t see a single person.” However, we had submitted multiple requests at the time and were completely stood up. What the point is of such “a passer-by representing a whole country”? Administrator? No, that's a single user, “This should be no big deal.” by Jimmy Wales.

"There was concern that one month was not enough time for the consultation, so it was extended. However, the bulk of the discussion occurred during the first month."

As I have said, this is extremely irresponsible. Was this extension of the shock, made without consulting the community, supposed to be a good thing? Do not distort the concept — as far as I know, many Wikinews editors do not support this extension, and it was sudden. And no matter how long it was extended, no one answered some of the questions raised by the public; you have not even mentioned this here. What meaning does such an extension have, apart from making the community more exhausted (as can also be seen in discussions elsewhere)?

"Most of the consultation was conducted on Meta-wiki; there were also three open community calls – two in English and one in Russian. The recordings and notes were shared on Meta."

The SPTF prohibited recordings at the time. After a community member published the second recording, the text I placed at the top of the consultation page regarding the first recording was removed, and someone even came to warn me. I, as a volunteer, have been cooperating with your work all along — including keeping track of that so-called “deadline” you changed on a whim.

Several Wikinews editors expressed disappointment that the Wikinews communities were not informed in advance of the general consultation.

This is correct — at least it is finally being acknowledged.

Frankly speaking, it appears that you have been conducting the entire process purely according to your own ideas, acting whenever convenient and taking advantage of any justification you could find. Leaving aside whether your statistics are accurate, you have almost excluded several active Wikinews editors in your sentence. Can you exclude all active Wikipedia editors in a consultation concerning the closure of a sister project, Wikipedia? ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

In addition, I am a Wikinews editor, but first and foremost I am a Wikipedian and a Wikimedian. When the public consultation began, I had only about 200 edits on Wikinews. As far as I know, the 魔琴 above has only ever published one article on Wikinews as well. Sheminghui.WU (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I just saw that Mr. Aaron Liu, who has been actively participating in the discussion, also spoke up—he has never made a single edit on WikiNews, but is a very interested reader(as can be seen from his previous statements), at same time, a Wikimedian who can join the talk. The readership of Chinese Wikinews has been consistently high recently; even if we only consider 10% of the page views show, it's still higher than the vast majority of Wikipedia entries. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 08:30, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Furthermore, I haven't seen any translated versions of your documents until today, even though I know there are many volunteers willing to translate them. Why are you still emphasizing multilingualism here? ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

"A summary of the consultation and recommendations for next steps has been presented to the CAC in September and published on Meta." What does this mean? Is it you finished it almost three months ago, and now you're announcing it? --Sheminghui.WU (talk) 08:47, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, given that this also references discussions on the English Wikivoyage, I should mention that I also forwarded the public consultation message in external public groups for the Chinese Wikivoyage, Chinese Wikiversity, and Chinese Wikibooks. Although these discussions didn't go into depth, they only garnered support from some senior users and received no opposition. Of course, this doesn't represent the entire community. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

SPTF

Before or after the Board makes its final decision, if possible, the Board should reevaluate how poorly the public consultation was conducted by the SPTF. This is important so that in the future, communities of any project do not face such negligence from those responsible for conducting consultations impartially and accurately.

Several users, including myself, have already pointed out what the SPTF did wrong, either entirely or partially during the consultation and beforehand, on the Wikinews public consultation talk page. Some of these points were also highlighted by Sheminghui.WU in the discussion above, so I won't repeat them here.

It is very important that the Board takes this into consideration to prevent similar miscommunication and mismanagement from happening again in future consultations or large community discussions.

Thank you. -- Asked42 (talk) 07:43, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Operating Costs of Wikinews

From my point of view an important point when thinking about closing projects or not are costs. What are the costs of hosting and supporting Wikinews at the Wikimedia Foundation. Hogü-456 (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

There was a lot of discussion at the prior proposal, so I appreciate that it's hard to follow all of the talk, but the issue of hosting was not the primary cost: hosting Wikinews is pretty trivial considering the broader hosting costs of the WMF. The thing that costs money and person-hours is maintenance. Wikinews has a few particular features that require resources that could be used elsewhere. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:03, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Alternative hosting at Miraheze

I think an alternative hosting service for Wikinews wikis could be Miraheze. It is a free wiki hosting service operated by Wiki Tide Foundation. A non-profit organization located in the USA. Maybe the Wikimedia Foundation is willing to fund them a bit every month and support hosting of Wikinews if there is the decision of transferring it to another location. As I dont like the currenct political situation in the USA maybe another democratic country could be better. So I see a chance in this discussion about Wikinews to think about how to be less dependent of the USA. Hogü-456 (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

W pl.wikinews też rozważamy alternatywny hosting. Jeden z użytkowników zaproponował serwer. Ale na razie jeszcze jest nadzieja że Wikinews zostanie w Wikimediach. Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 04:57, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

If this does not work out, then moving to Miraheze seems to be the next best approach. I also think the WMF should consider voluntarily releasing the Wikinews trademark if they have no intention of continuing the project. -- Asked42 (talk) 14:09, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Let's look at the facts.

This is one of the most common questions for the SPTF that has never been answered: What are the downsides of not shutting down WikiNews? In fact, at least some language versions of Wikinews have been productive just in the past few months. For example, the Chinese version of Wikinews has produced not less than the Chinese version of Wikiversity, and more than many other active small language websites. What is the point of shutting down such a productive website? Are our existing website closure guidelines wrong? Or is Wikinews' budget so-so-so exceptionally large? In reality, such a shutdown is meaningless, and symbolically harmful. From my personal experience, Wikinews has at least raised some public awareness of the WM movement, because many people are even unaware of its existence, and we ask this question during interviews. Why such a one cut blanket ban?(Or could WMF disclose its budget as Hogü-456 above suggests?) No one has ever answered this question. Sheminghui.WU (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

If the communities of WikiNews are too little, hte risk of spam/IA generated content/spreading of disinformation is high. Una tantum (talk) 10:55, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

few major questions and concerns for the Board

1. It has been noticeable to me, and it concerns me, how neutral and objective the Board will be when making its decision. Some members of the Sister Projects Task Force are also members of the Board, and their opinions appear to be strongly tilted in one direction. There is a possibility that this may influence the decision the Board will make. As community members, I believe we deserve to be heard equally, and the points raised in support of Wikinews should be treated and discussed with equal consideration. I hope the Board will neutrally listen to all sides.
2. Regarding the proposed recommendation: "Archive all editions of Wikinews, preserving their content": on what basis was this conclusion reached? The decision to close a project should not be made behind closed doors. It would be valuable to understand the key factors that influenced this recommendation, if it is possible to share them transparently.
3. Are the individuals conducting the consultation and the Board members involved, familiar with the Wikinews content model, workflow, and how Wikinews actually operates? Have they contributed or edited on any Wikinews projects themselves? I am not saying this is a requirement to make a decision, but it would seem unusual to make a major decision about a project like Wikidata, for example, without understanding how it works.
4. If Wikinews can be closed so easily, does this not create concern that other smaller or less active sister projects might also be targeted in the future? The WMF has the resources to justify why any project "is not working" and should be closed. Why would contributors invest time and effort into other smaller sister projects if there is always uncertainty that they could be closed in coming years?

-- Asked42 (talk) 14:04, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@LLosa (WMF). Thank you. -- Asked42 (talk) 14:05, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, thank you for notifying the Chinese community this time. However, some communities, including some active ones, still have not been notified. Why is that? Sheminghui.WU (talk) 23:43, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

• Ad 4. Tak, jeśli Wikinews zostaną zamknięte można spodziewać się w każdej chwili zamknięcia dowolnego projektu siostrzanego. Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  Zwłaszcza gdy Wikinews zostają zamknięte w sposób całkowicie ignorujący fakty i społeczność. Sheminghui.WU (talk) 05:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@Asked42: Sadly, when it comes to creating sister projects, it has never been neutral which created really bad precedent. Every single new sister project proposed have all been created because someone who sits on the BoT and wants to move that project forward. If you're unlucky enough to not "know the right people" who finds your project interesting, then the proposal will not be added to the board's agenda and lingers on forever (like Wikispore and WikiJournal). We all thought that the SPTF could be a solution, but it just "potato potahto". OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:35, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I echo Q2. The reasoning says:

However, different language projects have various levels of activity; what are the criteria for archiving? Communities are engaged in the discussions about the requirements for opening/closing, and the timeframe.

I do not see how the recommendation to archive all editions of Wikinews could possibly follow. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:31, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand how the board can possibly be "neutral" about such a matter. It's the board's task to decide which projects fall within the WMF's mission. They must have opinions! They can't outsource the job to anyone else. Nemo 18:51, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: By neutral, I mean taking into consideration all the points both in favour of archival and against archival. By neutral, I mean not having the outcome already decided and turning the consultation into just a formality. By neutral, I mean being transparent and at least informing the community about what is going on behind the scenes.

"They can't outsource the job to anyone else.": I don't recall mentioning anything like that anywhere. Of course they can't.

"I don't understand how the board can possibly be "neutral" about such a matter.": That is very interesting. The Board can't be neutral in such a matter? It's the Board’s responsibility to be able to hear all sides and then make the decision; otherwise that seems like a lack of credibility in my opinion.

-- Asked42 (talk) 14:31, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Even if Wikinews Pulse gets off the ground, please do not archive active Wikinews editions

There are existing communities who are doing productive work, including original reporting at subdomains such as en.wn. We would like to continue our activities and if the person-hours cost of maintaining special extensions like DPL are too intensive, then just remove them. We would like to continue our work and believe in the mission. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:05, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

A few days ago, Pharos also told me that he hoped Wikinews Pulse could run alongside Wikinews. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 07:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Can we still correct this "result"?

As the title suggests. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 03:53, 16 December 2025 (UTC)