Talk:Wikimedia Foundation closes Wikinews after 21 years

This article is to be posted later

Please don't publish this article before 3 May 2026. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:35, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I would like to politely request that the last edits on this site (for now) are posting and reviewing this article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:38, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I hope our reviewers will be able to handle this. Pinging @Gryllida, @Michael.C.Wright, and @Bddpaux. I assume we could make some exceptions for this, given that it may be one of our last published articles. whatever those exceptions may be. -- Asked42 (talk) 06:42, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't see why I wouldn't be available for this. I'm on a Wikibreak until April 9, after which I expect to return to my normal availability.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 07:08, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I will keep an eye, so that I can point out problems immediately, and review shouldn't take much time. Let's keep the publishing time as May 3, 00:00 UTC.
•–• 09:42, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

@Koavf "last edits on this site for now" -- Do you mean no more edits unrelated to editing, reviewing and publishing this article on Wikinews whatsoever? Or no more edits after its publication on May 4? Lofi Gurl (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

After publication. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:16, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Lofi Gurl (talk) 16:37, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Possible material

A fine idea. In addition to a summary of what is happening (on en, in other languages, with migration), would it be appropriate to include a very abridged history of Wikinews that covers past highlights, or links out to a "History of" page here? For instance:

History

Visualization of articles by

Overview of past research

Greatest hits (Some interviews and other facts from Wikinews and the broad range of featured and classic articles)

Wikinews investigates... Wikipedia usage by U.S. Senate staff; Petition pressures City of Edinburgh

Wikinews interviews... Shimon Peres, Dr. Sara Seager, Jack Herrick, Trischa Zorn, Gary Johnson, 2000th featured WP article authors, DuckDuckGo, WWW co-inventor Robert Cailliau, Rick Falkvinge, Al Sharpton, Domas, ...

Past projects or services

Accreditation

Interview series

Education

Photo essays; POTY and spinoffs

sj (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree, it’d be nice to have at least a brief timeline. After all, this is going to be the last Wikinews article, so it really has to show the spirit of the WN community. ~2026-26352-42 (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Sources

I am hoping that some news source outside the Wikimedia organiation will take notice of the closing of Wikinews (which could be cited as a source for this article). So far I have not found any coverage. For contrast, when the Internet Movie Database shut down its message boards, that did receive news coverage (The Independent, Paste Magazine). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

I did find [1] this which is unhelpful but interesting.. Tduk (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

All I can find is this piece from The Desk on the earlier closure proposal, which is a site I'd never heard of before, but MSN seems to think it's worth reproducing. Otherwise, it's the occasional message board. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:29, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Content proportion of the article

The considerable controversy should at least be mentioned, with various Wikimedia pages you can read. We could even present it as an original report? an example is w:n:zh:维基新闻项目面临“软关闭” from the Chinese Wikinews. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 03:11, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Review time

My week got very busy IRL. If another reviewer can review this article, it would be much appreciated. @Lofi Gurl, @RockerballAustralia, @Heavy Water, @Bddpaux

I may have time on Sunday, but no guarantees. Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 13:40, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Pre Review by ~2026-26352-42

Status:    Not ready

Version evaluated: 5023162

• Copyright: Passed
• Newsworthiness: Passed
• Verifiability: Not ready: fail
• NPOV: Passed
• Style: Passed

Notes for author(s):

Maybe consider adding more sources for the beginning. Anyway, other than that, this is a really good article.

Notes for reviewer:

No notes provided for reviewer

---

This is a pre-review only and is not part of the official review process. A pre-review is meant to help the author or authors improve the article and increase the likelihood of it passing a formal review. This pre-review was not done by a reviewer and represents a recommendation that can be heeded or ignored.

--~2026-26352-42 (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Pre Review by Gryllida

Status:    Not ready

Version evaluated: 5023793

• Copyright: Passed
• Newsworthiness: Passed
• Verifiability: Not evaluated
• NPOV: Not ready: fail
• Style: Passed

Notes for author(s):

1. Headline says Wikinews closes. I would suggest renaming it to indicate that it is the WMF who closes Wikinews.

2. The article barely talks about anyone's response to the event. There have been comments made by people across different Wikinews editions about 2a. what the consultation missed 2b what they are planning to do. The article only mentioning (predominantly) WMF's position and a number of non-current, encyclopedic, facts about Wikinews appears to be a NPOV issue.

3. Minor suggestion is to add a note about dates when the consultation started and ended.

4. Similarly to item 2, suggesting to add a summary of what the consultation was about, like, "We think Wikinews is filled by bots and inactive content, and crashed our servers once. We are proposing to either close it or merge it with a sister project."

5. Similarly to item 2, it would seem essential to mention that WMF did not attempt to support Wikinews or approach Wikinews about quality of its output previously.

6. There was some beef between Wikinews RU and WMF. Whatever scraps of that can be retrieved, may seem to be essential to include in the article as they may or may not have been a key motivator for the event.

7. Issues with peer review at Wikinews and article delays, which were impeding new contributors, seem worth at least mentioning somewhere towards the bottom of the page.

Notes for reviewer:

As noted on my user page, I am not planning to perform a full review, and am leaving the comments as a feedback item without expectation for much of my further involvement. I hope this is OK.

---

This is a pre-review only and is not part of the official review process. A pre-review is meant to help the author or authors improve the article and increase the likelihood of it passing a formal review. This pre-review was not done by a reviewer and represents a recommendation that can be heeded or ignored.

--Gryllida (talk) 04:00, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Pre Review by Mitchsavl

Status:    Recommend publish

Version evaluated: 5024226

• Copyright: Passed
• Newsworthiness: Passed
• Verifiability: Passed
• NPOV: Passed
• Style: Passed

Notes for author(s):

No notes provided for author

Notes for reviewer:

Wikinews shuts down tomorrow, please get this article published ASAP.

---

This is a pre-review only and is not part of the official review process. A pre-review is meant to help the author or authors improve the article and increase the likelihood of it passing a formal review. This pre-review was not done by a reviewer and represents a recommendation that can be heeded or ignored.

--Mitchsavl (talk) 11:27, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

the title itself is misleading so I don't know how you look at this and say it is ready for publication unless we have agreed to drop the quality of articles.
~2026-22097-45 (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Please log in to your account, whoever you are. Lofi Gurl (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that the article has problems at the moment which, unless addressed, is not fit to be published.
~2026-22097-45 (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Why can't you specify the issues then? Why can't you go fix them yourself? Lofi Gurl (talk) 13:00, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I mean, you could see there has been zero changes to the article since @Gryllida posted the pre-review on the talk page. Not sure why we are dropping the quality of the articles to rush for a publication. Once the above-and the below-mentioned problems are resolved, I'll have another look. •–• 13:18, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I dont really care. If this article doesnt get published by the 4th it will be a poetic testament to why Wikinews is a failed concept. Lofi Gurl (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. If you do not care, please keep the message to yourself because it really isn't adding any value to the discussion. Just because this is the news article about closure of enwn does not mean we should be violating basic principles of writing a news article.
•–• 14:37, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I will spout off my opinions if I feel like it! 😇 Lofi Gurl (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

In @Lofi Gurl's defense I think it is appropriate for a user to comment on whether they are personally invested in an article being published or not, and I didn't see any reason to assume that this wasn't what was being declared. Tduk (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Apparently it's okay for reviewers to wait six days to review an article, yet if editors fail to respond to their comments within nine hours, we get snide comments about how there have been "zero changes to the article" since then. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

"Wait" as if we are not volunteers here, who have things going on-off wiki. And if you have problem with "zero changes" comment, please direct it towards the person who initially did pre-review while the other concerns are not addressed. Anyway, instead of having this argument, fixing and submitting the article would be more useful. •–• 16:58, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

From where I'm looking, the above user is currently fixing the article as well as defending other wikinews editors. Tduk (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────────────────────┘
To be clear, anyone who wants this article to be published should work on resolving the objections raised by Gryllida and Acagastya. We don't have time to expect anyone to do it alone. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Review of revision 5024226 [Not ready]

Revision 5024226 of this article has been reviewed by Acagastya (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 13:11, 3 May 2026 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: See below Style: Not ready: See below Comments by reviewer: There are multiple problems with this article. Some of them are: The title is factually incorrect. It should be Wikimedia Foundation closes Wikinews after 21 years. (Italicise Wikinews). The lede of the article is not only in passive voice, it is not per WN:LEDE. Similar problems exists towards the end of the article as well where things happen, but it does not answer "who" did it. One of the reasons why that is the case is also because per WN:PYRAMID, "Use punchy, active language to intone a sense of immediacy" while the article uses passive voice at places. Look at the para stating "Wikinews received some criticism over the years for not achieving success comparable to its sister project Wikipedia." -- it is near 100% possibility that anything and everything will receive some sort of criticism -- what needs to be specified is who did it? Where did they do it? Else this behaviour becomes a gateway to saying one's opinion which bypasses neutrality. Please do not use pull quotes ("Wikinews is found...") in the article if it is not mentioned in the article itself. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 5024226 of this article has been reviewed by Acagastya (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 13:11, 3 May 2026 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: See below Style: Not ready: See below Comments by reviewer: There are multiple problems with this article. Some of them are: The title is factually incorrect. It should be Wikimedia Foundation closes Wikinews after 21 years. (Italicise Wikinews). The lede of the article is not only in passive voice, it is not per WN:LEDE. Similar problems exists towards the end of the article as well where things happen, but it does not answer "who" did it. One of the reasons why that is the case is also because per WN:PYRAMID, "Use punchy, active language to intone a sense of immediacy" while the article uses passive voice at places. Look at the para stating "Wikinews received some criticism over the years for not achieving success comparable to its sister project Wikipedia." -- it is near 100% possibility that anything and everything will receive some sort of criticism -- what needs to be specified is who did it? Where did they do it? Else this behaviour becomes a gateway to saying one's opinion which bypasses neutrality. Please do not use pull quotes ("Wikinews is found...") in the article if it is not mentioned in the article itself. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

• I have started addressing your comments, but keep in mind that passive voice is not the same thing as leaving vague who was responsible for an action. "Wikinews received some criticism over the years ..." is grammatically in the active voice, not the passive voice. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

That was not a part of the passive voice comment, as you can see.
•–• 16:09, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Andrew Lih link

Should that link go to his wikinews profile page (as it does now), which he presumably wrote, or his en.wikipedia page, which he did not write? I'm not sure of best practices here. Tduk (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Revision notes

I have made a few changes

• reordered paragraphs for inverted pyramid
• changed to active voice
• added notes about when peer review was introduced, and mention of the two late reviewers who were a substantial part of the site in the past
• added mention of UoW activities and a related video

I think this should, to some extent my volunteer capacity permitted, address the above remarks. I have re-submitted for review.

CC @Lofi Gurl, @Acagastya, @Michael.C.Wright, @RockerballAustralia

Hi @George Ho @Wikiwide @BigKrow @Lofi Gurl @Back ache @Md Mobashir Hossain @Almondo2025, @Dsuke1998AEOS, @Ternera, @Monsieur2137 @Asked42, @Sheminghui.WU, @excelblue (if you want yourself removed or someone else added to this list, please inquire here) A revision has been requested. Here is a list of what to do. (If/when you intend to start working on it, please Subscribe to this section and to this talk page, and post reply messages here when you started and finished editing) See below:

1) check article and revise as you desire

Gryllida, RockerballAustralia, Michael.C.Wright, Bddpaux, JJLiu112

1. please review, there is less than two hours left to do so. Gryllida (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

• Thank you to @Gryllida: for putting in the effort to deal with the reviewer's notes. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

list of languages

Russian Serbian Portuguese Polish French English Chinese German Italian Spanish Czech Dutch Catalan Japanese Arabic Greek Tamil Limburgish Swedish Ukrainian Persian Finnish Romanian Esperanto Gun Korean Albanian Norwegian Shan Bosnian Hebrew Gryllida (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

src, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews

would be good to add to article Gryllida (talk) 23:42, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Review of revision 5024587 [Passed]

Revision 5024587 of this article has been reviewed by Acagastya (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:59, 3 May 2026 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 5024587 of this article has been reviewed by Acagastya (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:59, 3 May 2026 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Typo

There's an erroneous curly bracket sitting right before the line In 2013, a link to Wikinews was removed from the "In the News" section of the front page of Wikipedia, and links to Wikinews were also removed from the Current Events portal in that year. Hope this can still be fixed! :-) Loytra (talk) 04:39, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Incorrect information about language

Even though this article was published, at the last minute the user who published it added information which may be incorrect, at first claiming it would be sighted [2] and then electing to publish the change without review [3]. To my eyes, it is a misinterpretation of the sentence from the Desk source, which reads "While Wikinews is available in nearly three dozen languages, three projects — Wikinews English, Wikinews Russian and Wikinews Mandarin — account for the majority of human-related traffic, the organization affirmed.". This implies that the majority of human traffic that goes to Wikinews goes to these three sites. It does not imply anything about what percentage of traffic to those, or any, sites is human vs crawlers, which is instead summarized by the sentence in the article "the majority of online traffic to Wikinews articles comes from search engine bots and crawlers, not human beings". These look like two similar concepts that bear no strict relationship. Does anyone disagree with this interpretation? Tduk (talk) 04:46, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Tduk Perhaps because you are new, you might have missed checking the logs of FlaggedRevs. You can use the history page to check the info that was added was added-post publication, which would only be visible if it is sighted by a reviewer -- and that was sighted by Gryllida. More details can be found via Special:Logs here.

Re your second point:

1. enwn users -- 61,404,872 pageviews in the last year.
2. enwn spiders -- 44,811,548 pageviews in the last year.

1. zhwn user -- 34,577,135 pageviews in the last year.
2. zhwn spiders -- 25,596,539 pageviews in the last year.

1. ruwn users -- 51,932,094 pageviews in the last year
2. ruwn spiders -- 116,311,804 pageviews in the last year

All three combined users v spiders 147,914,101 v 186,719,891. A 45-55 cumulative split, with enwn and zhwn having more userviews than spidercrawls would mean the "most" qualifier (which is subjective, and in the hindsight, it would have been better if we provided direct stats, than to worry about how much difference is big enough to be registered as "most") shouldn't be placed here. But yeah, instead of the subjective interpretation of taking 45-55 being not that huge of a difference to warrant most, and more would have been apt, I think it would be more useful to drop ruwn from that line. Would require another reviewer to be able to handle that.
•–• 10:35, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Those sources are interesting, thanks. I'm a bit unsure how to proceed, because again, the source that is actually being referenced does not actually support the claim being made (that the majority of traffic is bots except for English, Russian and Chinese Wikinews...), and the sources that _do_ back up that claim (though not for Russian Wikinews, and only for the very specific dates you selected; if you enter, say, for the past 3 years, spiders get more en.wikinews views than users) don't appear to be in use in the article, unless I have missed something. The fact that those pageview sources disagree with the Desk source in the article further backs up my belief that The Desk article is not talking about per-site traffic regarding type of traffic, but overall traffic. My suggestion would be just to revert it to the original text, which is backed up by the source used, without adding the misinterpreted material, which is not backed up by sources. I can't even edit the article to make a sighted change, so I guess someone else will have to do it. Tduk (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Given that generative AI has been on the rise, I am not surprised that in the initial days (2022-2024, when ChatGPT, for example was emerging), that the crawlers would be crawling. However, @Michael.C.Wright @Gryllida -- can anyone have a look quickly? Even if I reword it, I can't sight it -- so would require someone's availability. Else I will revert it at the EOD. •–• 14:36, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I think either way to include those specific Wikinews's requires a lot of independent synthesis of numbers, which may not be appropriate for what we are trying to do here. As I said, the included source clearly does not back up that phrasing, which you actually confirmed by even contradicting one of the claims with your pageviews stats. None of the sources actually back up the very specific and arguably non-NPOV claim. Tduk (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

saying "wmf claimed XYZ about spiders" does not require us to do a cross check. What was their XYZ? Gryllida (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
not sure where you are getting the contradiction part.
•–• 15:36, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

if you wanted to make an edit, i can sight it now Gryllida (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

The language says one thing on the source but it was misinterpreted because it was poorly presented in the original source. The specific proof of this is that Russia is listed among the sites in question, yet the claim demonstrably does not apply to Russian Wikinews; thus the entire phrase must mean something other than what it was being used for in the article. The original Desk article is discussing two independent yet related claims, and the original published text in the Wikinews article conflated them. Tduk (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I do not understand. Can you write it in less confusing way?

Just write what the news article says now, and what you think it should say instead. Gryllida (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

It has already been adjusted to something better, which is now only just arguably biased and original research, and not making claims not in the source. Tduk (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I think it would be ideal to include an XY plot with history of total visits vs crawler visits, for enwn and enwp for last 20 years. Can you do that? It is 200 button clicks and 40 copy pastes in a spreadsheet. :S i am away from my computer right now. Gryllida (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Also a last year matrix

Projects in rows

Languages in columns

% crawler visits in tabke cells

Colored by %

Do they all have less than 50% spiders and it is just Wikinews that got botted? Gryllida (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

New articles

I tried creating a new article and it still works? @Gryllida, @Michael.C.Wright Don Don 17:50, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

They said it might take some time to actually make all the language projects read-only. Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 19:00, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

ohhhh.... Don Don 19:34, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Suggestions

A contributor has requested that an edit be made to this protected page. Once this request is completed by an administrator, please remove this template. You may wish to ask for the help of a volunteer to make your requested edit.

A contributor has requested that an edit be made to this protected page. Once this request is completed by an administrator, please remove this template. You may wish to ask for the help of a volunteer to make your requested edit.

Hi! I would like to suggest some copyedits for this article. This is my first (and, of course, only) contribution to this project. I hope that it can be implemented before this site enters read-only mode.

• Changing "a logo contest" to "a logo contest" might improve link clarity.
• "beta-version logo" would probably be better than the current "beta version logo".
• WN:ABBR seems to suggest that "(WMF)" should be included after the first mention of the Wikimedia Foundation.
• Until about 24 hours ago, "Wikinews" was included in the first sentence of the article. Should that mention be restored?
• The second mention of "Wikimedia Foundation" should probably be changed to "the WMF".
• In "The announcement did not mention the time zone when the wiki would go in read-only mode; but Wikinews operated under the UTC timezone.", "time zone" at least should probably be changed to "timezone", "in" to "into", and "mode;" to "mode,". However, the entire sentence may need to be reworded because the concept of going into read-only mode 'in' a timezone makes little sense (replacing "time zone" with "time" would resolve this, but that may require rephrasing the second part of the sentence).
• "bots," should perhaps be changed to "bots".
• One of the two spaces that precede "Per" should probably be removed.
• "the Wikimedia Cloud statistics in the past one year, both," should probably be changed to "Wikimedia Cloud statistics from the past year, both".
• "different" should probably be changed to "various".
• For clarity, "at Wikimedia's Meta-Wiki" should probably be moved to precede "regarding".
• "the hosting" should perhaps be changed to "to host the project".
• "a Wikimedia volunteer User:Pharos" should probably be changed to "Wikimedia volunteer Pharos".
• "publishing" should probably be changed to "the publishing of".
• "estimated time" should probably be changed to "estimate for when".
• "includes" should probably be changed to "include".
• "closure," should perhaps be changed to "closure; this was".
• "Board announced" should probably be changed to "Board of Trustees announced".
• "first demo" should probably be changed to "first demo's" (the following gerund should be preceded by a possessive in this context).
• "formally created" should perhaps be changed to "formally created on". The sentence in which that phrase appears could also be combined with the last sentence of the following paragraph.
• "non-binding straw poll on content licensing" would perhaps be better than the current "non-binding straw poll on content licensing".
• Changing "a logo in February 2005 through a community voting process" to "a logo in February 2005 through a community voting process" might improve link clarity.
• "content which" could be changed to "content that".
• "then-president" should probably be changed to "president" because no specific time is provided and because "then-" is not present before "U.S. Senator".
• "U.S." should probably be changed to "United States" or at least to "US".
• A nowiki tag should probably be added before the final apostrophe in "Wikinews's".
• "peer review process" should perhaps be changed to "process for peer review".
• "published; which would add 'Published' category to the article and display the article" should probably be changed to "published, at which point the 'Published' category would be added to the article and the article would be displayed".
• "For some time, among others, the late Brian McNeil and then the late Pi zero led the project until 2021." should perhaps be replaced with "The late Brian McNeil and then the late Pi zero, among others, led the project for some time until 2021.".
• "from University of Hong Kong Journalism and Media Studies Centre," should probably be changed to "from the University of Hong Kong's Journalism and Media Studies Centre".
• "of Wikipedia" should probably be changed to "of the English Wikipedia".
• "in that" should perhaps be replaced with "that".
• "Wikinews had also also been involved in university student education with University of Wollongong, for several years, with David Blackall, an academic at University of Wollongong, Faculty of Creative Arts." should perhaps be changed to "For several years, Wikinews had also been involved in university education with David Blackall, an academic at the University of Wollongong, Faculty of Creative Arts.".
• "among all" should perhaps be replaced with "across all".
• "Under WMF" should probably be changed to "Under the WMF".

Thanks!
Gluonz (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2026 (UTC)