Wikinews:Water cooler/proposals

Page last updated: Saturday 23 at 0239 UTC.      

Refresh   

Archive

---

Archives 2009  May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 2010  January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 2011  January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 December 2011 2012  January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 2013  March 2013 April 2013 July 2013 September 2013 November 2013 2014  January 2014 February 2014 April 2014 May 2014 June 2014 July 2014 August 2014 September 2014 October 2014 November 2014 2015  January 2015 February 2015 March 2015 April 2015 May 2015 June 2015 July 2015 August 2015 October 2015 2016  January 2016 March 2016 May 2016 July 2016 August 2016 October 2016 November 2016 December 2016 2017  January 2017 February 2017 March 2017 April 2017 May 2017 August 2017 November 2017 December 2017 2018  January 2018 February 2018 April 2018 May 2018 July 2018 August 2018 September 2018 October 2018 November 2018 2019  February 2019 March 2019 April 2019 May 2019 June 2019 December 2019 2020  January 2020 March 2020 May 2020 June 2020 October 2020 2021  February 2021 July 2021 December 2021 2022  January 2022 February 2022 May 2022 June 2022 July 2022 August 2022 October 2022 2023  January 2023 March 2023 November 2023 May 2024 June 2024 September 2024

Script for quickly creating date categories.

Hello, everyone. There is a script that might help with easily and quickly creating (or updating) date and month category pages. This will let you know which pages are being created before they are created, so you can identify any mistakes. To use the script, add the following code to your common.js page:

mw.loader.load('//en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=User:Asked42/QuickCat.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');

After that, you also need to use the following code somewhere on your subpage to invoke the operation. Or just visit this subpage after installing the script, to access the form.

<div id="category-create-form"></div>

Thank you! Asked42 (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

It can also be used for wikinews date and month list pages. Asked42 (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks and when would I need to use this? Gryllida (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

This script is useful when there is a need to create date categories and date list pages on Wikinews, which are usually generated manually, one by one. This task can be time consuming. By using the script, it becomes possible to quickly generate these pages by simply inputting the year, month, and selecting the type of pages to create (e.g. date categories, month categories, etc). Asked42 (talk) 10:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Communication venues and software

Hi, I am trying to understand how to make newswriting and reviewing easier. I've created a few proposals, which are noted in subsections below (split into separate sections to make it easier to reply individually).

(P.S. Your help with reviewing and editing in Newsroom would be appreciated now.)

Hope to hear what you think. Special ping to @Acagastya, @Heavy Water as we communicated about a part of the above elsewhere recently. However, input is welcome from everyone, of course.

Thanks and regards, Gryllida (talk) 11:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Splitted updates on articles' talk pages

• About collaboration, it was mostly happening in talk pages, so a busy reviewer cannot get a recap of recent discussions unless he or she checks recent drafts and each of their talk pages. I see it as a bit of a problem as it is time consuming. --Gryllida (talk) 11:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  I think the talk page is a great place for collaboration of a given article to happen. It's centrally located to the article and is "attached" to it making it easy to find for editors, reviewers, and readers of articles who may not be wikimedians. One problem that arises from that is when an article doesn't get published but it has important conversations happening in its talk page, which gets deleted if it isn't published. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 12:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  So we could copy some part of article talk or summarize on the /assistance water cooler at time of deletion if needed, especially if article was a great piece of work and there is an important lesson to be learned? Gryllida (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

IRC

• IRC live chat could help a lot, Acagastya's bot announces article status changes there. My nick is "gry" and I am in UTC+10. --Gryllida (talk) 11:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  A challenge with IRC is that the conversation isn't kept as a record, where here in non-article talk pages and other pages, it is recorded. We need to ensure that our use of IRC as a communication channel doesn't exacerbate the problem I see in institutional knowledge; where a few people have exclusive knowledge on how the project works. That goes against the spirit of open knowledge and open collaboration.

  One of my previous employers was a large architecture firm. They had an entire department dedicated to Knowledge management. I think an eventual focus for en.WN, once we are able to routinely publish articles again, is to improve our knowledge management. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 12:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  I have privacy concerns with IRC being recorded. Can we probably just use it for now at least among reviewers and aim to summarize what was discussed on wiki - for time being? When news publishing speed goes up a bit we could probably revisie the question of having one irc channel that's publicly logged and another that's not if contributors want to discuss personal matters affecting availability and the like. Gryllida (talk) 22:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Off-wiki notifications

• As a rare example, loads of changes happened this year. dropped freshness standard. added pre reviews. requested help from stewards. other points here and there. i missed them all for half a year because my email was misconfigured. despite having a note on my user page that i use irc live chat a lot. I mean it is my fault but I am wondering, for those who do not edit the wiki every day and have too many emails, what is the best way to stay in the loop of what is happening? --Gryllida (talk) 11:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Gryllida freshness change wasn't this year. And the help requested was from the global sysops. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  "Last year, even better"? Yes, global sysops, thanks for clarifying it. Gryllida (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  I personally think the best way to stay informed on the project is to stay engaged, at least at a minimum level. Log in and check wiki messages, watch lists, water cooler pages, etc. Spend a bit of time just reading what's happening or what is not happening that should be. If one can't engage at a minimum level by reading what is going on, they don't have the time to contribute; and that isn't a judgement against people without the time, we are all volunteers. But at a certain point, if one wants to remain informed in en.WN, they need to log in and catch up. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 13:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  Doubt majority of reviewers read all recent changes yet maybe they could be pinged on selected discussions with higher urgency or within their interest scope area? Off wiki notifications could help make them reachable? Gryllida (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Android notifications

• How to get on wiki Notifications as push notifications in Android? --Gryllida (talk) 11:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  • mw:Topic:Ybc3xn63mxmx7v0t --Gryllida (talk) 23:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Water cooler for reviewing updates

• For on-wiki communication might just pick one of the existing water coolers and use it for reviewers collaboration. I dunno which, but I will pick one and maybe if reviewers like then everyone can add it to watchlist to make things easier. It would get spammed with one section for each new draft and reviewers can leave notes like "I am taking this" or "Not me, sorry" and then key issues with the story. This would make stuff more challenging as the reviewers would need to read that place in addition to article talk page. Aftera point this could also get noisy on that page, though probably not for a few months. --Gryllida (talk) 11:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see how this is better than doing the same on the article's talk page, where it is logically attached to the article. I like the idea of reviewers 'calling the ball' and/or collaborating on a review. But in my time here, I haven't known of a case where we had a problem of too many reviewers or reviewers having a hard time collaborating on a review. I could be missing something due to their use of IRC, wiki messages, outside email, etc, but I haven't seen that to be a problem to solve. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 13:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Draft writing: 'save and keep editing' without waiting

• For draft writing I find on-wiki editing problematic simply because I have to wait for the editor to load. I created a .html file on my computer which saves my draft in localStorage in browser. Even if I have a .docx file open or a notepad open then I can have editable text in front of me and save after each substantial edit without waiting to go into read only mode and then back again. On wiki I resolved this by having a "save and keep editing" button in the editor but with ui changes it stopped working around 3 years ago. Is this a problem for other contributors writing drafts? Is there a good solution? --Gryllida (talk) 11:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  I will often have a full, first draft created off-wiki and then cut/paste into wiki to complete. I then finish the article using source editor so that there is a bit of editing history of me linking to sister projects, related articles, infoboxes, categories, etc.

  Since I use source editor, I use the preview a lot. I also tend to follow the Wikipedia recommendation of small edits saved over time so they can be easily tracked and easily undone. I think this is especially important for the review process so that authors can better understand what was changed and why during the review. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 13:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, I think I would a way to change to another source editor which has this feature. Gryllida (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  I mean 'found' Gryllida (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Reviewing by specialisation

• For reviewing this is just hard. I can only motivate myself by reviewing stories local to my area or within an interesting topic. My user page has a link to WelcomeABit software that can categorize users into their preferred topic areas and deliver notifications to them when a new draft is created within their interest. Would you like to sign up to this? What improvements would you suggest - maybe some other place where to deliver notifications, irc, email, on wiki, where else? --Gryllida (talk) 11:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Gryllida the issue with reviewing by specialisation is that there is 1 semi-active reviewer every few months around here, thats it. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  I know. I am trying to get more than one person involved in being notified, hoping that will eventually improve this situation. Gryllida (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  In addition to MDW's point above, there are also so few articles being generated right now, that it is easy to stay on top of the review queue. I don't recall ever seeing double-digits in the review queue. So personally, I don't need notified if an article in my favorite category is up for review. I can quickly scan the headlines and know. This might be useful if the project were busy. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 13:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Michael.C.Wright there were double digits review queues when Cromium was active reviewing in the beginning of June. This is because (at least for me) I'm more likely to contribute if its more likely my contribution wont be thrown in the trash, so I think the review queue might grow as the number of active reviewers does. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  Hi @Me Da Wikipedian would you like to write something in one of the topic areas listed on my user page and see how well I will review it. I am testing the hypothesis that in my topic area it is easier for me to review. Gryllida (talk) 02:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Gryllida your topics aren't on your user page (at least I didn't see them) but I'm pretty sure you said it was Australia, Science and Technology, right? Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yup Gryllida (talk) 11:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Theme

• Maybe have a news writing theme for each fortnight e.g. "weather in Australia" or "technology in Japan" etc? --Gryllida (talk) 11:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  I think we need a reviewing theme. ツ I'm being snarky, but truthful. Our immediate and existential problem is a lack of published articles. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 13:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  Hi @Michael.C.Wright, would you like to reach out to all reviewers and ask them what their reviewing theme could be? I'm happy to write to suit their preferences. I have listed a couple possible themes on my user page in which I can possibly review easier than in others. I'm now writing the page User:Gryllida/reviewing-themes as a test.

  Ideally as a side note, this should also include theme interests of copyediting contributors who are not reviewers. Gryllida (talk) 02:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Gryllida Look around here. There was just no articles for 2 months and this isnt the first time thats happened (last occured from Jan-March). How about our current theme is actually being a news site for a change. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Page UI for writing a new story

About engagement of readers on-wiki. What if there was a widget, which is full screen width, a textbox with a 'write' -- that'd go to headline, and take the users to new article writing page? Currently writing a story requires at least two clicks and one scrolling down, and knowing where to look.

The timeless skin ( https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&skin=timeless ) provides full screen width text box for search. A little JS could be written to add a pencil button near search button, which would take the user inputted text as headline, and open the article writing page (https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=Template%3ANew_page&editintro=Template%3ANew_article_intro&title=hi&create=Create+page).

Hence I propose

Option 1

• add javascript which adds the pencil icon
• change skin to timeless for all users who didn't edit their skin preference

Option 2

• edit sidebar and add a box in it for writing a new article (a text box with a pencil) if software allows, if it does not, then do the same anyway using JavaScript
• or a wiki extension, which will take weeks to approve but will behave more stable, because JavaScript is annoying

Option 3

• add the text box and pencil button somewhere else in the page where I didn't think of it before

The target audience is visitors of main page and people who read articles. Gryllida (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I think we need to hammer the basics first; write an article, review an article, publish an article. Once we are able to have an article a day published, then we can consider other widgets. We don't even have the manpower right now to effectively upgrade our copyright license, a project we have consensus on pursuing. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 13:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Good goal I will work toward it. Can you review 1.5 articles a day, of which 1 is a tiny article on a non-controversial topic? Gryllida (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

This is a volunteer project. I contribute my time when I'm able. In the past 30 days, I've used EasyPeerReview 18 times, nearly twice as much as the next-most-active reviewer. I believe we've had three active reviewers during this period. The second-most-active reviewer used the tool 10 times, and the third used it 7 times. Our review rate as a group is currently fewer than 1.5 articles per day.

To really affect the number of articles getting published, we need more active reviewers and a revised review process. How we achieve that is the million-dollar question. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 13:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

"Copyedit now" button

The page [1] has a button that takes to a random article with issues. Issues are marked in a banner. Could something like this be implemented here and put in site notice? Maybe "random draft which is developing which is with event not more than 3 days old"? Having such button could be more appealing to some users than clicking newsroom link , familiarizing with its layout, and then clicking a headline. Just a thought. (other thing they do well is monthly cleanup drives) Gryllida (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

New version of social bookmarks

The current social bookmarks template is outdated, and since it is one of the most widely used templates, I am proposing a new version for social bookmarks. There is currently an editprotected request open for this. Asked42 (talk) 17:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks I will check it out. Gryllida (talk) 12:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

More OR

To make news writing more fun I am suggesting to try to add OR to every submitted story. (They don't respond every time anyway.) Interview someone or request information from original sources which was not published elsewhere. This could make the Wikinews reports more unique and freshness issues would be less severe. Just a thought. Gryllida (talk) 11:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the phrase is "more exclusive" 🙂 Gryllida (talk) 12:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

MassMessage

Hi @Acagastya I am proposing that the enwnbot sends messages not only to IRC but also using MassMessage to User:Gryllida/Notifications/New/Develop (new articles added to develop cat) and User:Gryllida/Notifications/New/Review (new articles added to review cat). And same for User:Gryllida/Notifications/New/Publish. Could you possibly code this, please? Gryllida (talk) 08:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

The program needs to check every min for new category members and if found, send a massmessage using mediawiki api. Anyone's help is very welcome. Gryllida (talk) 09:06, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Guideline for AI-generated content

I have proposed a guideline for AI-generated content: The use of AI in generating content (WN:AI).

Maybe it should be a policy. Maybe we should forbid it altogether. What are your thoughts? —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 16:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, see similar policies from d:Q116214731, b:en:Wikibooks:Artificial Intelligence, w:en:Wikipedia:Using neural network language models on Wikipedia, and m:Using neural network language models. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Haven't encountered this issue frequently enough and there is no reliable way to check whether AI was used or not. So forbidding would be problematic. I tried using AI once and it got the event date wrong three times, all three times it said three different dates, and one was last year. .... Gryllida (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Markup for developing articles and the review process

I think that we can improve the article-development and review processes by using markup to clearly and effectively communicate between author and reviewer before publishing an article.

I have created {{Verify}} as a first attempt. From the documentation: "It can be used to indicate the source of a specific statement or it can be used to indicate that a statement needs a source."

I propose that if the template is useful, we consider requiring its use by authors to facilitate/speed-up the review process. What are your thoughts? —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 16:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I would oppose this in published version, we don't use inline citations here. Gryllida (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't seem intended for use in the main published version, as noted in the documentation, but rather for the developing stage. Asked42 (talk) 10:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

This approach seems more effective than using HTML comments to indicate which information is sourced from where. Asked42 (talk) 10:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Asked42 is correct. I should have been more clear here. The proposed template is not meant to remain in published articles. And I too think it is better than hidden HTML comments as its presence and even lack of presence shows both the author and the reviewer important information about the state of a draft article. For example, if a statement or paragraph does not have a source indicated, the author can see they need to (temporarily) cite a source for the reviewer.

I think this will be a huge help in the review process if authors provide exact links to the sources they've used for every piece of information that must be verified. Currently, reviewers must search all sources for a single statement, not knowing which article contains the information. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 14:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I utilized {{Verify}} to indicate statements as I verified them during a review in this previous version of a published article. That version of the article would be an example of how it would look to an author if I had for some reason failed the review and returned it to the author(s) for further edits and improvements. The author(s) can clearly see the statements I have verified.

Again, to reiterate; these markings are not meant to exist after publication. These are meant to facilitate communication between authors and reviewers during the developing and review processes. My primary goal is for authors to utilize this template to preemptively point reviewers to exactly what source they used for a given statement. This will hopefully reduce the amount of back-and-forth between reviewers and authors, a process that can easily consume days of precious time. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 18:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

FYI,side note, often a thing is verified through multiple sources. Gryllida (talk) 09:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Proposal summary 22:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, summary of proposals:

• Date script by Asked42. One question.
• To copy part of article talk to this page, if needed, before article deletion. Proposed by Gryllida. One comment. (Michael.C.Wright)
• IRC live chat usage proposed by Gryllida. One comment from Michael.C.Wright expressing concern that it is not recorded.
• Off-wiki notifications proposed by Gryllida. One comment from Michael.C.Wright noting it is best to read everything everywhere to catch up.
• Android notifications proposed by Gryllida. No comments.
• One page for review updates proposed by Gryllida. One comment from Michael.C.Wright suggesting to use talk pages. Gryllida is concerned reviewers are not in any way notified of new updates on talk pages, and reading all recent changes may be too much effort.
• 'Save and keep editing' for draft proposed by Gryllida. One comment from Michael.C.Wright saying 'i do not use it, i edit on my pc before posting article on-wiki'.
• Gryllida proposed reviewing by specialisation, someone wrote too hard when there is only 1.5 reviewers on site.
• News writing theme proposed by Gryllida. Reviewing theme proposed by Michael.C.Wright. Same issue as in previous point.
• Site banner/notice proposed to include note of review/drafts status. No comments.
• New social bookmarks template proposed by Asked42. No comments.
• More OR proposed by Gryllida. No comments.
• Coding work needed for draft notifications through massmessage suggested by Gryllida. No response.
• Guideline for AI generated content proposed by Michael.C.Wright. Koavf linked related pages.
• Inline citations proposed by Michael.C.Wright. Gryllida noted it may be confusing and this is not Wikipedia.
• Elsewhere Gryllida proposed mailing lists-like setup to get notifications on-wiki using MassMessage. No response was made.
• Gryllida created tiny articles last week. They were easier to review, and were successfully published. Thanks to @RockerballAustralia. Gryllida is seeking to continue this effort.
• Gryllida proposed 'review only date of event, and 5W, and no plagiarism' without verifying full article. If some statement is obviously unsourced it can be removed. This should make publishing process quicker. Link to proposal here.
• Gryllida is suggesting to undo the status 'global sysops' of this wiki. Discussion is in following section.
• @George Ho assisted with main page makelead. Thanks.

May I suggest that you all comment on the above, 90% of them are on this page and 10% are on another page linked here. This should be less time consuming than full reviews of anything.

I consider this an important participation as lack of support in coding, writing, reviewing, and feedback on the slightly more challenging situations hinders news writing; whereas participation in the above helps trenemdously, even if it is only a little note here or there.

Thanks. Gryllida (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

undo global sysops wiki status

Proposing to undo global sysops wiki status as a sysop (me) is available at least once daily, often for a few hours, and spam does not accumulate in long term anymore. Your insight would be much appreciated. Gryllida (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Too soon to review. Let's still give global sysops a chance, shan't we? George Ho (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks and when would you suggest to review this in future? Gryllida (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with George. Given our lack of active reviewers, one active admin who is also a reviewer is one person spread too thin. We are desperate for more active reviewers as well as active admin. There are 77 changes that need to be sighted by an admin.[2] Two of those pending changes, which are not visible unless the reader is signed in, are corrections to edit-protected articles. The oldest of those corrections is two weeks old. We have 12 changes that are required by an admin before we can upgrade our two-generations-old copyright license.[3] There are 29 pages marked for speedy deletion.[4] There are 43 articles from 2024 that are published but not archived. Roughly ten of those should be left on the main page so 33 need to be archived. One active admin is not nearly enough to accomplish what we need to accomplish. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 14:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be heap easier if you walked me through this on IRC as I can shorten that queue a bit but have no clue how some of these things work. Asking on wiki, we just wait for an answer for a few hours often. Gryllida (talk) 09:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@George Ho see WN:IRC please. I am happy to give you access to my w:Quassel. Thanks. Gryllida (talk) 09:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Gryllida, I just spotted your message above from October. I didn't get notified of it, even though the page is on my watchlist. I've now subscribed to the discussion, maybe that will help.

If you were asking me to get on IRC to walk you through this, I'm afraid I won't be of any help. I'm not an admin and don't know the mechanics of deleting files or archiving articles. I do know that the list of articles on the Main page is a DPL that excludes articles in Category:Archived so I suspect that it could be as easy as following the guidance of Wikinews:Archive conventions and then that long list on the Main page would be reduced to non-archived articles (i.e., all articles published in the previous seven days or the last ten articles, whichever is larger).

The edits of protected pages should have instructions for the edit in the talk page. For the list associated with the license upgrade project, we have instructions as well as examples here: Wikinews:2024_Copyright_license_upgrade#Pages_to_update_when_license_is_updated_from_2.5_to_4.0. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 14:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Grant project for Wikinews

Following up on Wikinews:Water cooler/technical#Can and should en.Wikinews be revitalized, I would like to propose that we address the social/technical/financial underinvestment in Wikinews by actively seeking outside grants. The affiliate that I'm part of, m:Wikimedia New York City, would like to help with this process, and to develop a grant proposal in consultation with the English Wikinews community.

Wikinews has so much to offer the world, and I think it just needs some investment and experimentation with new ideas to help it fulfill its potential. I'd suggest the following areas to be potentially supported by a grant:

• Developing a w:Social news website functionality
• Integrating more closely with Wikipedia, particularly w:Wikipedia:In the news and the daily w:Portal:Current events
• Wikidata items for new stories across publications, tying into the larger knowledge graph
• Better communications channels, and community support through editing events/contests
• Working with students and journalism schools, working on Wikinews as a class assignment
• Annex for newsworthy topics that don't fit Wikipedia notability
• Regional and topical newsdesks and feeds
• Explore creative but responsible uses of AI

All of this would emphasize and build on Wikinews' strong NPOV and human-centered collaborative tradition. This vision would also strengthen the traditional Wikinews mode of articles with a fixed publication date, while also enabling other modes of development and access to news-related information. Pharos (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Social news website - suggest off-wiki - probably w:Lemmy
• Wikipedia news integration - suggest last on the list after everything else is fixed due to previous issues (they have a large issue with Wikinews lacking 'assume good faith' approach where instead 'never assume' is preferred, and with the low pass rate of new sensible news articles)
• Wikidata maybe OK, I'm not experienced
• Better communication channels - official media is IRC - I am willing to help by providing access to my w:Quassel for testing - for long term use I suggest finding somewhere else to host. Or I could help with self hosting Matrix.
• Sounds great I am happy to make some additional documentation for students i.e. video tutorial
• That's original reporting, indeed not eligible for Wikipedia. Can be highly local news or exclusive content
• Same as above, bit more challenging
• Happy to collaborate with you on this

Gryllida (talk) 03:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

WMF has no expectation for creating products on Wikinews

I believe there's a lot of untapped potential. And WMF has been funding journalist organizations through several rounds of meta:Knowledge Equity Fund (media-related organizations are in 3 out of 6 funded projects in round 1, 2 out of 7 projects in round 2, 5 out of 13 projects in round 3). Yet can anyone tell me if any of these projects collaborated with Wikinews? I don't know this community well but I am pretty confident in putting my bet at 0. In fact, in the project report produced by Borealis Racial Equity in Journalism Fund (round 1 recipient), they laid it out clearly on first page of the report that they have 0 new images/media added to Wikimedia articles, 0 articles created/improved on Wikimedia projects, and 0 bytes of value added to Wikimedia projects. What on earth is WMF paying them $850,000 for? Another round 1 recipient, Arab Reporters for Investigative Journalism (ARIJ), reported that they published articles elsewhere. Why aren't they (ARIJ) publishing it in Wikinews? Why isn't WMF imposing a condition such that the journalism-area grant recipients must publish their articles in Wikinews in addition to other places they preferred? I haven't combed round 2 or round 3 recipients' reports but I expect similar outcomes. Wikinews community should grab their pitchforks, speak up and demand answers from WMF grant team on why they didn't impose conditions for projects that closely align with Wikinews. Given that the Knowledge Equity Fund is continuing to fund media and journalism organization, I think this is a lower hanging fruit than requesting grants specifically for Wikinews. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out this potential connection to the Knowledge Equity Fund! Actually, what I had thinking about principally was not applying to WMF at all, but rather to independent philanthropies interested in the future of journalism. Still, it makes a lot of sense to build up this connection, and though I think WMF were unsure about how to navigate it in the past, maybe we can make it clear that Wikinews is indeed now open for such collaborations. Pharos (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, as I mentioned the better part of a decade ago, I have done professional grant writing and I'm motivated to work together with a group looking to prepare a grant proposal. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikinews community should grab their pitchforks... That would be about four pitchforks at the moment. Is the thought that an influx of limited funds for limited projects would increase our user base? Is there a concern that with too few active users we won't qualify for said funds?

At en.WN we have a unique role; the Reviewer, which is critical to getting articles published using the outdated and no-longer-supported[5] Flagged Revisions. Without enough Reviewers, en.WN is dysfunctional. I believe that is where we need to first focus our attention; increasing the number and effectiveness of reviewers. In the context of grants and funds, I don't know what that looks like. Training? —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 15:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned above, "working with students and journalism schools" could in principle result in long-term editors (not necessarily likely, but certainly possible) or it could be a situation where the existing user base can move more to reviewing than actual writing and newer editors can focus on writing. Agreed tho that this project is unique among all the WMF projects where there is a critical mass that is needed to be even functional. At, e.g. s:, you can take an indefinite amount of time to keep on adding source texts and while a library is best when it has a lot of entries, at least having a few is a good start and you keep building it up over time and it just becomes more and more useful (this is also how Project Gutenberg has worked). But at a news site, stories cease to be news over time. We're falling behind in a more radical way than any other project is or could be. Projects like Wikipedia and Wiktionary are getting closer to their goals of being comprehensive, general interest encyclopedias and dictionaries/thesauruses, etc. but Wikinews is only getting worse off. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)