Wikinews:Water cooler/policy

Page last updated: Monday 13 at 1914 UTC.

self sighting edits

Latest comment: 24 days ago31 comments8 people in discussion

Hi, I just wanted to check that a reviewer should not self sight their own edits. Please provide reference to a policy page for that. Gryllida (talk) 08:31, 14 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

What policy prevents it and how?Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 13:10, 14 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

That is the question. Is there a policy against this, and, if yes, then which. Gryllida (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

I know tone won't be conveyed over text, so clarifying it is not coming from a place of frustration. But are you seriously unaware of this and are asking about it, @Michael.C.Wright? This is a well-known info among reviewers that you can't self-review, and you can't sight your own edits.
•–• 23:33, 16 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Any non-insignificant edit done by someone with reviewer role, post-pub MUST NOT sight their own edits and ask some other reviewer to sight it for them. You'd find it all across the history of various articles, where pizero would have made the change and asked other reviewer to sight it because the one adding the change cannot be approving it -- self-publication is not permitted on enwn. The very specific link that you are looking for is from pizero's essay which says "After publication, edit the article, submitting improvements for another reviewer to review" and "After publication, significant edits should be made only within the first 24 hours and should not be self-sighted"; as well as Reviewing articles "Edits can be made but must also be sighted (approved by a reviewer) within 24 hours" read along with "Users in the class Wikinews:Reviewer can mark revisions of the article as sighted (reviewed). Sighted changes at this stage must comply with the pillars as well as the archive conventions." Any reviewer making non-trivial changes (typo, spelling, comma and such stuff is what I am referring to as trivial. Removal of sources, removal of info from the articles is not trivial.) cannot sight their own edits because they are not an independent reviewer.

Self-sighting edits would mean that reviewer does not understand the need of review in the first place, and is omitting the independent pair of eye-balls verifying the said change.

That said, did something like this happened, @Gryllida?
•–• 23:31, 16 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Why does the system even have a mechanism that allows for someone who doesn't know what they're doing (me) pull it off? Lofi Gurl (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Someone who works on that extension can answer that better -- but reviewing isn't something one should do carelessly. I don't know as to what went down, however, I am not saying that you were necessarily careless -- you should be checking the history and not sighting edits that you have made.
•–• 02:33, 17 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'll check histories before sighting edits post-review from here on. Lofi Gurl (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

It's not that the reviewer necessarily doesn't know what he or she is doing. It's that people are naturally biased toward their own work, aren't looking at it with fresh eyes, etc. etc. and that one of the cornerstones of WikiNews' value to readers is that nothing here is the product of just one author; all significant pieces of information are checked by at least two people. But I don't think we have a way to allow reviewers to fix small issues, which is part of their job, while locking them out of fixing big ones. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Acagastya, I did not self-review as I did not author the article. The article in question is likely US president Donald Trump demands the unconditional surrender of Iran.
To summarize the sequence of events:

Lofi Gurl, a new reviewer, reviewed and published the article. During the review a paywalled source was removed, but the attribution and some statements supported only by that source remained in the article.
That issue was raised on the talk page after publication but while the article was still within the editing window.
Gryllida then added two new sources post-publication. Those changes were sighted by Lofi Gurl.

Under WN:Archive, adding new sources after publication is not permitted. I therefore removed those sources and corrected the related statements.
The article was still within the 72-hour post-publication editing window (formerly 24 hours). I then corrected grammar, factual inaccuracies, unsupported statements, and bias. Because this functionally required re-reviewing the article, I sighted my changes.
Self-sighting what was essentially a review was a way to avoid a correction or a retraction.
Since this situation is not explicitly addressed in policy or guideline, I propose we standardize guidance for it. Earlier discussion touched on this when the window was still 24 hours (discussion here). Given the window is now 72 hours, it would be helpful to codify expectations so we rely less on institutional knowledge.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 01:36, 17 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Any factual information that is added or removed requires another reviewer to look into it, this has been a standard for a very very long time. Besides, you must ask another reviewer to sight these changes, and MUST NOT self-sight. 1 2 3 4 5 6. Please do not self-sight these edits.
•–• 02:50, 17 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Also, it isn't really some secret that if the reviewer is responsible for an edit which removes/adds information (change is but removal and addition), they can't sight it. That's the point of reviewing to make sure someone vets it. ~2026-16790-14 (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

How many layers do we vet though? I was not the first or primary reviewer of the article. Therefore my actions were vetting another reviewer. By requiring my changes of their review to be vetted, we then require three different reviewers to be involved in a single article and likely delay improvements to accuracy.

No one is objecting to the actual edits, but to the fact that they were self-sighted. If they were controversial, such as changing "pro-life" to "anti-abortion," I'd likely not self-sight. For example, I was quite deliberate and slow with sighting during this correction discussion on the topic, to make sure everyone had an opportunity to weigh-in.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 17:29, 17 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Acagastya, I would offer a slightly different perspective on this.

There is currently no policy that explicitly prohibits self-sighting.
Essays, by their own definition, are not enforceable policy; the header notes they “may not be enforced [as] official policy” and are intended to supplement or interpret policy rather than define it.
There is precedent for reviewers sighting their own changes, including instances involving Pi zero. For example: [1], [2], and a self-sighted correction here: [3].
WN:IAR provides that rules should not prevent improvement or maintenance of the project. In this case, the edits were made to correct unsupported statements and policy issues within the allowed window, avoiding the need for a later correction or retraction.
The changes themselves remained within what is already permitted in review: no new facts or sources were introduced, and the edits focused on accuracy, attribution, and neutrality.

Given the absence of explicit policy on this point, it may be worth codifying expectations into a policy such as ~~WN:REV~~ WN:Archive or a new guideline based on Pi's essay and actual practice, so that similar situations can be handled more consistently going forward.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 17:15, 17 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'd just like to point out that this isn't an isolated case of self-sighting upon/after publication: [4]... I didn't object at that point because I did not want to prolong more painful discussions. Much of the material which was removed could have been sourced; I was discouraged from including redundant sources in general so I erred on the other side of things. I have to say I was surprised to see it published with content removed. There was absolutely no vetting that occured here. Tduk (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

The diff you linked to was performed during the review process and immediately preceded publication.

> Much of the material which was removed could have been sourced...

If it isn't sourced at the time a review is requested and it isn't in direct support of the 5Ws, it is fair game for removal. It is the author's responsibility to ensure facts are verifiable and it is the reviewer's responsibility to ensure facts are verified.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 17:34, 17 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

The removal was still self-sighted, that's why it surprised me. I wasn't sure of the policy and at this point I still am not, so I leave it for others to interpret. Tduk (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

The removal you linked to was not self-sighted. It occurred immediately prior to publication, when FlaggedRevs was applied to mark that revision as the stable version, meaning the changes were included in the final reviewed revision rather than being a post-publication self-sighted edit.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 18:09, 17 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Wikinews:Reviewing articles states that "Edits can be made but must also be sighted (approved by a reviewer) within 24 hours", thus sighting is just defined as being reviewed be a reviewer. I don't see any context that relates the use of the phrase "self-sighted" to whether the article was published or not. Am I missing something? You reviewed your own substantial edits to the article and then immediately published them. Whether these kinds of self-sighted changes are allowed is another story, but that is what they appear to be. Tduk (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I think you are missing something. Sighting is not typically available until an article is published. Drafts are not marked as “stable” in FlaggedRevs until a reviewer applies a sighted revision, which typically occurs at the point of publication (e.g., via EzPR), or occasionally earlier if done in error.

The diff you linked was an edit made during the review process, prior to any stable version being set. In other words, it was part of preparing the final reviewed revision and was not a post-publication, self-sighted change.

> You reviewed your own substantial edits to the article and then immediately published them.

That is inherent to the review process. Reviewers routinely make edits to ensure accuracy, attribution, and neutrality before marking a revision as stable and publishing it. If a statement is unsupported and does not contribute to the 5Ws, it is appropriate to remove it during review. This is explicitly supported by other reviewers.[5], [6]

As a general principle, all contributions are subject to revision during review. In practice, that expectation is best understood as: if non-5W material is not verifiable, it is likely to be removed.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 18:42, 17 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

As an aside, I am trying to understand point #4 here - is it advocating ignoring all rules with the purpose of enforcing rules? That's how I read it. Above, you stated that you removed content because it broke rules, "Under WN:Archive, adding new sources after publication is not permitted. I therefore removed those sources and corrected the related statements." - it seems a bit confusing to say that IAR applies to your edit, but not to those you undid, which I think were pretty clearly trying to improve or maintain the project. What am I missing? Tduk (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

The point is that even though the essay recommends not self-sighting changes post-publication, WN:IAR supports ignoring the essay in favor of improving the project.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 17:35, 17 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Doesn't WN:IAR also then support ignoring the section of WN:Archive that you were referring to, under the same logic? Tduk (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

IAR allows flexibility where rules obstruct improvement, but it does not negate the underlying purpose of policies like WN:Archive. In this case, removing post-publication additions restored the article to a policy-compliant state, whereas adding new material post-publication moved it further outside the reviewed version.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 18:01, 17 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think IAR does not apply in this scenario, because these edits from post publishing could have been left for another reviewer to approve, as per the usual procedure. Gryllida (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Just to clarify, there are also instances where you have sighted your own edits, for example: [7], [8].

In those cases, would it have been preferable to wait for another reviewer to sight them? I ask because this seems to be a fairly common practice when making straightforward corrections, and it may be worth clarifying expectations so they are applied consistently.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 03:31, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

An even more relevant example may be: Talk:Boeing 787 crashes into Indian medical school, killing hundreds#Reviewer-involved post-publication edits.

In that instance, content from an article you authored was merged into a published article (following a dispute between yourself and Darkfrog24), introducing unsupported claims. Several of those post-publication edits were self-sighted, and the article was later corrected to address issues arising from those changes.

Given that, I’m trying to understand how the standard being applied here differs from that situation.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 04:01, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't around for whatever all this is currently and I'm not clear on who performed the alleged offense, but I can confirm that the idea of reviewers not sighting their own work is not new on Wikinews; there is precedent. If, right now, it's only written down in a mere essay then the answer is to 1) acknowledge that no one violated any policy or guideline and 2) write a guideline and cite it going forward. Want me to draft it? I wasn't here for the drama and don't know who's accusing whom, so I can be neutral that way. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm not involved in this other than trying to understand what the policy is; but on that note, if something is drafted, I think it should be clear whether the policyreferring to after publication, or during the review stage, or even immediately before publication. There seems to be some ambiguity there as well. Tduk (talk) 03:11, 19 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Darkfrog24, I appreciate the offer, and I agree clearer and more-prominent guidance would be helpful.

That said, it would be important to ensure the specific scenario here is well understood before drafting, as it involves a somewhat unusual sequence of events involving three reviewers. As we bring in newer reviewers, situations like this may become more common, so getting the details right would matter (and I’m not suggesting this was the fault of the new reviewer).

From my perspective, and from what I can see in practice by other reviewers is that post-publication self-sighting should not be treated as categorically prohibited or permitted; its appropriateness depends on whether the edit introduces new material requiring independent verification or restores the article to a compliant, reviewed state.

It may help to first outline the specific conditions we’re trying to address, and then draft guidance around those, rather than starting from a more general rule.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 03:21, 19 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Question If there is something weird on an image [license or whatever](or some other procedural issue -- I think, historically, we've allowed reviewers to correct>and self sight after they made the correction. Am I correct?--Bddpaux (talk) 13:53, 20 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

New proposal to modify the permission expiry policy

Latest comment: 29 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I made a proposal to modify Wikinews:Permission expiry policy. Please comment or vote over there. Thanks. Codename Noreste (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Wind down and migration activities

Latest comment: 13 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Per the Board of Trustees, all versions of Wikinews are to be made read-only starting 2026-05-04. I'd like to get a sense of what the community thinks are needed actions for three distinct activities:

Local wind-down priorities
Migration activities (to the extent that there is an appetite to migrate at all)
What, if any actions, the community wants to take to propose a renewed/reopened version of Wikinews (e.g. see m:Wikinews Pulse)

As for #1, I think that there should be some general wiki clean-up (deleting any old spam, marking pages as historical, connecting items to Wikidata properties, etc.) and I propose that the last article published here is about Wikinews closing. I would like to draft it and see if anyone wants to review it for publication immediately before closure. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:29, 30 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Justin, i created a new wiki. Don Don 22:31, 30 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

The community must find a way to publish at least one article per day if it is ever to return to Wikimedia servers I think. Lofi Gurl (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Wikinews closes after 21 years. Note this was also proposed earlier at Wikinews:Water_cooler/proposals#The_last_Wikinews_article, lest anyone think that I had an original idea or was trying to steal someone else's thunder. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:25, 31 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Join the central discussion on Wikinews future and migration

Latest comment: 13 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello English Wikinews community, A central discussion page has been created on Meta-Wiki to discuss the future of Wikinews and the possibility of migration to alternative hosting platforms, if communities across different language editions wish to pursue it. This includes discussions about potential hosting options, migration approaches, and related technical considerations.

This central page is intended to help continue discussions even after local Wikinews sites become read-only after May 4, and to bring together currently scattered discussions into one place so that communities can collaborate more effectively. You are invited to share your views in any preferred language on the page meta:Migration of Wikinews and future hosts, under the section for your respective language edition.

(This notification does not advocate for any specific decision, including whether communities should pursue migration.)

-- Asked42 (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2026 (UTC)Reply